Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

User Frankakapta is repeatedly inserting his own original research into the article on Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Despite a very extensive discussion on the talk page in which it has been repeatedly pointed out to him that Wikipedia's guidelines do not allow original research (regardless of how accurate it may be), Frankakapta has continued to insist that his original research (consisting of his own analysis of a primary source) can be added because he believes it to be correct. A secondary source, which makes the same argument that Frankakapta is making, has been suggested and alternative wordings based on this secondary source have been provided. Unfortunately, Frankakapta has reject all alternatives, as well as Wikipedia's guidelines on OR. Can anyone provide advice on this? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

Let it be known that user Frankakapta has also repeatedly asked Hyperionsteel to specifically point out where the violation is, but he (or she) has been either unable or unwilling, preferring instead to maintain it as a general complaint. I can prove my version does not violate the sacred OR guidelines, an easy feat given my entire content is only limited to 3 verifiable facts.
My challengers contributed several claims that needed correction or context. They submit that a panel headed by Qaradawi answered a question on IslamOnline.net (regarding rape victims) and include an edited quote that is attributed to Qaradawi, all of which was lifted from a Daily Telegraph article in 2004. Unfortunately, these claims clearly contradict the evidence cited by the DT. In an effort to balance this section, they then claimed that officials from IslamOline.net made a public denial of the DT report. This balance not only ignored the initial errors, but added to them.
If my challengers would only read their own sources. My version is free of analysis and contains 3 basic facts: [1] The Daily Telegraph claimed the authors were a panel headed by Qaradawi - this can be seen in paragraphs 4 & 7 of DT. [2] That the article DT cites as a source, "Are Raped Women Punished in Islam?", shows a single author named Kamal Badr . (3) Finally, the same article also shows Qaradawi is mentioned only once when Badr paraphrases the scholar's opinion on helping rape victims. I ignored the IslamOnline.net complaint because Hyperionsteel misread his own citation. That article states it was Muslim Association of Britain that denied DT's claims, not "officials from IslamOnline.net".
Essentially, in the section about Qaradawi's views regarding rape victims, my challengers insist on propping up the excerpts from DT that masks Badr's work as being Qaradawi's; and they delete any evidence which proves otherwise, even though the evidence is cited in their own source via the DT. ~Frankakapta (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll respond to Frankakapta's statements one at a time:
  • First: Frankakapta states that he has also repeatedly asked Hyperionsteel to specifically point out where the violation is, but he (or she) has been either unable or unwilling, preferring instead to maintain it as a general complaint. This is false. Review the article's talk page: In addition to asking Frankakapta to read Wikipedia's general policies on WP:OR, I have repeatedly cited WP:PSTS, which explicitly states that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." For Frankakapta to claim otherwise seems a little disingenuous.
  • Second: Frankakapta states that his version is free of analysis and contains 3 basic facts. Unfortunately, he is incorrect. He is citing these “facts” as a means of refuting the Telegraph article. In other words, he is essentially stating the Telegraph article is incorrect because of the ”facts” he is citing. This likely violates WP:Synth (as well as WP:OR), which states “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” Neither the Daily Telegraph article or the primary source explicitly states that the Telegraph article is incorrect. Rather, it is Frankakapta's analysis (and yes, it is an analysis) that makes the implicit conclusion that the Telegraph article is incorrect.
  • Third: Frankakapta states I ignored the IslamOnline.net complaint because Hyperionsteel misread his own citation. That article states it was Muslim Association of Britain that denied DT's claims, not "officials from IslamOnline.net. This is false. The IslamOnline article (see: [1] states: “Although the Telegraph claimed "a panel, headed by Qaradawi" made the pronouncement in a fatwa published by IslamOnline.net, the website's officials denied Qaradawi has anything to do with the edict.” Thus, my edit, which stated that “officials from IslamOnline.net” denied the Telegraph's claims about Qaradawi is certainly correct in its wording. (Note: the article states MAB also denied these claims and threatened to take legal action). Therefore, for Frankakapta to claim that I misread the source doesn't make any sense – rather, it appears that Frankakapta is the one who misread the source. Hopefully, he will acknowledge his mistake and will no longer "ignore" the IslamOnline.net article.
  • Fourth: Frankakapta states my challengers insist on propping up the excerpts from the DT that masks Badr's work as Qaradawi's. They delete any evidence which proves otherwise, even though the evidence is cited in their own source, the DT. This is false. I have provided a secondary source that does support the claim that Qaradawi was misquoted (see: [2] and even proposed alternative wording that was based on this secondary source (see edit: [3]. However, Frankakapta seems to believe that this secondary source is insufficient in its analysis, and that only his own interpretation and analysis will be satisfactory. I have repeatedly informed Frankakapta that his original research is not allowed in Wikipedia, regardless of how superior he believes it to be to the secondary source provided.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC))


Thank you Hyperionsteel, this is what I was looking for. I wanted you to elaborate so I can show the contradiction & lack of reason:

  • 1) First, let me say sorry about IslamOnline's officials quip. Apologies mate, don't know how I missed it.
  • 2) By your own admission, I shared what the Daily Telegraph's own evidence shows. Except I didn't deduce Kamal Badr's name by Batmaning an investigation, his name is clearly shown on top as sole author. You call reading an article & it's citation "combining" when the purpose of citation is to verify Wikipedia content. You're not even sure there's a violation because you write "This likely violates" Synth/OR.
  • 3) I disagree for obvious & logical reasons ==> If Fox News quoted Obama by citing a Whitehouse briefing, but the Whitehouse briefing clearly showed the quotation was from John Kerry, would you argue that Fox News article is acceptable but that the briefing was not? Because this is exactly what's happening here. Here's the cast incase you missed it: Fox News = DT; Obama = Qaradawi; Whitehouse brief cited = IslamOnline article cited; Kerry = Badr Frankakapta (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
While you may dislike that I reply, but I am also involved. The problem is that you believe the fatwa of origin on Islamonline (IO) to be a RS, because it is the "truth" as you deduced, but rather it is WP:OR. So it does not matter what it says, unless it has been covered by a secondary WP:RS. While we as individuals may not agree with the rationale of the editing policies of Wikipedia, they nevertheless, do apply. So in brief, DT = RS but IO=OR. It is about sources and WP:NOR. Hope this makes sense. Pray786 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the above account by the reported user, Frankakapta, is both inaccurate and untrue, which the article talk page and the article itself prior to the OR edits also show. Despite being met with bad faith and pressumptions, I have tried to help the user understand editing as per (N)OR, SYNTH and RS several times. Fellow editor, Hyperionsteel was much more patient and responded in great detail to the user 13 times. Such display is rare here IMO. But despite all attempts, the user has not only continued reverting during/after the discussion but also demonstrates lack of understanding and willingness to read and follow the editing policies which is substantiated by the user's persistent reference to "Telegraph's citation" (islamonline aka onislam) as a source, when in fact this primary source falls under NOR. The editing policies have been linked many times in both talk and edit summaries. The user claims censorship[4][5], when this is not the case. The section in reference consisted of 2 paragraphs to begin with; 1) issue covered by the Telegraph and 2) the objection by Islamonline officials and the Muslim Assocciation of Britain (MAB) covered by islamonline.net. Unexplicably, the user in their edits keeps deleting the latter section[6] and believes that the balance came after the user's objection/edit. A contradiction and false, as the balance was already present [7] before the OR edits of the user. The user was asked to explain this deletion but in vain. Additionally as of 02:57, 5 April 2014‎ the user abandoned the discussion yet persisted at changing the text back to their OR version (including user's own synthesis of the OR) [8] so contrary to their claim, there is no change and it is not just about 3 sentences. In brief, the user's entire edit relies on self interpretation, and using an OR as source and failing to understand this problem and that they instead need to provide a secondary source/RS to support their view. Pray786 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You're being emotional and resorting to personal attacks. I'm ignoring you and dealing w/ HyperionSteel. Frankakapta (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm just reporting the facts. You are in no capacity to judge the state of mind or emotions of mine. That constitutes a personal attack in itself and presumptuousness on your part. It would behoove you to stop attacking editors and assume good faith and stick to the issue. Also can you stop reverting the article back, when your edit does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines? See above for details. That is why we are on this board. Pray786 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Frankakapta, you have stated that your edit is justified because of "obvious & logical reasons" (i.e. you are calling a spade a spade). Your hypothetical example of Fox News attributing a quote to Obama while the Whitehouse briefing showed the quote was in fact from John Kerry makes the same argument (i.e. it is clear that the Fox News article is incorrect). In real life, this would be acceptable - but this is Wikipedia. Here's the problem: Wikipedia's policy on original research states that OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The primary source in this case (the IO webpage) does not explicitly state that the Telegraph article is wrong (it can't, since the IO webpage was made before the Telegraph article). Yes, anyone reviewing the IO webpage could easily deduce that there are inconsistencies with the Telegraph's article (i.e. the attribution of the quote to Qaradawi as opposed to Badr) and you are essentially claiming that this is the reason you want to include this in the Wikipedia article. The problem is that Wikipedia's policy on OR states "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so...Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." You state that your argument is "obvious & logical" but if it is, then it should be easy to cite a secondary source that makes this point. Your own analysis is an implied (although not explicitly stated) conclusion/argument: The Telegraph article is wrong - Why? because of fact A, fact B and fact C. Likewise, in the hypothetical example you cited, if Fox News quoted Obama inaccurately, then a secondary source (such as CNN, the Huffington Post or The Daily Show) would have pointed this out. However, if a Wikieditor pointed this out on Wikipedia, without citing a secondary source, it would still be considered original research. I'm not denying that this is a clear case of "form over substance," but Wikipedia's policies on WP:OR doesn't allow exceptions for original research that is "obvious & logical." That's why a secondary source that points out the Telegraph's error (such as this one [9]) is needed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
Wrong Mr. Hyperionsteel. I've stated my edit is justified because it's right their in the (virtual) print, thanks to the evidence in your own link. Your position happens to be contradictory, accepting while rejecting the same evidence from DT. Frankakapta (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The edit will be justified if you use the material from secondary source. My position is not contradictory - the article in the DT makes a claim, and the information in the secondary source contradicts that claim. Your analysis of the primary source also contradicts the DT article - unfortunately, your analysis is original research, and that is not allowed in Wikipedia, regardless of how accurate it may be.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

I am really not familiar with the topic at all, so I must apologise if my fact is inaccurate. If your argument is about this diff[10], I agree with Frankakapta because he did not reach any conclusion per se, he just pointed out the contradiction. A notable wikipedia essay WP:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources states that editors can claim sources conflict and it is not WP:OR. There is no need to have one reliable source pointing out contradiction in the other source, maybe because it rarely happens in real life. However, with the conflicts at hand, both sources are reliable so it is not to say which one is correct and it is up to the editors to discuss the matter. IMHO in case the conflict cannot be resolved, so Frankakapta version is appropriate. Biglobster (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You are partially correct. If two reliable secondary sources contradict each other, then pointing out this contradiction is not WP:OR. However, in this case, Frankakapta is pointing out a contradiction between a secondary source and a primary source using his own analysis - that is original research. WP:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources states "There are times that a reliable source is simply incorrect, but it is inappropriate to imply or state that is the case without a reference to a reliable source." In other words, you cannot state that: "Source A asserts the town's population as 5,000; however, this is disproven by the following sources and circumstances." If Frankakapta would simply agree to use a reliable secondary source (such as this one [11]) to support his argument that the Telegraph article is wrong, we wouldn't be having this debate. It is Frankakapta's insistence on using his own analysis, rather than the available secondary source, that is the issue.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC))
Hyperionsteel, your last paragraph implies secondary sources are reliable and primary sources are unreliable, or less reliable. This is untrue so your paragraph has no value. An example would be if secondary source A claims that an article in an academic journal J reports the the results R1 of an experiment, but the journal article actually says something different, R2. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I never stated that Primary sources are unreliable. What I stated was that an analysis of a primary source by wikieditor in order to disprove a secondary source is original research. That's why, in this case, he should use another secondary source (like the one I provided) to support his claim, not his own interpretation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC))
I read my paragraph again and I think my word was inaccurate about that diff. He did not point out contradiction, he just provided a source which contradicts Telegraph and this is very different from saying it out loud in the article that there is contradiction, which will be WP:OR in that case. I agree that the secondary source is preferred, and your secondary source helps making it more NPOV, but unfortunately it is not exactly what Frankakapta is claiming -- the contradiction. The source you provided just tell that there are someone disagree with Telegraph, without conclusion that there are really contradiction and this is a big different. I think everyone here agree that we are having contradiction, and I think the way out is that editors should resolve this contradiction in talk page or somewhere and come to a consensus that either Telegraph or the other source is correct, but not both. Also, taking data directly from primary source is allowed, and it is not an analysis as long as the article content does not advance to the position further than that stated in primary source. Biglobster (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
We've tried resolving this issue on the article's talk page. After an extremely long discussion, we are unable to reach a consensus. That's why I posted this topic here for further discussion. But please keep in mind - any interpretation of a Primary source is considered original research - this includes the implicit conclusion that Frankakapta is making by conducting an analysis of the primary source (i.e. Telegraph says A, but the source actually says B = the Telegraph article is inaccurate). Frankakapta's conclusion (that the Telegraph article is wrong) may very well be correct, but Wikipedia's guidelines include a ban on all original research, regardless of how accurate it may be. That's why secondary sources, like the one I suggested, are preferred.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC))
I do not see why the whole paragraph would imply so, though it might due to my English skill. I read it and understand it like it might be very well that Telegraph is right and the other source is wrong. If your main concern is about this implication, then rephrasing it to remove implication might be another way out. Biglobster (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have tried to present alternative wordings of this section that comply with Wikipedia guidelines, but Frankakapta has rejected them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC))
Well then I guess my argument ends here, and problem for now should be reduced to wording problem, not original research. It is how we should present the source Frankakapta provided without implication that which one is right and which one is wrong. I read the diff again and I tend to agree with you that some, but not all, users might think it implies that Telegraph is wrong, so it is better to make it clear in the article. I kindly suggest Frankakapta to consider this too, I understand very much that Frankakapta think Telegraph report was wrong and I really feel strongly that it was, but we have to write it with NPOV in the way that does not have the judging implication as described in Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources. Biglobster (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Live at Roseland Ballroom IP

The IP address 79.0.143.129 is persistently adding unsourced material that goes against sources provided. I left a message on the talk page, but it got completely disregarded. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oi!, new user adding commentary

An unregistered user using multiple IPs (user:86.160.39.216, user:86.178.89.52, and user:86.178.88.183) is adding personal, unreferenced analysis of song lyrics to the lede of the article for Oi!, a musical genre: [12][13][14][15][16] Since this is a new user I'm not really pushing for a block, but I'd appreciate it if others could try reasoning with this guy. The bulk of the conversation is on the third IP: User talk:86.178.88.183 Blackguard 21:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaked Documents Question at List_of_members_of_the_American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

The are leaked original documents (digitized) on the website of an advocacy group. An editor has gone through those documents and pulled names of (possible or likely) members from those original documents and used them to add names to this list. Does this constitute impermissable original research? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I would note that the advocacy org hosting these document is biased but that the documents are not in question. They are clearly the internal docs of the target organization. My question is, absent a reliable secondary source (academic/news) writing about these potential members can an editor himself use these docs to find or dig out the names or is this all Original Research? Thoughts? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If the fact is taken directly from the specified primary source without evaluation or analysis so I think it is not WP:OR. In your case, assuming the document is reliable, it is important to see the document and determine whether the fact has been taken directly as it is. For example, if the document is the list of members, so it is quite obvious. However, if the document is signed by e.g. Mr. John with his title, it would be more or less WP:OR. And may I ask why leaked documents are not in question? It does not sound very reliable for me. Biglobster (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If the source says they are members then it is not OR. But I think weight is more important. If secondary sources do not mention that someone is a member then there is no justification for inclusion in an article. TFD (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of the primary source materials do use the term "member", many do not. Example: The American Council on Trustees is listed as a member based on this ref. It doesn't use the term member. But, broadly, even if these leaked documents do use the term "member" they are WP:PRIMARY sources and listing them here would (as I understand what you are saying) not be appropriate? More due to weight than the OR aspect? It does seem OR unless I am misunderstanding the policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition of original synthesis in Abhinav Bharat

Here is the discussion on the talk page. I claim WP:SYN applies.

Diff link of Edmondhills. These are the three references used: 1, 2, 3. Here are my objections.

  1. Use of 'dictator' is a weasel term not present in any of the cited reference.
  2. The threat to sue the magazine is original research not present in any of the cited reference. Correction/Clarification: Only Aseemanand has made the threat, present statement attributing it to Bhagwat and the Sangh Parivar is original synthesis.
  3. "Abhinav Bharat was a terrorist front for the Sangh Parivar" is original synthesis not present in any of the cited reference.
  4. There is no mention of NIA rejecting the magazine's claim in further legal action in the article although present in the reference. Assemanand denied that such interview happened and Sangh refuted the claims made in the magazine article. Both are not same. Bhagwat never commented on it. "Aseemanand, Bhagwat, the Sangh Parivar have vociferously denied these reports" is a misconstruction -- original synthesis.
  5. This whole episode has got undue presence in section "Relationship with Sangh Parivar groups".

Edmondhills and I have agreement on the first point that it has to be removed. For other four points he refuses to provide support from the cited reference or have a discussion. What should be the course ahead? Can other editors provide their valuable suggestions here? Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten it. Edit summary: Paragraph re-written as per source. Sensationalism and weasel terms removed. No reference removed. There is a relevant discussion on the talk page and in WP:ORN. Jyoti (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have not removed references then what are these[17], [18], [19] etc. ? Here you changed cited information[20] and in next edit you removed the whole information also[21] and specially, changing the live links back to dead links here[22]. Sorry but I doubt your neutrality.
WP:FOC The edit summary is for the accompanying diff link. Jyoti (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Lane splitting law in the US

I'd like some help settling an ongoing dispute on Lane splitting. There are multiple secondary sources which explain that there is only one US state that allows motorcycles to ride between lanes of traffic, California. See "Hough, David L. (2000), Proficient Motorcycling: The Ultimate Guide to Riding Well (2nd ed.), USA: BowTie Press, p. 212, ISBN 1-889540-53-6, Matthews, J.L. (2006), How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim (6th ed.), Nolo, pp. 29–30, ISBN 1-4133-0519-9 [23] and most recently Hahn, Pat (2012), Motorcyclist's Legal Handbook: How to Handle Legal Situations from the Mundane to the Insane, MotorBooks International, pp. 75, 134–135, ISBN 978-0-7603-4023-3. It is true that many states have confusing laws about lane splitting, or no law specifically outlawing it. This is why we must trust secondary sources and not try to second guess the legal code with original research. We have many sources saying you will be cited if you lane split anywhere but California.

Lane splitting is kind of an internet cause celebre, with many "internet lawyers" imagining they have discovered something in the legal codes that somehow leans towards letting lane splitting happen. It's like US income tax protester arguments, but without the reliable sources. Just guys on web forums who think they can talk themselves into believing lane splitting should be allowed.

Hence my objection to this edit and others. The citations are not secondary sources, they're searches of legal databases. That is the hallmark of original research.

It is worthwhile to outline why there is some legal confusion about lane splitting, and the article already explains why in Australia and California there is some confusion. But if you want to go beyond that you need secondary, not primary, sources first.

A state-by-state guide of helmet laws, lane splitting laws, etc doesn't belong on Wikiepdia; there is a draft article for this on WikiTravel where this kind of how-to advice is appropriate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded a US map to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, which would be much neater than a table, and I disagree your claim of original research. Wikimedia Commons does have many other legal maps used here. Why mentioning Nebraska twice while Michigan is known to legalize bicycle lane splitting in 2010? Why remove Quebec, Canada that has the same lane splitting legality for motorcycles and bicycles? My uploaded map does show some legislative attempts. You have excessively reverted many users' edits in good faith. As I have no time to argue too much, to ignore all rules is hereby mentioned only as the last resort, but I do not normally want to apply it.--Jusjih (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, what is your point to remove Michigan as an example of having legalized bicycle lane splitting in 2010? What is the point to mention Nebraska twice? Have you read Wikipedia:Lists that might help split the list of traffic laws and rules into separate articles? You think there disputes, but you have yet to better assume good faith and please do not bite the newcomers. To set up traffic law project at Wikivoyage, gradually replacing Wikitravel, I am asking there, but how to fight traffic violations probably fit Wikibooks better where I will also ask.--Jusjih (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have asked Wikivoyage. [24]--Jusjih (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Nebraska is merely one example out of many states that could have served as an example. Other states could serve in place of Nebraska, but we don't need more than one or two such examples. It is one of many states whose vehicle code derives from the US Uniform Vehicle Code, so they have similar laws. I don't think an exhaustive rundown of every state is helpful or necessary here. What I particularly object to is the false implication that there's some loophole or wiggle room in the laws of the other 49 states. Multiple secondary sources assure us that is not so. Appealing to primary sources -- the legal code -- does not trump that. I would accept an expert secondary source who stated that it is possible to imagine that lane splitting is anything other than illegal in the other 49 states, but does such a source exist?

Similarly, I would accept secondary sources that suggested there is a nationwide movement toward legalizing lane splitting outside California. You only have primary sources, most of which are pointless local bills which are dead-on-arrival, often not making it out of committee. The fact that even local news media are ignoring these lane splitting bills is evidence that they have no chance of passing and there is no widespread public support or even awareness of the lane splitting "issue". Assembling these primary sources and putting them together on a map creates a false impression. The solution is to cite an expert secondary source who can describe the relative potential or lack thereof for these bills to pass. Otherwise, leave it out of the article.

Motorcycling at WikiVoyage is the draft page I referred to. I believe putting most of your additions on this page would best serve both Wikipedia and WikiVoyage. Please feel free to expand it and move it to the main namespace.

It could be I have a gross misunderstanding of the NOR policy, and if so maybe someone can explain better how it applies in the case of these lane splitting laws in the US. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I just heard from Wikivoyage [25] that excessively detailed information on traffic laws may be too encyclopedic, so moving your Wikivoyage user subpage to main namespace seems unlikely, especially for historical laws that are no longer relevant to contemporary travelers. Making stand-alone lists here like list of lane splitting legality and list of helmet laws may better serve motorcycles and bicycles at the same time, while independent from articles like lane splitting, motorcycle helmet, bicycle helmet, etc. If you told wikivoyage:User:Dennis_Bratland/Motorcycling much earlier in the edit summary of lane splitting you would have minimized everyone's misunderstanding. Next time, be bold but not reckless.--Jusjih (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTGUIDE etc, Wikipedia is not here to "serve motorcyclists". Riders must read their local laws for themselves. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to tell motorcycle riders how comply with the laws of whatever jurisdiction they happen to ride into. The other commenters at Wikivoyage made clear that a county guide is just fine, as long as it isn't excessively detailed or strays off topic into information a traveler today can't use. All of the "how-to ride" and "what you can and can't do" that's inappropriate for Wikipedia is at home at Wikivoyage.

On the topic of original research, I don't think it matters whether you are talking about that wiki or this one, you should stick to secondary sources and not build a Frankenstein of based on original research into the traffic codes of many countries. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Coati / Brazilian Aardvark

Hello. Coati has picked up some coverage in the New Yorker for an apparent self-reference, involving the insertion of "also known as Brazilian Aardvark" in 2008. Please see Talk:Coati#Brazilian_Aardvark_self-reference for further info. Is anyone here able to locate any mentions of Coatis being referred to in this way before July 2008? Regards, The Land (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Emmert

On the Mark Emmert article, I added information about court cases regarding the NCAA controversy with Penn State. I provided links to all of the available court documents and any sources I used, and wrote neutral, using the information from the sources directly. I Am One of Many has deleted my contributions, saying they are not original research and are too negative to be considered for biographies of living persons. I've researched both these claims, and have them insubstantial. I would like to revert my changes back to the article. 97.123.232.199 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There were several problems with the content you added. There was some original research in the conclusions and interpretations you were drawing. You were using primarily original sources. The most important problems surrounded BLP issues. The tone was WP:POV. Irrelevant information about court cases were added. It is possible that some of the content could be included but it must come from reliable secondary sources, and it should be discussed on the talk page as I told you. I am One of Many (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about it here because I want to know what the specific problems you see are. You mentioned this page when you deleted my additions, so this is where I came. The court cases are absolutely relevant: it's a controversy, and it's in the court systems. There's nothing more relevant than that. If the tone was POV, it's coming from the sources and not from me. About secondary sources, I would rather use the original court documents, because the media is entirely subjective at this point. If there is a specific problem, discuss it, and I can make the change, but to delete the entire addition is going well beyond your bounds, especially when it added sources for the information that's already in the page, but is unsourced itself. 97.123.232.199 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dinosaur Train

A consensus for this issue was established at Talk:Dinosaur Train. Mz7 (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

I am currently struggling to make a point on the Dinosaur Train page to convince everyone that the character "Shiny," has romantic attraction to the character "Gilbert" There are quite a few instances of things that support this opinion in the show itself, but no one is agreeing with it. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Using "things that support this opinion in the show" to make a point is original research. Then again, the whole article is almost entirely unsupported by sources, and should probably be reduced to a stub. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

List_of_best-selling_video_games#All_platforms synthesis

At List_of_best-selling_video_games#All_platforms, is adding figures from sources and putting the total in the table WP:SYNTH? As note 1 is what it's doing by the looks of it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Breaking Bad

Closing, consensus is that this is OR. Dreadstar ☥ 11:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I believe use of this source violates WP:OR since it does not directly mention the topic of the article which is the TV show Breaking Bad. Can someone help clarify this? Ghostwheel ʘ 13:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now I have increased concern over this material since I see it is apparently controversial and does not appear to meet WP:MEDRS per this discussion. No way this should be in the article, IMHO.... Ghostwheel ʘ 13:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The section is called "scientific accuracy", and the sources in the paragraph are directly pertinent to the scientific aspect of the series. You cannot remove the entire paragraph when aside from the Livestrong source in question here, it is properly sourced per MEDRS. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The topic of the article is the TV show, not that particular section. Any sources regarding the drug that do not mention the show should go in the articles on that specific topic, (e.g. Methamphetamine - if the source and content help that article and meet all policies). The link to the Meth article from Breaking Bad is sufficient; and does not add OR. Find sources that directly mention the show as it relates to the drugs and that will be acceptable, otherwise, it's OR. Ghostwheel ʘ 14:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it violates WP:OR. You would need to find a secondary source outlining how the information applies to Breaking Bad. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Just like the proverbial pig and the lipstick, it's still not OR since it's properly sourced. Sources are supposed to back up statements that point to those sources with footnotes, and that's exactly what sourcing means. Anyway, now that the article is fully protected, none of that really matters. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Spike Wilbury: The information applies to something that is mentioned in a Breaking Bad episode, therefore it applies to Breaking Bad. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
So if no one has any objections to my last statement, it's agreed that the information is not original research. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I think there's still a valid argument that it is OR. The facts are true, and they're supported by the sources, but their relationship to themes in Breaking Bad does not come from any of the sources given. That's what appears to be original. For what it's worth, my objection to this specific edit is that it is too detailed and peripheral for a general article about the series.Willondon (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I object to your last statement too, Chunk5, the sources do not mention the topic of the article and are therefore OR. You need to find sources that relate the material you want to add to the tv show. Also, the drug is well covered in its own article, Methamphetamine, all the details are there and easily accessible by the link in the article. Ghostwheel ʘ 21:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The relevance here is the scientific accuracy of a particular detail that is portrayed on the show as part of Walt's chemistry class. This is the connection and it is made directly within the work of fiction. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Chunk... if you are taking (a) what is depicted in the show and (b) the reality of chemistry and reach conclusion (c) the show gets it wrong... than you need a single source that discusses all three elements of the equation a+b=c. While you support (a) and (b) with sources (separately)... you apparently don't support the conclusion (c) with sources. That's why what you are doing is Original research. In other words, for your conclusion to not be WP:OR you need to find a single source that discusses both the show and reality ...and explicitly reaches the conclusion that they don't match. A source that says a+b=c. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The show presents material, which is explained in the source. There are no additions, no conclusions. Just words that are presented in the primary source, and explained in the secondary source. It might be useful to examine the material in question before applying guidelines that are irrelevant in this case. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That is not enough... you need more than a source that explains the material... you need one that explains the material and directly relates it back to what is presented on the show. Without such a source you are the one making the connections ... and that's Original research. Blueboar (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Which connections? This is a serious question. There is material A, which is presented in the episode, and there is explanation about the same material A in the provided source. There is no synthesis here. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The connection that material A is in some way related to the scientific accuracy of the show. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
From the original editor (213.16.193.21): "This is highly relevant to methamphetamine, which has two mirror-image isomers [...]", and from the editor's original suggestion on the talk page: "However, in the episode the connection is not made: presumably it was intended as an easter egg for chemists watching the show." These appear to be original claims that are not found in any of the sources given. The fact that the paragraph is in the article at all is an implied claim that the information is relevant to "Breaking Bad". I think this is the core of what other commenters see as being original research. Willondon (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
...which is why I never inserted that sentence upon fulfilling the IP's edit request. The way I see it, the connection is not one that requires a leap in logic that would violate OR and SYN: the show is about methamphetamine, the section discusses accuracy of scientific claims made in the show, there is a scientific claim made during Walt's lesson, and there are sources which discuss the accuracy of the claims made in the scene. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
No... the sources you cite discuss the chemistry of methamphetamine... they don't mention the show. That's what's missing, and why it's OR. You are the one connecting what the sources say about meth to what is depicted on the show... and by placing it in the "scientific accuracy" section you are implying the conclusion that this has something to do with the show's scientific accuracy. The flaw isn't with the facts behind your connection... the flaw is that it is a wikipedia editor (you) who is making the connection. You need a source that ties all of this together... saying effectively: "Walt does X on the show... the chemistry is Y... therefor the show is scientifically accurate/not accurate." Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no claim in Walt's lesson that relates to metamphetamine. I believe at this point in the story, Walt has yet to be enticed by Hank's drug bust and the money to be made by manufacturing meth. His lesson is about isomers that come in left- and right-handed versions. This may well be foreshadowing, or an easter egg for those who know where to look; I would have no trouble believing that. But these claims are original to the IP editor as far as I can tell, and are not addressed in the sources given. Willondon (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
This has been a good excuse to rewatch the first two episodes, and find that I was wrong. I confused the "chirality" lecture with the lecture depicted very near the beginning of the story. By the time Walt gives the chirality lecture (which still doesn't refer to methamphetamine), he is fully immersed in meth making. One of my favourite lines from a student: "Is this going to be on the murder?" None of this weakens the argument that the edit is original research, though. The link to "Breaking Bad" hasn't been made by a secondary source. Willondon (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It does, though, as indicated by the sources. Since the show is about methamphetamine, and the lecure is about something that is even marginally related to methamphetamine, the source doesn't have to link methamphetamine-related substances to a methamphetamine-related show. Whatever, I'm after a wikibreak and none of this is worth the effort to break this chain of miscommunication. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No, the show is not "about methamphetamine"; have you even watched it? Regardless, you need a source that mentions the show, since the show is the topic of the article, not methamphetamine. Ghostwheel ʘ 11:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional eyes useful at RfC re Game of Thrones (Oathkeeper)

Additional input from uninvolved editors would be useful at:

Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1#RfC: May statements indicating what parts of a source novel contain the same content as certain scenes from a television series be sourced to the book alone or do they need secondary sources?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of this page and have made no direct edits since March 2013. I have, however, recently been active on the talk page as I believe portions of the current article are in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Because of my declared COI, I would of course like to avoid directly editing this content.

The sections in question include:

Direct correspondence on the talk page with the editor who added this content has not resulted in a consensus on the content in question and I would appreciate a third party editor's input or edits. NinaSpezz (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Bryant Park

Please note that I indicated the need for citations in the Bryant Park article, which BMK objected to: please see our exchange, here (User_talk:Froid#Don.27t_tag...). I do not want to engage in an edit war, but feel there's a need for citations in the two areas where he reverted my tags requesting citations, here (Bryant_Park#Programming and here (Bryant_Park#Lawn). I would appreciate a third party's involvement to analyze and make a judgment about how this should proceed.

Thank you for your help. Froid (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

New editors needed to help determine consensus

I am asking for editors to weigh in on this RfC. It involves whether we can include a mention of the subject's discipline problems in school. There is a dispute about the content, and you can help determine consensus. Thank you. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced/Original Research on Categorical Imperative

Would someone be willing to take a look at the Categorical Imperative page? My undo of 2 Jun to the unsourced material on formalism of the categorical imperative, which appears to be original research (in that I, at least, cannot find any sourcing showing that to be a suggested formalization of the imperative) [was reverted]. I placed information on [a comment on the talk page] the day I made the edit, explaining why I removed the material; but, now it has been reverted by another IP address edit, without comment, and coming from a similar (but not the same) IP. Since the re-addition of the material still did not include any sources, it is at best unsourced; but, being that it was not accompanied by any sort of response to my comments on the Talk page, I have no real way to respond to the author, whether it be the same person or someone else. I am not sure whether I should go ahead and revert, although, as I explained in my talk page comments, I believe the attempt at formalism not only to be original research, but also at least incomplete and likely incorrect. Any evaluation of the particulars, or advice/instruction to me in general is much appreciated! :) (Also I wasn't sure whether I was better off placing this notice here or on a different noticeboard, say, regarding unsourced material; please let me know if I chose incorrectly!) Thank you! Shelleybutterfly (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH on the Emperor Jimmu article?

The article currently contains a paragraph (the on beginning "A grandiose Kigensetsu...") that cites 6 sources, most of which don't mention Emperor Jimmu at all. This is not necessarily a case of WP:UNSOURCED, though, because the paragraph itself hardly mentions Emperor Jimmu either. Some of the sources don't seem to even back up the claims specifically attributed to them. The whole paragraph gives an overall impression of the subject's association with WWII, that doesn't come across in any reliable sources by themselves.

There's been a slow-motion edit war going on between me and User:CurtisNaito over this for the past few months. I have laid out thoroughly[26] why I think this violates WP:SYNTH on the talk page, but have been almost completely ignored.

Can we get an impartial opinion on whether this violates WP:SYNTH?

182.249.240.24 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be called original research or synthesis because the information in the article accurately reflects what the sources say and I don't think the subject matter is controversial in reliable sources. The portion that was recently deleted refers to the Kigensetsu of 1940 and Hakko Ichiu, both of which are certainly related to Jimmu's memory. The Kigensetsu of 1940 was a celebration of the 2,600th anniversary of Jimmu's alleged ascension to the throne. During this event numerous stone monuments were erected commemorating Jimmu's life, and, as the same cited sources note, more than one million people visited Kashihara Shrine on the occasion, a sacred site associated with Jimmu. In addition, Hakko Tower was opened on the alleged site of Jimmu's old palace. Hakko Tower derives its name from Hakko Ichiu, a slogan which is attributed to Jimmu. Therefore Kigensetsu and Hakko Ichiu are relevant to Jimmu's life.
As for the sources, they reflect what the article says. Walter Edwards brings up Jimmu in reference to both Kigensetsu and the origins of Jimmu's phrase Hakko Ichiu. Bix, the next source, notes that Hakko Ichiu had been used since 1928 to justify Japanese expansionism. Earheart provides a translation of the phrase Hakko Ichiu and refers to both Hakko Ichiu and Emperor Jimmu in reference to Kigensetsu and Japanese imperialism. Dower mentions both Hakko Ichiu and Kigensetsu and notes how one journalist compared Emperor Jimmu life with Japan's wartime mission. Brownlee and Ruoff deal extensively with the Kigensetsu of 1940, making considerable reference to Jimmu, and also noting, as the article does, that the government of Japan created numerous historical monuments in the year 1940 honoring Jimmu. All of these sources refer to Jimmu in a significant manner except Bix who only discusses Hakko Ichiu without mentioning Jimmu explicitly, though worship of Jimmu is mentioned in other parts of Bix's book. While it may be true that none of these works are entirely about Jimmu, they all mention him in a significant manner and in fact no books in English and not many books in any language have been written that deal exclusively with Jimmu. None of the sources in any part of this article on Emperor Jimmu are about him exclusively.
Therefore, this paragraph is relevant to the article and is neither original research nor synthesis. It should not be deleted.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This user is still deleting sourced material on the basis that linking Hakko Ichiu with Emperor Jimmu is original research. However, the sources in question do attribute Hakko Ichiu to Emperor Jimmu. Here is what the sources say.
Edward="Atop a tableland in the city of Miyazaki stands a stone tower, nearly 37 meters tall, its front face bearing the cryptic motto "hakko ichiu" in large characters (Figure 1). On its back, another bold inscription gives its date of construction as "kigen 2,600 nen," or year 2,600 of the current era. Both in scriptions link the tower to the realm of Japanese myth and, moreover, to the account contained therein of Jimmu, the legendary first emperor credited with founding the Japanese nation... The four-character formula hakko ichiu derives from a statement attributed to Jimmu just prior to his ascension... The text from which hakko ichiu thus derives is the Nihon shoki, compiled in a.D. 720 as the official history of the ancient Japanese state, whose ruling dynasty laid claim to Jimmu as its founding ancestor, and through him to divine descent from the Sun Goddess herself."
Dower="When Emperor Jimmu founded the Japanese state 2,600 years earlier, the Japan Times and Mail explained, the land was inhabited by at least five different races. Jimmu declared that they should unite under 'one roof'... it was the same account of Jimmu extending his sway over the diverse peoples of ancient Japan, based on a passage in the earliest written chronicles of Japan, dating from the eighth century, which inspired Japan's World War Two slogan about the country's divine mission to bring all races and nations of the world under 'one roof'."
Earheart="After all, it was Emperor Jinmu, the founder of the nation, who was said to have used the phrase, 'Hakko Ichiu' ('the eight corners [of the world] under one roof') to describe his unification of the known world under his sacred rule."CurtisNaito (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista killings

Is putting the article for the Isla Vista killings into the "violence against men" category original research? The violence against men category is a subcategory of the misandry category and is described as a category for “articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men and boys”. We currently don’t have any reliable sources which have put forth as a conclusion that the Isla Vista killing spree was a gender based attack on men. We also currently do not have any reliable sources which have called the perpetrator, Elliot Rodger, a misandrist. What we do have is several quotes, which were taken out of various reliable source articles, which wiki editors have interpreted to show that this was a gender based attack on men, but the sources themselves did not seem to come to that conclusion. However, multiple reliable source commentators have come to the conclusion that Rodger’s hatred of women led to a hatred of men, because he hated other men who got to have sex with the women he felt entitled to. Like these articles, which have been used to support putting the article in the "violence against men" category: [[27]],[[28]], [[29]], This has been discussed on the talk page here. And multiple quotes supporting the inclusion of the category have been provided here. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: the fact that "violence against men" is a subset of "misandry" does not mean that all violence against men must stem from misandry, so we shouldn't use the the current category structure to argue otherwise - in the same way, gender-based violence against women does not all stem from misogyny. Indeed, several sources have pointed out that violence against men can result from misogyny - for example when in order to avenge his anger at a woman, a man attacks another man. Such an attack can be both "misogynist" in nature, and nonetheless be "violence against men", because a man was targeted based on his gender and his gender role/relationship with the woman. Another example, which I discussed on the page, is the Srebrenica massacres, where 8000 men were separated from the women and killed. The ultimate motive was likely not hatred of men, but rather religious/political hatred, but nonetheless men were selected for death (see Androcide for more examples). In this case, the killer obviously hated women and wanted to enact violence against them, but he also hated men - specifically sexually active college-age men - and targeted them for death as well, and sources bear this out, and his video and manifesto was also explicit on this point. Thus, the violence against men category is warranted, as this is a clear cut case of violence against men based on their gender (he didn't target arbitrary people who were sexually successful, he targeted women who he felt had spurned him, and men who had access to those women). There are a number of lurid quotes that the media has taken from his manifesto where he talks of his plans to kill men specifically.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
My point was that if any reliable sources had indicated this was a gender based attack on men or called Rodger's a misandrist, inclusion in the category would make sense (because "violence against men" is subset of "misandry" category, so a misandrist killing men would seem to qualify it for inclusion in category) However, we have neither of these things. We have no reliable sources which say this was a gender based attack and no reliable sources that call Rodger a misandrist, yet the Isla Vista killings article has been placed in the violence against men category.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
this probably stems from a misunderstanding of the purpose and inclusion criteria for these categories and how they are generally used - which aren't based on motive but rather in targeting. For example, women are raped, but they are raped for a large number of reasons; not all of them misogyny. Sometimes women are killed by psychopath serial killers who do so because they heard voices. Sometimes men are targeted for death because of religious hatred which intersects with gender-specific violence. Thus the motive isn't ultimately the key driver here, what is key is targeting, and we have plenty of reliable sources that state Rodger specifically targeted men and planned to kill them - not just specific men like his roommates but more generally men who were popular or successful. The sources I provided in the article cover that. Even the Slate article states: "Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience". If you want to claim this isn't violence against men, you'd have to demonstrate that he didn't explicitly target men to be killed, or didn't explicitly threaten them - the last line of his video says "And all of you men, for living a better life than me, all of you sexually active men, I hate you. I hate all of you. I can't wait to give you exactly what you deserve. Utter annihilation." As for misogyny, I think it is fair to say that misogyny was an important driver of these attacks, but when misogyny results in specific targeting of a specific group of men for violence, that is nonetheless properly and fairly categorized as violence against men, in the same way that if religious hatred fueled by divisive nationalism provokes soldiers to rape women in an enemy's villages, no matter the ultimate motive, we still categorize it as violence against women. Another similar example is Amish_school_shooting#Possible_motives - however, these killings, even though they were clearly gendered (boys were specifically let go, only girls were targeted), the motive was complex and not misogyny or sexism, clearly some sort of complex psychological issues drove him to do what he did.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to claim this isn't violence against men, you'd have to demonstrate that he didn't explicitly target men to be killed, or didn't explicitly threaten them - the last line of his video says "And all of you men, for living a better life than me, all of you sexually active men, I hate you. I hate all of you. I can't wait to give you exactly what you deserve. Utter annihilation." This is where the original research comes in. The sources are not interpreting this quote in the way that you are. Most sources, if they handle this at all, are interpreting his resentment towards sexually active men as being an outgrowth of his feelings of entitlement to sex from women.
You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're asking us to prove a negative, to find sources that say that your interpretation is incorrect. While such sources do exist, the burden is actually on you to prove that these quotes should be interpreted in the way you are suggesting by finding other sources which interpret them in the same way, not on others to find sources showing that your interpretation is incorrect. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Tara, it doesn't matter how the quote is interpreted. what matters is, he threatened men, he targeted men, because they were sexually successful men, and he succeeded in killing or wounding several men. That's all that is needed for the category to apply - any gender-based targeting suffices, and the sources already establish that. The slate article for example says "his lazy use of “sluts” and “brutes” to describe the women and men he would allegedly target and murder only hours later." - men were not incidentally killed, they were TARGETED.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
When we're talking about labeling this gender-based violence against men, yes, how the quotes are interpreted does matter. Using primary sources - quotes from Rogers - to prove a point that reliable sources which cover the incident do not support is original research. By your logic any killing which specifically targets a member of a gender would be a gender-based attack on that gender.
And, in fact, there's no evidence that any of the men who were killed were targeted because they were men. Sources show that he killed his roommates to get them out of his way so he could use his apartment as a killing room, and that the other man who was killed was shot while Rodger was firing wildly into a building: by that point, having failed to gain access to the sorority house, it seems his goal was just to kill anyone he could. The sources don't support the contention that these people were killed because they were men. The sources are not calling this gender-based violence against men. They are calling it gender-based violence against women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not just about who was killed, it's also about who was wounded. And read the quote above: "the women and men he would allegedly target and murder"; from the other slate article, "But his stated motivation behind targeting both male and female victims—“If I can’t have them, no one will”—echoes the attitudes of the perpetrators of domestic violence. Conforming to Jane Doe’s framework, Rodger’s male victims included men he envied as well as roommates he perceived as getting in his way." and "Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience." - other sources cover similar ground - that he TARGETED men specifically. Whether he targeted men out of jealousy or spite or hatred or whatever doesn't matter, he targeted random men that he didn't know because they were men who fit into his image of "sexually successful men" that he hated. The roommates may be a different story,but plenty of other people, including men, were wounded, and sources detail how he targeted them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And again, by this logic, any killing that specifically targets someone who has a gender is gender-based violence. The category's scope is clearly more nuanced than that. You do acknowledge, I hope, that there is substantial coverage by reliable sources which consider this a gender-based attack against women, and specifically cite his misogyny as a motivation? Similar coverage does not exist for framing the attacks as gender-based violence against men, so drawing that conclusion requires synthesis. Surely if it were so self-evident that this was gendered violence against men, rather than an incident of violence were some victims were men, there would be sources that said so? Not every incident of violence with male victims belongs in the violence against men category. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that not all attacks with male victims are gender-based violence, but your leap of logic doesn't work - since the male victims here were not incidental, they were targeted as men, and he explicitly planned to do so. I have no disputes on this being in the violence against women category, but it should also be in the violence against men category BECAUSE he targeted men for gender-specific reasons - he targeted men who were sexually successful - this is essentially a gender-based role. He was targeting them for their ability to fulfill a gender role that he himself was not able to. For example, this article [30] says "It's true that not all of Rodger's victims were women, but his male victims were chosen because they were allegedly getting the sex Rodger felt he was entitled to: "I'll give you exactly what you deserve ... all of you men for living a better life than me. All of you sexually active men. I hate you." - he didn't target lesbians who were getting sex, he targeted (what he perceived to be) heterosexual women AND their heterosexual partners. Cathy Young writes that "His "manifesto" makes it clear that his hatred of women ...was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success." The LA times quoted several sections of his manifesto, which stated " I will arm myself with deadly weapons and wage a war against all women and the men they are attracted to. And I will slaughter them like the animals they are." and "This First Phase will represent my vengeance against all of the men who have had pleasurable sex lives while I’ve had to suffer. Things will be fair once I make them suffer as I did. I will finally even the score." The deep underlying motive will be disputed for a long time to come but it's irrelevant to the categorization question. The only question is, were men targeted because they were men? The answer is, yes - they were - he was jealous of their status and their ability to get girls, and he intended to kill them. He made this all very explicit in his video and manifesto, and reliable sources covered this in detail, that he intended to target men - specifically - as well as women. He didn't say "I will kill those heathen students" or "I will kill those people I hate" or "I will kill those who stole my candle" or "I will kill the black people I don't like" etc - the way he identified his targets was by the use of the words "men" and "women". That is more than enough to keep this category - and that's what separates it from other incidents, where the intended targets are different sorts of groups - e.g specific individuals that are targeted for murder (irregardless of gender), or large groups of individuals who are targeted for violence indiscriminately (e.g. with terrorist attacks).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that particular edit is not based on RS 80.193.191.143 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some easily found sources that do explicitly state that Rodger was motivated to kill men, and he "hated" them. A couple of samples:

I think some editors are presuming it's an either/or situation so that if he was a mysoginist, he could not have hated men. That's an opinion. But there are reliable sources that explicitly state he was motivated to kill men, even if some of those link his actions to a hatred of women as well. I think some people are splitting hairs on this one to make it only about his anger towards women. His writings and some commentary make it clear that he hated some men too (those who succeeded in having relationships he did not).Mattnad (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think some editors are presuming it's an either/or situation so that if he was a mysoginist, he could not have hated men. That's not the issue at all. The category is for gendered violence against men: not men who have or do things the attacker does not. It's a subcategory of misandry and requires more than just targeting men. He hated some men, but that doesn't mean that he hated them because they were men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm....by your logic, one could readily argue then that he hated some women because they wouldn't have sex with him, but not because they were women. It's a specious argument that cuts both ways. But your opinion really doesn't matter. It's what the reliable sources say. This is the "No original research" noticeboard after all.Mattnad (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we could say that! But tht's exactly my point. The sources don't merely say 'he hated some women;' we have multiple reliable sources which cite this as a mysoginistic attack: as gendered violence. We don't have the same support for the violence against men category. "Specious?" My opinion doesn't matter, but neither does yours. The sources do not cite this as gendered violence against men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not true Tara, this is not how the category is used. I already gave the example of Srebrenica - the soldiers who slaughtered those men didn't kill them BECAUSE they were men, they killed them BECAUSE they were Bosniaks, but those selected for death WERE men. the women were selected for rape, so the Srebrenica massacre is in both the VAW and VAM categories. You don't get to play root-cause-analysis, it's not needed for these categories. He targeted men, that much is clear - not "people" or "college students" - but "men" - and reliable sources point this out and confirm it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I "don't get to play root cause analysis?" You're not in a position to tell me what arguments I 'get' to make. I disagree that there are sources that confirm that this is an incident of gendered violence against men: you only have quotes citing a hatred of men who had sexual access to women. You're oversimplifying the Srebenica massacre, which is actually a well-cited example of gendercide. You may feel there are parallels between that massacre and the Isla Vista killings, but the relevant difference is that the former is well sourced as gendered violence against men and the latter is not. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC) -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the only reason I bring up Srebrenica is not because there are parallels, I think there aren't. It's because it's an instance of gender-based violence that wasn't motivated by hatred of a gender, which you and Bobo are trying to claim is the only valid reason for entry here. In fact, it doesn't MATTER why a particular gender is targeted, IF a gender is targeted, then it belongs in this category. We have ample evidence that he targeted both women and men by gender, as his manifesto and reliable sources discussing the manifesto attest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's because it's an instance of gender-based violence that wasn't motivated by hatred of a gender, which you and Bobo are trying to claim is the only valid reason for entry here. This is my problem, though. This is Synthesis. You're citing an incident that is well sourced as gender based violence, and claiming that the paraelles you do see are sufficient to apply the same label to this incident when there are no sources to support it. That's synthestis. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
How about this source Tara? ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma. Looks like it puts his hatred of women and men on equal footing.Mattnad (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That's an editiorial originally published by RealClearPolitics. The author has a very heavy and very clear bias. And she doesn't even seem to be making an argument that the killings were gendered violence against men so much as that they were not gendered violence against women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece, but there are plenty of those in article and like those, it is a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This not correct. See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. And again, the argument does not seem to be that this is gendered violence against men, but that it is not gendered violence against women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Another RS proving Rodger expressed hatred toward males (which is why if violence again women cat is in article, the violence against men cat should also remain). Here is a quote: Elliot Rodger wrote extensively about the people he hated for rejecting him: Popular men. Beautiful women. http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-isla-vista-roommates-20140621-story.html NotHowItWorks (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a source that he hated specific sets of men, not men in general. It's not a source for the assertion that this was gendered violence against men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So we agree there are sources that he hated "some men". It's also not in dispute that when he acted out on his hatred, he specifically targeted men, some at random. Unless you can demonstrate that the category requires the motivation to be against ALL members of a gender, then it's settled.Mattnad (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
exactly. Were men targeted for violence as men? Yes. Did he express his hatred of them and intent to kill them? Yes. The 'well he didn't hate all men' excuse is quite weak - most rapists don't hate ALL women, yet we consider rape to be violence against women nonetheless. When terrorists in Nigeria walk into a village and separate out all of the men and boys and then massacre them, allowing the women and children to go free, presumably those terrorists don't hate ALL men - indeed most of them are men - and I'm sure they have good male friends and laugh about it with them afterwards. But they enact their violence against a subset of men selected for their gender. A similar thing happened here, men were not attacked incidentally, they were attacked specifically as part of his plan.---Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If that were the case,it would be appropriate to place every incident of violence where there were male victims in the category. It needs to be demonstrated that the victims were targeted purely because they were men. The sources you have stop short of that, unlike the sources for the violence against women category. The sources we have say some men were targeted because they had sexual access to women, and others because of expediency. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And those same sources say (as well as the perp) that women were targeted because he spurned them and refused to sleep with him. There's always a reason behind the reason behind the reason, but the category is for gender-based violence; his threats and his attacks were towards MEN as a group - not individual specific men, but MEN more generally (a subset of them, but in the same way he targeted a specific subset of women, e.g. sorority girls).-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You're making a false equivalency. Yes, sources cite specific reasons for his hatred of both genders, but there are also many, many sources that explicitly cite Rogers' misogyny as a motivation of the attacks. Not so for "misandry." Our sources say he didn't merely hate women because they wouldn't sleep with him, but because he felt entitled to women's bodies. Whereas he resented sexually active men because they were 'getting' what he felt he deserved: sexual access to women. "Gendered violence" is not simply "violence against members of a given gender." -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There are sources that also say he hated men and are very clear on that point. His pathology was multifaceted and his rage directed at men and women and the violence was directed at men and women. Some sources take the POV that it's only about women. Others mention men too including Psychology Today, and I quote "Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women." which is about as reliable a source as you can get on this topic. It's not an either/or situation. I'm baffled by your resistance on this. However, in the end, this discussion is less about "original research" than gender politics IMHO.Mattnad (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, that seems to be an article making the argument that his acts of violence were not gendered violence at all, and were not motivated by misogyny or misandry, but envy. That's a useful but minority view and doesn't support adding the VAM category so much as removing he VAW category - however, the latter is well supported by other sources.
The category is up for deletion, in part because of concerns that it is being used to push an adjenda, while the previous CFD on the categories found that it was being overapplied and needed to be managed better - so it may well be moot, but there simply has not been any sourcing provided for its addition here that even approaches the sourcing required for the VAW category. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a suggestion since this prolonged debate has gone on and on and there still seems to be very different opinions on what to do. As I see it this person Elliot Rodger was a deranged lunatic (most likely suffering from a mental disorder and almost certainly suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder) who hated just about everyone if you read his writings. How about we remove both categories, since in some way having them there almost legitimizes Rodger as a sane person. I always felt that neither category was appropriate, and almost sort of silly seeing as how crazy and out-of-touch with reality the guy was. NotHowItWorks (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Griffin

The issue here is not this person himself. However there is a discussion going on that the talk page for this article, about whether it is possible to state individual predecessors and successors in multi-member constituencies, at least when more than one seat changed hands at an election. A method for determining this has been suggested, but this is only one person's opinion, other methods are possible, and there is no evidence that any method is used by psephologists. So it would be clear original research for Wikipedia to adopt a specific method, and I would also question whether it is particularly helpful to do this. This could have implications for several other articles. PatGallacher (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no concept of "predecessor" for individuals in these multimember constituencies, so no, this shouldn't be included in WP, certainly not without a source. Caroline Lucas was a Green Party MEP in the South East region, now Keith Taylor is a Green Party MEP in the same region, but Lucas isn't directly the predecessor of Taylor, and we shouldn't oversimplify by this kind of loose wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Lucas is a bad example, as she was Taylor's predecessor; when she resigned to take her seat in the House of Commons, Taylor, as second on the Green list, was co-opted in her place. Sceptre (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User: Arnitxe

Daniel Case has blocked Arnixte for 4 days. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Arnixte appears to be a single purpose account whose objective is posting unsourced rants that Europe is the world's only Superpower. (That's the continent Europe, not the supranational entity of the European Union.) The editor has been warned, and is coming off a 48-hour block for edit-warring, and is persisting. This is not being posted at WP:AIV because this is not vandalism as such . It is a content dispute with conduct aspects for the continued posting of well-meaning nonsense, maybe a competency issue. Maybe this needs to go to WP:AIN if that is the only way to get another block. See entire user contribution history and warnings on User talk:Arnitxe. Most recent diffs are

Please advise if this needs to go to WP:AIN. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 96 hours, after ClueBot reported his activity to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trouble with IP user

I am having a difficult time working with IP User:190.158.2.15. There is an unnamed character in the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine which appears briefly on screen with no speaking part, who has some physical resemblance to the comic book character Toad. Apparently, at some point it was resolved by editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics that it was original research to suggest that this otherwise unidentified, uncredited character was Toad, and the following text was added as a hidden note to keep people from adding something there: "Please do NOT add any information about Toad and X-Men Origins: Wolverine; unless a citation is provided there is no proof that the long-tongued mutant in the movie is indeed Toad, as he was NOT credited. Unless you can provide a citation, please do NOT add anything."

Yesterday, the IP user added some information which suggested that this information could now be sourced; however, I checked out the sources provided, and they all appeared to be unreliable sources, or did not mention Toad at all, so I reverted this change. The IP user reverted back to his prior edit, with the summary stating "You're not a registered user and neither an administrator, so fuck you". I reverted once more and attempted to reach out to the IP on his talk page regarding the civility issues and the apparent OR in his edit, and he replied on my talk page stating "You poorly loser, I'm only answer to registered users and administrators, not to jerks like you. So let me alone." He then reinstated his prior edit, with the summary "I put reliable references, if you don't read it that's your problem".

So, aside from the potential behavioral problems, can anyone tell me if this still counts as OR given the references supplied? Thanks. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked through all of his sources and I agree that none of them are from verifiable sources. I reverted the page and he went ahead and change it back so I invited him to discuss the matter on the talk page. Thefro552 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Something tells me I have encountered this individual before. BOZ (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am going to suggest an outside the box - non-NOR based - solution to the issue... from what you describe, the appearance of this character is so quick, so trivial that, even if a source is found to definitively prove that the character was intended to be Toad, I would seriously question whether it merits being mentioned in the X-Men Origins: Wolverine article. Mentioning the appearance at all gives a trivial appearance undue weight. I would suggest changing the hidden text to make this point clear. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article in which the hidden note appears, and which the anonymous user was trying to add the OR info to, was Toad (comics), not X-Men Origins: Wolverine. And it would be difficult to present a wholly convincing argument that such information is trivial in the context of Toad (comics).--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH - gaaahhh!

I'm at a loss as to how you do not run up against synth issues when dealing with alternative titles. I've got conceptually equivalent laws (attaining an age where you are considered an adult under the law) that use different terminology to achieve the same end result. I have 50+ quality sources available which describe how, separately, they achieve the same or extremely similar end result. I can not find any comparisons that directly state they are equivalent though. I can find hundreds if not thousands of sources where they are transposed by lay persons or for lay persons. I can even find sources which demonstrate the change from one term to the other over a 50+ year period. In the end it's always synth. The only way I can find to connect the terms is that 195 states ratified a UN treaty who's first article requires the varying terms hold the same legal meaning. That in itself is synth though since the treaty doesn't explicitly state the equivalence, it just requires it. It's like trying to prove Plum and Beefsteak are both tomatoes, when the only connection you can make is that they both ended up in the same jar of tomato sauce. You can show their similarities in all sorts of ways, you can show that someone else accepted them as tomatoes for their sauce, but without something that says "these are both tomatoes"... gaahhh!!! Help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Age_of_majority#Alternate_Title_Dispute JMJimmy (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you adopt a "fundamentalist" approach virtually any edit can be categorised as synth, since all edits involve making editorial decisions, choosing what to include or exclude, deciding what scholarly consensus is about a topic, or even deciding that the "David Smith" mentioned by one author is the same one mentioned by another. It's difficult to deal with such issues in the abstract. Concrete details are more useful. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You need a source that explains the terminology, create a section about it and explain which definition the article uses. Note the article says that in Ontario one reaches the age of majority at 18. But Ontario for many years issued an Canadian Provincial Liquor Cards#Ontario|"Age of Majority Card" to 19-year olds. And individuals were considered minors, or infants, at ages up to 16, 18, 19, 21 and others under various provincial and federal laws.
Articles that list the different ages for voting in each country and similar lists avoid synthesis. But it you create an article explaining how individuals are treated as adults in different countries, then it is synthesis unless you have sources that make a global comparison. Incidentally, there are articles in reliable sources about tomatoes that list the varieties. While it is obvious to you that because they look similar and are both called tomatoes that they are types of tomatoes is synthesis. There are examples of unrelated flora and fauna having the same name because someone thought they were the same, and modern biology has proved they are not.
TFD (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
While I understand Paul Barlow's approach on synthesis, I don't agree that it applies to the WP:Synthesis policy (at least not generally); this is because I think that the WP:Synthesis policy is pretty straightforward. I do agree with The Four Deuces (TFD) on this matter. And now, even if we leave out "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority" in the Age of majority article because it is against the WP:Synthesis policy (unless it's acceptable to take JMJimmy's alternative approach and simply note in the Age of majority article that "age of maturity" is another term to indicate the age of adulthood, not that the terms are synonyms), we currently have a disambiguation page listing "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority," as noted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Age of Majority does not relate to the attainment of specific rights, just that you are recognized as an adult under the law. In Ontario at 18 you are a major and certain rights are withheld due to justifiable reasons (usually safety/health). That's neither here nor there though... I guess my objective is to understand where common sense/logic ends and WP:NOR begins.
From my perspective this is a fairly simple logic problem A[] ≠ B[] ≠ C[]; (A[]) → X[]; (B[]) → X[]; (C[]) → X[]; and not A ± B → C of NOR/SYNTH. Meaning, if A[age of majority], B[age of maturity], and C[legal age] each independently result in X[legally an adult] it doesn't matter that the properties of A/B/C aren't identical in all respects, merely that each can be shown (cited) to result in X. NOR/SYNTH on the other hand is would be A[age of majority] together with B[age of maturity] results in C[legally an adult] which makes no sense because it assumes a relationship that doesn't exist. JMJimmy (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What does it mean to be recognized as an adult under the law? Suppose that one is always considered an adult under criminal law at 16 but cannot enter into contracts until 21, and is defined in various other laws (voting, drinking, military service) as a minor until 18 or 19? TFD (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It has no fixed meaning in and of itself. It's a trigger mechanism in law. One second you're a child, the next you're an adult. Each legal system uses this for different purposes but usually it grants you rights and responsibilities and takes away some as well. By example, child protections granted by the UN treaty I spoke of are taken away (except in some disability cases). In Ontario you're granted the right to vote and given criminal liability to name a couple. That doesn't mean you get all your rights - that also varies. Ontario you don't get the right to consume alcohol until a year later. In Quebec you'd have been given that right a year before you became a legal adult. It's really quite arbitrary but it's intended as a way to delay giving rights/responsibilities to those who may not be ready to handle them with sound judgement while being equitable to all. That equality factor has been eroding as well, emancipation allows one to apply early to be granted either partial or full status as a legal adult. Conversely, in cases of disability mental capacity is used to delay the change in status. All of that is highly variable between legal systems but both have the same mechanism to trigger whatever those rights/responsibilities are. JMJimmy (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
When in Ontario one was considered an adult in criminal law at 16, under voting laws at 18, and under civil law at 21, at which age would one be considered an adult? TFD (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Section 1: Every person attains the age of majority and ceases to be a minor on attaining the age of eighteen years" is the "default", if you will, as it goes on to state: "Section 1 applies for the purpose of any rule of law in respect of which the Legislature has jurisdiction." this leaves room for the federal government, specifically the federal courts to issue an order that changes that age and what rights may or may not change along with it. They only do so in very rare cases and even rarer do they shift any of the rights/responsibilities (ie: still can't vote until 18, still has the same rights as a minor in criminal law, etc). That relation between age of majority and splitting from parents is not universal though - Botswana by example can order continued responsibility in the case of disability. In some US states that link is never severed (adults are being forced to pay their parents debts). JMJimmy (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of Synth by inference - the page is in need of major cleanup as it is a hodgepodge of mis-informed edits which apply numerous rights which do not relate to the topic of the article, though may be triggered by it. ie: Ontario age of majority triggers the right to vote that doesn't mean the right to vote determines the age of majority. By example, all countries listed as age 19 or higher (except for the US) need to be double checked. All countries should have changed their age of majority/maturity to 18 or lower subject to UN child act (US has not ratified it)08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The 1971 Act also says, "In the absence of a definition or of an indication of a contrary intention, section 1 applies for the construction of the expression “adult”, “full age”, “infant”, “infancy”, “minor”, “minority” and similar expressions in...any Act of the Legislature or any regulation, rule, order or by-law made under an Act of the Legislature." Specifically the age of adulthood for criminal cases continued to be 16, while the "age of majority" for alcohol consumption was later raised to 19. (Note that while the Criminal Code is federal legislation, each province sets its own age of adulthood.) And before 1 September 1971, there was no overall Act. So the most you can say is that in Ontario, unless otherwise stated in an act, the age of majority is 18. Before the Act came into force, the age of majority depended on the specific Act. To say that the age of majority in Ontario, without qualification is 18 is original research and requires a reliable secondary source.
In practical terms, in one jurisdiction the default age of majority could 18 and allow people to vote at 18 and sign contracts at 21, while in another the default could be 21, but also allow people to vote at 18 and sign contracts at 21.
TFD (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a standard legal assignment catch-all for mistakes/omissions of definition. By example, "Same, sale, etc., to a minor" in the Liquor License Act - minor is not defined in that act, so a lawyer could simply say "what is a minor in this case" and get it thrown out and the law would be ineffective until they fixed it. By adding the catch all it is still effective for those up to the age of 17. In the example of the Accumulations Act it's used to assign elements to be triggered at the Age of Majority, ie: Maximum accumulation periods (sec1; 3,5,6) is set to when Age of Majority is triggered. It doesn't actually create an "Age of Majority of Maximum Accumulation", it's just an assignment. That way if they wanted to change the Age of Majority they only have to change it in the 1 act instead of each individual one. There is no "age of majority" for Alcohol because it's defined specifically in terms of various scenarios... ie: " No person shall knowingly sell or supply liquor to a person under nineteen years of age."... except if you're a parent in a residence/private place and it's consumed in the location given or you've done SmartServe and are 18, etc JMJimmy (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If we were to use Flyer's interpretation that the two are not synonyms, wouldn't that mean that the article is already creating synth by including countries which do not use the "age of majority"? I did an absolute insane amount of reading today just for the fun of it. There are a few concepts at play
  • Puberty
  • Legal Capacity (ie: maturity to understand legal proceedings)
  • Cultural transition from child to adult
  • Legal transition from child to adult
  • Minimum Age of Criminal Liability
  • Biological Maturity
  • Religious Maturity
I found cases where each of these was applied in some form to both Age of Maturity and Age of Majority. example: Hong Kong attributes legal capacity as well as age to Age of Majority while defining Age of Maturity to mean a minimum age of criminal liability. Russia uses both terms to mean Majority. Others set Age of Maturity to be 25 as a biological maturity. Sheri'a separates Puberty from Maturity as adulthood then, depending on the country, interprets or defines Majority in relation to Maturity. West Africans use the cultural transitions and it varies from tribe to tribe. The "western" version is a mix of biological, capacity/maturity, and criminal liability. Many don't use either of the terms and just set an age. Some even have differences between levels of government (UK federal level maturity 21, state level it's unique to each state). The interesting thing is that "Age of Majority" originally meant a man who was capable of wearing armour which was usually around 21, over time came to mean everyone 21 and under while the Age of Maturity meant adulthood (early law based on religion similar to what Shari'a is now). Generally speaking though, the bulk of them fall into 3 camps: Those that have no term just age(s), "Western" law principles (majority), and Religious law (Christian, Jewish, Islam, etc - as maturity)
http://www.africanchildforum.org/clr/Harmonisation%20of%20Laws%20in%20Africa/other-documents-harmonisation_1_en.pdf Shows African countries and their definitions, less than 1/3rd use "majority". Not sure where that leaves the article but it was interesting. Personally I would redirect age of maturity(with disamb)/keep legal age redirect, make all 3 synonyms under the definition set out by the UN CRC which establishes a common list, no matter the regional specifics, then explain or link to specifics on the differences but that's just me. JMJimmy (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AIRPORTS#New_York-Kennedy_is_more_appropriate_than_New_York-JFK

An IP wants original research as his comment in this discussion, asking people to "ask" New York cabbies on whether JFK or Kennedy is commonly used for the airport name. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I am conducting an experiment to find out how you react to my request. I am curious to find out whether you act with compassion or with punishment. Thank you for being part of my lab experiment. 66.87.119.122 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
66.87: Is this an official experiment, or just something that you're doing on your own? Whichever it is, first-hand reports from New York cabbies can't go in any Wikipedia articles, as we base our articles on reliable secondary sources. Also, please note that 68.119 is allowed to blank their own talk page if they want - see WP:OWNTALK for the guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting statements and Synth.

When a person has made (potentially) conflicting statements, is it WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to mention them together? A few examples (ignore BLP concerns etc, these are just illustrative examples for the synth issue)

  • I am not gay. (interview 1)
  • I sleep only with men (interview 2)
  • Can we say "X has said they are not gay, but in a different interview said that they sleep only with men." Or must we say "X has said they are not gay. X has said they sleep only with men"
  • Robin Hood has said stealing is bad
  • Robin Hood has said taking from the rich and giving to the poor is just

"Robin Hood said stealing is bad[1], but also said that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is just[2]"

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Synth is a subset of OR. The second one would be correct because the individual may consider themselves as bisexual or something else. ie: One is stating how they perceive themselves (or want others to perceive them) while the other is stating their actions. Similarly the Robinhood example the act of stealing can be both bad and just simultaneously so if you connect them it implies the justness detracts from the badness which may not be the case JMJimmy (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rogernomics

Page
Rogernomics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Edit
[31] (1985-1992 is cherry-picking the bad years of the NZ economy; from that point, NZ entered a sustained period of economic growth, which the previous version of this article failed to acknowledge.)

Rogernomics is the economic policy followed by the New Zealand Labour Party government after its election in 1984 and named after its Minister of Finance, Roger Douglas.

And IP editor changed sourced text saying "many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialized" to "did not immediately materialise." His source is a recent NZ draft report that says the NZ economy improved after 1993.[32] But it does not say that was a result of Rogernomics and in fact the world economy began to recover in 1993 following the Early 1990s recession.

I have opened a discussion thread at Talk:Rogernomics#In the long run. So far the IP editor has not replied. I would appreciate input from other editors. (The issue overlaps OR, NPOV and RSN - but I have posted it here.)

TFD (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Protective Edge#Background

The background section of Operation Protective Edge has consistently highlighted the narrative that the conflict is based on Israel attempting to marginalize the unity government in the Palestinian Territories. This assertion is not so far fetched that it could be called a conspiracy theory but it is far from being the background/reasoning/justification for the conflict in reliable sources. The background section currently gives prominence to the idea with several sources that predate the conflict:

This is a classic example of WP:SYNTH and could even be an attempt to lead the reader ("the fight is not over rockets, occupation, or tit-for-tat kidnapping but is really about Israeli oppression"). The section introduces an idea with sources that is not commonly linked in RS and then gives it weight.

I can't provide the answer as to why this fight happened-that is for the talk page where analysis from The New York Times, Reuters, and BBC can be presented. The above links do show that heavy editing, restructuring, or flat out removal are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.13.27 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 July 2014‎ (UTC)

^Who are you? No registered user ID or IP address is showing up for your complaint.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a complaint. It is a request to follow policy.

I really can't understand why this IP insists on such a wrong request because the sectio has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH. A and B, therefore C" is acceptable when a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article, whih is exactly the case here. The investigation on the political pretexts of this conflict is included here. Mhhossein (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Persistent, Disruptive OR editing on Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton

A user, Holybeef has been persistently pushing some WP:OR about research priorities on Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton. He is possible a different person from the fluctuating IP editor who is doing the exact same thing on Laura Mersini-Houghton. These articles don't seem to have a lot of eyes on them. Myself and several other editors have tried explaining to them many times why what they are doing is original research, and they don't seem to be getting it. If some of you folks could pop in and check on it and help establish a consensus, it'd be much appreciated. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's you and your Masonic bros who invade pages like grasshoppers to massacre those pages beyond belief and totally against the rules (ironically: while excessively quoting rules but only general ones, never bullet-by-bullet.) So knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who at any cost try to portray Guth as originator of inflation though its clear he stole it, Marsini as notable despite many editors pointing out she's not, being just an average researcher, and so on. In doing so, you disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, report me falsely to admins, etc. Holybeef (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli/Gaza reactions image

This map shows the international reactions to Operation Protective Edge:
  Israel and the Gaza Strip
  Countries that support Israel's stance and/or condemned Hamas rocket attacks.
  Countries that condemned and/or expressed concern about Israel's actions.
  Countries that condemned and/or expressed concern about the actions of both sides.
  Countries with mixed official reactions.

The image above is based on the statements in Reactions_to_Operation_Protective_Edge. Each statement is individually sourced to a reliable source, but the selection of those statements is subject to normal editorial processes.

WP:OR has WP:OI which reads "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"

Does WP:SYNTH apply to images (IE do images need to be based on a single source which contains the data to be represented in the image, or may it be combined from multiple sources).

What standards are applicable in determining which statements to use for the image (as countries may have mupltiple statements from multiple politicians/groups (IE, the president, a congressional resolution, individual politicians) or multiple statements over time?Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being naive, but how exactly does this map differ from File:WWI-re.png? Or File:World marriage-equality laws.svg? And where does the WP:OR come into play (i.e. are you suggesting that the editors somehow guessed or surmised the reactions of the various states, or went through shadowy back channels to get their information?) The sources are all at Reactions to Operation Protective Edge. Albrecht (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Those other maps are much more "binary" very little evaluation is needed. The statements at hand in our map are quite long. There are often multiple statements. someone selected which statement. Someone selected which snippet to include. Someone is interpreting those statements to be support or criticism. Beyond that, WW1 ended quite a long while ago. The status of those countries is well known. Statements are coming out on the current events by the hour, and reacting to individual events on an hourly basis. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Gaijin - there is OR to interpret a nation's actions here compared to, say, what side they fell on in the World Wars. Sourcing is needed that explicitly puts a country into each category. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it was made clear that this image originated as a summary of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge; thus, every discrete piece of information presented in the image is sourced in the body of that article. As Reactions is itself a sub-article of Operation Protective Edge, the image appeared there as well. Divorced from its sources, the image could certainly be perceived as WP:OR, although that could be fixed by adding sources in the image description. But anyway, surely a concern about the visibility of the sources is not the same as a concern over WP:OR, and the solution lies in clarifying the sources as opposed to scrubbing the image. Albrecht (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, it's telling that both responses chose to compare it to WWI alliances as opposed to the far more complex Marriage equality laws, whose legend has plenty of ambiguity—"Government/court announced intention to legalize" or "Same-sex marriage recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions" requires just as much careful scrutiny of the sources as, "Condemned A, Condemned B, or Condemned both A and B." Albrecht (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The map is based on non-deterministic non-repeatable transformations of language sampled firstly by RS and subsequently by Wikipedia editors. It's a cartoon version of the complexity of the real world. The four sets created by Wikipedia editors, 'Countries that support Israel's stance and/or condemned Hamas rocket attacks' etc, are arbitrary. There are a large variety of sets that could be created based on various pertinent features of the conflict that have featured in statements by official spokespersons (such as the blockade or human rights violations etc) and in every case the decision procedure used by editors to establish set membership will be non-deterministic and non-repeatable. This is particularly clear when considering the set 'mixed official reactions'. What is a 'mixed official reaction' ? Then there is the issue that states often make many statements and have many people authorized to speak on behalf of the state. Which statement gets sampled and categorized using an opaque decision procedure, a procedure that only exists in the mind of the editor amd will be unique to the editor, is effectively either random or susceptible to sampling bias and contamination by the editor's beliefs. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Indeed, this map is a great simplification. It looks good, but I am very dubious of its usefulness as compared to the possibility of being misleading. Btw, there is a similar map of the 2008 war: Gaza War#Reactions. Kingsindian (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Albrect with regards to the gay marriage map, for every state on the map we have numerous, numerous sources available making the analsysis for us about what the current state of gay marriage is. Nobody is having to personally evaluate the court cases or laws (the WP:PRIMARY source for the data in the map). Also, those law and policy changes take place slowly, over a great period of time. Our map could be dramatically different from day to day, and will very likley end up a giant green blob. BTW, what is the difference between green and gold? IS the distinction something that is unambiguous and that everyone can easily agree to? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Our map could be dramatically different from day to day, and will very likley end up a giant green blob" These are certainly weaknesses inherent in the exercise, but you'll notice they have nothing to do with OR. And since the map appears on an article tagged as a current event, the reader will have been appropriately warned (for anyone who's worked on the map, it's clear the potential for chaotic change is being vastly overstated: we've often had to wait days, if not weeks, for foreign policy statements from the majority of the states depicted.) Finally, even if the majority of the states end up one colour; so what? Isn't it still a service to the reader to present this information at a glance at the top of the article, rather than having the reader slog through masses of text to get a sense of the proportion of the various reactions?
"BTW, what is the difference between green and gold? IS the distinction something that is unambiguous and that everyone can easily agree to?" This is a good point; gold was added pretty arbitrarily, without discussion, and for simplicity's sake should probably be folded into green.
These ever-shifting prongs of attack, by the way, make me suspect that the criticism directed here really has more to do with personal distaste for the exercise as opposed to a bona fide concern about OR. Albrecht (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I found the map very useful early on in this operation, and I think I know how it can still be useful. We should find or create an early version of the map, perhaps from July 8th or 9th, to show the countries that promptly issued responses to the conflict. The map could be titled: "International reactions to Operation Protective Edge (or the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) as of 8 July 2014". That map would not have the problem of countries "turning green" due to eventual overall criticism, and it wouldn't have nearly as much interpretation - at the beginning of the conflict, most countries were very strong in support of Israel or Gaza, and the equally-critical nations were quick to strongly condemn both for violence. I'd say there's hardly anything to interpret there. And then readers would still have a map to see generally what areas are more pro-Israeli or pro-Gazan, and the general number of countries supporting each side. Let's do this for the readers.--ɱ (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you can make a binary/ternary assessment without OR (whether they support one side or the other, or whether they have a response but is mixed - this type of statement will be obvious), but you can't make the 5 point distinction given on this map without engaging OR. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's actually also a ternary distinction (Condemn A; Condemn B; or Condemn A and B). Let's also, for the nth time, discuss evidence of "opaque decision procedures," "random sampling biases," etc. with concrete examples from Reactions to Operation Protective Edge:
  • Brazil released a statement "vehemently condemning the Israeli bombing of Gaza as constituting a disproportionate use of force." Source: Foreign Ministry (primary) [33]. Widely reported in the press.
  • Canada – foreign minister "condemns attacks by Hamas on Israel". Source: Canadian Press [34] ; also available on foreign ministry website: [35]
  • Uruguay released a statement "strenuously condemnning" Israel's attacks against Gaza for the death toll of civilians. Source: Foreign Ministry (primary) [36]
  • Djibouti released a statement "firmly condemning the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip." Source: Foreign Ministry (primary) [37]
  • Spain: released a statement expressing concern for the actions of "both parties" and called on both to cease attacks on civilians. Source: Foreign Ministry (primary) [38]
  • Italy: released a statement condemning both rocket attacks and Israeli attacks on civilians. Source: Foreign Ministry (Primary) [39]
Are we seriously suggesting it's an intolerable stretch to interpret "condemns A" as "condemns A" or "condemns B" as "condemns B"? Or that these statements were cherry-picked from masses of contradictory statements? If so, where's the evidence? Can we also explain how File:International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.png, which actually has a 5-point scale, is an acceptable creation? Albrecht (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
My mistake on being a 5pt scale, but the current 3 pt scale is still not easily qualified without engaging secondary sources. Take Spain's statement, for example. I do not read that as necessarily condemning both sides. I'm sure if I scoured US reports for example I could find similar language that says the US calls for both sides to cease hostiles and work out a solution, even though it is clear the US is pro-Israel. It is really bad to try to assemble various primary government statements to create this map, and would be better if the data all came from, say, a single political expert speaking in a secondary manner, who's expertise is being relied on to make the judgement calls which way a given country swings here. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yah I see no criticism of Hamas in Spain's statement, and if that is considered a "both" statement then certainly the entire map would be green because everyone has asked for a cease fire. Regarding the US Certainly it is very pro Israel, but in the same vein as the Spanish statemnet Obama has said he has concern for Palestinian casualties, called for a cease fire, and Kerry has sarcastically mentioned the "pinpoint operation" by Israel. Who decides? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Brazil (google translate from original) "The Brazilian government considers unacceptable escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine. We strongly condemn the disproportionate use of force by Israel in the Gaza Strip, from which large numbers of civilian casualties, including women and children resulted." - Who decides if the first sentence is or is not a criticism of both sides? Thats OR.
  • Uruguy (from the exact source you linked, showing the OR involved in which snippet to quote): "Uruguay also condemns these repeated releases threatening the civilian population of the center and south of the state of Israel." - criticism of Hamas attacks, not reflected in map? OR.
  • Shall we continue with every country on the map

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is really going off the rails, but to reply to your points, there was ongoing disagreement about how to represent statements which condemned the Israeli reaction as a "disproportionate use of force" to rocket attacks (whether or not these were condemned, as many stinging condemnations of Israel are prefaced by token condemnations of the rocket attacks.) The legend should be clearer about this, but no consensus has been reached when the map was taken down. In the case of Brazil and Uruguay, it's clear that a preponderance of the statements and events correspond to a souring of relations with Israel: the Israelis criticized Uruguay's statement [40], retorted that Brazil was a "diplomatic dwarf" [41], and the rhetoric only escalated from there:
    • "Brasil condena el "genocidio" provocado por la ofensiva israelí" [42]
    • "Brasil condena "enérgicamente" la ofensiva de Israel en Gaza" [43]
    • "Brasil condena ofensiva israeli en Gaza y llamo a consultas a su embajador" [44]
    • "Brasil condena "uso desproporcional" de la fuerza por Israel en Gaza" [45], etc.
But just to be clear: these disagreements or ambiguity on how to represent material or arrange the legend does not constitute OR. OR is material "for which no reliable, published sources exist." Albrecht (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it your assertion, that for every statement WP:PRIMARY on the map, there is a WP:SECONDARY WP:RS not only repeating/reporting the primary, but telling us how to interpret it? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It falls more under WP:SYNT. We are relying on editors to interpret what the country said, and into what category or color they should be on the map. Also, please do not point to other maps, since I really want to go nuke them as well. Just because other stuff exists, no need to link I hope, is NOT a good defense here. --Malerooster (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can certainly see the idea behind this map and how it would be a useful visual aid, considering the amount of reactions being reported. But having said that, how and who is deciding where the varying international reactions get placed on the map. Is it - anyone can change a position on the map, or is it a single editor, or is it consensus? I don't want to nitpick through all the reactions and compare them against accuracy to the map, but for example with Zimbabwe, it is listed on the map as a "country that condemned and/or expressed concern about Israel's actions". And while it is true that they did express concern, they also made this statement - according to the article: They also highlighted the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and also reiterated their support for a two-state solution.[147] I would suggest this statement would qualify them for the "Countries with mixed official reactions". Not only did they condemn/express concern over Israel's action, but they also stated that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination. To me, that is a mixed official reaction. It's quite possible and reasonable to believe that there may be other editors who don't agree with that assessment, so the question remains - who gets to decide. I don't see how you can get around OR and SYNTH when you are asking editor's to take a look at a map with a pre-determined set of criteria and then ask them to correlate a reaction to that pre-determined set of criteria. You're basically asking the editor to analyze/interpret the statement in order to decide where it best fits based on their opinion of the criteria supplied. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to nitpick one detail within otherwise valid points (I agree that sorting reactions into categories can be a challenge), but "reiterat(ing) their support for a two-state solution" actually places Zimbabwe further on the side of the Palestinian position, as a viable two-state solution requires a return to the 1967 borders and a dismantling of the settlements, which Israel steadfastly refuses to do. It's certainly not a "mixed" reaction. Albrecht (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think that quite clearly illustrates my salient point. The requirement of editor's to take it upon themselves to analyze/interpret the statement in order to decide where it best fits. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose (what I might call) the "illusion" of OR arises from the psychological impression the map makes that Uruguay's reaction is somehow "the same" as Zimbabwe's, when in fact they may differ in many nuances. The map could certainly benefit from a disclaimer stating that it presents only one aspect a state's reaction, and urging readers to consult the article text below for the details. Let's not forget, again, that the original purpose was to provide a summary of information found directly below. Albrecht (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It is OR to group nations into categories. It could be acceptable however, if a source is used that does group nations according to the degree of support for or opposition to Israel's actions. TFD (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we've registered our fundamental disagreement. OR is presenting material that is not derived from published, reliable sources, while SYNTH is using published sources to advance conclusions not found in those sources. The map, admitting its other weaknesses, does neither: it attempts to summarize, or serve as a guide for, a long and busy article using a visual aid. The categories of the map, while potentially open to debate, are not "additional content," but simply editorial decisions—and the debates surrounding them are debates about how best to display or present the article content, not about the content itself. In short, these are purely formal decisions, decisions inherent in the very project of constructing an encyclopedia.
The attitude taken by some of our colleagues in this discussion are strictly analogous to the idea that we should reject the periodizing headings in Syrian Civil War as OR or SYNTH because they cannot be 'traced' to any single document! (i.e. who are we to label November 2012 as "Rebel offensives" or March 2014 as "Fighting between ISIS and other rebel groups"? Why not other labels?) The same can be said, mind you, of File:World marriage-equality laws.svg itself: the information contained therein is surely sourced, but the decision to compare and contrast states according to those specific categories surely comes from the editor's own initiative, not any single source.
At some point, out of sheer practicality, on is forced to intervene and organize information according to our best lights. Albrecht (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Albrecht, No. sheer practicality NEVER trumps policy, thank goodness. --Malerooster (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
My dear Malerooster, don't force me to point out that you're begging the question, as the very issue of whether it violates policy is what's under contention! ;) Albrecht (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Your chart is saying that Canada and the U.S. took similar positions to each other, while Brazil and Saudi Arabia took similar position to each other that differed from the U.S./Canada position. You drew that conclusion by comparing the statements made by every national government in the world. It could be that your analysis was correct, but it is still original research.
If you this information needs to be organized, then an external source will do that and we can present the map provided it is sourced to the article that organized it.
TFD (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Not quite (or at least, not in my estimation). The legend (I reject the possessive "your," as the file and its legend were the work of other editors) is saying that the U.S. took a position that can be (briefly) described as "supporting Israel's stance and/or condemning Hamas rocket attacks," that Canada took a position that can be (briefly) described as "supporting Israel's stance and/or condemning Hamas rocket attacks," and that neither country made statements consistent with the other colours. Drawing a SYNTH or OR conclusion would be to add something like, "Canada and the U.S.'s response to the Middle Eastern crisis suggests broad foreign policy cooperation."
I agree that the phrase "supporting Israel's stance" may be problematic; it involves a level of interpretation beyond merely Condemned X or Condemned Y and might require an additional, secondary source (describing the country as "supporting" Israel's stance) unless more precise language can be found. What I disagree with is the notion that very act of selecting the categories constitutes OR: again, organizing or displaying information one way and not another (there are, after all, many other possible categories, although these strike me as among the most immediately useful) is an editorial decision, not not a factual claim or conclusion. Albrecht (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the map is a very clear case of SYNTH. Zerotalk 23:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Which conclusion does the map reach or imply that is not explicitly stated by the underlying sources? Albrecht (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 and others provided examples above. Reading the whole discussion on this page, it seems to me the consensus opinion is strongly against you. Zerotalk 04:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Examples of additional conclusions reached or implied by the map? Why not copy them here, then, instead of talking about consensus? I haven't seen a convincing demonstration that the map in itself reaches conclusions not found in the underlying article content (apart from some of the problematic wording I noted above; is that all you're referring to?), or that choosing how to organize information into a visual aid constitutes OR. But maybe you read the discussion a little more thoroughly than I did. Albrecht (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I support Zero's position. IMO, the map to include (if one was available) would had been a map that had been published by a RS source and upload it (permissions permitting, of course, if not via FUR). That way the argument cannot be made that a Wikipedia editor is cherry-picking other government sources in order to draw conclusions as to which side a given country condems, etc. We needed to stay away from that vulnerability. Another complication on top of that one is that, even if a given country had clearly articulated its position, the editor would still run into the problem of fitting such articulated position into the more rigurous and less flexible group of five categories created by teh map's author, since every country would chose to articulate its position using their own style of words. BTW, even if one -single- country was off in the map (due to -but not necessarily- a violation of SYNT or OR), such single case would invalidate the entire map. I find it fascinating how often editors will disagree over OR and SYNT when the best policy is "not to go there", but editors consistently want to "add value" to what other sources have published. Mercy11 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I agree with many of your concerns, but again, I suspect we're mixing and matching various policies in a pretty cavalier manner: the original purpose of the map was to provide a summary of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge as part of that article's introduction, i.e. not to deliver some ideal Platonic Truth independent of the article in question. Thus, I think we're confusing two things: if cherry-picking of sources, POV, or whatever occurred, the problem lies within the body of the article, not within the map itself (the map relies on the article for its actual content). I also don't follow the assertion that "one country being left out would invalidate the entire map," any more than one country being left out of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge would invalidate the entire article (it would be an omission, an inaccuracy, whatever; but no worse than any other). Albrecht (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Just to be clear to the other participants: We can relax a little, as I'm not particularly suggesting that this particular file or legend needs to be reinstated in its current form; only that something like it is achievable and wouldn't necessarily be OR or SYNTH if precise enough language/categories can be found.) Albrecht (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The net problem here is that it is OR in taking a nation's statement on a conflict (and lets assume you can nail it down to the official statement from that nation) and making a judgement call on which side it sits. There will be some statements that will be 100% clear - "We condemn side X and support side Y" is pretty much obvious, but the statements that have been linked above include several that can be taken either way. This is the OR at issue here. A scholar or political expert may be able to say "Oh, that means they are X" and if we had that type of sourcing, that would be okay, but we as editors can't make that. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. What I'm getting from you is that the problem lies not so much in the nature of the map itself, but in the "gap" between the primary sources and the descriptions in the legend?
So, if I'm following you: even if such a classification were to take place in the article text, it would still qualify as OR in your opinion? E.g. If you were to write, in the introductory paragraph, "Israel's stance was supported by: Canada, the United States, Colombia..." (with appropriate citations) — that would still be OR? This may be a legitimate position and the correct application of policy, but it would seem to call into question large chunks of the encyclopedia, correct?
Suppose the blue category used a phrase that matched, verbatim, the statements of the countries concerned (i.e. OPE falls under Israel's "legitimate right to self-defense," or whatever): would that eliminate OR by eliminating the interpretive gesture on the part of the editor?
Or suppose, conversely, that the categories stayed as they were, but that each state were backed up by a secondary source describing their position: would that eliminate OR? Albrecht (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Even saying something like "Israel's stance was supported by: Canada, the United States, Colombia..." is OR because you are grouping countries together and implying that their positions were similar. You need a source that makes the connection. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reflects the observations made in secondary sources. If secondary sources conclude Canada etc. took the same stance then we say that. If they do not then we do not. What justification do we have to make an observation that no secondary source makes?
The map divides reactions into five categories. Another observer may divide them into four or six. It is a matter that requires analysis and judgment, i.e., original research
TFD (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I feel your answer approaches what another editor, above, labelled the "fundamentalist approach." We are not saying that Canada, et al "took the same stance"—their positions may well differ in other respects—only that they (individually) "supported Israel" (assuming, of course, we have valid secondary sources attesting this).
That this map is only one of several possible maps doesn't somehow disqualify the underlying information as invented or illegitimate: there may well be multiple visual aids serving to interpret the long list of reactions. The map is only OR if it advances conclusions not found in the sources.
Your position simply contradicts everyday practice, as well as vast portions of the existing Wikipedia. For example, someone putting together a List of countries where French is an official language is not engaging in OR by "grouping countries together and implying similarities"—all that is required are sources proving French official language status for the individual countries. Albrecht (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not a fundamentalist approach, it is in the spirit of "Synthesis of published material": "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." An obvious conclusion a reader would draw from the chart is that Israel has very little international backing outside the U.S. and its closest allies. You need a reliable source that makes that conclusion. And if no one has made that conclusion, then why do you consider it important to provide this information to readers? As for the French article, the existence of one article does not justify the existence of another. TFD (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. - From what I can see, the map in question exists in Wikipedia Commons, but this discussion is occuring at English Wikipedia. Shouldn't this discussion be taking place at Commons? Mercy11 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think no, because it is the use of the map and not its mere existence that is under scrutiny. Zerotalk 21:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Future Films?

I was reviewing new articles when I found one describing a future film - one that would be coming out soon. Isn't this considered speculation or advertising? I know that the intentions of the new editor who created this article are good - she left a friendly note asking for more time to expand the article. Imagine my surprise to find that this is also a huge category. Can someone clue me in on policy regarding 'future films'? bpage (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources have documented the fact that production has commenced and that release dates have been announced, then in broad policy terms there's no reason these films might not be covered. The main concern would be notability -- films from established larger studios or well-known producers/directors would have an easier time establishing that. In the case of indie films, establishing notability might be trickier. But I don't think that the policies of not promoting and not crystal-ball-gazing mean future films can't be covered. As ever, coverage in reliable sources is the key, and each case/article would need to be examined on its merits. (And if there's a specific policy that covers this more specifically, my apologies for not mentioning it.) Gusworld (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a policy, but rather a guideline: closest to what you're looking for is probably Notability (films): Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the guidance. I feel much smarter now! bpage (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 use of primary sources for OR

Resolved
 – Consensus that the way it is written is OR. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sources in question:
FlightAware (adsb stats)
FlightAware (tracklog)
FlightRadar (flight data)

However, FlightAware has no coverage over Ukraine; and all of the track reported for MH17 on the previous day's flight beyond 51°10′23″N 24°23′55″E is based on estimates. Another tracking site, Flightradar24 shows that MH17 consistently flew over separatist held areas, between Donetsk and Horlivka, in the previous 16 days.

  • Talk page discussion: [46]

Would like a fresh pair of eyes and opinions on this content. I personally think it falls under WP:OR as the sourcing is comprised of websites with data/stats and the accompanying text relying on the primary sources appear to be an original analysis/interpretation of the material by a WP editor. Are we able to say to our readers that the article content is reliable and verifiable without them having any further specialized knowledge in this area of flight data analysis.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure that these websites are what we mean when we talk about primary sources. Secondary sources can contain data and stats. However, if their data for the flights is based on an estimate, then I would question whether they are reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Would not the first sentence of the content in question be 'fixed' by simply removing the "However, ". It then becomes a statement of fact - with citations from the organisation itself to back it up. I agree that the second sentence "appears" to be WP:OR - but that depends on the interpretation of a primary source. To my mind, the primary source is the transmission by the aircraft. But this data is collected on the ground and sent to FR24 where it is edited to make it more readable by the general public. The German version of this page uses FR24 as a source and gives the aircraft's last know position as "13:21:28 Uhr UTC von der Position ♁48° 2′ 25″ N, 38° 46′ 22″ O (Höhe 33.000 Fuß, Kurs 118°) ". Obviously it could be WP:OR to point out that this is 15km past the crash site and heading away from it - fair enough. Alternatively, why not cite the NYT (which used FR24 as a source) as a counter-claim to the WSJ ? Montenegroman (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree this would be OR as written. We should not be trying to judge the accuracy/deficiencies of a flight tracking website, and instead if there are inconsistencies in data that have been addressed by reliable sources, let them explain that issue to be included; if no one talks about it, then we can't address it. (They may have priveledged data that the average public member can't see, for example or they could be making it up unethically, but either way we can't judge beyond that) --MASEM (t) 13:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is any judgement required with regards to the accuracy/deficiencies of FlightAware. They are perfectly clear about it on their own website. They have no receiver coverage within this area and their flight logs show that all flights over this area are estimates. Personally, I would ignore/delete the entire WSJ comment on the grounds of poor journalism and save the bother of providing other citations to "indicate that they they might not be entirely right about this". Montenegroman (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I commented on the talk page. A WSJ reporter concluded that previously, Flight 17 had not travelled over the war zone, but an editor says the reporter should have used a better source for flight paths which would have provided different results. That is original research. If the editor is correct, one would expect subsequent news reports to correct the error, or at least say that there are different conclusions which could be drawn. It is OR because we would have to determine how far back we would have to go in examining flight paths and know where the war zone was at different times. We would also have to determine whether other Air Malaysia flights (such as the return flights) could have travelled over the area. We also need to assess the accuracy of each of the sources used. TFD (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

The following RFC could use additional input and may be of interest to the members of this noticeboard Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#RFC (Particularly the argument that the statement in the question is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to be used in the context of human shields) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

...is taking place at the COI Noticeboard here, [47]. It is a thorny issue, of a Harvard Prof and wife contributing two thirds of all article content on the Prof (including a 2013 edit that more than doubled the biographical content of the article), and basing primacy of discovery claims on the Prof's own published primary sources (raising COI/POV issues, but also OR issues in the editor's choosing between primary sources). A further issue is the overly positive tone of their article, and the lack of substantive coverage of controversies engendered by the Prof's statements and writings. Please chime in there if application of WP policies regarding original research in science writing (or non-independence/autobiographical/POV/COI matters) are in your area of WP expertise or interest. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing summaries, maps, etc from list articles

OK, sorry to start this in a new section, but there are a lot of related things going on here and it's getting a bit unwieldy. Above we've discussed removal of the summary tables from the article on fatal dog attacks in the US. It seems like there is at the very least a strong consensus for removing the tables independent of whether or not the list itself is OR or notable. As part of the discussion, Chrisrus brought up that the the maps on List of fatal bear attacks in North America are essentially equivalent, and some editors agreed that in fact the two things are equivalent, so the maps should be removed. I've tried to remove them but Chrisrus has reverted me there, so I'd like to clarify that there is indeed consensus that maps and summary tables compiled from discretely sourced lists are original research, independent of whether or not the list itself is original research.

I would contend that this is indeed the case, as while there may be some case made that discretely sourced lists are not inherently synthesis, there is no useful information conveyed in a count or summary of Wikipedia's coverage of these things, and so they are either attempting to convey something beyond the scope of the sources (which do not discuss these as a group) or we're conveying just arbitrary, uninteresting information. Either way they should be removed, even from discretely-sourced lists which are found to be acceptable. (Note: when I say "discretely sourced lists" I don't include lists where there's a source for all the items of the list that is fleshed out with individual sources for each item.)0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the bear attack maps and explained on the talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the maps should be removed for the reasons stated by 0x0077BE. However, I think that these maps are not as egregious as the Summary Tables from dog bites that started this discussion. A big problem with those Summary Tables was that there was no clear way to construct them (e.g. do we add together bites from Labs and Lab-mixes?). The map, on the other hand, is a point pattern, so there is a clear way to construct it. If a list article were summarized with a Choropleth map that would be more analogous to the Summary Tables and would be a major OR violation. That said, I still agree that the maps should be removed for the reasons 0x0077BE stated.Onefireuser (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The map is OR too. It purports to be a neutral presentation of dog attacks. In reality it is dog reports which were reported on by the media, where wikipedia editors happened to find those media reports (which probalby throws googles algorithms into the mix), decide if those attacks meet the criteria that were selected by wikipedia, and where the summary of each individual report was again written using the analysis of wikipedia editors. The latter topic tells you very little about the prior one. Media reports are not randomly distributed, googles algorithm to index and bubble up reports is not random. Wikipedia's editor's notice is not randomly distributed etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue of what dog attacks or bear attacks that are added to the list , and whether the map is original research, are separate issues. As long as the map is showing the sourced location of each incident presently on the list, it is not original research, as long as it is identified this way ("A map of the incidents shown below"). The question whether the list presents a fair summary of the incidents is a separate issue. There can be media bias here (eg such reports will be easily found for Western/English speaking parts of the world compared to other languages or less-to-do areas), and that's something editors have to watch for in their edits. But as long as editors are making a fair attempt to include all noted stories of these attacks, then its fine. I will point out that there is a potential OR here, for example, because most of the stories will come from English-speaking countries, there's the apparent (BUT 100% WRONG) correlation that most fatal dog attacks happen in English-speaking countries that will also be suggested by the map. This might be a reason not to include the map if editors do not feel they are fairly representing all such dog attacks across the globe. Contrary to that, bear attacks are going to be geographically limited (eg I doubt we'll ever find a bear attack in Chile), though potentially the same issue can apply. So the maps are not outright OR wrong but they may imply a bias if the selection of items on the list has a systematic bias that has yet to be countered, and may be better to be left out. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. The fact that the inclusion criterion for the map is "this is something Wikipedians have found and added" means it is at best useless information, and at worst it's creating the impression that the locations of bear attacks included in the Wikipedia article is somehow significant. The problem is that the map is effectively synthesizing information about the physical distribution of bear attacks out of sources which do not purport to be a reliable sampling method for that information. We can't verify how complete the list is or what biases are present without either a secondary source to that effect (which would make it not a disparately-sourced list) or without doing original research. Either way, this is not even in the same league as the examples in WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR, which is about doing stuff like calculating percentages from given totals, or doing unit conversions or other straightforward calculations.
Honestly, compiling a list of all fatal bear attacks and breaking them down by geographic location is a research project - it's the sort of thing you'd see in a peer-reviewed journal, but the difference is that before publication the sampling methodology would be scrutinized by experts in the field to ensure that the maps don't create a false impression and that the research was performed properly. If the editors of this page are so confident that they have created an exhaustive list of fatal bear attacks in North America, and that some value can be gleaned from a view of the geographic distribution of these attacks, they should compile it into a research paper and submit it to a scientific journal. Once it passes peer review and gets published, they'd have a source for the comprehensive nature of the article, plus an extra peer-reviewed paper on their resume. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
While I don't think it changes the larger discussion about disparately sourced lists and the summary thereof, looking closer at the list of fatal bear attacks, I've noticed that one of the sources does seem to be a comprehensive list of fatal bear attacks, including a map. Details here, so I'm not sure that this is a good test case. That said, the fact that it was published in an academic journal just underscores my point that the idea of putting together a list like this and synthesizing the information into summary tables and maps is a research project - one that academics publish in academic journals. It's still inappropriate for us to do it here, but once it's been done and published I have no problem with its inclusion in the encyclopedia. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Plotting the locations of where sourced events of a specific type occur, by itself is not original research; location information is undisputable information as long as we trust the sources, and the act of making a map is a trivial calculation for all purposes. But, my second point is that because of the systematic bias of what bear or dog attacks will be readily sourcable compared to others (eg a bear attack anywhere in the United States is definitely going to have coverage, but the same is unlikely true of, say, eastern Russia), then mapping them can be possibly an NPOV issue because it will emphasize the systematic bias that we know exists. Unless we are convinced that the list has managed to remove that systematic bias (a good example would a map of locations of earthquakes with > 7.0 magnitude, as we know that such will be covered by neutral sources in a world-wide manner) then the map is a possible problem in such lists. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"And you are lynching Negroes"

This is about a See Also link on the And you are lynching Negroes page, which refers to the Human Rights Record of the United States, a document by the Chinese government in response to the US government's United States' Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. I've reverted the link, some other editors put it back, which states "a document issued by the Communist government of China, referencing in the introduction US Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on China and "prepared to urge the United States to face up to its own human rights issues".

I reverted this because it's frankly a case of original research, synthesis, and violation of NPOV. The "And you are lynching Negroes" phrase refers a Cold War phenomenon, and as shown by its references, specifically deals with the Soviet Union. Apparently the See Also link was only added because China's government is also "communist", despite the fact that many political scientists regard the PRC as communist in name only, having embraced market capitalism. Furthermore, None of the references used on the Chinese report article actually links the AYALN concept with China's report.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is an inappropriate link. Linking it would imply that the document from China is an irrelevant counter argument to a different issue as in the joke. That is original research and I certainly think wrong to dismiss such a document and its criticisms in that way. Also it is not specifically enough related to the article topic that including it would not include rather too many other similar things in the see also. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
But isn't that "See also" link another example of a country calling attention to another country's shortcomings? As such, isn't it related? Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
You could link dozens of pages if not hundreds if you were to take a broad view. Something that dealt with an issue from another country along the same lines would be more appropriate. I would question why this requires it's own article as it's not very notable and can easily be incorporated into a larger article on Russia - perhaps a "Russian human rights views" or some such. JMJimmy (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The United States issues United States' Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The People's Republic of China has taken issue with these reports and have published their own Human Rights Record of the United States. The Soviet Union too has taken issue with anecdotal allegations of United States criticism of the Soviet Union over alleged human rights abuses. There is a degree of relatedness between the article being suggested for inclusion in the "See also" section and the article containing that "See also" section. I think this is a legitimate use for a "See also" section. I don't think this is WP:OR. I think the average reader will see this as a related article provided in the "See also" section for their consideration. Our aim should be to provide the reader with similar examples of governments calling attention to one another's shortcomings in the area of human rights, as that is one of the key themes of the And you are lynching Negroes article. Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I do see where you're going, I think it's just too broad of an interpretation of the article. The article isn't about US or Russian human rights per se, but about the propaganda used and the fallacies of it. If you can find an example of the US doing that to Russia during the cold war that would be more appropriate or similar concepts like Poisoning the well JMJimmy (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I too have to wonder whether the punchline to a joke is really notable enough for a stand alone article. Yes, it says something about how countries respond to accusations of human rights abuse... but that does not mean it should have its own article. Not sure where to put it, but I would suggest making it a section within an article on a related topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It is/was very significant, it's been trotted out for the better part of a century and is still being used today in political commentary. Honestly, it's starting to seem like you're looking for a way to diminish/invalidate the article in some way. There are several suggestion's I've made to include some US information, specifically: The sequence is USA accuses -> Soviets use the line. Why not look into what they were accusing them of that prompted the response? What was the US response to the tactic? JMJimmy (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "The sequence is USA accuses -> Soviets use the line". But an entry in the "See also" section does not have to correspond to that "sequence". Such an entry does not even have to be about those two countries. China is also a superpower. We can allow for the possibility that some readers are interested in the accusations of human rights abuses flung by one country at another country. That is not too broad an interpretation of the topic of articles such as And you are lynching Negroes, Human Rights Record of the United States, and United States' Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
If there isn't an article like that one, write it. "And you are lynching Negroes" wouldn't be a part of it because it's NOT about the human rights. You can remove it from the equation and the accusations still get flung around. It was a tool for shutting down the conversation and redirecting it to somewhere the accuser didn't want to go. Highly effective, even predicted before it existed. US response could have been "two wrongs don't make a right" but it doesn't have the sting and is still off message. Yes there were human rights issues at play but it could just as easily have been a territorial dispute or a corruption scandal - the response could have been the same and had the same effect. That was the twisted genius of it and why it's endured. JMJimmy (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not just a "tool for shutting down the conversation"[48]. The legacy of slavery in America is a human rights travesty, and I'm sure you agree. Should an accusation in the form of an article be placed in the "See also" section if that article explores one country's finger-pointing at another country for similar human rights abuses? Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I refrain from any comment on whether the PRC thing should be part of the article, but I note that the discussion is moving toward suggestions that we should kill the article itself, which is quite inane. The joke is well attested in several Eastern European cultures (including my own), and points at the travesty of Soviet inquiries into the "crimes of capitalism". It is a historical phenomenon that was found relevant enough to be discussed in secondary sources, and it should not be covered up by redirecting it into a forest of other factoids. Wikipedia, I remind you, is not paper. And where there is place to argue for the cultural relevancy of the One Direction discography there surely is place to argue for the relevancy of a joke, widespread in the Eastern bloc, that undermined the very core of Soviet propaganda.
"The legacy of slavery in America is a human rights travesty, and I'm sure you agree." No, I for one won't agree: the very notion is absurd, and the vague wording is of the exact kind used by the Soviets to equivocate. The US is and was a (largely) functional democracy, where lynching crimes existed but were marginal and were prosecuted, whereas the Soviet Union was an abusive state, whose very legal system was for the most part murderous or abusive (executing people for vague allegations of treason, imprisoning people for not denouncing "political crimes", deporting entire populations based on institutionalized collective responsibility, imprisoning young men in forced labor camps for wearing jeans or listening to American music, etc. etc.). The Soviets' propagandists were, or pretended to be, incapable of differentiating between "citizens of the US", who risked prosecution for their lynching crimes and were always punishable at the end of due process, and "authorities of the Soviet Union", who created the absurd laws, and who often disregarded laws of their own creation when even minimal common sense proved a hindrance.
And in fact that "I'm sure you agree" line of reasoning is why the article serves a purpose -- the joke was used by the people of Soviet-occupied countries to spell out what this sort of nonsense meant for them, in practical terms; they still knew how to make the difference between the necessary delays of justice in a liberal state and the travesty of justice in a totalitarian one. Dahn (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say that U.S. mistreatment of Black people was identical to Soviet mistreatment of certain groups of people deemed enemies of the State by those who wielded power. You "refrain from any comment on whether the PRC thing should be part of the article". But that is what we are discussing. We are ultimately discussing whether we find inclusion of this Wikipedia article in the "See also" section of this article to be somewhat in violation of the policy of WP:NOR. I don't think that placing the Human Rights Record of the United States article in the "See also" section of the And you are lynching Negroes article constitutes original research. In my opinion the relation between the two articles is fairly close. Not identical, but close enough so that a reader may find the other article of interest. Bus stop (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not about accusations and finger pointing, it's a famous counter-argument. They neither denied anything nor brought up anything that wasn't already well known and on its way out. Lynchings were a known travesty, in the 30s it was still an issue and from what I've been able to dig up that's when the sentiments started (around 1929). Slavery had nothing to do with it, nor is it mentioned in the article. The saying, as it relates to lynching (more commonly now is "hanging") became popular in the late 40s to 60s. It was not the first time the tactic had been used though, far less memorable versions that had nothing to do with lynching existed in Lenin's time and possibly earlier. Not a lot I can source since I don't speak Russian but it's out there. That's what makes this one notable though is that it did stick and if you search the Russian terms (esp hanging) you'll see it used all over the place. Anyway, alternatives you might consider: We begin bombing in five minutes or the old joke "A Soviet worker was asked to describe his factory. We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." (not sure if there's an article). There's not a huge amount of notable satire from the cold war on the US side, they tended towards the fear and hope dichotomy - that might be appropriate as well. Devolving the article into effectively what it's talking about ("But look at yourself compared to us!") is just sad. JMJimmy (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of getting rid of the standalone article by merging it into "Russian political humor", if only as part of improving the latter one. It is corroborated by the remark of JMJimmy about "'We pretend to work". Quite a a few saying of this type became not simply jokes, but catchphrases that uncover the essence of Soviet system. And "you are lynching negroes" is not particularly distinguished among them. -No.Altenmann >t 08:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert war

I didn't look into the article carefully lately, but I agree with opinions of some that it has become (and was several years ago) a magnet for various OR attempting to "explain" the joke. A minute ago I deleted a big chunk of some. Please assess my edit. -No.Altenmann >t 09:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

<sigh> Pleas your opinon about another my chop. -No.Altenmann >t 09:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Reverted all edits. Rather than immediately butchering the article, which you seem rather intent on pushing a pro-American WP:POV, you could request additional citations. I will gladly provide them and adjust the language of my text as required. JMJimmy (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather than engaging in personal and political attacks, please explain how the deleted text was properly supplied with references which discuss the article subject, namely the Soviet phrase. -No.Altenmann >t 16:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I requested WP:THIRD about the issue, but IMO this WP:NOR msg board is the correct forum to address the issue of WP:SYNTH in the article. See its history. -No.Altenmann >t 16:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Which part? You removed over half the article. I provided an essay for the Scottsboro image which states "Some of the attacks on American racism or militarism — as seen in the caricatures and cartoons on display here — were largely intended by their creator to make successful careers in a world dominated by the Soviet version of Russian values. Many, however, may well have picked up a little steam along the way from Russian awe at the shamelessness of the Americans: building their “city on the hill,” while lynching “the Scottsboro boys” (image 11). (And those Americans don’t even know what hypocrites they are!)" While it does not use the exact words it's rather clear that it's talking about the same concept. I had 2 more citations, one dealing with the Deni image and one dealing with both deni and moor but you kept reverting as I was trying to add them. I haven't had time to get to the German one though I will likely revert that myself as there's not much known about the image other than its source and while a reasonable person could likely establish the obvious connection between the concept being discussed and the text/image it is a grey area between OR and common sense. JMJimmy (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with Altenmann that the text removed was for the large part WP:SYNTH. I don't agree with him that this article should be merged, and I also believe that the article can be improved and expanded with more orthodox referencing. Dahn (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
<Sigh> the article is in for a 10th anniversary, and so far no "orthodox" references appeared. I myself tried do add some, in order to save it from AfD inn 2007. Marginal luck. -No.Altenmann >t 00:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Lets take a look at what he deleted:
Deleted Text
The joke is intended to expose the logical fallacy of citing a single boilerplate tu quoque counter-criticism as a general defense against completely unrelated forms of legitimate critique; in the original joke, the American car dealer's argument about the failure of the Soviet system to produce high-quality automobiles or enough of them to equip their middle class is a legitimate criticism that is not effectively diminished or countered by the (equally legitimate, but utterly irrelevant) counterpoint from the Soviet car dealer that the United States has a history of unfair race relations with African-Americans. The humor thus stems from the obvious logical fallacy inherent to the Soviet counter-argument, which fails to address the original criticism (because it is undeniable) and instead responds with an equally undeniable but completely unrelated counter-criticism against the American, thus avoiding having to ever admit fault.
This is simply adding pros to already accepted citations for tu quoque and the joke in question. It's not adding any new ideas or asserting anything not already stated. The minor exception that some of the language might be tweaked to be less general (ie: "unfair race relations" is a bit ambiguous as an example) The humor portion needs proper citation but why not flag it with "citation needed" instead of deleting everything? Give people a chance to cite it or rewrite the sentence in a way that doesn't require it. One citation is poor and should be removed, the other citation is just referencing basic logic fallacy. Tu quoque is an Argumentum Ad Hominem which is what the citation is addressing.
Original essay 100%. If you have citations, you are welcome. For 10(!) years of this article not a single reference is provided which analyzes the joke in detail, rather than simply mentioning it and its possible origin. As for "why not flag" I say: why not write properly in the first place? You are not a novice in wikipedia. -No.Altenmann >t 23:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Rome wasn't built in a day. I added the information in good faith providing a reference which established a weak link as I continued to research. Perhaps someone else sees this and can provide more info better references while I continue to dig. Maybe I would have to withdraw it, as I have with the German image. My edits didn't last 10 hours while some "citation needed" links last years. Within 24 hours I had 2 quality sources but couldn't even get the 2nd one up due to reversions. As to the "Original essay 100%", yes it's also quasi-self-published under ISBN 0933519494 / 0-933519-49-4 / 9780933519497 I almost didn't consider it myself until I saw that it had quality citations and upon researching the author I found it was by an expert in the field http://watson.brown.edu/people/faculty/gleason JMJimmy (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
YOu are welcome to remove text unreferenced for years. YOu are not welcome to add unreferenced text.-No.Altenmann >t 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Unreferenced text is added all the time, it's often not noticed on less controversial topics, that said I did provide references for everything I added. You found to be unsatisfactory and I immediately added another while continuing to search for more. You make it sound like I'm making these edits in bad faith. I didn't set out to find this article, or even know of it's existence, I just noticed the discussion which led to me removing two links. I try and take the position that if I'm going to remove something from an article I should try to add something to it. I do so simply because I know how hard it is to build something and how simple it is to destroy it. As a result I've spent more than 15 hours researching the topic. JMJimmy (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
re "You make it sound like I'm making these edits in bad faith." What makes you think so? All what I say is that you deep misunderstanding of our policy. Now, I am asking you for the fourth time: did you read WP:SYNTH? Please answer this simple question.-No.Altenmann >t 17:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I know the limits of SYNTH very well. What you don't seem to understand is What SYNTH is not or the difference between WP:OR and Compiling & Contextualizing. JMJimmy (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted Text
However, earlier evidence of the concept or variations of the phrase can be found dating back to Victor Deni's 1929 postcard image "Democracy of Mr. Lynch". David Winton Bell Gallery, Brown University Library Shortly there after, in 1931, Dmitri Moor produced "Freedom to the prisoners of Scottsboro!" David Winton Bell Gallery, Brown University Library Abbott (Tom) Gleason, Keeney Professor of History Emeritus in reference to the Scottsboro Boys of Alabama.
As stated, I have further citations, however, looking strictly at the Gleason essay, aside from the bulk of the discussion therein, it specifically mentions "And those Americans don’t even know what hypocrites they are". This phrase, while not identical to the Russian text, is addressing tu quoque propaganda of which the Moor image was a direct response to an attempted lynching incident. Synth or not that's entirely reasonable as it addresses the lynching, propaganda, and tu quoque aspects of the phrase.
Original research, plain and clear: cherry-picking of usages of similar phrases. -No.Altenmann >t 23:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not OR. I made no assertion that it was the phrase. I made an assertion similarities existed between other propaganda and the phrase (perhaps my wording is not clear enough, I'll attempt to correct that). That's also why I changed the name of the section from "Origin" to "History"; I am attempting to flush out the propaganda & cultural influences around the topic without straying into general propaganda/culture which is not appropriate for this article. I also question if that is in fact the origin and assuming it is if it's the correct date, the source listed isn't entirely clear on the date. By 1962 there were almost no black lynchings in the US, only 5 between 1952 and 1962 so it seems unusual it would become prominent at that time. My research is on-going but the more I research it the more I believe I'll find earlier, hopefully citable, source(s) or a proper date. Right now all I have in that regard is synth/unreliable sources which is why I haven't added it. Much of the rhetoric along these lines stems from the period around 1920-1930ish from the likes of Vladimir Mayakovsky, Deni, and Moor (among others). It'll take me a while to properly research it though due to the language difficulties. JMJimmy (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
oh yes it is OR; you spell it yourself. I am repeating for the third time; DID you look at WP:SYNH at all? I think not, otherwise you would not have argued "I made an assertion similarities exist...". You are welcome to do research you descirbe, but you have to publish it elsewhere, not in wikipedia. -No.Altenmann >t 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
see section above for my response to that. JMJimmy (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted Text

Later a science fiction comic, Technique - The Youth. - 1948. - № 2 titled "In a world of crazy fantasy" (Russian: "В мире бредовой фантастики") adapted the phrase for the cover which included the line Russian: "Линчуют негров всех планет", "Every planet's Negroes are being lynched there".Fandom.ru(in Russian)

I sought out a native language speaker's translation of this on IRC (##russian which helps people learn Russian) and they translated the phrase as "Every planet's Negroes are being lynched there". This is obvious and while I intend to add more about the comic itself to establish if it was a propaganda comic or not, however, the full text translation of what appears on the cover appears to be a laundry list of the typical propaganda attacks (military complex/wall street/racism/etc).
Original research base on a primary source: a line from a propaganda verse. Dubious, too. How do you know that the phrase was adapted? In 1948? When we don't know this joke earlier than 1962. -No.Altenmann >t 23:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that I should support this further, it's going to take a bit of time. The obviousness of the translation compared to the joke is hard to deny. I definitely should remove the word "adapted" as that is unsupportable without a source and does imply a connection which was not intended. JMJimmy (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted Text
The Soviet media frequently covered stories of racial discrimination in the west, as well as reporting on the impacts of unemployment and financial crises, which were seen as inherent problems of the capitalist system that had been erased by the strict egalitarianism of the Communist system. The history of lynchings of African Americans was thus seen as an embarrassing skeleton in the closet for the US which the Soviets frequently used as a stock form of defensive rhetorical ammunition whenever they were reproached for the various failings of the Soviet system, such as their inferior industrial and agricultural production, their human rights abuses and the relatively low standard of living for their workers. Lucas, Edward (2009). "5". The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 109. ISBN 0230614345.
I don't have access to this book, presumably Altenmann does. Could you scan pages 108-110 and post them to allow us to evaluate this section properly? JMJimmy (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is available for preview at amazon.com. This page does not speak about Soviet Union at all: it speaks about how in Putin's Russia tu quoue argument is used. In other words, it is not even close a reference to the footnoted text. -No.Altenmann >t 23:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have page 109 available in my book preview. I do have access to the references which #19 on page 235 states "The accusation "u vas negrov linchuyut" ["And you are lynching Negroes"] became a catchphrase epitomizing Soviet propaganda based on this principle.". That reference is for page 109 so would seem to contradict your statement. There is also no footnoted text in that book, it's all in a reference section at the end. I should note that the use of Hmong language instead of Russian is strange. JMJimmy (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
let me repeat: p. 109 is about putin. the whole book is about putin. yes, it has a footnote you cite, a side remark. this footnote says what our article says at the top, big deal. it does not support the essay in question.-No.Altenmann >t 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. I'll remove that citation, I'm too tired at the moment to properly analyze whether or not that section is worth trying to salvage. If you could allow me 24 hours before we pull the trigger on deleting it? JMJimmy (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC input requested Talk:Pariah_state#RfC:_Is_the_List_section_original_research.?

Even if each individual entry at Pariah state#List is appropriately sourced, is the compilation original research WP:OR or inappropriate synthesis WP:SYNTH and if so, should the list be deleted? Input is requested. 22:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is edging on NPOV. However, if the list was limited to "Nations that have been designated as Pariah states by the United Nations" (both current and past), that would be reasonable, assuming that we specifically use references from the UN that note this. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What the DSM-5 team did not do

About [49] and [50]: no source has been provided and I was answered with: [51]. I consider this WP:SPA account indulging too much in original research, even after repeatedly warned about it and repeatedly asked to provide evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See for details Talk:Pornography addiction/Archive 1#False claims by Chrislyte. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I consider Tgeorgescu disingenuous. He wants to claim that the DSM-5 "specifically rejected" "internet pornography addiction" based on a throwaway comment about another addiction in the DSM that remarked that there was, at that time, inadequate research demonstrating the existence of pornography addiction. It's appropriate to mention that the DSM indeed said that, but wrong to characterize this throwaway comment as "specifically rejection" of the concept. Such mischaracterization implies that the DSM engaged in the usual, formal review proceeding about "internet pornography addiction" and found the concept wanting on substantive grounds. This is simply not the case. Moreover, two recent studies from top institutions (Cambridge University and Max Planck addiction neuroscientists) have since found evidence that internet porn indeed causes addiction-related brain changes. Moreover, DSM insider, Richard Kreuger said it's just a matter of time until the condition is accepted.
More nuanced language is appropriate here than "specifically rejected."Chrislyte (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte
So, what's the source of your information that the DSM-5 team did not formally consider it: are you a mind reader and have you read their mind? Besides, it is unwise to consider that attacking me would amount to proof for your claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
He admitted that he has no proof for it: [52]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me say this: if I write inside Wikipedia that the assassination of Lincoln did not happen, I have to produce a source for my claim. That's what WP:VER means, and I told you to take time and read it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The same holds for the claim that Woodrow Wilson wasn't assassinated. If I make such claim, I have to offer reasonable proof for it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
You need secondary sources for this article, not the DSM or individual studies, but sources that consider the DSM and the studies and explains the degree of acceptance the diagnosis has, why some experts support it and others do not, and who these experts are. It is odd too that most of the article is about internet porn addiction. Does that mean that if someone watches streamed pornography it is a different condition that if they watched the same material using a DVD player? But no you should not say that internet pornography addiction is not a DSM-recognized condition, unless a source says that. And the reason is that saying it is not recognized may cast doubt on its validity, while it could be that while it is not in DSM-5 it is scheduled to be added in DSM-6. A secondary source would address that issue. TFD (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
DSM-5 explicitly rejects it because a lack of evidence, that's verifiable information and that's dully explained inside the article. According to WP:BALL we cannot know if it will ever make into DSM-6. This topic is about a claim that DSM-5 team has not formally considered including or excluding it from the DSM. How does he know what he purports to know? Mind reading excepted, he has to produce a source for his claim. I have produced a reliable source for verifying my claim and provided a verifying quote inside the talk page. It is a fact that the DSM-5 considers neither sex addiction nor viewing pornography online as addictions and it is explained inside the article why it does so, quoting DSM-5 itself which actually states why it does so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
And this is the actual source, saying explicitly what I claimed that it says:

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 481, 797–798. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8. In addition to the substance-related disorders, this chapter also includes gambling disorder, reflecting evidence that gambling behaviors activate reward systems similar to those activated by drugs of abuse and produce some behavioral symptoms that appear comparable to those produced by the substance use disorders. Other excessive behavioral patterns, such as Internet gaming, have also been described, but the research on these and other behavioral syndromes is less clear. Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders. ... Excessive use of the Internet not involving playing of online games (e.g., excessive use of social media, such as Facebook; viewing pornography online) is not considered analogous to Internet gaming disorder, and future research on other excessive uses of the Internet would need to follow similar guidelines as suggested herein. Excessive gambling online may qualify for a separate diagnosis of gambling disorder. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
To be sure, I accused him of indulging in original research, he did not accuse of me doing original research and he cannot do so in good faith (I edit Wikipedia for more than 11 years and I know its rules, he is the newbie). My edits are verifiable, what I claimed here is that some of his edits are unverifiable and constitute original research. So, this wasn't a problem about my edits, it is a problem about his edits. Accusing me of being disingenuous isn't going to provide a source for verifying his claim about what the DSM-5 team did not do. He recently argued that it cannot be proven what the DSM-5 team did not do, since he cannot prove that something which did not happen did not happen. So, he indulged in original research by his own admission and he repeatedly refused to offer a source for verifying his edit. That's why I have reverted his edit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The article which cites dr. Krueger states that the DSM-5 did not include it because it lacked evidence for it and a quote from Krueger himself corroborates this. So, it is a verifiable statement of fact that it is not included in DSM-5, I mean it is not even listed as a condition for further study (like Internet gaming disorder is). Krueger said that when there will be enough evidence for it, it will likely be included in the DSM, but DSM-5 was published a year ago and nobody can claim that a revolution took place in this respect in the medical orthodoxy. I never stated that it will not be included in future editions of DSM since according to WP:BALL there is no way to know if it will be included in DSM-6, DSM-7, DSM-8, DSM-9 or DSM-10. Well, except the way of wait and see if it happens. Wikipedia is behind the ball and it will have to wait till then in order to acknowledge that pornography addiction is a consensually accepted addiction. US insurance companies don't pay for its treatment precisely because it wasn't included in DSM-5, and this is a piece of relevant and verifiable information. I did not mean that it would be proven that it isn't an addiction, I meant that there is no consensus that it would constitute an addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right, we cannot know if it will ever make it into DSM-6. Equally we do not know that it will not. All we know is that at present there is "insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria." To guess that it will eventually be included would be wrong. Also to guess that it will never be included based on what they have said is equally wrong. The wording does not rule it out but is what one would expect them to say for any new diagnosis whether it would or would not become eventually accepted. That's how science works. Scientists posit an hypothesis and then conduct research that will either support or disprove it. In the meantime, your view is "crystal ball", because you are implying that DSM will never accept the diagnosis.
Of course it may be that scientists have reviewed the diagnosis and have developed a consensus that the diagnosis will never be accepted for whatever reason. If so you should add that to the article, rather than merely relying on your own analysis.
TFD (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have nowhere claimed that it will never be accepted by the DSM. So, your recommendation misses the point. I have simply described what DSM-5 states and why it states that, no more, no less. "Is not currently a diagnosis" means that it is not accepted at the present time, and "cited a lack of research support for refusing to include it at this time" does not imply that there will never be enough evidence. I am careful in respect to what I put in the article and I do not indulge in unwarranted speculation and crystal ball gazing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You wrote in the article, ""Viewing online pornography" is mentioned verbatim inside DSM-5 and explicitly rejected as a mental disorder."[53] That is misleading because it implies that the DSM had sufficient information to determine it was not a valid diagnosis which would preclude their future acceptance. In fact they had insufficient evidence to accept it, which is what the text said before you changed it. So according to DSM it could be a mental disorder, they just do not know.
You obviously believe the diagnosis is malarkey and want readers to know that. But you need a reliable source that says that, which DSM does not.
TFD (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It was explicitly rejected for inclusion in DSM-5, that's an objective fact, and the article tells its readers that that was due to insufficient evidence. My own standpoint is explained at [54]: it is not part of medical orthodoxy at the present moment and we don't know if it will ever be. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The article does not imply that it was forever rejected, it was rejected for inclusion in DSM-5, for lack of evidence, and that is what the article tells to its readers, see my last edit at [55], which spells it out very clearly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Now it is even clearer: [56]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Your phrasing misrepresents the source. It's like saying if you applied for a job and they told you to come back tomorrow with your social security card before they could consider it that your application for employment was rejected. TFD (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Which part of it do you disagree with? State precisely what should be changed in what. It is verifiable information that it was rejected from being included in DSM-5, I did not make that up. And the reason was lack of evidence, that's fully explained in the article. It was rejected from being included in DSM-5 because then there was no evidence for it. When DSM-6 will be published, we will know if it got included in DSM-6. Till then it remains a fact that it did not get included in the DSM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Find a reliable secondary source that explains the situation, instead of relying on primary sources and your personal interpretation. TFD (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DSM-5 literally says what I claim that it says, so there is no "interpretation" (except literal interpretation). Besides, I have added a footnote based upon Dr. Krueger's views, who was a DSM-5 insider, according to Maclean's and to User:Chrislyte. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit says, ""Viewing online pornography" is mentioned verbatim inside DSM-5 and explicitly rejected as a mental disorder." That implies that they said it was not a mental disorder when in fact they said there was insufficient evidence to include it. And you should use a secondary sources, instead of providing your own original research to primary ones.

And your quoting Dr. Krueger does not help because you need good sources to establish the degree of acceptance his opinions have. You should read WP:MEDRS, which provides guidelines for the types of sources to use. Maclean's is not the best source for psychiatric information.

TFD (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Krueger is not the best source, no objection to that. However my points about what DSM-5 says are:
  • "viewing pornography online" is mentioned verbatim in DSM-5 — this is undeniable;
  • excessive use of the internet includes viewing pornography online — this is also undeniable;
  • excessive use of the internet is not considered analogous to internet gaming disorder (which is a condition for further study) — undeniable;
  • future research about excessive internet use would have to follow the DSM-5 guidelines — undeniable;
  • excessive use of the internet is neither a mental disorder nor a condition for further study — this has no page number, but can be proven by simply searching a PDF file containing DSM-5;
  • therefore excessive internet use (which contains viewing pornography online) is not (yet) a mental disorder — conclusion of a multiple syllogism.
This is what I am saying. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the quote and now it is clear that the only behavioral addiction which is included as a mental disorder in DSM-5 is gambling addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the text to:

The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes a new section for behavioral addictions, but includes only one disorder: pathological gambling,[12] while only one other behavioral addiction, Internet gaming disorder, belongs to the conditions proposed for further study in DSM-5.[12] Psychiatrists cited a lack of research support for refusing to include other behavioral disorders at this time.[12]

Porn addiction is not currently a diagnosis in DSM-5, since it is none of two behavioral addictions mentioned above.[12] "Viewing online pornography" is mentioned verbatim inside DSM-5[12] and it is neither gambling disorder nor internet gaming disorder, therefore viewing online pornography is not included in DSM-5 as a mental disorder or as a condition for further study.

While pornography is mentioned inside DSM-5 when discussing several paraphilias, there is no such thing as pornography addiction or health hazard due to porn consumption, according to DSM-5.[13] DSM-5 does not consider pornography to be a mental health problem.[13]

If you ask me, the text is now weirder than ever, but I have removed the suggestion of original research, and made clear the reasoning why DSM-5 states that viewing pornography online isn't included as a mental disorder (because it is neither gambling disorder nor internet gaming disorder). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
See "Synthesis": "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source...."A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. " In this case DSM says (A) it only recognizes internet gambling addiction and also says (B) it does not recognize internet pornography addiction and you have added (C) it does not recognize internet pornography addiction because it is not internet gambling addiction. That's about as clearly as I am able to explain it and have repeatedly explained it throughout this conversation. TFD (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Forget about (C), let's just state (A) and (B). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
So, what's your solution, what should be removed from the text? What's original research inside it and what isn't? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If a reliable source says "Class Aves only includes birds", do we need an extra reliable source to affirm in Wikipedia's voice that "Class Aves does not include frogs"? Is it original research to claim that frogs do not belong to the class Aves, according to the cited reliable source? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bible cannot be used in this way because it has many translation issues which change the meaning of the text and needs highly sophisticated exegesis in order to make clear what its authors wanted to say in their cultural and historical context. DSM-5 is written in plain English, it does not presume advanced historical learning about the 21st century and about the American culture in order to be understood. Any bona fide reader of DSM-5 will confirm the points I made above. So I do not understand why DSM-5 cannot be allowed to speak for itself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"Class Aves only includes birds" is a tautology. A better example would be when someone claims to have identified a new species x but the scientific community requires more evidence. So you do not say x is mentioned verbatim inside the lastest Audobon Society field guide and explicitly rejected as a species of bird. (Sorry, what comment about the Bible are you responding to?) TFD (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It was a comparison between analyzing the Bible and reading DSM-5. I would argue that "pornography addiction isn't gambling addiction" is a tautology, too. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
So your point is that unlike the Bible, an exception should be made to "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources": "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So we are working at cross-purposes. I am only explaining what the policy says. Whether or not it is a good policy is something better taken up at policy talk pages. TFD (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that DSM-5 is used as a primary source, but I disagree to call it synthesis. It's not a synthetic claim, it is an analytic claim (i.e. meaning plain reading). I have simply read what DSM-5 says about behavioral addictions, and porn addiction isn't listed therein. That's a verifiable fact, not something banned by WP:SYNTH. DSM-5 itself tells us that it allowed only one behavioral addiction to become a mental disorder, and porn addiction isn't that addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I found this source: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography.aspx . It seems like a highly reliable source, it tells us what DSM-5 team did, so problem has been settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It says, "When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was being drafted, experts considered a proposed diagnostic addiction called hypersexual disorder, which also included a pornography subtype. But in the end, reviewers determined that there wasn't enough evidence to include hypersexual disorder or its subtypes in the 2013 edition." That's way different from your "analysis" of what the DSM said and demonstrates why we should use secondary sources, rather than our personal judgments on primary sources. TFD (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal Death and OR in Jahi Mcmath article

requesting some fresh eyes please and opinion on Talk:Jahi_McMath_case#Legal_death_dispute where I am the ip editor being repeatedly rv and undone. Listed are two items which currently I have marked disputed on the article Jahi McMath case because they appear to be made-up, and/or original research, and also factually incorrect. I'm also being told that i am wrong and to basically stop editing the article because i am "wrong by consensus". 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this can be marked as resolved-Thank-you!24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC

People might be interested in RfC here, especially on whether it is WP:OR to link the claims as mentioned in the section. Kingsindian (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Moore/Mortimer Zuckerman

Moore and Zuckerman have both written op-ed pieces about economic matters. User:Soibangla is adding lengthy criticism of these op-eds using his/her own interpretation of economic data.[57][58] This is original synthesis and also gives undue weight to criticism of a small number of writings.GabrielF (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


User:GabrielF is incorrect when he/she states User:Soibangla "is adding...his/her own interpretation of economic data"

In fact, I have provided numerous links to official Bureau of Labor Statistics data to prove that the subjects, Moore and Zuckerman, have made statements of purported facts that are not, in reality, actual facts. I have also provided supporting statements from other authoritative sources to buttress my assertions of the actual facts I provided.

User:GabrielF is also incorrect to assert that I have given "undue weight to criticism of a small number of writings." The overwhelming majority of my citations have been to official Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Moreover, my edits show that the subjects, Moore and Zuckerman, have exhibited a pattern of making statements of purported facts that are not, in reality, actual facts.

User:GabrielF has engaged in wholesale, indiscriminate deletions of my edits. Moreover, he/she changed one of my edits to fundamentally alter its meaning in a misleading way, by changing what had been a clear determination of fact into a mere "disagreement" between parties. People are free to disagree on opinions or beliefs, but they are not free to disagree on facts.

Ancestry charts of the...

Ancestry charts of the current British Royal Family (Irish connection)

Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton

I found these charts to be very impressive until I realized they were completely unverifiable and made connections not found in the sources. They seem to partially match up with a couple of different amateur genealogists. They seem to have not been generally edited in a substantial way over the last two years.

Any suggestions?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources are unreliable and the articles should be deleted. The second article also lacks notability. Genealogists have long claimed that Edward III has millions of living descendants and a lecturer at the University of Durham estimates that the likelihood of a person of mostly English ancestry being descended from him to be over 99%.[59] TFD (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Claims by son of subject

User:CIC7 claims to be the son of William L. Uanna and has been repeatedly inserting, and edit warring over, claims concerning the circumstances of Uanna's death sourced to his own knowledge and to statements made at the conclusion of a movie on Youtube. The claim is an extreme one, that Uanna, who was a government official, was murdered rather than dying of natural causes as reported in reliable sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I've repeatedly raised WP:OR and WP:V, but he insists on adding this material. See [60] and other edits in that article, and his talk page posting at [61]. Input from experienced editors would be appreciated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Are lists of discretely sourced items WP:OR?

Do lists of items sourced to different WP:RSes, such as List of Presidential pets, List of inventors killed by their own inventions, or List of political self-immolations, constitute WP:OR? After all, each item has been taken from a different source and then compiled not by the source, but by Wikipedians. That seems at least superficially a bit like synthesis, WP:SYN. Does or does not WP:SYN imply that we can't put a list together from different sources, that we have to just find lists that have already been compiled by another source? Chrisrus (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Presidential pets seems like a well sourced page. It looks like it relies entirely on secondary sources, including multiple highly reliable sources such as books published by major publishers (eg Random House) and websites with .gov and .edu addresses. Thus, it does not seem like Original Research because original research is usually based on primary sources.
Probably not OR - but without sources that discuss the subject as a group the notability of the subject matter might be questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Not going to touch notability but OR would only be if the sources don't support the subject. ie: you have a source that says X person invented the electric stove and another source that says they died by electrocution while cooking. The later would be ambiguous and you'd be creating synth. If it said they died by being electrocuted from the stove then you're not creating synth - you're just placing two facts side by side. The title might be, but that's entirely reasonable. JMJimmy (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
From a list notability side, we have tried to define it but it's basically a land mine to try to put down anything stronger about this than saying that we do prefer lists where the grouping has been shown notable, but we can't really say anything against lists like the ones in question here, because there are cases for them, and are cases against them. Sourcing, however, is most important. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the topic of the list is notable, sourcing items in the list is not WP:OR. The trap that many then fall into however, is doing analysis or the contents of that list, which is clear WP:OR. Doing counts, statistics as if the entries were the entire (or at least random) population and were are merely doing WP:CALC is incorrect. Also, a topic that has come up recently in several venues is making images based on the self selected items in a list. Maps, graphs etc fall into the same trap, as there is no level of confidence that the selection of particular items is a representative of the true populationGaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most lists are OR. It is much better to use categories instead. Where lists might be acceptable is where they are taken from rs. For example, there may be a source that provides a list of presidential pets. But a list of pets owned by U.S. engineers would be wrong because it could never be exhaustive and could provide an implicit statement about what types of pets American engineers are likely to have, which is POV. Also, when writing articles it is best to start with and mostly use sources about the subject, which are more likely to be accurate. As for notability, if no such list exists in reliable sources, then the subject lacks notability. TFD (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There is already a topic going above as to whether incomplete, desperately sourced lists can be rightly summarized or not. The topic here is whether all such lists should be deleted on the grounds that they are not complete and/or because they are desperately sourced. I understand from elsewhere that your answer to that is "no". Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What can we do about this article? Fatal snake bites. Completely random list of people who have died from snake bites. Bunch of problems with this article, including original research (a bunch of the incidents have no references), indiscriminate (only reports one bite every few years, despite the fact that multiple people die every year in the US from snake bites), lacks notability (even though the topic is notable, the list of people lacks notability. Onefireuser (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not a random list, it is a list of fatal snake bites in the United States. You may rightly remove any uncited items, but it's better to tag them "citation needed", or to try to cite them yourself. Dynamic lists are not indiscriminate because they are not complete, and if you feel fatal snake bites are notable enough for list item status, you should take it up at the notability discussion board, the list project, or list guidelines pages, not here because this page is only rightly used for discussion of OR violations, but it's clear from the countless numbers of such lists that they have long-standing and project-wide concensus that the are not OR. Chrisrus (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Aditya soni Large numbers of possibly OR contributions

Over at WP:FTN we have become aware of a very large number of contributions by User:Aditya soni which we suspect may contain original research. Her contributed articles contain quite remarkable statements such as "Even Albert Einstein was born with a Rekā yoga which made him perform poorly in his studies during the course of the dashas (planetary periods) the planets giving rise to the said yoga." --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this discussion has found a home at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_a_Topic-Ban_on_New_Articles_in_Article_Space Fiddle Faddle 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Israelites

now at ANI, likely to be topic banned or indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

An editor has been making major changes to Israelites and despite 3 editors disagreeing with him insists on keeping his version. Discussion is at Talk:Israelites#Removed section asserting that the prevailing opinion is that various groups are "the authentic remnants of Israelite populations". The article now states that " Today the prevailing opinion is that Jews and Samaritans, as well as large segments of other ethnic groups including the Bene Israel of India[30], the descendants of the Marranos from Iberia, the Buba clan[31][32][33] among the Lemba of South Africa, and 85% of Palestinian Arabs,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] are the authentic remnants of Israelite populations." The editor adding this, User:Newmancbn says on the talk page "The ethnic groups mentioned in this article have historic ties to ancient Israel and posses highly specific Y-DNA signatures that are distinctly of Israelite origin. That is why they are listed in this article. That is also why there is scholarly consensus that these groups are the actual descendants of the historic Israelites, and why all of the available scientific papers and news articles demonstrate that opinion, and finally, why there are no cited sources on this page which show that Jews, Samaritans, the Buba clan, Bene Israel, or Palestinian Arabs, are not descended from the Israelites, because it would be an impossibility, given the evidence of their genetic results and their ties to ancient Israel. If you can show me a single scientific study demonstrating otherwise, I'll show you a mausoleum in Agra I want to sell you" This is based on a 2000 DNA paper and a 2010 BBC article. despite being pointed to [62] which says " While it was not possible to trace unequivocally the origins of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba and Remba, this study does not support the earlier claims of their Jewish genetic heritage." Also found Nadia Abu El-Haj, the Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology By Samra, Myer | The Australian Journal ofjewish Studies, Annual 2012 which says "Surprisingly, however, this haplotype has been found among members of the Buba clan of the| Lemba, at a frequency-i3.5%-higher than that among ordinary Israelites. The Lemba are Bantu speaking community from South Africa and Zimbabwe, who have long maintained a claim of Jewish ancestry. Y-chromosome studies tend to support the proposition that some of their male ancestors had come from the Middle East, and even the possibility that they might have Jewish roots (p.187). Whilst this does not make the Lemba Jewish, it has apparently sparked interest in them from a number of Jewish organisations, such as South African Jews"

His sources for " The 19th century discovery of the Phoenician script in the region, sometimes referred to as the Paleo Hebrew script, for example in the Gezer calendar and the Siloam inscription, suggested that the Samaritan alphabet had an Israelite origin independent of the Jews" are "Paleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age" Author(s): Richard S. Hanson Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,No. 175 (Oct., 1964), pp. 26-42 which I have and which doesn't make any such statement. The other source is The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies which can be searched[63] but as he doesn't give page numbers I don't know what it says. This is apparently mentioned as part of evidence that Samaritans are descendants of the Israelites.

Basically he is interpreting his sources. Thus, discussing the Cohen Modal Haplotype on the talk page, he says " It is the 12 marker CMH, in combination with a tradition of being descended from the Israelites (like the Lemba or Bene Israel), or historical ties to the Israelites, Jews, or Samaritans (like the Marranos and various Anusim like the Palestinians), that conclusively proves Israelite ancestry." So he uses sources that say one thing or the other but do not all assert that these groups are "the authentic remnants of Israelite populations." "When the 12 marker CMH is combined with historic evidence linking a group to the Israelites either through Hebraic customs, a tradition of having Israelite ancestry, or a historic paper trail linking that group to either Jews, Samaritans, or the Israelites, it does indeed unambiguously verify an Israelite origin" and "Cohen ancestry necessitates Israelite ancestry". The problem is that there is definitely no consensus that this haplotype indicates Israelite ancestry. Or that he is correct in asserting "there is a real founder of the Israelite priesthood who lived around 3500 years ago, and we have his DNA marker.". It seems to be his belief that this is all absolutely correct and unchallenged so must be in the article, and he is ignoring the fact that 3 editors - myself, User:Oncenawhile and User:Nishidani disagree with him.

I realise that few people if any are going to want to read all of this, but I do ask if anyone reads this that they also see the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No longer needed, this got out of control and he has been given a short block and the topic ban discussion at WP:ANI appears to be likely to end in a ban or indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreferenced inference on ABISY article, is it valid or Original Research?

  • Context of article: ABISY is an NGO in the field of History in India. The section header where the content is inserted is "Publications". It is about a journal published by the NGO.
  • Context of reference: It is a Journal article published by Firenze University Press available in pdf here. The quote provided by editor is on the same page where the above mentioned Journal is discussed. The title of this article is "Hindu Nationalists and Local History: From ideology to Local Lore".
  • Supporting text given by the editor from page 14 of above reference:

The emphasis on what is “true” or “scientifically proven” also characterises Thakur Ram Singh’s discourse on local history — the main domain of abisy’s research activity. In his declarations, in fact, Thakur Ram Singh is explicit about the fact that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with abisy’s ideology.

  • Content inserted in the article by the editor:

ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character. However, this stated aim has been used to exclude viewpoints and local histories that contradict the organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology.

  • Context of Thakur Ram Singh: He was head of the NGO from 1988, ten years after the NGO was formed... not sure till when. He died in 2010.
  • Additional Note: Hindu nationalist ideology is attributed to the title of the referenced article itself according to the editor.
  • Two editors have strongly objected to this paraphrasing per OR. One other editor has show partial support -- but no further reference has been produced. I am party to the discussion and I hold that this is original research and request the other editor to provide clear reference to support his inserted content. There has been a lengthy discussion on the article talk page, where the editor is insisting on his stand but not providing reference. Any attempt to make it closer to source is reverted by him. The link: Talk Page discussion
  • Ping to involved party (shall we give space to not-involved editors to comment): Vanamonde93, Uday Reddy, sarvajna.
Nothing to add, save that I am aware of this discussion, and that Uday Reddy's support was more than "partial;" he simply said that the ideal version would be further away from what Amritasyaputra wanted, than what I had proposed. Also, that when I proposed taking the disputed section phrase by phrase, Amritasyaputra responded by closing the discussion and bringing this here, which I interpret to mean that they are not interested in discussing this fragment by fragment. Rather than insist that my version is not supported, find me a fragment that is not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I will keep my response brief: 1. In the use of 'partial' there was no hidden intent, I paraphrased according to my understanding. Apology if it was inaccurate. 2. Our discussion is available to all for reading, in my personal opinion it was rehashing. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I regard myself as neutral in this dispute, and tried to mediate between the two parties. However, my views are so much closer to User:Vanamonde93's that my neutrality didn't amount to very much. As a scientist, I can vouch for the fact that a scientist is required to examine all the available evidence and not cherry pick. The fact that this organisation was cherry-picking material and still claiming to be "scientific" means to me that it is just putting up a front of science for convenience. The source also clearly explains various other flaws in the methods of this organisation. User:AmritasyaPutra has used every means possible to block this contradiction from being exposed. I do not agree with his/her position that "no original research" means using exactly the same words as the source. Uday Reddy (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference to back such assertions are needed. Their lack is the cause of Original research. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(uninvolved, except briefly as a commenter on the WP:RSN board) In my opinion, the quote is essentially legitimate and not WP:OR, but the phrasing can perhaps be improved. There is nothing really WP:OR here, since the non-consideration of sources histories other than those which meet the ideology, by definition, means excluding them. I see that there was an offer on the talk page to deal phrase by phrase which was rejected. That should be pursued. Kingsindian (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, the phrase s/he took up was not objected to ever! The objections were never replied to with any reference. I had put this phrasing and it was reverted twice: "The former head of ABISY, Thakur Ram Singh said that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with organization’s ideology." Closer to source with nothing left to imagination -- is this better or worse? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: I am not in a position to say whether X or Y is better; these matters belong on the talk page of the article. I can only say that, in my opinion, the quote being discussed is not original research, though the phrasing can be slightly changed. Kingsindian (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the alternate phrasing proposed above OR? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: The alternate phrasing is not OR either. Kingsindian (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Amritasyaputra, that question is off the mark. You objected to my version of the text, claiming OR. Kingsindian has said it was not; and so your only objection breaks down. To change it, you need to show your version is better in some way, not just to show that it is just as good (In fact, it's a lot worse; poor English, and far too specific for it to be very meaningful). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I asked a specific questions and got a one word reply to it. That is it. The discussion here has not got over yet, let it continue. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 08:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol

Mol was accused of spreading HIV deliberately, but was never convicted because he was very ill and died. And, probably most importantly for this issue, he was black. The article has a section titled "Parallel cases in other countries". This begins "His intentional infection of local female sexual partners, attempts at denial of his illness and accusation of institutional racism, are similar to other racial minority immigrants cases." It mentions one other case (among the many listed in the linked Criminal transmission of HIV, another Black man. No sources saying it's a parallel case. It then uses a paper prepared for a workshop (not an RS in any case) about "Racism, Racial Discrimination and HIV/AIDS" which isn't about criminal transmission of AIDs. I removed this, the editor reinstated it. I deleted it again for the same reason, was reverted by a User:Mikemikev (a well known banned racist) sock, I reverted (not counting towards 3RR0, and it's just been reinstated by an IP. Seems pretty classic OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_29&oldid=1251725793"