Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Sources to support claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher

At issue in Timothy Leary is a claim that he was a philosopher, with several editors insisting he was not. One source was already cited and I have added 6 more. [1] FreeKnowledgeCreator and Skyerise object, arguing that this is impermissable WP:OR. [2], [3], [4]. Further discussion may be found on the article talk page, especially at Talk:Timothy Leary#Protected edit request on 1 April 2016. Guidance is requested. Msnicki (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear about it, the issue is not whether Leary was a philosopher, but whether the article should describe him as one. I realize that this may seem like an overly subtle distinction to some people, but it is important to be clear what has actually been under discussion. Msnicki is incorrect in asserting that I have insisted that Leary was not a philosopher; Wikipedia is not a debating site, and this is in any case a matter I have no interest in discussing. Msnicki has likewise misrepresented my position regarding the citations she added. I stated that in two cases using them to try to show that Leary was a philosopher constituted original research; that's all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the other four sources state that he was a philosopher, and that the article therefore should describe him as a philosopher. Good, that was quick. We're done here then. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they state that Leary was a philosopher - I can read, OpenFuture. I do not necessarily agree that this means that the article should describe Leary as a philosopher, but that's for reasons not connected to the ban on original research, which it would therefore be pointless to discuss here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you are going to try to push your opinion through by different kinds of hairsplitting and wiki-lawyering for each source. OK. Then we DO need to discuss these two sources in detail here, since you are wrong about at least one of them. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary, so that the people here doesn't have to read through very long discussions. The sources under debate are:

1. Isralowitz, Richard (May 14, 2004). Drug Use: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1576077085. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs
2. Donaldson, Robert H. (2015). Modern America: A Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945. Routledge. ISBN 978-0765615374. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary not only used and distributed the drug, he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion and the revelation of personal truth through "dropping acid."

And the question then is:

1. Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"?
2. Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"?

--OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That drastically over-simplifies the issue. The question should be whether an encyclopedic article on Timothy Leary should state that his occupation included philosopher. If the information is WP:DUE, it is fine to give some attributed opinions to the effect that Leary's comic acts and drug explorations involved "philosophy", but that is not the same as having the infobox or the article text baldly state that Leary was a philosopher. I can often work out how much change I'm due when buying a few things. If an article described me, should it say that I am a mathematician? Should Hillary Clinton include fighter in her occupation (Hillary Clinton is known as absolutely tenacious, a dogged fighter and many more similar sources). Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources don't say that his acts "involved philosophy", the sources state he was a philosopher. If reliable sources for you state you are a mathematician, then the Wikipedia article on you should reasonably state that you are a mathematician, no matter if you can count your change or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

While I think the sources are sufficient to describe him as a philosopher in the lede paragraph, I don't think the philosopher label belongs under "occupation" in the infobox. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this captures the point. There's "philosopher" as a recognized occupation, and then there's "philosopher" implying a great thinker but not necessarily their day job. (This MW definition gives the latter implication as the first one, and the more formal role as the second). I would agree sources consider Leary as a great thinker, but I do also don't think the sources identify him as a professional "student of philosophy" to be considered as a career role. The word can be used to described want people thought of him, but should be avoided as if he were factually one. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be an acceptable compromise for FreeKnowledgeCreator, et al? We keep it in the lead, but remove it from "Occupation" in the side-bar? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems a good route. Leary was a philosopher, but it wasn't his main occupation or commonly-accepted priority profession. Randy Kryn 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Philosopher" is not verified simply because there's public use of that term to describe him in some popular sense of the word. Such descriptions are not sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the article. If there were secondary sources which describe a controversy as to whether the term applies and the pros and cons, yeas and nays, that controversy might be noteworthy. Otherwise not. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. If a person is given a certain label (regardless if it is possible or negative, as long as it does not introduce direct BLP problems) and it widely used about that person, then stating, with sources, that that person is labeled that is generally acceptable practice. So I would readily agree that calling Leary as a "great thinking" philosopher is reasonably okay here with sources presented so far; we just can't say his professions included being a philosopher. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how anyone could conclude philosopher wasn't his main occupation. Never mind that we even have the news report [5] that he testified that this was his occupation. From Timothy Leary bibliography and from examination of his citations on Google scholar [6], it's clear that around 1964, he abandoned what appears to have been a successful academic career as a psychologist, judging by the 2817 citations received by his 1958 paper, Interpersonal diagnosis of personality.. From then on, his entire life work for the next 36 years appears to have been focused solely on his philosophy, which numerous sources describe as "think for yourself and question authority" and advocating LSD for "mind expansion and revelation of personal truth".

At this point, permit me digression on citation counts in academia. This is a huge deal for those on tenure track, c.f., [7]. It's how academics judge impact. In engineering, where I teach, it takes a PhD and about 1000 citations to earn tenure. That's the number you'll see in my earlier citation and it appears to match what I observe. A top paper in engineering is one that gets over 1000 citations on its own. But in faculty meetings, I hear all the time from colleagues in other (slower changing) departments that even a few hundred citations is remarkable.

That appeared to be true as I somewhat randomly (H/L/M?) spot-checked a few full professors of philosophy (whom I assume we can all accept as full-time philosophers, whatever that means) at Harvard, [8], [9], [10], UC Santa Barbara, [11], [12], [13] and University of Washington, [14], [15], [16] this morning. Skipping over the obvious false hits for same-named people in obviously different fields, what you'll notice is that only a few of them appear to hit 1000 citations total even by full professorship, never mind just for tenure as associates and that it's a rare paper that got over 100. The highest I happened to find this morning was Korsgaard's amazing 2246 [17] and Wylie's 559 [18].

So that's the background, now here is a table of citation counts for Leary's top publications in philosophy also taken from Google scholar.[19]

Publication	Citations
The psychedelic experience	295
The politics of ecstacy	211
Chaos and cyber culture	139
The religious experence: Its production and interpretation	83
High priest	77
The Cyber-punk: The individual as reality pilot	56
Design for dying	31
The interpersonal, interactive, interdimensional interface	42
Turn on, tune in, drop out	33
The psychedelic reader	32
Religious implications of consciousness expanding drugs	31
The politics of conscienousness expansion	15
Psychedelic Prayers: And other Meditations	14
Foucaut and the Art of Ethics	258
Your Brain is God	13
The politics, ethics and meaning of marijuana	11
Start your own religion	12
Total	1353

It looks to me like Leary was a philosopher no matter how you slice it. Numerous WP:RS call him that. He testified that was his occupation. He spent his entire life from about 1964 on writing thousands of pages on his philosophy, which sources have no trouble describing in specific terms. He's reported to have had trouble generating income[20] and what he did generate appears to have come from writing and speaking about his philosophy. His publications on philosophy had significant impact as most academics might measure it by citation count. Were it not for the fact that his philosophy included taking LSD, he compiled a publication record that might have earned him tenure in the philosophy department almost anywhere in the country.

I just don't know how anyone argues he wasn't a philosopher except by vague hand-waving claims that amount to little more than, "I know one when I see one and he's not it." We should be able to do better than that. Our objective here should be verifiability, not truth. I understand that some of you believe that, in truth, he wasn't really a philosopher. But what we can verify is that he was. Msnicki (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd simply like to note that if any one reliable source were enough to call Leary a philosopher, then that reference should be the only reference that need be added. Adding multiple references to support the claim that Leary was a philosopher, when one reference might suffice if it really proved the point, is unnecessary, bad editing, and disruptive. According to Fyddlestix, the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes Leary as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." I am not suggesting that any source should be added to show that Leary was a philosopher (I think the merits of doing so are questionable at best) but if one did want to add one, the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences would be much better than any of the sources added by Msnicki and would not involve original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Too many WP:RS is disruptive? Wow. Just wow. Msnicki (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not a meaningful response to my comment above. Common sense should suggest that if one citation is enough adding half a dozen is pointless or disruptive; I think other editors would agree. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Common sense would have been to agree he was a philosopher a week and several drama boards ago. If your concern was merely that we needed better sources and you knew how to find them, common sense would have been to add them then rather fight tooth and nail. I'm still struggling to understand your hairsplitting claim about WP:OR. That also deserves a wow. Msnicki (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only do others agree with FKC, but they wrote a respected essay: WP:OVERCITE. The he's a philospher supporters only need one reliable source that asserts Leary was a philosopher in the standard encyclopedic meaning of that term. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that there might be a point that FKC is presenting in that if one is trying to justify a contentious point by throwing lots of weak RS, disparate sources at it rather than one or two high quality sources, that might be a bit of SYNTH and POV pushing, particularly if those main sources are completely mum on the point or present a counterpoint. I cannot speak to this being the case for this specific situation with Leary, but it is a valid possible concern. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We had one WP:RS and that was obviously NOT enough as demonstrated by the edit warring and numerous trips to drama boards.

I think it would helpful if we could nail down this possible overciting/synthesis concern. Is that a genuine concern here or just a hypothetical concern in some hypothetical articles? None of these sources are "mum" on the question of whether Leary was a philosopher. They ALL call him a philosopher and/or describe his philosophy in similar terms. Are we now agreed that Leary really was a philosopher and that that was his occupation? These latest responses sound a lot like yes, but that FKC would prefer we use his source. Is that all it takes? Are we close to done here? Msnicki (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, the concern is that listing him with philosopher as a lede sentence or as an occupation does not jive with how WP defines a "professional" philosopher (see Contemporary philosophy), compared to someone who simply promotes a given philosophy but is not a professional philosopher. I see some of the uses in text, and I don't see much to support the first version (nothing much to support the idea that Leary was professionalized), but plenty that go along with the second case, and its the issue of understanding the nuance of that difference in how the sources present it as to apply to our article. It is comparable to understanding that you have people that are called out as philanthropists like John D. Rockefeller III, but while the act of donating money to a cause would make a random person a philanthropist by definition too because they gave $5 to charity, clearly one would not properly apply that label to that person. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course this is overciting. Of course the one source was enough. But this overciting is a direct effect of FreeKnowledgeCreators refusal to accept the sources that existed, forcing Msnicki to show that this wan not just one source that demonstrated that Leary was a philosopher, but there was many. The overciting is therefore an effect of FreeKnowledgeCreator's usual stonewall argument style. That he comes here and now *complains* about it shows that he is not interested WP:NPOV and WP:RS, he is here to push a POV, as is always the case, everytime he shows up an ad administrator noticeboard. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources call him a philosopher. He testified that was his occupation. It appears that he devoted the last 36 years of his life to writing and speaking on philosophy and that that was primary source of income. His philosophy works accumulated an impressive citation count. He had the PhD, the critical qualification mentioned in that Contemporary philosophy article as part of the "professionalization". This doesn't seem comparable to someone giving $5 to charity and wanting to be called a philanthropist. It looks to me like he was a philosopher who met every qualification anyone has suggested should be necessary. Msnicki (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Will this edit [21] satisfy the last of any concerns? Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the term philosopher has several meanings. In its broadest sense it means someone who has opinions about the world and expresses them, which is what Leary did. We also use the term psychologist to describe people who have some understanding of people. In that sense, Donald Trump is a great psychologist. But philosophy is also an academic discipline with a defined subject matter and a body of literature. Since Leary did not write about that subject, it would be misleading to describe him as a philosopher. What was his reply to Hume's theory of causation or Kant's categories of human understanding? How did he respond to the logical positivist argument against meaningful a priori knowledge? TFD (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So your position is that you can only be a philosopher if you write essays about Kant or Hume? Are you aware that very few full professors in philosophy do that? Most of their research is in other areas, e.g., contemporary issues in law and ethics.

More to point, I'm curious to explore your argument that Leary never wrote about philosophy. Can you kindly identify which of the publications I listed in my table above, where I've tallied Leary's citation counts, are, in fact, not works in philosophy? And can you tell us what they are instead? It would be especially helpful if you could a provide an WP:RS stating that they are not works in philosophy. To avoid any problems with all that pesky WP:OR stuff, it would be helpful if you could find quotes stating that in pretty nearly those exact words. Msnicki (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosophers do not necessarily have to write about Hume or Kant, but they need to write about the issues that they did and even if they do not reference Hume or Kant by name, it would be rare indeed for a paper on philosophy not to mention at least one of the philosopers associated with the empiricist or rationalist traditions of which Hume and Kant were the leading proponents. I do not know if there are sources that say these books are not about philosophy any more than there are sources that say they are not about differential calculus. Do you have any books about philosophy that include sections on Leary? TFD (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Among those 1300+ citations Google reports on scholar, it seems pretty likely some of those are in scholarly articles on philosophy, since that's the kind of stuff Google reports as citations on scholar. Do you need me to find a few of them for you? How many would you need to disprove a claim of never? If this seems likes an interesting question and you'd like to know what the sources state, not just work a POV, do you think you might be able to take a stab at the research on your own? Do you see any difference between what I've been doing and what you're doing? Msnicki (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

TFD; you have a rather antiquated view of philosophy and philosophers. The topics that you mention and think philosophers discuss are topics that has already been discussed to death and is today not mentioned outside textbooks. Although Alain de Botton surely has mentioned both Kant and Hume in his TV series, made for lay people, I can't find a paper where he mentions them. And philosophers are no longer just professors on a college with a beard. Sweden's most interesting and controversial philosopher is also a judge on the Swedish version of American Idol. This is all just a version of "I don't like it" or claiming to hold WP:THETRUTH. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. What we need it not The Truth, but reliable sources. The question here is if the two sources above are reliable sources for the claim that Leary is a philospher, and since not one single person has argued that they are not, the conclusion must reasonably be that they are.

Case closed. For other arguments, please discuss that on the article talk page, this is the notice board for original research, which by the way is a good label for your claims that a philosopher has to conform to your specific prejudices about old men in beards. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I absolutely stand by my position that Msnicki is guilty of original research in using the sources by Isralowitz and Donaldson to claim that Leary was a philosopher. The whole point of WP:NOR is that you do not use sources to try to show things that the sources do not directly, unambiguously, or uncontroversially state, and neither Isralowitz nor Donaldson states that Leary was a philosopher. Msnicki is simply using her personal assumptions and beliefs about what a philosopher is to try to deny that she is engaged in original research; she should not be encouraged in this. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"? Yes, because there is no agreed upon definition of "philosopher" according to which it means that someone "explored cultural and philosophical implications" of LSD or anything else. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"". Again, yes because founding a "sort of philosophy", whatever that means, and it may mean anything or nothing, is also not a recognized definition of "philosopher." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Further to that, it is preposterous to say that Leary should be called a philosopher because he testified that "philosopher" was his occupation. Obviously that is a self-serving claim; a reliable source needs to be found independent of Leary. Msnicki, I again suggest that if you want the article to state that Leary was a philosopher, you should use the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences rather than any other source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note my edit cited above (once again: [22]) in which I moved those two citations to further down in the article. You're complaining about something that's no longer there. Msnicki (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. You would do well to remove all the current citations for "philosopher" from the lead and replace them with something better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We are all volunteers, FKC. I have a FT job as an academic in an area that has nothing to do with this. This is the amount of hobby research I can contribute this week. Earlier, you indicated you thought you had a better source, but you never gave the citation or a quote. If you think you have a better source, please propose it. Depending on what you offer, I might surprise you by agreeing. But let's see it first, please, before deleting more stuff. Msnicki (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a further original research issue: Msnicki restored the "philosophers of mind" category, despite the absence of any source identifying Leary as a philosopher of mind. I've raised the issue on the talk page, and Msnicki's edit has no support there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

::::::That claim is both false, and original research. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)I must have misunderstood or replied in the wrong location. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(outside opinion) There are certain academics (and editors here on Wikipedia) that strongly desire to downplay the contributions of philosophers that they dislike, disagree with, or that work outside of stale academia to become pop culture figures. They will engage in this sort of attack on the use of "philosopher" not for the betterment of the encyclopedia, but to give themselves some misguided sense of value.
The reality is that journals and other sources of academic citations don't typically call anyone by the common name for their occupations. Someone doing a journal article about the Great Depression is highly unlikely to describe one of his sources as "economist John Jenkins" in plain text within the body of their article. Rather, the author will cite the person, source, and date for whatever past work he's referring to in the journal, and discuss their ideas in context. Likewise, these kinds of sources aren't ever likely to call Leary a "philosopher"... but context matters. When someone is writing about philosophy and they cite Leary mentioning his philosophy, they are confirming that Leary has produced ideas with tangible philosophical value - which is certainly part of the definition of a philosopher. Its not OR to equate philosophy with philosopher, its really just different word forms, not a vast gulf of meaning. Clearly, Leary has worked in philosophy and been cited as such. That makes him a philosopher. -- Netoholic @ 12:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please provide three examples of peer-reviewed published articles written by acknowledged philosophers that cite Leary's work, per the model you describe, without labeling Leary as a philosopher? SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Would these need to be individuals with articles here on Wikipedia listing their occupations as philosopher? More to the point, it doesn't seem helpful to raise a lot of "prove to me the sky is blue" arguments where, if you actually have a serious concern and an open mind, it can't possibly be that difficult to contribute a little scholarship of your own to go find the sources. I've given you a table above showing that Leary's work received over 1300 citations as reported by Google scholar. They only count scholarly citations on scholar and we can be pretty sure he wasn't getting them from people writing about engineering, math and physics. Do you think you might to be able to poke through a few of them on your own to research your interest in knowing what fraction were from other philosophers? Perhaps you might sample 100 of them and then present a breakdown of your findings. Or, I'm pretty sure, you could find the three your want on your own without too much trouble and call it good. It just can't be that hard. Msnicki (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have searched extensively and can find no RS for the assertion that Dr. Leary was a philosopher. My question was in response to the preceding statement, which claimed that indisputably qualified practitioners of philosophy, botany, economics, refer to colleagues as if the cited work were tagged, -- Philosopher Kant says, Economist Marshall says -- but do not articulate the tag. I have been unable in my research to find any instance of this. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To say that someone can only be acknowledged as a philosopher by *other* philosophers is exactly the sort of problem I'm speaking about. A historian can cite an economist, and in doing so, gives credibility and confirmation of that economist's occupation - after all, we cite people who are experts in things we aren't experts ourselves in. An archaeologist might cite a metallurgist, a social scientist might cite a geneticist, etc. So the real question here is why are philosophers some special class that can only be acknowledged by others of their kind? Why can't Leary's work in philosophy be cited by a chemist, or a neurologist, or a psychologist, or a biographer, or a newspaper reporter? None of these can pass judgment as to how "good" he is a as philosopher (whatever that means), but their description of him as such is sufficient because they are reliable sources. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot provide even one example to establish proof of concept, I think we've reached a dead end with that approach. "Reliable source" refers to its qualification for the statement sourced to it. RS is not a genetic term like Antelope. A newspaper reporter, chemist, or pastry chef is not RS for WP to cite as verification that Dr. Leary was a philosopher. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course they are. They are RS for confirming his occupation. They are not RS for evaluating his output. That is the difference. A newspaper reporter about a movie would be a RS for stating that John Smythe was a director, but it would take experts in film-making to be RS for commentary on his directorial style or effectiveness. -- Netoholic @ 23:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That (incorrect) statement is helpful, because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP policy. Please read WP:RS and for the specific misstatement above, see WP:NEWSORG. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing there that conflicts with what I said. A newspaper source is fine for providing a simple fact like someone's occupation. It would not be fine for an in-depth, academic discussion. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Timothy Leary article still includes a category identifying Leary as a "philosopher of mind". In the absence of a reliable source calling Leary a "philosopher of mind", the category seems to be unacceptable original research. Discussion on the article's talk page is ongoing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Was Aldous Huxley a philosopher?

It's deja vu all over again. Just when you thought the question of whether Timothy Leary was a philosopher was settled, we have the same question being raised at Aldous Huxley. Previous discussion is at Talk:Aldous Huxley#Doubts about whether Huxley was a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator, User:Johnuniq and 2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b have been edit warring over whether Huxley was a philosopher and whether he should be described as such in the infobox. Initially, FKC indicated he only wanted a source, [23], not that he had any particular reason to doubt Huxley was a philosopher and seemed to agree that a {{cn}} tag would suffice until someone had time to do the research.[24],[25] Four days later, FKC removed the claim and the tag insisting the claim was simply wrong.[26]

This morning, I finally got time to do the research. It wasn't hard to find four WP:RS all describing Huxley as a philosopher.[27] FKC and JU have both reverted, [28] and [29], insisting these citations are insufficient, that this really wasn't Huxley's occupation. It seems to me that both FKC and JU misunderstand what it means to be an intellectual. Both seem focused on how the individuals monetize their work,[30], which I believe misses the point that an intellectual is occupied by his thoughts, not by how they put bread on the table. A philosopher is an intellectual whose thoughts are occupied by questions of philosophy, e.g., and sometimes literally, the meaning of life. Sources clearly indicate that Huxley was occupied his entire life with with developing his philosophy, they clearly identify the unique aspects of his philosophy and they report that other important philosophers took his ideas seriously. This sure sounds like a philosopher to me. Msnicki (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is misleading. The issue is not whether Huxley was a philosopher. I have no interest in debating whether anyone was a philosopher, as I have already said repeatedly. The issue is whether the article's infobox should list Huxley's occupation as "philosopher." As Huxley was generally self-employed, and never employed specifically as a philosopher, it seems pretty clear that it should not. Msnicki apparently thinks that Huxley's occupation should be given as "philosopher" simply because he wrote books about philosophy. That is false logic - just as it would be false logic to suggest that someone's occupation was "electrical engineer" simply because he wrote books about electrical engineering, or "prostitute", simply because he wrote books about prostitution. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you recall if Socrates was ever employed as a philosopher? Do you really think this is an important test of whether an individual was "occupied" as a philosopher? You don't count self-employment, where the individual decides completely on their own how to pursue their philosophy and occasionally monetize it? It has to be job where someone tells them, "We're paying you to be a philosopher, so we get to pick what you think about"? Msnicki (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant specifying. As Johnuniq said, people write books about plenty of subjects, but that just makes them writers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

To take your (added later) example of someone who writes books about electrical engineering, well, now you're barking up my tree. I'm full-time faculty in EE at a state university. I can promise you that if someone wrote a book on an actual EE topic of the kind and quality as might make it suitable for use as a text in an undergraduate or graduate course in EE, then you bet, we would consider that individual an EE. It wouldn't matter to us if his degrees were in physics or math or whether he had a job someplace as an engineer. We would care that this was his intellectual occupation. A PhD is a terminal degree, meaning that once you get one, you're expected to know to add to knowledge and research anything, which is why it's not uncommon for many engineering faculty have earned their degrees in other disciplines. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, Msnicki. For Wikipedia purposes, someone's occupation is "electrical engineer" if reliable sources state that that is their occupation, and not otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that

While in principle I agree that not everyone who thinks about philosophy should be listed as a philosopher, should the Socrates article list his profession as "bricklayer" and the Plato article "wrestler?" That was how they were specifically employed.

The comparison on writing books on philosophy to writing books on prostitution doesn't really work, because philosophers are known primarily through communicating their ideas, which includes books. It's like saying that someone can't be listed as a screen writer because even if they wrote some screenplays for movies that got made, that no more makes them a screenwriter than does creating a website make one Bill Gates.

That said, whether or not Huxley or anyone else should be listed as a philosopher in their infobox is best determined by tertiary sources on philosophy (indicating that the individual is known as a philosopher, regardless of their other pursuits), or any non-primary sources specifically about that individual's philosophy (such that the philosophy risks meeting WP:GNG). Mentions of philosophizing in non-primary sources are sufficient to mention in the article (but not the infobox) that they engaged in philosophy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the comparison is perfectly accurate, whether you like it or not. Obviously someone can write books about philosophy without being a philosopher, just as someone can write books about prostitution without being a prostitute. Simply writing about philosophy is not the same as engaging in it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you mean that one can compile a book on philosophy (such as The Perennial Philosophy), then yes, it is possible to write about philosophy without engaging in it. But once any consideration of the subject matter comes into play beyond "where should this go" (such as The Doors of Perception), they are engaged in philosophy. The threshold for philosophizing is rather low, which is why the issue should not be "do they engage in philosophy," but "is their philosophizing noteworthy among scholars of philosophy?"

I think you and Johnuniq are right for the wrong reasons, and Msnick is wrong for the right reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL, you forgot to mention someone in your list of those who have been edit warring!

Here is a quick test: if it's so obvious that Aldous Huxley was a philosopher, why is that no one thought to add that information until now? I think the first edit in this battle was 28 March 2016 which changed Huxley's infobox to say: Occupation Writer, novelist, philosopher

The infobox shows key facts such as "occupation" and is not the place to add original research based on mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The age of the article and what it has said in the past seems as irrelevant here as it would be at an WP:AFD per WP:LONGTIME. What matters is what the sources say. One reason it may have been wrong for a long time is if those who have worked on the article in the past (especially, those with the loudest voices) were either too lazy or too attached to their personal opinions to bother fact-checking their positions. Not everyone is suited to scholarship and capable of accepting that if that's what the sources say, that's what they say. Msnicki (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that you have not ventured to restore "philosopher" as Huxley's occupation, this seems like a dead issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've decided life is too short to waste it arguing with you, especially as it seems unlikely you've ever read any works by either Huxley or Leary. It's like arguing with someone about a movie they've never seen. Providing citations in WP:RS, my usual strategy for dealing with difficult people on WP, doesn't work with you. You simply turn to arguing that anything that doesn't match your opinion doesn't count because philosophy and philosopher are so entirely different or because we have too few sources if it's only one or too many sources if it's more than one or because biographers get people's occupations wrong all the time, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, you never contribute any research of your own, only just more opinions. WP is usually fun, collegial and intellectually interesting. But you make it tedious, combative and unpleasant. Msnicki (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what we think because people pushing the philosopher angle are not engaging with the arguments presented but are merely repeating the idea that anything mentioned by a source has to be in the article. No one has denied that Leary or Huxley have been described as philosophers—the issue is the context of the description and whether they should be extrapolated to statements of fact about the subject's occupation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not true, the fight was about describing them, not about "occupation" in the box. I proposed a compromise related to that during the Leary-debate, it was completely ignored. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Where can that proposal can be seen? At Talk:Timothy Leary? You made several comments there and a very quick scan did not turn up a proposal or any kind of engagement. Johnuniq (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it was here. I noted that perhaps Leary could be noted as a philosopher in the lead, but not under occupation in the Info-box, as a compromise. Randy Kryn supported it, but those that was involved in the conflict ignored it. Then again, this requires all "occupation" values in infoboxes to have reliable sources that it really was somebody's *job*, which may be a bit silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Huxley did not write about philosophy or express opinions about it, he should not be described as a philosopher. TFD (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that four WP:RS [31], two biographies and two books on his works, disagree with you? They're just wrong and you're right? Msnicki (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Since Huxley did not write about philosophy or express opinions about it" -- He literally wrote the book, The Perennial Philosophy, on it. Its literally the only thing you see for pages and pages if you do even a basic Google search of "Aldus Huxley philosopher". -- Netoholic @ 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Perennial Philosophy is about mysticism, not philosophy. The term "philosophy" can be used to have a wide meaning as for example in Mungo Jerry's song, "In the Summertime" ("Life's for livin' yeah, that's our philosophy.") No reliable sources about philosophy refer to Huxley as a philosopher. TFD (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says mysticism is definitely not philosophy? I ask because it took mere minutes to find several sources suggesting it is, e.g., [32], [33], [34]. Is this yet another case where all the WP:RS are wrong and only you know the truth? Msnicki (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that saying that treating mysticism and philosophy as distinctly separate would be pedantic if we pretend to ignore some of the rather huge historical overlaps (c.f. Neoplatonism). That said, as I have said earlier, we need RSs about philosophy (such as an 'Encyclopedia of Philosophy' or something) which discusses the philosophical community's assessment of Huxley -- then his status as a philosopher would be undeniable. Works which are focused on Huxley would be adequate for article itself, but the infobox needs to summarize what sources that really weren't even focused on him can affirm (the broadest and least contested definitions). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on mysticism,[35] which reports, "Various philosophers, sometimes dubbed “perennialists,” have attempted to identify common mystical experiences across cultures and traditions (for the term ‘perennialism,’ see Huxley, 1945)." helpful? Msnicki (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your three sources are all called "philosophy of mysticism." Indeed there is a philosophy of mysticism, just as there are philosophies of science, religion, politics, and many other subjects. But Huxley did not write about the philosophy of mysticism, he wrote about mysticism. Jones for example says, "Mystics claim to experience reality in a way not available in normal life, a claim which makes this phenomenon interesting from a philosophical perspective." You can read more of his book [36] He says that the philosophy of mysticism is normally treated as a branch of the philosophy of religion. That does not mean that religion is philosophy. TFD (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

By that logic, when Bertrand Russell wrote Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, that wasn't really philosophy, it was something else? What was it instead? I think it's clearly WP:OR to conclude that "philosophy of religion" is not philosophy. The source clearly does not say that. May I ask again, do you have even one source that actually supports you without you having to put your own spin on it? Or do we just take your word for all this? Msnicki (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Russell wrote, "Much of what is set forth in the following chapters is not properly to be called “philosophy,” though the matters concerned were included in philosophy so long as no satisfactory science of them existed.... [The book] can hardly claim, except where it steps outside its province, to be actually dealing with a part of philosophy."

Why do you misrepresent my comment "Indeed there is a philosophy of mysticism, just as there are philosophies of science, religion" as ""philosophy of religion" is not philosophy?" Do you understand the difference between religion and the philosophy of religion.

TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Msnicki: That Stanford citation is almost there, but it puts too much between "Huxley" and "philosopher" to use without violating WP:OR. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Ouch. Okay you did catch me being careless. But then again, I hope we aren't trying to decide if Betrand Russell was a philosopher as a way of deciding whether that makes Aldous Huxley one as well, especially, as you point out, from this one poor sample. Yes, I think I understand the difference between religion and philosophy of religion. The former is not usually philosophy, it's usually faith-based (meaning beliefs that do not require evidence) dictates and explanation of the world. And the latter usually is philosophy, e.g., a discussion of why we have religion, can religious beliefs be tested, the relationship to our concepts of ethics and morality, what purposes they may serve. (My words but I notice they appear to agree with our article at Philosophy of religion.) Are we in agreement generally on this? Msnicki (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Russell was both a philosopher and a mathematician, which probably explains why he included the text I cited. Russell was not writing about the philosophy of mathematics, although hw might have touched on the topic. Similarly, Huxley was not writing about philosophy, whether the philosophy of religion or philosophy of mysticism, as Russell would have understood the term philosophy. I do not mean to be abusive, but it is apparent that you and others who would call Huxley have no understanding of the subject and base your demand on the fact that his views are sometimes referred to as philosophy. The same is true of most original thinkers, even pop groups like Mungo Jerry. But unless they discuss the subject matter of philosophy, it is misleading to call them philosophers. TFD (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Flydubai Flight 981

Resolved

 – I withdraw my request, as there were no a single reply in the discussion here since I posted this request 19 days ago. The contested information was already removed by a 3rd party more than two weeks ago, with the explanation provided on the article's talk page. There were no any subsequent attempts to restore the contested information. - Daniel (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• The question is about the similar air accidents and involves possible unpublished analysis of published material that serves to advance one's position. It is also discussed in this section of the article's talk page. My opponent, User:Petebutt, suggested me there to contact the administrator to resolve our dispute and I am thus following his advice.

So, here is the story: User:Petebutt added a paragraph to this article with information about English Electric Canberra bomber crash in 1983, claiming that this crash was similar to Flight 981. He provided two sources with the description of this bomber crash, but none of them mentioned any similarity between the bomber crash and Boeing 737 Flight 981 crash. I removed this paragraph, with the explanations that the suggested similarity between these two cases is an original research for the reasons I just mentioned. He reverted my edit, insisting that documented references could not be original research and asked me to provide my reasoning on the talk page. I provided my reasoning on the article's talk page. User:Petebutt replied, suggesting me to contact the administrator to resolve our dispute. - Daniel (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Rodriguez (Pianist)

Hi, I need an opinion about a stub page I'm trying to get back up Draft:Anthony Rodriguez (pianist). The admin that deleted said the modification was okay and needed a second opinion. Can anyone please help and see if this Article is OR?? Thanks a million! StrongWik (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis and tables

We have a dispute about WP:SYNTH (and WP:NPOV) as it applies to lists, and specifically an article consisting of a table. The point of disagreement is whether the table should be based on a single RS which all editors agree to use, or on all relevant RSs, which differ in their selection of rows (events) in the table. Below are the two latest comments in the exchange, which seem to summarize the two positions well enough (sariya refers to a type of event listed in the table):

• Position 1: Reflecting multiple RSs isn't synthesis; it's what we're supposed to do per WP:NPOV. A table is not a conclusion, and NPOV holds for tables as much as regular articles. The question is how to reflect them appropriately in this case. I've already made some proposals before, including citations in the year column, and additional columns marking presence of the items in major RSs.
• Position 2: It's synthesis, exactly because: "suppose source 1 mentions a sariya X and source 2 mentions a sariya Y, then we can't use that to make a table composed of sariya X and Y since source 1 may reject the authenticity of Y and source 2 may reject the authenticity of X (as an example), hence the table will not be reflecting what the RSs state"

Just in case, here's a link to the (long) discussion. Thanks in advance. Eperoton (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Chrysler reception, rankings, ratings

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?

Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.

References
References

Issues with original research have been raised in discussion. Participation from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research is respectfully requested. Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist influences on Christianity

Article is about theories that Buddhism influenced early Christianity (by way of Alexander the Great's conquests in Asia, then into Judaism through the Septuagint, and then into Christianity. A revision in dispute contains the following: It is agreed by most scholars that Buddhism was known in the pre-Christian Greek world through the campaigns of Alexander the Great (see Greco-Buddhism and Greco-Buddhist monasticism), and several prominent early Christian fathers (Clement of Alexandria and St. Jerome) were certainly aware of the Buddha, even mentioning him in their works. In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests. Is this synthesis? Particularly concerning the mention of the Septuagint "being written in Koine Greek" (!) but perhaps the entire paragraph as well? Geogene (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure, I made the edit in question. I feel it all ties in rather nicely, since this is an article about the possibility, or not, of Buddhist influences on Christianity. I certainly do not feel I was pushing WP:SYN since the common language, Koine Greek, is what ties everything together. Even early Christian Saints were aware of Buddhism through their own writings, which also just happen to be in Koine Greek. To say Koine Greek is total OR or synthesis to the topic is a stretch. Lipsquid (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The word Bible is Koine Greek as is the word Christ. Lipsquid (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The citations aren't specific enough to let me see what's in the sources and what's not. "Most" is a quantifier that would be OR unless a RS makes that generalization. "Certainly" and "even" look like WP:EDITORIALIZING. The second sentence would be synthesis unless it reports what a RS says about the relevance of the Septuagint to the subject. Eperoton (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I only edited one sentence: "In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests" I have no idea what second sentence you are talking about, unless you are considering my response, which I assume you realize is of course editorializing, I was offering an opinion on a noticeboard, I did not offer my opinion in the article. We are reviewing what is written in the article, are we not? Lipsquid (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with your edit history. My comment referred to the two sentences quoted above in italics. Eperoton (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

From Lipsquid's post, it sounds like he's using the Koine Green language to tie together Buddhism and Christianity. It's OR unless a reliable source specifically makes those claims. WP editors are not allowed to formulate their own theories and put them into articles by combining multiple sources. So Lipsquid, do you have a quote from a specific source that makes the claims in question? The first source is not specific enough information to locate the source and is unverifiable. The next 2 sources don't mention the word "Christianity" once, and the final source doesn't mention "Kione" once. So it doesn't appear that these sources support adding this information into the article because the inherent implication is that this influenced Christianity. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention "Christianity" in my article edit either. ""In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests" so my sources are going to be about Koine Greek, the Sepuagint and the spread of the language through Alexander the Great. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• It sounds like you want the article to trace a series of linguistic and religious connections, to demonstrate a conclusion. To do this, you need at least one reliable source that outlines all the linguistic and religious connections, and reaches the same conclusions that you want to present. If this source exists, then it isn't Original Research... If not (if you are the one making the connections) it is Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The language of the Septuagint is coatracked information - it's relevance to the article not indicated by the sources. It's apparently included to suggest a conclusion, but the conclusion is not stated, so it is not synthesis. That's just splitting hairs though; it should not go in the article as-is. Rhoark (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH also covers implied conclusions. Eperoton (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In a stronger sense of "imply". If its not clear what the conclusion is supposed to be, its just coatracking. (Again, splitting hairs that should not impact handling of the page.) Rhoark (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not here to mislead anyone or to provide original research, so if most people think it is improper, I concede that it should remain out. I appreciate Geogene handling the topic in a professional manner! Best to all of you and thank you for your time.... Lipsquid (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Causality of 1978 Ford Pinto recall

Article History of Ford Motor Company, section Ford Pinto, contended content:

Public outcry related to the controversy and the Mother Jones article resulted in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issuing a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. This resulted in Ford issuing the largest automotive recall to date.

Events contributing to the causality of the largest auto recall in history were many, including but not limited to:

1. crashes with fires
2. deaths
3. disabilities
4. 117 product liability lawsuits
5. 30 December 1976 Jack Anderson column The Washington Post on the fire safety of Ford automobiles
6. the start of the Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. trial
7. consumer complaints to Ford and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration
8. two petitions filed with the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration by the Center for Auto Safety
9. press conference in Washington attended by Ralph Nader, covered by The New York Times and The Washington Post
10. the Pinto was found to have a design defect by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration
11. National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration scheduling a public hearing at which Ford documents were to be made public
12. 60 Minutes and 20/20 television segments in production and pending airing

All supported by vast noteworthy reliable sources.

References
References

The causality of historical events is fraught with difficulty, the motivations of organizations even more so, and best avoided in Wikipedia voice; let the facts speak. We are asked to summarize, not to over simplify, and certainly not to over-simplify in service of a minority point of view. This is pretty basic, sorry to bother, but a strident local consensus of Ford Pinto fanboyz is pursuing, in Wikipedia voice, that the whole Pinto thingy was a dust-up created by rabble-rousing by a tiny new low-circulation anti-corporate hippie magazine from San Francisco. The current article text says that:

1. public outcry and
2. an article in Mother Jones magazine

...caused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find that the Ford Pinto had a design defect; and that

1. public outcry,
2. an article in Mother Jones magazine, and
3. the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finding of defect

...caused Ford to recall the Pinto.

These claims, presented in Wikipedia voice, are well beyond any reasonable summarization of the consensus of reliable sources and so are original research. As represented in numerous reliable sources, and as with most attempts to characterize the causality of historical events, the actual causality is much more complex.

Comments from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research are respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - Please notify editors involved in a discussion on an article talkpage that you are moving that discussion to a noticeboard. Not doing so may be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD, you have been rightly asked by William M. Connolley to not significantly edit/change your text after others have replied to it. This can give later readers a false sense of the conversation. Also, please do not refer to other editors as, "A strident local consensus of Ford Pinto fanboyz" (WP:TPNO) Springee (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on original research in the above excerpt? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - I love how HughD seems to be completely oblivious to the endless torrent of criticism over his behavior. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• 13:43 29 April 2016 inline OR tags reverted in 10 minutes without discussion.
• 13:53 29 April 2016 edit with summary "remove original research oversimplification of the causality of historical events and the motivations of historical organizations exceeding the consensus of reliable sources":

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. Ford issued the largest automotive recall to date.

• 13:56 29 April 2016 edit reverted in 3 minutes without discussion.

Assistance from colleagues with experience with original research issues is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You might have better luck in your dispute if you didn't refer to your fellow interlocutors as "Ford Pinto fanboyz." Safehaven86 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement, in Wikipedia's voice, seems a reasonable summary of some of the sources. This needs to go to WP:NPOVN, not WP:NORN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: HughD, Why didn't you include the references in your original question? The material in both the Pinto and Ford History article was supported by peer reviewed sources. I also would note that you left Lee and Ermann left off the list of references above. Schwartz is perhaps the most significant reference with respect to the Pinto cases. Lee and Ermann are perhaps the second most significant after Schwartz. You failed to show how those references were used in the Pinto article (the Ford History article references the Pinto article). You also failed to link to the relevant talk page discussions. Here is what was said in the Pinto article... with references.

Lee and Ermann note that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." The Mother Jones article included a clip out "coupon" that readers could mail to the NHTSA.

References

This is clearly supported material and not OR. Springee (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Why is this topic being raised here vs on the article talk pages first? This was discussed on the Pinto talk page but not discussed on the History of Ford Motor Company page. Springee (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A reasonable model of the causes of a recall

Two noteworthy reliable sources provide guidance to us on what a reasonable treatment of the causes of major automobile recalls, and the historic Ford Pinto recall in particular:

• Clinard, Marshall; Yeager, Peter (2011). Corporate Crime; Volume 1 of Law, Culture, and Society. Transaction Publishers. p. 85. ISBN 9781412815253.

The process in the more serious voluntary recalls generally starts with consumer complaints and news stories, then proceeds to government investigation and testing, consumer group pressuring, resistance from the auto manufacturer, and an official finding of safety defect. The story of the Ford Motor Company's decision to recall 1.5 million of its 1971-1976 subcompact Pinto cars is illustrative.

Clinard and Yeager then excerpt the The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978):

Ford made the decision this June, but the seed of the decision was planted a year ago. it was in August 1977 that Mother Jones, a magazine published in California, printed an article titled "Pinto Madness"; it portrayed the car as particularly susceptible to fires in rear-end crashes. The article was ballyhooed at a Washington press conference by Ralph Nader and its author, Mark Dowie. A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which opened an investigation that was to last eight months. The agency first ran an engineering analysis of the Pinto, finding that the fuel tank's location and the structural parts around it permitted easy crashing or puncturing of the tank in a crash. Officials also found that the short fuel-tank filler pipe could easily pull away from the tank. There was "real potential for trouble," says Howard Dugoff, the agency's deputy administrator. "The design looked fishy." Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.

Conspicuously omitted from our article are accidents, deaths, lawsuits, consumer complaints, numerous news stories, consumer groups, the NHTSA investigation, NHTSA testing, and the pending public hearing. The point being that the current article text explicitly states in Wikipedia voice a grossly oversimplified small set of reasons for the recall. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, there weren't any deaths reasonably attributed to the (alleged) defect. If you want to go into more details as to the cause of the recall, that fact also needs to be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment The above doesn't actually contradict the material in the article. Springee (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The reasons given by the NHTSA itself behind its finding of defect

As further evidence of the non-neutral nature of the statement in Wikipedia voice currently in our article History of Ford Motor Company regarding the causes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finding of defect, colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the NHTSA's own reasons given for its finding.

• Investigative Report: Alleged Fuel Tank and Filler Neck Damage in Rear-end Collisions of Subcompact Cars Passenger Cars, 1971-1976 Ford Pinto, 1975-1976 Mercury Bobcat (PDF) (Report). Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. May 1978. Retrieved March 5, 2016.

The NHTSA suggests that the Washington press conference and the Mother Jones magazine article were among the factors contributed to initiating the investigation, not that a magazine article resulted in the finding of defect:

A formal defect investigation case was initiated on September 13, 1977, based upon allegations that the design and location of the fuel tank in the Ford Pinto make it highly susceptible to damage on rear impact at low to moderate closing speeds. On August 10, 1977, a press conference was held in Washington D.C., to announce the release of an article entitled "Pinto Madness", which was published in the September/October issue of Mother Jones magazine...Following public release of the article, the NHTSA initiated, on August 11, 1977, a preliminary evaluation of the alleged safety defect, and on September 13, a formal defect investigation case.

The NHTSA said it conducted numerous activities in the course of its investigation beyond reading the Mother Jones article, including

• compiling letters from consumers
• compiling letters from congressmen
• compiling reports from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis Fatality Analysis Reporting System
• subpoenaed documents from the Ford Motor Company
• collaboration with the Canadian Ministry of Transportation
• crash testing

The NHTSA compiled reports from the US, Canada, and Ford, and summarized:

In total the NHTSA is aware of 38 cases in which rear-end collisions of Pinto vehicles have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel system leakage and/or ensuing fire. These cases have resulted in a total of 27 fatalities sustained by Pinto occupants, of which one is reported to have resulted from impact injuries. In addition, 24 occupants of these Pinto vehicles have sustained non-fatal burn injuries

The NHTSA summarized its crash testing:

...in two Pinto tests with the full size vehicle travelling at 35 miles per hour, fires resulted.

The NHTSA summarized the litigation history:

In the history of product liability actions filed against Ford and other co-defendants involving rear impact of Pintos with fuel tank damage/fuel leakage/fire occurrences, nine cases have been settled. Of these, the plaintiffs have been compensated in 8 cases, either by jury award or out of court settlements.

The NHTSA said its finding of defect was based on its investigation:

Based upon the information either developed or acquired during this investigation, the following conclusions have been reached: 1971-1976 Ford Pintos have experienced moderate speed, rear-end collisions that have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel leakage, and fire occurrences that have resulted in fatalities and non-fatal burn injuries.

Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that "public outcry" and a magazine article "resulted" in the NHTSA finding of defect is grossly pointed. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The reasons given by the Ford itself behind its recall

Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider Ford's own reasons given for its recall. Ford said the recall was unrelated to the NHTSA finding of defect.

• Jones, William H. (June 10, 1978). "Ford Recalls 1.5 Million Small Cars. Ford Recalls 1.5 Million Pintos, Bobcats, Pintos, Bolcats Face Alteration To Cut Fire Risk". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 4, 2016.

But NHYSA, a Department of Transportation agency, informed Ford on May 8 about results of the new investigation, which concluded that Pintos had a safety defect. A public hearing was scheduled for next week, at which time internal Ford documents related to the fuel tank situation were to be made public...In a prepared statement, Ford vice President Herbet L. Misch said: "Ford informed NHTSA that it does not agree with the agency's initial determination of May 8 that an unreasonable risk of safety is involved in the design of these cars..." Misch said Ford decided to offer the modifications "so as to end public concern that has resulted from criticism of the fuel systems in these vehicles".

Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the diversity of reliable sources in giving reasons for the recall. The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978) said Ford recalled to scuttle a scheduled public hearing and to avoid adverse publicity:

A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.

Danley concurs with the Ford Motor Company, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal in citing the Ford Motor Company's agency in their choice to recall:

• Danley, John R. (April 2005). "Polishing up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk". Business Ethics Quarterly. 15 (2): 205–236. doi:10.5840/beq200515211.

Ford could have refused to recall and have chosen instead to defend the Pinto's design in the formal recall hearings at NHTSA. While this tactic could easily have delayed any forced recall for months, if not for more than a year, the cost of the publicized hearings to Ford's reputation could have been substantial, even if Ford had been successful in the end. Ford agreed to "voluntarily recall" the Pinto in June 1978.

Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that the NHTSA finding "resulted" in the recall is non-neutral, oversimplified, and grossly pointed original research. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope of Category:Sports festivals

Please comment at Talk:Multi-sport_event#RfC:_Can_an_acceptable_definition_be_written_for_Category:Sports_festivals? – Fayenatic London 16:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Complicated unreferenced example for Cutting stock problem

Please see the dispute in Talk:Cutting stock problem#Example. The opposite party and their sock ignore to discuss the issue in talk page, so my request for third opinion was rejected for burocratical reasons, hence I have to bother a larger community.

My point is that per WP:V, a complicated example of a computational problem accompanied with claims difficult to verify, must be supplied with references. While small, easy to verify examples are OK - üser:Altenmann >t 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that in an older version, the text read: it is believed that in this case the minimum number of patterns with this level of waste is 10, which suggests that it isn't OR (at least not from the editor who added the example). I found the problem listed as an exercise in "Case Studies in Operations Research: Applications of Optimal Decision Making" page 419. The example in the article prompted a question on stackexchange. It's also mentioned here, a Visual basic solver is discussed/demonstrated here. The problem and the figure showing the solution is included in this lecture, same for these lecture notes (did these lectures get the picture from wikipedia?), also used in the dataset of this paper. Another source listing the problem: http://www.ijiee.org/vol5/518-F0013.pdf

So for the problem itself, at least one reliable source is available (the book mentioned). Verifying that the given solution is indeed a minimum-waste solution is easy enough, the sum of the widths of the 219 rolls needed is 407160, which can't be cut from 72 master rolls since 72*5600 is only 403200, so any solution using 73 rolls will be minimum waste. Other claims (minimum patterns is 10, 19 different solutions..) are harder to check and would probably require a reference.

I'm not familiar with MATLAB; the code listed doesn't look for a minimum-waste solution, since the "c" array already contains the total width for the patterns in the given solution, but what that code is supposed to do with that, I have no idea... Prevalence 08:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-context materials in "Battle of Ia Drang"

I want to report about user:Tnguyen4321's out-of-context use of materials from RS:

• In section Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley, he has written as follow

There were two battlefronts at the Chu Pong massif areas: a ground force operation, code-named "Operation Long Reach", conducted by the 1st Air Cavalry and an air force operation, code-named "Plei Me-Chu Pong Campaign", conducted by the B-52 bombers. The code name "Plei Me-Chu Pong Campaign" implies the B-52 bombing over Chu Pong operation that was on the planning since September 1965 entered in action at Pleime on October 20, was carried out with the support of the 1st Air Cavalry Division that set up and fix the targets with Operations All the Way and Silver Bayonet I for Arc Light strikes. The 5-day Arc Light operation was subsequently supported by the 2nd Air Cavalry Brigade conducting Operation Silver Bayonet II in conjunction with the ARVN Airborne Group conducting Operation Than Phong 7, which was conducted after the fighting at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany had been over.

In fact, when I read the RS that are cited in the above section, I found no words indicating that the air operations were supported by the Air Cav units. I also failed to find any indication about the relation between the real air strikes in October 1965 and the planning for a B-52 strike in September.

• Your concern has been addressed with following editing since [37]:

"The original plan to employ strategic bombers in support of the division was presented by the Assistant Division Commander (ADC-A) through Field Force Vietnam Commanding General to the J-3 of US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam."

The B-52 bombing operation and the Air Cavalry ground operation were so interconnected that the wording of the McChristian's text and of Kinnard's pertaining to activities from 23 October to 20 November is quasi word-for-word with minors editing regarding difference in intelligence and general staff matters. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• So it's even clearer: the bombers were "in support of the division", not the opposite as you've written. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• That's exactly what I'm about to say. The sentence "The B-52 bombing operation and the Air Cavalry ground operation were so interconnected that the wording of the McChristian's text and of Kinnard's pertaining to activities from 23 October to 20 November is quasi word-for-word with minors editing regarding difference in intelligence and general staff matters." was obviously a self-made conclusion derived from two separate RS, which is a violation of the WP:NOR regulation. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Look, we are discussing about the ranking of the two air and ground operation, which one come first and which one come second, which one is the main and which on is the secondary, which on is giving support/facilitating the other. "The original plan" that Knowles is talking about is the one hatched out since September 1965, prior to the advent of Pleime and the involvment of the Air Cavalry. It was initially supposed to have only one component: Arc Light Chu Pong operation. When the B3 Field Front decided to attack Pleim with only two instead of three regiments, it was modified to include a second component, with that it became: Arc Light Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign. The entire McChristian's report describes the group preparation work done by the Air Cavalry in assisting the creation of available targets for the B-52 strike. Note that the RS are given not in one page, but in multiple pages: (McChristian, pp. 9-62), and (Kinnard, pp. 18-103).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• That's what you said, not what McChristian said. He said that the area was planned as "a possible target for a B-52 strike" in September, and no more. Can you point out any particular quote in which he claimed that the air strike in October actually rooted from the September plan? Can you point out any in which he claimed the the Cavalry units performed on the field 'in order to support the air strike? If you just derived such conclusion from such 53 pages, then you've conducted an OR again.
• You've still failed to explained what did he mean when he said that the bombers were "in support of the division" 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• As we see the history of the article, we can find out several versions in the past edited by this user claiming that the ARVN was one of the belligerents, and that its commander was a commander of the battle, which are distorted info derived from the book Why Pleime. He even used to claim that such commanding power was exercised in terms of "OPCON" or "operational control", [38] which are terminologies that are not even mentioned in the book for a single time.117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly, you mistakenly equate "OPCON" and "operational control"; It is rather OPCON=operation concept=concept of operation. Secondly, the term had been removed from the info-box of the article subsequent to my realization of your misinterpretation.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please read again what you wrote in that version.[39]
• Please read the definition again to see what OPCON means.[40]
• By the way your idea to insert South Vietnam as an active belligerent is still an OR.117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's no more there, no?
• I thought we are done discussing this OPCON thing starting here
• It pertains to the RS you put there re: supported by ARVN>Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Find any quote from the source that directly shows such pertaining. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I hereby rest my case and let other members and administrators express their opinions. I can no more dialogue with someone that insists eastern foot of in "at the foot of the Chu Pong Massif" - a verbatim quote - means east of as in "east of the Chu Pong Massif".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

At the "eastern foot" actually. You distort stuff even in a noticeboard. And in addition, I don't have to explain for something that only blind people fail to see like this map. [41] The WP:NOR doesn't require RS explanation for such a thing. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As a second thought, I cannot resist responding to this one.

So then why did you pin a tag on this paragraph here?

Isn't obvious that: 5 days > 2 days; Chupong-Iadrang complex > the LZ X-Ray; the 3AC's B-52 fleet > 1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions; and 3 NVA 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments > 2 NVA 7th and 9th battalions ? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears clear now why you make use of the tag indiscriminately: whenever you are not capable to "see it" in a statement without or even with a RS, you make use of the tag.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• From what source have you come up with the idea that the significance of a military operation is judged through its duration, the area it covers, or the number of units participate in it?
• What source says that the Air Cav operation was on 14–15 November only? 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had rest my case once. After me having a second thought, it is definite starting now.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work, now everybody can see you've conducted OR without explanation. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

request for comments on following bogus tags

1. tag#1 line 219
2. tag#2 line 225
3. [42]

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Some facts about my "opponent":

1. He is a non registered editor using multiple IPs such as 113.190.172.153, 180.148.2.189, 113.190.165.78, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116.
2. He is an editor with a political agenda: North Vietnam versus South Vietnam
3. He is indiscriminately using the OR tool that he had learned to wield after failing in the use of a much less sophisticate and primitive deletion tool like shown here.

4. He is uncompromising as shown here

5. He is the sole editor, besides me, that is involved in this editing war.

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• case #1 here
• case #2 here

 Done I have fixed the issue of OR of case #1 here and case #2 here.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• In case #1, I have removed statement containing "words indicating that the air operations were supported by the Air Cav units",and "indication about the relation between the real air strikes in October 1965 and the planning for a B-52 strike in September" (correction of wrong air strikes date: November 1965).
• In case #2, I have rephrased the paragraph so as it contains only statements that are "attributed" or "attributable".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You've done much but I think more should be done:

• About the suspected OR in the 1st para, I think you should point out the exact page[s] which say[s] that the Air Cav Division "set up and fixed the targets" or something like that instead of deriving a conclusion from 53 pages like that. Nobody can see which page indicate that point.
• The last para is still 100% OR. You've failed to point out which page says that it's "more significant", or which academic standard makes it "more significant" just due to the number of days or number of units involved. Moreover the info you've given that the ground operation took place in only 2 days was totally wrong and supported by no source 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are unreasonable in requiring a verbatim quote. It is not "noboby", only "you". You should request for comments on this. You even fail to recognize and admit an attributable statement such as in 2+2=4 in insisting for a RS.
• The statement is attributable, like the statement that says 2+2=4.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• It is obvious that you have no clue what "original research" means in Wikipedia. You should try to have a better and correct understanding of this notion with all its subtleties. You are applying it in a improper manner. At the meantime, you should seek for advices from more knowledgeable editors on this noticeboard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're the one who totally misunderstand what does "attributable" means. If you says those things are attributable just like "2+2=4" then what is an example of unattributable thing? There must be a threshold, right? Yes, I think only "you" find it not attributable, because you are the one who derive it from the source. I can't see something attributable that is not even mentioned by a single document in this world like that the Ia Drang ground operation occured in 2 days. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Will somebody please stop this abusive OR-tagging:[43]

In comparison, the air action was much more significant than the ground action in terms

1. of time (5 days>2 days),
2. of space (100 square kilometers > 100 square meters),
3. of units committed (96 sorties>3 battalions),
4. and of enemy forces attacked (9 battalions > 2 battalions).

By tagging at the end of the paragraph, the editor also failed to realized the sum of each attributable components is also attributable.

This editor has no clue these are attributable facts in invoking the OR tag. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

The IP has been warned re: vandalism here.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Belligerent info box

Re: RS that is cited in the "Belligerent info box, I found no words indicating that the US was supported by the ARVN.

It is the other way around. In the conflict, the two belligerents were the NVA (aggressor) and the ARVN (aggressee)The ARVN was supported by the US.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's totally attributable, just like 1+1=2. Can I say like that?

p/s: In fact I do have RS proof of that. But I want to see how you define your concept of "attributable". It sounds like you have the tendency to define anything that you've failed to explain by RS as "attributable". 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't you realize you have been given the chance to taste your own medicine? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's for you, yet you haven't realized it. If you think you really understand the "attributable" concept, why don't you just explain what's wrong with what I say, huh? 222.252.32.116 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you state US supported by ARVN, I stated ARVN supported by US.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, now prove what I say unattributable. You say you understand that term so much, right? 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In challenging me as such, it shows that you have no clue what is "attributed" and what is "attributable". What you say is attributed to a reliable source, in this case "Vinh Loc, p.119"; it is not attributable; if it is then it wouldn't require a citation. And you wouldn't have to back up your statement (US supported by ARVN) as you are doing; and I wouldn't not pin an OR-tag on it (nonsense, right? I have been copy-catting you, so that, as I said, you get to taste your own medecine.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article." (WP:CHALLENGED)

p/s: Sorry but the way of your reasoning, it's unthinkable; I've never done that before. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" WP:BLUE Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Trying to understand SYNTH

Is the below paragraph SYNTH? (part after the last comma in particular)

Although some scholars have claimed that the fustanella was introduced into Greece by Albanians in the 15th century, archaeological evidence shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greece as early as the 12th century, predating the arrival of Albanian-speakers on Greek lands by several centuries. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

it is absolutely synthesis unless a source directly makes the entire claim, starting with summarizing the opinions of some scholars and ending with a contradictory statement. WP editors are not allowed to present information so that one piece of information contradicts another, unless that contradiction is specifically and explicitly made in a reliable source. So on top of WP:SYN issues, there are also NPOV elements to presenting this information in such a fashion.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I suspected. You would assume editors with 7+ years of Wiki experience would understand this by now, but apparently not. DevilWearsBrioni (talk)

People tend to put on blinders when pushing their own agenda.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It simply falls into wp:OBVIOUS. If event X occurred prior to event Y, we have that X predates Y.Alexikoua (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, regarding matters such as this it is not 'obvious' as you state. The last part of that sentence "predating the arrival of Albanian-speakers on Greek lands by several centuries." is synthesis and also wp:original research (there is no reference/s whatsoever at the end of that sentence). The article clearly using sources states that yes the Fustanella did exist amongst the Greek speaking world in ancient times and that in time it became the preserve of the elite class well into the Byzantine era. They do not state though that the fustanella was an item of clothing amongst the masses as a continued fashion. Instead scholarly sources of which are cited in the article do refer to its reappearance amongst the Greek speaking masses in the 19th century to either Ali Pasha's time and spread due to his administration and/or the Arvanites i.e Orthodox Albanian speakers who affiliated themselves with the Greek national movement and made the garment popular. The bit of the sentence i have cited needs to go, as first and foremost it constitutes original research. Sentence needs to be split too. New sentence should start from archeological part.Resnjari (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it falls under WP:NOR as explained to you by Scoobydunk. You are synthesizing material to arrive at a conclusion that's not stated by either sources. The implied conclusion serves to purposefully diminish the scholarly opinion of those who claim that the fustanella was (re)introduced to Greece by Albanians. Also, notice how Morgan distinguishes between latter-day Greece and Greek lands. The origins section already deals with the fustanella during the Byzantine Empire. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing "explained" to me in this noticeboard after I've posted here. For future reference you need to invite all interested parts before trying to reach a concensus (since you intentionally? didn't inform anyone in the correspondent talkpage).Alexikoua (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Use or abuse of WP:PRIMARY?

An article undergoing a Good Article Review involves, inter alia, whether or not primary sources are over/misused. See Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/William_L._Uanna/1. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Article in need of attention

The good folks at Language Log have drawn our attention to the hypertrophied monstrosity that is California Proposition 218 (1996), which (insofar as it's readable) seems to be entirely the original work of one editor, with a complete paraphrase of the proposition's text included for good measure. Neutrality has done some sterling work on the article in the past day or two, but I think the more eyes we can get on it, the better. Tevildo (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent post - I was about to post much the same! I heartily agree that we need more eyeballs on this, and ASAP. Neutrality^talk 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy Good Lord that article is long! Original Research problems aside, why are there two-hundred and fifty-one sections and subsections? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think far more pressing than OR, is the length of the article, and the overly technical language. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Price of anarchy

This looks like original research to me but not sure if qualifies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_anarchy

Not OR. Google pulls up many references. But the article does need a rewrite because all it is doing is summarizing the original paper (the one where the term was first coined). Our article was probably written by one of the authors of the original paper because it was created before that paper was published. --regentspark (comment) 10:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, not OR. This is a major subtopic in theoretical computer science and computational game theory. It's possible that some of the examples in the article are OR but the bigger problem is that it's overly WP:TECHNICAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this is not OR. Also agree that the article might need a rewrite and some restructuring of words. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Article "39P/Oterma" entirely based on original research?

I have a problem with the article about periodic comet 39P/Oterma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39P/Oterma). The subject of that article is a comet that apparently has a very interesting and peculiar orbit that is nicely described in the article, with a detailed description of what has been done by the author. But there is no external source, so I assume the entire description is based on the author's own unpublished calculations. Is this a violation of the "no original research" rule? And if so, how can the article be saved in its current form, but satisfying the wiki rules?

Note: I successfully repeated the "experiment" done by the author myself, using the newer Solex12 and Exorb8 software, repeating the steps he describes. The result appears to be reliable.

Renerpho (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Made up information

Special:Contributions/CarloRossi1010 seems to add made up information to multiple articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

CarlosRossi1010 appears to simply be a vandal going around deliberately adding false content to pages. This should probably be taken to the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this matter should be taken to a more appropriate noticeboard to be dealt with. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions and OR

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:English people#Original research about whether giving a dictionary definition of a nation, and then stating that the English people meet this definition, constitutes original research if no source is provided apart from for the dictionary definition (which does not mention the English). Comments would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Using a dictionary definition to go around and make your own determination of whether things fall under that definition is considered original research. It should be easy to find reliable sources that explicitly make the claim.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Extensive quoting from a primary source

Many articles on German military men contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on war-time propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?

This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NPOV? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH issues?

The contentious part:

Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. (Tsoutsoumpis, 2015) Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state. (Baltsiotis, 2011)

The three sentences above, seem, at least to me clearly suggest that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies by the Greek state because they raided villages as far north as Pogoni. While this is not explicitly stated by either sources, Alexikoua that maintains "it's obvious". On the other hand, I have argued that Muslim bands can not be equated with Muslim Chams since the region was home to other Muslims as well, and that unless explicitly stated by the sources, the treatment of Muslim Chams on the eve of the first Balkan wars by the Greek army can not be correlated with the activity of Muslim bands.

Cited material

"The tensions that had been building in the area finally exploded during the Balkan War of 1912-1913. The war took the form of brutal guerrilla fighting, waged primarily by local civilians who were armed by the Greek and Ottoman governments. In the autumn of 1912, Muslim bands raided villages as far north as the area of Pogoni in Ioannina; resulting in hundreds of Greek peasants abandoning their homes and seeking shelter in Corfu and Arta. Atrocities were widespread and no prisoners were taken from either side. Greek irregulars responded in kind from January 1913 onwards." (Tsoutsoumpis, 2015) "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors." (Baltsiotis, 2011)

There's an ongoing discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, you are once again trying to justify your POV and turn a blind eye to the sources by proving something you can't prove. One of the sources (not cited here, but on the relevant page) clearly states that the Cham Albanians commited atrocities against the Greek populations in the region, and burned the Greek villages. The Greek irregular bands, formed by the Greek villagers who fled their burning villages and survived these atrocities, were armed and enlisted by the Greek government, and then responded to these Cham Albanian atrocities 'in kind'. Furthermore the other source states that the Greek Government considered the Cham Albanians to be a threat. With simple words, the Greek state treated the Cham Albanians as enemies and also it armed the Greek villagers against them. Both sources cover the exact same period - the very late Ottoman period and the onset of the First Balkan Wars. To insist of your part that this is SYNTH or OR, and to imply that the Greek army didn't response to the Cham Albanian bands by arming the Greek villagers, and that the one event is unrelated to the other event, clearly constitutes POV and you are trying to manipulate the sources. Your argument that the Greek government's arming of Greek villagers was done for other but unknown reasons (?), and the Greek government's treating of the Cham Albanians as enemies, was, again, done for other but unknown reasons (?), which are not explicitly stated in any sources, clearly constitutes POV and goes against Wikipedia's rules. If you believe that the Cham Albanian actions are unrelated to the Greek policies against them, and you believe that it is a mere coincidence that both events happened during the same time period, then, please, could you at least provide us with any sources confirming this? That could be great. Unless you provide us with sources backing your personal opinions regarding the historical events of that time, Alexikoua's edits will stay. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I presume you’re referring to the dissertation by Pitouli-Kitsou as one of the sources ”not cited here”. In case it’s not obvious, it was not included here because it's not used as an inline to support the contentious part. Also, the source in question states that Muslim Chams had fought against the Greek army, setting fire to villages in the region. What you continiously fail to acknowledge is that burning of villages were carried out by both sides during the war. If the narrative is to justify the treatment of Muslim Chams by the Greek army, then I can understand why it would make sense to highlight that Muslim Chams burned villages while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the Greek army engaged in similar activities. Moreover, the burning of villages described by Pitouli-Kitsou occurred during the war which leads me to the following: you wrote that "The Greek irregular bands, formed by the Greek villagers who fled their burning villages and survived these atrocities, were armed and enlisted by the Greek government, and then responded to these Cham Albanian atrocities 'in kind'". Care to provide the source, in English?

As to why the Greek state considered Muslim Chams to be a threat, it's probably a multiple of reasons, and certainly not just as simple as a consequence of the activity of some Muslim bands. Baltsiotis never explicitly states why, but maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with the situation prior to annexation, a subject Tzanelli also touches on. And maybe, just maybe, it's connected to Greek policy during the Balkan wars which sought to cleanse the region of Muslims? Do you see where I'm getting at, and why original research opens a whole new can of worms?

Accompanying sources

"When part of the Albanian elite proposed to King George of the Hellenes a plan for an Albanian-Greek Federation in Epirus, a region the Greek state wanted to annex, Italy incited Albanian nationalism in the region and cancelled further negotiations. Consequently, at the beginning of the 1880s the Greek press openly incited anti-Albanian hatred, associating the Albanian irredentists with Turkish anti-Greek propaganda, and baptizing them Vlachs and ‘Turkalbanian brigands’ (Ai.n, 10 and 14 July 1880; Palingenes.a, 3 April 1881). The nationalist subtext of this definition became clearer: those ‘Vlachs/Albanians’ wanted to plunder and de-Hellenize territories belonging to the Greek nation – even though the Greek state continued to use brigand bands as irredentist forces to claim European territories of Turkey. At the dawn of the 1880s, the Greek ‘ethnic truth’ began to support the reverse logic: non-Greek (Vlach/Albanian) national enemies were represented as brigands (The Times, 14 August and 7 September 1876)." (Tzanelli, 2008) "Contemporary Greek political discourse has adapted the nineteenthcentury formula of Albanian exclusion hermeneutically. Like its antecedent, it is structured around conflations of physical boundaries with symbolic borders (criminality, deviance, dirt, disease) and promotes a fictional preservation of racial purity against ‘alien contamination’,feeding Greeks’ desire to claim direct racial and cultural continuity from antiquity." (Tzanelli, 2008) "During the Balkan Wars there was a policy of driving the Muslims living in the areas which after 1913 became part of Greece and Bulgaria towards death or exile. This policy was carried out by military and paramilitary troops from both states and continued during the First World War." (Katsika, 2009) "The existence of a region (Chamouria) whose population was roughly half Muslim and almost entirely Albanian speaking was considered a serious problem for the Greek state, which had to be confronted both practically and discursively. Every pro-Albanian movement in these areas had to be eliminated by all means. [For example, the impartial, otherwise known by Greeks as “moderate” president of the Albanian Club of Yanina was assassinated in the summer of 1912, probably after an order of the pro-Greek League Ipirotiki Etairia (see L. Embirikos…, op. cit., p. 162)]" (Baltsiotis, 2011)

DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, may I ask why you have posted just now a question on my Talk Page that is relevant to the ongoing discussion in the Administrator's Noticeboard (ANI)? Please, by no means, try do divert the discussion from the ANI to other people's Talk Page, even if they are mere questions, and I recommend that you stick to the Administrator's Noticeboard and any questions you have, are posted here instead. This allows us to keep the discussion as compact as possible. Thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no ongoing discussion on ANI. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources in the article about the Cham Albanian Expulsion, confirm that the Chams were EVENTUALLY treated as enemies by the Greek state, but none of the sources has yet confirmed that this was unrelated to the war's events or before the war's events. None of the sources ever confirmed that the Greek Army was outrightly killing any Cham Albanian on its way just for fun or just because there was animosity between the two sides, the Chams and the Greeks. None ever claimed this. Everyone agrees that each side had its mistrust and negative sentiments against the other side, but also everyone agrees that it is the actions that marked the war, the actions that shaped the events in the war, not the people's personal feelings. Can you provide me with any sources that the framing of the Chams as enemies was pre-set already from the very onset of the war, and for whatever reasons other than the Chams siding with the Ottomans and raiding Greek villages? Because if there is a such source, we will need to see it. Can you provide us with any reliable sources that back your POV theories and claims that the Greek Army treated the Chams as enemies for other reasons besides the events that marked the war? Can you prove that the Greeks labeled the Chams as enemies, not for siding with the Ottomans and raiding the Greek villages, but for another reason which was not stated yet?

You don't seem to understand how this works. I provided the two sources which are used as inlines for the contentious part. I even provided further sources, for the sake of discussion, to provide some context with regards to the Greek state's view on Muslim Chams. I don't need to provide evidence of how the Greek army treated anyone before the war, you need to provide evidence that the Greek army treated the Muslim Chams as enemies as a consequence of the activity of Muslim bands, because that's what the wikipedia entry reads. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, according to the sources, as soon as the Balkan Wars started and conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Greece erupted, the Greek state attempted to approach the local Cham representatives in order to discuss the possibility of a Greek-Albanian alliance. However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia. Pitouli-Kitsou confirms that the Cham Albanians have ALREADY formed their irregular bands when the war broke at Autumn 1912, and they sided with the Ottomans, fought against the advancing Greek army and burned the Greek villages. But the thing which you fail to catch here, dear DevilWearsBrioni, is that according to Pitouli-Kitsou, the Greek government made efforts to NEGOTIATE with the Cham community, not make outright any wars with them. None of them, not even Baltsiotis, ever stated that the Greek state had them labeled as enemies from the VERY VERY start. There are no sources stating that the Cham Albanians were labeled as enemies BEFORE they sided with the Ottomans and opposed the Greeks. Even Baltsiotis used the term NEVERTHELESS, not IMMEDIATELY. This is the key difference, dear DevilWearsBrioni. You recall Baltsiotis sources, but you fail to see that Baltsiotis stated how nevertheless, in the war, the Chams remained as the Greek state's enemies, while the Greek state enlisted local villagers against them.

The thing is, I am not the one failing to grasp the facts, DevilWearsBrioni. Is you. That the Greek army treated the Chams as enemies is a fact. None ever disputes this, and especially not me or Alexikoua or everyone else. However this does not mean that we will pretend that the sources mean otherwise from what they state. I am sorry but we can not tolerate source manipulation to prove or maintain something that is not stated by the sources in the first place. Wikipedia's rules are crystal-clear on this. No one should try to manipulate the sources as if they were saying that the Greek government labeled and treated the Cham Albanians as enemies before the events during the Balkan Wars.-- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of manipulating sources, this is what Pitouli-Kitsou actually says: "Among the beys of Epirus, mostly Labs and Chams, who had strong anti-Greek feelings, had already formed militias and fought against the Greek army and the Greek forces, burning villages in the areas of Paramythia and Fanari. As early as October 17th Athens had entrusted Spyromilios to confer with their beys, in order for them declare submission as soon as possible, assuring them that the Greek authorities would respect the life and property of Muslims and that the Greek government would take care of their moral satisfaction, depending on the services that would be offered."

According to the soure, Muslim Chams had set fire to villages during the war against the Greek army. According to your interpretation, "Greek state attempted to approach the local Cham representatives in order to discuss the possibility of a Greek-Albanian alliance. However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia." This implies that Muslim Chams had set fire to villages before Spyromilios had approached the Muslim beys (October 17, the day Greece declared war). What's your excuse for distorting the source?

Baltsiotis states "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies" which essentially has the same meaning as "Muslim Chams were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek army even though they were reluctant to fight on the side of the Ottoman army". No amount of mental gymnastics can change this. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more than obvious that 'Muslims' refers to "Muslim Chams": the Muslims of Thesprotia. In Tsoutsoumbis the specific section is labelled: "The land and the people" and it begins with a geopolitical analysis: "Thesprotia is located in north-western Greece, .....During the early 20th century the population was a little over 65,000 one-third of whom were Muslims". Everyone can conclude that this was the Muslims community involved in the events.

This was also discussed by third-part editors here: with a similar response [[44]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you show that these Muslim bands weren't Turks from Macedonia? Or Greek muslims from Epirus? Maybe Muslim Albanians from Macedonia? Muslim Labs? Why doesn't Tsoutsoumpis refer to them as "Muslim Cham Bands"?

Also, care to explain what the "similar response" (similar to what?) was? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This is POV! Please stick to the facts here. Any assumptions like "the Muslims who burned the Greek villages in Thesprotia weren't Chams but other Muslim people from other parts of the Balkans or the world", is just that: assumptions and unproven claims. Nothing more. This is not how Wikipedia works. Please, do you have any sources to back your claims? Because so far, I have failed to see how your POV statements and theories are proven true. According to sources and estimes in Wikipedia about the demographics in the Vilayet of Janina (which includes Thesprotia), the vast majority of the Muslim community in the region consisted of Cham Albanians (210,000-315,000 Cham Albanians - over 94% of total Muslim population in the region), with the Turks representing only a small portion of it (10,000-20,000, which is a mere 6% of total). If you want to make changes to the article, feel free to do so, but only if you have sources backing your claims. Otherwise do not expect your POV edits to be accepted by the community.

I am sorry but I think you are once again trying to deny the reality and the facts and even push a certain narrative here, in accordance with your POV. Otherwise I can not explain your theories about other muslims from other parts of the world coming to Thesprotia. If you believe that you can proceed with WP:Fringe theories, then you are wrong. I am sorry but your claims are not accompanied with any sources, and, by looking at the overall picture, I fail to understand how all this proves your position right in your complaint on ANI about fellow other users, such as Alexikoua maintaining narratives. It looks like you came here to report a non-existent OR case, but, I feel this whole discussion being turned out into a Fringe and POV case? My apologies for saying that, but I am very very confused, dear DevilWearsBrioni. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I never claimed that "the Muslims who burned the Greek villages in Thesprotia weren't Chams". The inline says "Muslim Bands", you interpret it as "Muslim Chams". What I'm saying is that the onus is on you to show that "Muslim bands" = "Muslim Chams". In other words, if a court asks you to provide evidence that someone is guilty, their request does not imply the belief that the person in question is innocent. Second, the vilayet of Janina stretched almost as far up as Tirana. The majority of its population were not Cham Albanians. In fact, contrary to what you confidently assert, only a fraction of its population were Muslim Cham Albanians. For example, Tsoutsoumpis states "Thesprotia is located in north-western Greece, and before its incorporation in the Greek state it was a part of the vilayet of Ioannina. During the early 20th century the population was a little over 65,000 one-third of whom were Muslims". You clearly haven't even bothered reading some of the sources, evident by your lack of understanding of who even Muslim Chams were at the time. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation

A brief video summary about Michael Jackson.

A simple video explanation of German reunification.

I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As I think there are other (if not bigger) issues than NOR, can I suggest this thread be closed in favor of the parallel thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Simpleshow foundation? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FYI comments regarding this have been posted at the original thread here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Simpleshow foundation. IMO the WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTIONal aspects of these videos make them problematic at best. I concur with Rhododendrites assessment of where this should be discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 01:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's OR. There's no indication that this foundation consists of anything more than the typical self-publishing source. There is zero evidence that this foundation has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require. Just because it's in a video format doesn't change the problems with it; if this was still graphics, it would be more obvious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this is a reply to Moxy to say that it's a problem or a reply to me to disagree about venue. Regardless, my point wasn't that OR is unrelated; it's that there are also COI issues, the question of what media is "encyclopedic" per image use policy/wp:video/whatnot, WP:RS, etc.... In other words, if the videos cited reliable sources, say, there wouldn't be much to say about OR, but the other problems would still be there. That's why I suggested having the discussion elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I certainly endorse Rhododendrites' attmept to close one of these discussions. There seems to be more activity and commenting over at ANI. The videos are an important issue, and the discussion needs to happen in one place preferably.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This probably belongs on WP:COIN, but I agree these videos are not appropriate for Wikipedia for several reasons. Should be banned/blacklisted. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:OR does not apply to pictures and by extension it does not need to apply to videos. It would be better if the videos contained references at the end. I am sure those form the foundation would be happy to add them going forwards.
  • With respect to COI, no that does not apply. The video is about the topic in question, it is not about the SimpleShow Foundation.
  • The videos does not even mention the Simple Show Foundation at the beginning. Mentioning at the end for a second or two is not a big deal IMO. And people are free to remove that bit as they are under a CC BY SA license.
  • This user should definitely not be banned or blocked. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with Doc James; the videos are kind of basic, but I don't think OR applies to pictures or videos. The Simpleshow videos used on some medical articles add to the article, which is the whole point of media. Honestly, there are some things that are just hard to describe in words, and that's where a video comes in handy. I wish they'd make one for the dressage article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The idea that OR doesn't apply to a video like this seems crazy to me. Of course OR applies. We're not talking about an illustration or example of a subject. We're not talking about a supplement to the article. These videos are substitutes for the content of the article. That the words are inside a file rather than in the article does not grant a free pass to dismiss content policies like WP:OR. It cites no sources, isn't being used a source in itself, and, although I know I'm beating a dead horse here, isn't serving to illustrate article content but to stand in for it. I also don't understand this argument that COI doesn't apply. If you work for an organization that produces videos, then creating an account specifically to insert those videos into articles is pretty textbook WP:COI and is not dependent on the subject of the article. I don't think the user should be blocked, and as I commented at the ANI thread, I think there are ways to work with Simpleshow, but I don't get these arguments from experienced editors. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Review of genre" on "Interactive fiction"

The Review of genre section seems to be a highly biased "review" of the genre from one individual, and entirely without any references. There are probably also many factual errors. --Curiousdannii (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Curiousdannii: It's an unsourced 14k block of commentary added several months ago. Don't know that it needs to be discussed here, as I can't imagine removing it being controversial. I went ahead and did so, moving the text to the article talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Review source

There's an extinct ethnic group called Harla that supposedly spoke a semitic language by the vast majority of sources but it says semitic or Cushitic. The source being used to label it Cushitic has no mention of "Cushitic". [45] or [46] Looks synthesised and original research. Editor opinion needed. Kiziotherapy (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women

The article Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women can probably be deleted as obvious WP:SYNTH. Parenthetically, it's also grossly incorrect.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This was posted months ago, but was not placed inside a section so has been sitting at the top of the page, unarchivable, since then. Given it didn't get any responses (as it seems nobody saw it) I'm moving it to the bottom. @AllGloryToTheHypnotoad: Does this still need attention? Also, please remember to add new threads to the bottom, and to start with a new heading. The easiest way to do this is to click the "new section" tab at the top of the page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's prudent to claim an entire article is WP:synth. If you have a specific claim in that article that you believe violates WP:OR then feel free to quote it. That being said, I don't know why there is an entire article about Nietzsche's views on women. I think there is an argument to be made that whoever wrote/started the article was making Nietzsche's views on woman more prominent than they need to be. There's no reason this can't be trimmed down into section on the Nietzsche article.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I gave this section a title. Roches (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on possible use of synthesis

There is a request for comment at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources regarding original research and synthesis in the article List of best-selling albums in the United States. Piriczki (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Email Storm

Email storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This (arguably) computer-science topic seems to rely on almost entirely on examples which are referenced with non-technical sources. The "technical" section near the top consists of obviously plausible but unsourced statements. The phrase "eMaelstrom" seems to have no mainstream use. The most authoritative source for this neoligism is Urban Dictionary. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Are hypothetical examples considered OR?

Are hypothetical examples considered original research? This is more of a general question, but the example given at License compatibility#Example provoked the question. I can see rationale for both ways, but what’s the consensus view on this? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

They need to be citable from something. If it's a matter of running calculations, that's one thing, but in the case in question we would need a source which says that the example works out as stated. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Mangoe. Straightforward calculations are okay but anything that needs a judgement or opinion needs to be based on a source. And anything to do with the law requires judgement. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually saw the same thing on that page before I saw this discussion thread and went ahead and tagged it with {{OR section}}. This entire ==Example== section is unsourced and -- even though I am struggling to understand the finer points of OR -- this is clearly all OR unless sources can back it up. The word "suppose" was a major giveaway in my mind and the final "thus" is at least a warning of potential OR. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree... a hypothetical example that is stated in a reliable source can be quoted or summarized (and cited to the source where we found it). However can not create our own hypothetical examples. That is original research. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• It is OR unless it is just a matter of simple calculation, such as saying what a 200 pound man would weigh on the moon. TFD (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Origin (etymology?) of a stage name per primary source (a one-on-one interview with performer).

Is the following considered WP:OR? I am the author of the text in question and I think I have not crossed the line into OR but I would like to explain my approach/logic to analyzing the source and get constructive feedback if I am wrong on where and why my analysis is flawed.

Background/Situation

A performer (rap artist), Dieuson Octave, chose a stage name, Kodak Black, at the beginning of his career. In a one-on-one interview he was asked about the stage name (see "Q: Didn’t you originally get your name, Kodak Black, from Instagram?") and gave an answer. I have used that interview Q&A to explain the meaning/genesis of the name in the WP article about him.

There also was another one-on-one interview (see "Q:How’d you get the name Kodak Black?") which corroborates much of the first interview. I believe that my claim on the genesis/meaning of the stage name is support fully by the one Q&A in the 1st source and that the 2nd interview Q&A, while not so much on-point, does not refute the 1st in any way.

Claim (my reading of the sources)

Octave says that "Kodak Black" is a combination of (a) his childhood nicknames and (b) a play on the words Kodak and Instagram since both are photo related.

Summation (paraphrasing) of the relevant Q&A

• Q: Where does the name "Kodak Black" come from? I've heard it has something to do with Instagram?

• A: (exact quotes in green) I used to be called "Black" and also "Lil' Black" (nicknames). When I created my Instagram account I chose the username "Kodak Black" ‘cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures. People liked that nickname so when I started my career that is what I chose for my stage name.

Premises and logic used for my analysis

(1) PREMISE: The process of paraphrasing and summarizing a source text requires textual analysis. We must understand the meaning of words in the context that they were used before we can correctly paraphrase or summarize them into an article.

(1A) ASSERTION: Careful textual analysis is not WP:OR.

(2) PREMISE: All answers in interviews must be considered-in-context to the question that prompted said answer. For example an answer such as "No flockin' in November." is meaningless gibberish until you pair it up with the question "What is your next song called and when is it being released?".

(2A) ASSERTION: Combining an interview question and it's direct answer is not synthesis.

(3) PREMISE: Common knowledge can exist within a paradigm of a specific context or community. For example it is common knowledge that Facebook is a social media application, however this is only true within the paradigm of internet aware people. It is therefore an appropriate source review strategy to identify what contexts exist for the source used and to then further identify any common knowledge referenced or implied in the text. However, as per WP:CK, if an edit based on some bit of common knowledge is challenged a reliable published source must be cited to support that bit of knowledge. Note that the source for the common knowledge can be separate from the source being analyzed.

(3A) ASSERTION: Use of verifiable common knowledge in analyzing the text of a source is not synthesis.

Based on these premises/assertions I analyzed the Q&A and came to the following conclusions based on the text:

(4A) Octave is aware of and uses the internet.

(4B) Octave is aware of and uses Instagram.

• Note that the source makes it clear that he was using Instagram before he became a rapper.

(4C) It is common knowledge -- within the paradigm of people who are Instagram users -- that Instagram is all about pictures.

• Therefor Octave knows that Instagram is all about pictures.

(5A) Octave was born in and lives in the United States.

(5B) It is common knowledge -- within the paradigm of people who live in the United States -- that Kodak is all about pictures.

• Therefor Octave knows that Kodak is all about pictures.

(6A) Octave was asked an interview question about his stage name and its connection to Instagram.

(6B) Octave replied to that question he had had childhood nicknames of "Black" and "Lil' Black".

• This explains why Black is part of his stage name.

(6C) Octave replied to that question he had created an Instagram account with the user name "Kodak Black".

(6D) Octave replied to that question he chose Kodak as part of his user name "‘cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures".

• This confirms (5B) above: Kodak = pictures.
• Per item (4C) above: Instagram = pictures.

Final Conclusion

When asked about his stage name and its connection to Instagram Kodak explained that it was a combination of his childhood nicknames and a play on a word about photography since it was created for Instagram, a photo-based website.

-- Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of this argument is OR but completely unnecessary. The only issue here is whether the interview is reliably reported. If the source for the interview is reliable, you can write something like "When he was asked about his stage name 'Kodak Black', he replied that...". You report what he said as something he said, not as something true/false/plausible/implausible. Zero^talk 02:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with 1A, but I guess that depends on how you define “carefully.” But wow, you put a lot of work into defending this. To me, it seems pretty clear on the surface, no OR needed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000 above. The whole argument is OR but the result is fine as it doesn't depend on all that. It just depends on a reliable source and the person saying it. Dmcq (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay I am a little confused at this point. I asked about the OR for the source --> text summarization and I got responses that talked about the OR of my approach to the task. Even more confusing the responses all seem (I'm not 100% sure) to indicate my summarization is correct but my logic is wrong. I really do not understand how to use this feedback going forward.

I came here because my original edit was reverted and argued as being "interpretive" OR here. Since the editor had provided detailed logic I felt I also needed to provide detailed logic. I wanted the mental chain-of-events to be clear and thus to find out where my thought processes had gone wrong but the above comments are only making it harder to understand what I did right and what I did wrong. Sorry if I am clueless, I just want to be a better editor. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems we were all missing the context surrounding your question. Respondents here should probably review the edit history and Talk page for Kodak Black.

Anyway, the consensus seems to be that such a rigorous argument is not necessary here, and the source directly supports it well enough. The exact formulation would be the only issue. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station#Cost comparison, where an editor has is disputing the removal of content which I and another editor believe is OR. Any comments would be much appreciated. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Aptronyms

There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving original research and reliable sources at Talk:Aptronym#Original research and lack of sources. Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The question, as I read it, is effectively "Should we use Wikipedia's policies of WP:V and WP:NOR?" and some people are actually answering "no", saying that consensus on the talk page is all that matters. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:VPACT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If the situation is as Rhododendrites has described it is a clear violation of official WP Policy. WP:CONLEVEL states:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
— Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please elaborate on what we should be taking away from that essay regarding this case. WP:OR is ok, even if contested, if it's "common sense"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Evidence for David's Kingdom

At Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) there is the claim "There is archeological evidence for the existence of a Davidic Kingdom" which is not supported by any source. Even the source quoted in its support does not support it (it says there is evidence for David's existence, not for David's Kingdom). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What the cited source says about David's Kingdom is this: "Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale." Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And what "Davidic Kingdom" even means? Does it mean David's Kingdom of Kingdom of the House of David? Big difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there is not a single real (solid, certain) proof of David ever having ruled over a kingdom. Anyway, nobody seems to able to name any. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people in the United States

Few, if any sources describe Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people, a Han Chinese subgroup, in the United States. However there are many sources that discuss this group's migration to parts of China, Southeast Asia etc, as well as Chinese immigration from these parts of the world to the United States. Is it original research to conclude that Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people are in the United States?--Prisencolin (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

of course. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (Frankfurt School)

There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving WP:SYNTHESIS at Talk:Frankfurt_School#RfC:_Does_the_lede_of_the_.22Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory.22_section_follow_WP:NPOV_and_is_its_claim_supported_by_cited_sources.3F Last Contrarian (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Terminology and WP:Synthesis

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Slut-shaming#Scope. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The matter concerns whether or not we should stick to sources that use the term slut-shaming and if not doing so can be a WP:Synthesis violation. How do we judge what is on-topic or is not synthesis if sources don't use the term slut-shaming? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word. I see from the talk page that for some of the sources being disputed, there are other secondary sources that say those are relevant to the topic of slut-shaming, so that's an open-and-shut case. In other instances, there may just need to be a consensus that the claim serves to improve the reader's knowledge about the topic. Rhoark (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, there is no need to state "A Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word." This is not a WP:Not a dictionary matter. This is a matter concerning whether or not it is acceptable to take sources that do not make it explicitly clear, in words, that the topic is about slut-shaming and then using those sources to make claims about slut-shaming. Using sources in that way is WP:Synthesis, as has been shown repeatedly on this site. An editor at the talk page is thinking about broadening the scope of the article; I am being clear that broadening the scope beyond sources using the word slut-shaming to identify slut-shaming is WP:Synthesis. The way that we judge whether or not sources are about the topic is whether the sources explicitly call the topic by its title. Since editors can have different opinions about what is or isn't the topic, or a part of the topic (such as what is or isn't slut-shaming), we do not make judgement calls about whether a source is about a topic. We do not leave such matters open to interpretation. We know this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

Probably could use some uninvolved folks to evaluate the discussion occurring at SSM, before things escalate into a full on ANI crap show. TimothyJosephWood 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering how entrenched the positions seem to be, an "ANI crap show" might actually be the best solution here, assuming certain editors keep up their antics rather than continuing the DR process.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: There's quite a wall of text there. Are you up for summarizing the basics of the dispute you're referring to? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the ping. I guess I didn't watch the page. We hashed out a rewrite of the religious views section after an RfC overcame intransigence. The user then went off on a bit of a tangent, insisting that there are two distinct forms of same sex marriage: civil and religious, and this requires a significant rewrite of the section, or (in the case of three attempts made by the user), the section should be deleted until their standards are met.

This distinction seemed to make sense intuitively on some level, but repeated (I think seven or eight) requests for sources eventually ended up with them admitting there are none, and basically, everyone would accept their personal taxonomy if we just weren't so darned dumb.

Pages if IDHT later they've apparently resolved to do as they please (their words). Changes based on their personal preferences are apparently incoming. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article does say "Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting." That does lend itself to drawing a distinction, but sources about specific positions would have to draw that distinction, too, to include in that context. More often than not the issue of "same-sex marriage" tends to assume a single concept that one is for/against. If someone wants to get into the details of positions of particular religions, we have entire articles about that. This shouldn't do anything other than summarize what those articles (or just religious views of same-sex marriage).

But all of this seems like it might be beside the point. If the problem is a single user edit warring and repeatedly inserting original research, ANI might be the better venue, but it looks like things have died down a bit in the last few days? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a sporadic user. They don't operate in real time. They also don't seem to edit anything but this article, at least not lately, so it seems unlikely they've forgotten or moved on.

What's actually going on, is that the user wants the section deleted entirely. That's not an assumption of bad faith; they've argued for it repeatedly, and done it repeatedly. The lead refers to a difference in ceremony, which is plenty backed up by sources and common sense. This does not seem to be the distinction the user is pushing. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, And there we go. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Querying databases

Lfstevens and I are having a friendly disagreement at Talk:PPACA about whether the following passage (about health insurance statistics) is original research:

Premiums were the same for everyone of a given age, regardless of preexisting conditions. Premiums were allowed to vary by enrollee age, but those for the oldest enrollees (age 45-64 average expenses $5,542) could only be three times as large as those for adults (18-24 $1,836).

References

My concern is that we're querying a primary source database of statistics while applying our own judgment to decide on what parameters to use, e.g. which year, which variables, etc, and then drawing conclusions from the results. Choosing different parameters would yield different results. Isn't this the essence of original research? Thoughts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Which conclusions you have in mind? The text you cited appears to have only "simple math" ("were the same", "could only be three times as large", etc.), which is not WP:SYNTH per policy. BTW, your quote does not say "which year", and this must be, to avoid undue generalization. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to all of the content, but "Premiums were the same for everyone of a given age, regardless of preexisting conditions." in particular. I don't see anywhere the data says this. I'm also concerned about aspects of WP:OR other than WP:SYNTH. By choosing the query parameters, this type of analysis delves into cherry-picking and requires a level of expertise that goes beyond what encyclopedias generally do. (Edit conflict: I don't understand your comment about "which year." As currently written the content is based only on 2007 data but then it makes a general statement not constrained by year.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Diesel engine

The talk page for Diesel engine (Talk:Diesel engine) contains a discussion and an RfC about the contributions of George Brayton. His Brayton engine used the Brayton cycle to do something similar to Rudolf Diesel's engine. I have some WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns about the additions being proposed. I was invited to the RfC by the RfC service and there are only a couple of editors participating in the discussion. Roches (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this a synth violation

There ia s policy contention here, which requires external third party review to clarify a point. The guidebook writes:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

At Black Sunday, 1937, I introduced a source, and added a further source later on. The page deals with a moment in the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936-1939, when from autumn 1937 the Zionist group Irgun decided to adopt terrorist tactics, by ignoring the policy of restraint (havlagah) and killing civilians, a turning point in Zionism's history marked by that event and in its immediate aftermaths.

(A) source Benny Morris,Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011 pp.145f

Now for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed, for the first time more or less matching the numbers of Jews murdered in the Arab pogroms and rioting of 1929 and 1936. This “innovation” soon found Arab imitators and became something of a “tradition”; during the coming decades Palestine’s (and, later, Israel’s) marketplaces, bus stations, movie theaters, and other public buildings became routine targets lending a particularly brutal flavour to the conflict.’

(B) source David Hirst, Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East, Nation Books, 2010 p.34

the Arabs may have begun the violence, but they (Zionists) imitated and, with their much improved techniques, far outdid them. All of them – not just the ‘terrorist’ undergrounds, the Irgun and the Stern Gang of future prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, but the official, mainstream, Hagana – abandoned ‘self-restraint’, if they had ever really practiced it. A policy of indiscriminate ‘reprisals’ took its place. These, wrote the official historian of the Irgun, ‘did not aim at those who had perpetrated acts of violence against Jews, and had no geographic connection with the places where they had done so. The principal consideration in the choice of target was first accessibility, and then the (maximum) number of Arabs that could be hit.’ At the climax of their anti-Arab rampage, with bombs in market-places or mosques, grenades hurled into buses or the machine gunning of trains, they killed more Palestinians, 140, in the space of three weeks than the Palestinians had killed Jews in the year and a half since the Rebellion began, an achievement over which the Irgun’s National Bulletin openly exulted.’

I wrote from these 2 sources:

(C)One practice adopted by the Irgun in particular at the time, and subsequently by the Lehi gang, according to Benny Morris, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: for the first time, grenades were thrown at, and powerful bombs were planted in, places like markets, mosques and bus stations where crowds of Arabs thronged in order to maximize the impact of indiscriminate killings. This technique formed a precedent, and was picked up soon after by Arabs. In the following decades, the method became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel. According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, a figure exceeding the total number of Jews killed in the one and a half years from the start of the Arab revolt. In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.

It is this that was denounced as WP:SYNTH. Both mention the Great Arab Revolt, both on these pages note the breaking of the 'restraint policy'; both deal with the aftermath set by this precedent. For those who see my introduction of Hirst as WP:SYNTH, the error would be that Morris mentions the specific date and incident marking the turn, whereas Hirst makes a general comment on the adoption of the terrorist tactic at that period and illustrates it with several instances that are elsewhere attested in the sources on Black Sunday already used, without challenge, on the page. I cannot see where I have joined Morris and Hirst to make a conclusion that is not in either source, which is what a WP:SYNTH specifically identifies as an abuse.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not only clear WP:SYNTH (Hirst does not mention the event or the dates that are the topic of the article, but is talking in general about the Arab revolt), but source misrepresentation. Hirst says it was the Zionists who imitated the Arabs, you changed the meaning completely, and claimed it was the Arabs who imitated the Zionists. Epson Salts (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've asked for external input. Your failure to grasp the distinction between 'imitate' and 'innovate' which are antonyms, not, as you think in your complaint, synonyms, means I' m not getting much sense there. See the talk page. If such basic errors are being made, evidently third opinions are requires, not a quarrel repeated here.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the difference, your pompous condescending notwithstanding, but it doesn't look like you do.. The two soruces say opposite things with regards to who imitated who. Morris says the Zionists innovated and the Arabs later copied them, Hirst says the Zionists imitated the Arabs. These are two opposite things. If you don't understand that, then you lack the basic competence to edit Wikipedia. Epson Salts (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are taking two sources, SYNTHesizing one sentence that is not supported directly by either, and attributing it to Morris. If you bothered to quote a sentence or two prior to where you started, you'd even see that Morris specifically says grenades were already used and doesn't include it in the "innovation" part, but after SYNTHing with Hirst it looks like Morris said it was. That's just one easy to see example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You asserted that on the talk page. I have given the primary texts (without included Gannon, and Caplan, which you don't object to), and my paraphrase. All neutral thirty parties need do is examine the 2 secondary sources, analyse what I did with them, and determine whether I ' reach(ed) or impl(ied) a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' So let's leave it to the WP:SYNTH experts, rather than bury the sincere desire for clarification under a WP:TLDR wall of text repeating what is already on the talk page. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

By all means. But you didn't bother to correctly describe the objection, so I did. Calling my two sentences of explanation a "TLDR wall of text" when it's not even 10% of what you posted is ridiculous. For future reference, there would have been less text for uninvolved editors to read if you just let my clarification sit there and didn't respond (telling me not to respond). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well right off the bat there seems to be problems. The quote you've supplied from Morris doesn't mention anything about Irgun or the Lehi gang. It also doesn't mention anything about grenades. Also, Morris says dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered, but doesn't say the using of bombs was to maximize indiscriminate killing. Morris also doesn't say anything about precedent, which seems to be an extrapolation from the word "tradition". So already we have multiple violations of WP:Reliable, regardless of whether it's specifically synthesis. I understand that your source doesn't include the page prior to the quote you've used, but without a source that can verify that Morris was speaking about the Irgun or the Lehi gang, then these shouldn't be included. It's also clear you took the word "grenade" from Hirst and attributed it to Morris which is an example of synthesis. I also don't see where Hirst mentioned anything about a reprisal between the two groups. So there are multiple liberties that you've taken in writing this paragraph from these two sources...or at least from the quotes you've provided from these sources. A lot of work needs to be done and it's probably better to just quote directly from the source if you're having difficulty representing them accurately.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I combined two sources describing the same event, each supplementing the other (Morris doesn't mention grenades and mosques, Hirst does,etc.) I originally had the paragraph written with all 4 sources at the end, and only put Hirst sourced to grenade and mosque when I thought (apparently incorrectly), NMMGG wanted that done, forgetting to remove the attribution to Morris. The whole issue has since been fixed by a rewrite by another editor. We are obliged to paraphrase not to plagiarize, and 'precedent' means 'innovation' ('It is dangerous to make a precedent, an innovation'. John Pratt). NMMGG questioned Hirst, not the three other sources. The text above, which I wrote, was based on, other than Morris and Hurst, Gannon and Neil Caplan,who mentions a spiral of a spiral reprisal between the two groups, consequent on the events of Fall 1937. I can't see where drew a conclusion not in the sources, which is what, despite popular misprisions, the policy diagnoses as the problem of synthing.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You just got done lecturing us that you came here to get uninvolved expert input. now you got it, kindly stop arguing with the uninvolved experts. Epson Salts (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with issues other contributors might have had. I listed numerous problems with verifiability and synth. Precedent does not mean innovation. There are many innovations that don't set precedent for their industry, and using a quote from Pratt to try and justify Morris claiming "precedent" is another example of synthesizing. Paraphrasing does not allow you to include thoughts or text not supported by an individual source. This are the things I pointed out as problems and Wikipedia does not give editors an artistic license to combine sources to create your own narrative. No, sources must be neutrally and accurately represented and you have not done that with your "paraphrasing". You wanted an outside opinion, now you have one.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: I have made another stab at the prose. Perhaps you can take a look at it and see if all SYNTH concerns are addressed?

One practice, adopted by the Irgun in particular, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: the use of massive bombs in crowded areas, indiscriminately killing and maiming dozens of people.(cite Morris) The targets were chosen based on accessibility and so that the maximum number of Arabs could be hit.(cite Hirst) This technique was soon picked up by Arabs: in the following decades, the targeting of public buildings became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel.(cite Morris) According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, which is more than the number of Jews killed in the previous year and a half of the uprising.(cite Hirst) Morris states that the numbers of Arabs killed in these indiscriminate attacks matched the number of Jews killed by Arabs in the 1929 and 1936 uprisings.(cite Morris) In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.(cite Caplan)

The only assumption being made in the passage, as a whole, is that all sources (Morris, Hirst, Caplan) are talking about the same time period. This is easily checked from the sources, using the times and the descriptions. All the sentences in the passage are cited to single sources - no two sources are combined for any assertion.

I'll also quote the Caplan source, the part which I'm using:

In July 1938, two Irgun bombings killed 74 Arabs and wounded 129 in Haifa's main market, unleashing a cycle of reprisal attacks targeting Jewish and Arab civilians.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are combining what Morris said about incidents in 1937 with what Hirst said about incidents in 1938, for starters. Not to mention nobody has demonstrated an explicit connection between what Hirst is talking about and the incident the article is about, which I believe is also considered OR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Morris is talking about the Irgun bombings of 1937-38. That is made clear in the very next paragraph. The Irgun bombs of 1937-38 sowed terror in the Arab population and substantially increased its casualties. A couple of paragraphs below, he goes through the bombings in detail: first the 11 November 1937 attack, then the major attacks on 14 November (Black Sunday), then he mentions the July 6 1938 bombings, July 15 bombing, and July 25, then August 26 bombing.The July 6 and 25 bombs were both in the Haifa market, which Caplan also mentions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you took what he said about 1937 and synthed it with what Hirst said about 1938. Morris does indeed talk about the later incidents later, but that is not relevant to the issue here. For example, you put Morris' comparison of the Arab casualties (in 1937) with the Jewish ones in 1929/1936 with Hirst's mention of casualties from the 1938 bombings. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am certain that the previous paragraph (which was quoted above) is also talking about 1937-38. I don't think it makes sense to think that he was talking about the number of Arabs killed in 1937 and comparing it to number of Jews killed in 1929/1936. Rather, he's talking about the number in the whole period (1937-38) when Irgun planted bombs, as the next paragraph makes clear. It does not make sense to separate out the 1937 bombings from the 1938 bombings artificially: in the paragraph below he talks about them together. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at paragraph (A) Nishidani quoted above. "Now, for the first time" was Nov 1937. In (B) Hirst talks about "at the climax" (July 1938), not "the first time". Seems fairly obvious they are not talking about the same incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. The "first time" occurred in Nov 1937. The bombings continued through 1938. The most serious incidents were in July 1938 (July 6, 15, 25), this is why Hirst mentions those specifically. In the paragraph quoted by Nishidani, Morris is talking about massive bombs in crowded places like markets. This is precisely what happened in July 1938 - so why would Morris leave them out when he's talking about this phenomenon? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to argue that "the first time" and "the climax" are the same, we're going to just have to agree to disagree. I'd like to point out that the article this stuff is being COATRACKed on is about shootings, not bombings. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think the revised paragraph is much better. The only thing I would change is to talk about the changing tactics in hostile attacks in general first, then start getting into specifics about the Irgun. So the first sentence should be a general statement about the need for change and the Jews' loss of self restraint to pursue more violent retaliation. Also, Amazon books actually has the pages before the text you're using, and in there I confirmed that Morris is talking about the Irgun. It's clear that both are addressing a new form of hostile actions in the same time period. I appreciate that you listened to the concerns that I had with the passage, and did a great job rephrasing the paragraph and trimming it down to remove some of the editorializing. I disagree with Mr Nice Guy and at least one of these sources is talking about how the use of guns and sniping people evolved into the use of mass bombings. So it's not an example of coatracking to include that information because it's directly related and significant. Good job.Scoobydunk (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added an introductory sentence "Renewal of Arab violence in October 1937 led to changes in tactics by the Zionists" - citing Morris. The rest is the same. The edit is here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a very obvious COATRACK. The very obvious clues are the fact that sources never deal with this event on its own (only a few even use the name the article uses, and it seems the more specialized the source, the less likely they are to use it), it's almost always a part of a group of events; the fact that only about 1/4th of the article deals directly with the event itself, the rest is "background" and "aftermath"; and the "aftermath" section is larger than the section ostensibly dealing directly with the topic of the article. Compare to, say, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, an event with significant repercussions and aftermath. The two articles have almost the same size sections dealing with the aftermath, if you can believe that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein political positions

Article: Jill Stein#GMOs and pesticides

Sources: Green Party Platform,[47] "Anti-science claims dog Green Party's Jill Stein," CNN[48]

Which of the following phrasing is preferable:

1. Stein supports GMO labeling and a moratorium on new GMOs until they are proven safe, and would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown, as well as the pesticides used on them.

2. Stein's official platform calls for a "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe."...Stein later clarified that her moratorium proposal would apply to "new" GMOs until they are proven safe (though her official platform calling for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides" remains unchanged) and that the US should "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown.

I prefer the first, which states the position Stein says she supports. In my opinion, the second version wanders into OR by implying that Stein is misrepresenting her own platform or has revised it rather than merely clarifying it. We should not make that judgment, per "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources": "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

TFD (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the second phrasing. A compromise that fits all sources and avoids OR is to say:

• "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + this Washington Post story[49]). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)".

When candidates propose vague and contradictory policies, and later modify them while retaining some ambiguity, we should note both. Imagine if Clinton's official platform up until July 2016 stated that she "favored a $15 minimum wage" but later in an August 2016 interview she clarified that she only "favored a $15 minimum wage in select cities and regions". Wouldn't it be reasonable to phrase her position on the minimum wage as "Clinton's official platform calls for a $15 minimum wage. Clinton later clarified that she supported favored a $15 minimum wage in select cities and regions."? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If external observers say that in reliable sources then we can report it, otherwise it is synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." Your conclusion is that Stein proposed "vague and contradictory policies," but that is specifically prohibited by policy. TFD (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(i) The sources are not combined to imply a conclusion that is not mentioned by either of the sources (WaPo cites the platform, CNN cites her old claims and then her recent clarifications); (ii) I'm not proposing to say that she proposed "vague and contradictory policies." Please address the substance. I'm as clear as can be about what the third proposal is: "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + this Washington Post story[50]). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"When candidates propose vague and contradictory policies, and later modify them while retaining some ambiguity, we should note both....I'm not proposing to say that she proposed "vague and contradictory policies." Well you just said it. You want the article to imply that her positions are vague and contradictory, which is why you want to note that she "clarified her position." That is implied synthesis.

Correct me if I am wrong. You think that Stein's clarification is actually a change in her position. You think the article should, if not actually say that, at least present the two versions and let the reader decide. Certainly that is fair and informative. But that is not how policy says articles should be written. And while your judgment may be correct, the policy prevents the injection of incorrect judgments as well. For example, Clinton is reported to have said, "We're Going to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class".[51] We could add that to her political positions to imply they are vague and contradictory. Fortunately we have reliable secondary sources that have addressed the apparent contradiction, something we lack in Stein's case. TFD (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not OR to use reasoning to support your arguments on a talk page. Handling contradictory claims is part of the editorial function. It would only be OR if the article were to literally say "Jill Stein's platform is contradictory." Rhoark (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see either phrasing being an OR problem, they both would be acceptable, however I prefer the first because it is more succinct. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cross-step waltz history

Cross-step_waltz The history of the dance here is referenced only to primary sources (19th-early 20th century books). The whole article seems to be copied from the book co-authored by the original author of the article Link to google books This book seems to be self-published. I suppose that all the history section here is OR and should be removed or referenced as opinion of certain authors.

I don't see anything that indicates OR, but you might want to follow up on whether its a WP:COPYVIO. Rhoark (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

LaVoy Finicum Shooting by Oregon State Patrol

NOTE! This is a replacement pic after the thread pretty much went silent. THe first one was an excerpt from a vid that might have copyvio issues. It was a synchronization of a free vid from the US govt taken from a plane plus a nonfree vid taken by Shawna Cox in the pickup. This new vid shows the exact same moment but is only the free FBI vid. this change has no impact on the discussion so far, and the pic still shows the same split second.

I'd like to hear opinion about this image before I attempt to use it. (Click image for larger view) As I explained at the image description page, this shows LaVoy Finicum just before he was shot and killed during the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I am the final author of this derivative work. During the event in question, a cell phone video (with audio) was taken inside Finicum's truck, and another video (without audio) was taken by the FBI from the air. Both were turned over to the Central Oregon Major Incident Team, which was able to synchronize them. Article by Oregon Public Broadcasting and Full synched vid posted by OPB to YouTube.

Here's where I come in.

I downloaded the youtube vid and marked the time point when you hear the first of the three gunshots that killed Finicum. That was time 5:41. Next I stepped through the vid from 5:39 forward, frame by frame, back and forth, to locate a frame just before he was hit by the first round. There is no audio when you do this, and there is no conclusive way to determine which frame is the last before the first bullet's impact. In case you're wondering, the rectangular inset in the lower left is the other video, most of which I cropped out.

What do ya'll say? Is this by definition OR? My guess is someone is gonna say ""depends how its used" so just to get ahead of that, what if the caption said something like "LaVoy Finicum just before being shot"? Obviously we can't say "the final frame before bullet impact" because there's no way to know that.

Thanks for input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well its an interesting question. It's really as much a Wikipedia:Verifiability as a OR question. IMO the basic reason in this case for considering it nonverifiable original research is: who are you? While its OK for me, a fellow editor, to assume you're being truthful, we can't ask the reader to make that leap of faith. For all we know that photo was staged by you and some friends, or photoshopped.

If the picture was from the LA Times, then 1) readers can check that it did indeed appear under the LA Times aegis by accessing into the paper's archives, and 2) the LA Times fact-checking operation is such that we (and the reader) can have some confidence that picture is what is says it is.

On the other hand, as a practical matter, we use a lot of images that are original research in this sense. We have to, because published photos are copyrighted... "Statue of Queen Victoria at Bathurst Park, taken by me" is the only picture of that (and very many other things) we are ever going to get. Yet the picture may be no such thing, it may be another statue or be photoshopped or whatever. Yet we allow it.

Yet we would surely not allow text in this manner: "At the time he was shot, he was surrounded by officers" <ref>I was there and I saw it with my own eyes.</ref>.

It's an interesting philosophical question. I myself would allow it because by precedent we don't hold photos to the same standards that we would a text description of the same thing. Precedent rules.

As to the purely OR aspects, assuming you're not trying to push a particular slanted narrative by using this particular picture, and assuming you're not cherry-picking an unencycloedically obscure fact to highlight, and assuming that video does show what you think it shows and that you culled the still from the video correctly -- all if which I do assume -- I don't see a huge OR hurdle here. I'd treat it the same as "Statue of Queen Victoria at Bathurst Park, taken by me". Herostratus (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking so much time on your answer. As to verifiability, well of course it's verifiable. Anyone can look at the same source vid that I used, which was posted to youtube by Oregon Public Broadcasting and also embedded in their related article. I included links to both in the opening post. OPB reports they got it after public release from COMIT, as I already explained. That leaves the question whether my pic is really a frame from that video. There's a million RSs at LaVoy Finicum... well, ok maybe not a million.... but there are a bunch that say he was shot 3 times as officers believed he was reaching for weapon (which they did find on him). I'm not going into all that here. Point is anyone can listen to the entire original vid, mark the gunshots at 5:41 and then step through the vid frame by frame to verify my cropping/enlargement is really from the source vid fewer than 5 frames before he must have been hit. At 20 frames or so per second that's pretty fair basis for saying "just before he was shot" I would think. Since potential POV misuse isn't relevant to questions of original research, I'll just note your mentioning of it and say I agree POV edits are always a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez color me stupid. I misread and thought that the you had gotten the video from some private source.

still on veracity, YouTube videos are not generally usable as sources because they're a self-publishing platform; no one at YouTube checks their veracity. My personal opinion is that there ought to be some give on this depending on circumstances. A video of some guy talking "Hello, I'm nuclear weapons expert Ralph Spoilsport..." of course we can't use to ref a fact; he may be no such person. If it's from a news broadcast though... it's not impossible to build a fake news news and stage a fake broadcast, but... not likely. Another editor, though, might say "YouTube videos, while OK for external links, cannot be used to source anything in an article (including a still photo) without positive proof of veracity, period. and in this case you and some friends could have staged this video. Probably not, but 'probably not' is not good enough".

But it makes no difference, you have the Oregon Public Broadcasting video. It's verified, and matches the YouTube video closely enough to prove that they are from the same source. So you're good WP:V-wise.

As to the original research angle, you're fine. What you did is no different than excerpting a sentence from a book. BTW {{Cite AV media}} has a "time" field so you can show the reader the approximate location of your still. I would ref the still, at the end of its caption, to both the Oregon Public Broadcasting page (to show veracity) and then the YouTube video (since that's the actual source of the still), Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"no different than excerpting a sentence from a book." well, now I'm the slow-wit. I should have thought of that myself. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Post-progressive

"Post-progressive" is a term that appears in a few books on progressive rock, sometimes in quotes or in sentences like "X could be termed post-progressive". I am not sure if it should be considered a music genre. In the books that I have access to, it is used as an adjective, while the author of the article uses it as a noun (eg. Post-progressive's beginning may be located to the year 1978). He also placed it in infoboxes in a number of articles (eg. jazz or ambient music), again as a noun. Nearly all edits I made on this topic ended in edit wars, so I decided to put this here. Chilton (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This user has had similiar discussions before Mlpearc (open channel) 17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no similarity here. A totally irrelevant discussion on whether Pink Floyd should be called a "rock band" or a "progressive rock band", along with a misunderstanding (on Mlpearc's part) on how WP:VERIFY works.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The true story is that they had to distinguish themselves from the other start up gig in town. Since that group was Blue Floyd, they adopted the name Pink Floyd. Therefore, "Pink" is an adjective in this useage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the partial offtopic (I'm just hoping that the matter will get more exposure), but he also did some bad things (involving "post-progressive" and deleting most of the text) to the experimental rock article, as I described here. Chilton (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful not to mislead others. As explained there (and on Talk:Experimental rock), I rewrote the article from scratch because it contained virtually no references for 7+ years. I sourced as much as I could. There is now arguably more substance in the article than there was before.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment — There is no original research in the Post-progressive article. A cursory glance at sources will tell you that "post-progressive" refers to a style of rock music that is not unlike "post-punk" and "post-rock". "Post-progressive" has been consistently used in numerous reliable sources to refer to a strain of rock music which emerged after the decline of "classic" or "vintage progressive rock" in the late 1970s. Chilton strongly believes that the opening sentence of Post-progressive should say it "refers to a term" invented by authors Paul Hegarty and Martin Halliwell. This is wrong for 2 reasons.

1) Those authors did not coin the term. It's been around since at least 1982.

2) Per WP:UMD:

Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to a Wikipedia article. For example, the article Computer architecture once began with the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer."

That is not true: Computer architecture is the theory. The words "computer architecture" refer to the theory, but the article is not about the words; it is about the theory.

Thus it is better to say, "Computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer."

The aforementioned definition of "post-progressive" music is not contradicted by any of the sources. It has been distinguished from "neo-progressive rock" – and even referenced with post-rock – on repeated occasions (I'm sure Chilton would agree that "neo-progressive rock" and "post-rock" are genres).

Chilton has been removing as many references to "post-progressive" in articles as he can, citing his personal belief that it is "not an established genre" He has not offered a single source to support his assertions. With emphasis added, I will demonstrate that it is an established genre of music. Observe below.

Relevant "post-progressive" quotations

The term 'post-progressive' is designed to distinguish a type of rock music from the persistence of a progressive rock style that directly refers to 1970s prog. The 'post' also refers to that which has come after other forms of avant-garde and popular music since the mid-1970s. ... [it] identifies progressive rock that stems from sources other than progressive rock. ... there are those who contend, though, that progressive rock is far hidden, and that post-progressive rock feeds a more explicit return to prog: in other words, a return that is not one. This trend is best exemplified by two British avant-rock acts of the 1980s and early 1990s: David Sylvian and Talk Talk.

— Hegarty, Paul; Halliwell, Martin (2011). Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock Since the 1960s. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-2332-0.

Since the 80s, we have seen the rise of both a neo-progressive movement, with young bands, many of them European, attemping to bring a more contemporary sensibility to the 'classic' idiom, and a post-progressive style following the implications of King Crimsons' Discipline album of 1981, with its introduction of elements drawn from minimalism and ethnic musics, elements new to rock.

— Bruford, Bill (2009). Bill Bruford: The Autobiography : Yes, King Crimson, Earthworks, and More. Jawbone Press. ISBN 978-1-906002-23-7.

A number of new bands have cultivated what might be termed a post-progressive style ... no comparable consensus has emerged concerning the major neo- or post-progressive rock bands of the 1980s and 1990s, following up on the implications of King Crimson's landmark Discipline LP of 1981 and introducing entirely new elements (drawn especially from minimalism and various ethnic musics) into the genre.

— Macan, Edward (1997). Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509887-7.

Musically and lyrically, "Our Little Victory" demonstrates the reasons for many rock critics never having come to terms with Rush. However, the reasons for Rush's influence on Primus and on other 1990s, alternative, progressive metal, and post-progressive bands ("musicians' musicians") certainly also hold for this song.

— Bowman, Durrell (2014). Experiencing Rush: A Listener's Companion. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-3131-3.

"post-progressive" (sub-genre of progressive rock) (as labelled from index)

— Holm-Hudson, Kevin, ed. (2013). Progressive Rock Reconsidered. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-71022-4.

He [Holm-Hudson] further states that "'post-progressive' groups such as ... Radiohead also draw upon selective aspects of vintage progressive rock, even as they actively seek to distance themselves with the genre.

— Letts, Marianne Tatom (2010). Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album: How to Disappear Completely. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00491-8.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Before anyone writes anything else, I just want to notice how skillfully you avoided the noun-or-adjective question. Also I never wrote or even suggested that the term "post-progressive" was coined by Hegarty and Halliwell. Chilton (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I eagerly await you to make the same "noun-or-adjective" case against post-rock, new prog, punk rock, psychedelic rock, and oh yes, progressive rock. And if your implication wasn't that they invented it - then why bother with WP:INTEXT? No other music genre lead uses in-text attribution to explain a genre's rudimentary qualities.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Related discussions

• Talk:Post-progressive#Post-progressive - an established genre?
• Talk:Post-progressive#Re: Sylvian, Talk Talk, Crimson
• User talk:Ilovetopaint#Post-progressive

Most of these discussions are centered around Chilton's grasp on the difference between progressive rock music and prog rock (the cited authors distinguish both terms). From what I understand, the only thing Chilton has reasonably challenged is whether "post-progressive" should be listed in the infoboxes for King Crimson, Talk Talk, and David Sylvian. This is because only one RS can be found which calls them "post-progressive" artists. (He ignores the fact that literally every other genre listed in those article's infoboxes are also referenced to only one RS.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chilton: My superficial reading of this thread leads me to believe you don't know how to proceed when you have a content dispute. Please see WP:Dispute resolution. I'm especially troubled by your frustrated statement, "how skillfully you avoided the noun-or-adjective question". Please see WP:AGF and try to discuss content and sources rather than behavior. Maybe someone interested in arts and culture would agree to play the role of WP:THIRDOPINION.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping that someone else will join the discussion and give their opinion.. What would you recommend I do? Chilton (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Political positions of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Original_researchCFredkin (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

OR violation at Priyanka Chopra

Priyanka Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relevant discussion at: Chopra as "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" is not supported by sources

On 14 September 2016 a user changes the original text description of Chopra at the lead from "one of the highest-paid actresses in Bollywood" to "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world", using highly enthusiastic edit-summaries indicating a particularly strong POV. The problem is, s/he did not supply a source for "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" but for "one of the highest-paid TV actresses in the world" using this list by Forbes. In fact, the actual 2016 Forbes list of the highest paid actresses in the world does not include Chopra.

Now this user is edit-warring changing Chopra's description at the lead to "one of the highest paid actresses" but using the Forbes TV actress list to support it. His/her reply at the talkpage: Oh I forgot, TV actresses have horns on their head. LOL. with edit-summary ROFL indicates that s/he has no understanding of WP:OR or WP:V.

I find using the Forbes list for "highest-paid TV actresses" as reference to declare Chopra "one of the highest-paid actresses", which is a completely separate and different list in which Chopra is not found, to be very misleading original research since there is a clear distinction between TV actors and cinema actors and two different lists for their compensation. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Using original research to removed sourced material

The WP:OR policy states that original research which is prohibited "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". However, the rest of the language and examples all refer to cases where {{WP:OR]] is used to add material to the article. My question is, can original research be used to removed well-sourced material from reputable sources? Suppose an academic who is a recognized authority in a field publishes research in a peer-reviewed academic journal, whose main thesis is "I've researched X, and my conclusion is Y". This material is then used in an article to say that the named expert researched X, and concluded Y. Can an editor perform his own research on X, conclude that the result is actually not Y, and then use his personal research to remove the sourced material from the article on that basis? Epson Salts (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No. If an editor removing material says that it's based on their own research or analysis, then they have violated the policy. Remember that the core policies work in concert with each other. In the hypothetical that you describe, the person removing material may also be violating WP:NPOV by suppressing relevant material. - MrX 19:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If original research doesn't appear in the article, its not a violation of the original research policy. The choice not to include untrusted sources or unimportant claims is part of what editors are here to do. They have to be able to convince other editors of their reasons, however. Rhoark (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the hypothetical - we are not talking about "untrusted sources "- we are talking about academic sources, research by acknowledged experts in the field. Of course material can be excluded on other basis - WP:UNDUE etc.. , but my question is if otherwise suitable material can be removed based on a editor's original research. Epson Salts (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

<- To evaluate and comment on the actual case in question, see Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Naughty_Dr_Brawer. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather establish the principle first, then apply it t specific cases. Epson Salts (talk)

Epson Salts brought this dispute here without notifying the other parties , and the "hypothetical" version does not match the actual situation. It is not a matter of researcher X concluding Y, and not a matter of an editor's opinion differing from an expert's opinion. What actually happened was that researcher X misquoted a source and Epson Salts wants to keep the misquote in the article without comment, even though everyone can see the original source and nobody at all is arguing that X quoted it correctly. Since NOR doesn't prescribe what can be omitted from articles, the question editors should ask is "Would the article be better with a misquote or without it?" and I believe all good editors would prefer the latter. Incidentally, the article in question is a BLP and the misquote shows the subject of the BLP in a negative light, so I believe the misquote is actually forbidden from the article no matter what NOR says. Everyone, except Epson Salts afaik, is happy to report X's opinion without using the misquote explicitly. Zero^talk 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no 'dispute' here that requires notification of other parties - I am asking a question about policy, in general. As you can see from the first response, by @MrX: what you presented to me as clear policy does not enjoy the support you imagine. Once we establish the principle, we may apply it to specific cases, at which time you will be duly notified, if required. Epson Salts (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Zero has summarized the issue correctly. Argument on the talk page about what to keep in the article and what shouldn't is not WP:OR - it is editorial judgement. The policy refers to not inserting original research by editors in the articles - which is not the case here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's hear from uninvolved editors, shall we? We already know your position Epson Salts (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your question is not about original research; it is about faithful interpretation of the source. Still, answering your question, I can easily list several scenarios when the answer may be "yes" and several when the answer is "no". The simplest case is that the meaning of "Y" was changed over time. Tnterpretations/summarizing of the source may be disputed, but this is not related to WP:NOR policy and must be done in relevant article talk pages. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It actually is about original research . Take your scenario- sure, the meaning of 'Y" could change over time - but is it enough that an editor conducts original research to say that the meaning of 'Y" has changed? I think we'd need a reliable source to say that the meaning has changed, not a wikipedia editor. Epson Salts (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In the hypothetical case, Wikipedia should not be giving much weight to primary research results in the first place, and no weight at all (even in discussion) to experiments done by an editor. In the actual case, it's not only acceptable but essential that editors use some common sense and due diligence investigating the sources being used in articles, or else we would have no idea which are reliable. A source that includes obvious factual inaccuracies can be excluded from an article, and it's totally fine for editors to look into a source's own sources to make that judgement. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis and context

Have I improperly synthesised a new conclusion here? Can 'suitable for classroom and age-appropriate' be faithfully interpreted as 'may include some sexual instructions or explicit content' in this specific circumstance? I believe its the same thing, not a new conclusion or something taken out of context, considering that the context is a review of a government funded anti-LGBTI bullying program in the national spotlight occurring as a direct response to claims by politicians that the program was overly sexualised. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Chef Anton

Not sure if this is the right noticeboard for this kind of thing, but the entire article appears to be based on the subject's website; there are no other sources cited. Parts of the article read like promotional material ("At the age of 13, Riniti started his innate ability to set and achieve long-term, personal and professional goals."), others are phrased in a non-neutral way ("On December 27, 2014 Anthony S. Riniti married the love of his life"). It looks like the article was written by Riniti himself or someone close to him. 93.128.130.50 (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. At the very least it needs rewriting, but as I had trouble finding good sources I doubt it is notable. Put it up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chef Anton. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pixelization article

As seen here, here, here, here and here, Sarrena keeps adding "mosaic processing" material to the Pixelization article...without adding sources to support the content. On his or her talk page, I warned the editor about adding unsourced content. Mosaic is not the same thing as pixelization. Yet Sarrena added a source, this mosaic source, to support his or her wording of "or by arranging together small colored pieces or cells." That source doesn't even state "cells." I've brought the matter here for input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Any solutions? I'd rather not take this to WP:ANI, but the editor doesn't listen or really discuss. Even if the editor were to discuss, I don't see that discussion with the editor will help anything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)