Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Synthesis

I have been accused of WP:SYN on the Father's rights movement talkpage,[1] and would like the outside opinion of experts on this matter. User:Michael H 34 suggests that "Synthesis also occurs when a source discusses one thing and then an editor uses the material to connect the dots to something else. You have connected the dots from artificial constructs used "for analysis purposes" of actual people to the actual people themselves."

The sentences in question are those added in this edit [2]. They are sourced from Social Problems (2003, Aldine Press (p.97) and Fatherhood Politics in the United States (2004) University of Illinois Press p.11. Obviously I do not believe that synthesis is at work here and consider that these edits are appropriate, but would be glad of the opinion of others.--Slp1 (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very grateful for some input on this. Further accusations have been made on the talkpage, and I would like some feedback. Thanks in advance.--Slp1 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

well, on a cursory reading you've essentially taken an opposing view and relegated it to a footnote, and then, reasserted the other view as though all scholars held it. you also did (as the quote above suggests) make a shift from talking about scholars' views of FRAs to talking about FRAs themselves (where you say 'These fathers' rights activists state...'). these create some distinct shifts in meaning. personally I'd call it misattribution rather than OR, though I'm not up on the material enough to know whether your perspective or the previous one is closer to sources. I suggest that you make it clear where you are citing scholars and where you are citing Father's Rights activists so that there isn't any confusion about who is saying what about whom. --Ludwigs2 05:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, Ludwigs2. Would you mind taking a bit of a closer look, by any chance? For example, I think you must have misread something since no view has been relegated to a footnote. Both views are clearly important, and need equal position per WP:UNDUE. And I certainly don't have any problem with attributing the specific ideas to the scholars as you suggest, though personally I feel the introduction and linking words "The scholars state...."; "These FRA..." and "In contrast," (and the citations of course) made it fairly clear that this is all part of one section attributed to academics. But no problem. However, the dispute is really over whether the actual material about differing FRA's views of feminism is OR. To me, the ideas about this contained in this edit [3] is appropriately sourced from this book [4] (and there are other academic books that say the same thing). What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how the material could be construed as a WP:SYNTH violation. It is not original research to add material from multiple sources and link it using words like "in contrast", provided that the material from all sources relates directly to the subject at hand, which this appears to. Note that I am not necessarily endorsing the use of contrast but, assuming the sources say what they're presented as saying, I don't see any OR. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Just to clarify, though. The point about the contrasting views FRAs have about feminism is in fact specifically made in the individual sources themselves. For example, this [5] describes both the pro and anti-feminist wings (using the terms conservative and liberal) and contrasts them within the text, using the words "In comparison". So I am not even trying to link information from multiple sources, but to just to faithfully summarize material from the same source (material which is repeated in other reliable sources) --Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Slp1 - sorry, you're right - I missed the closing slash on the ref tag, and thought it included something it didn't. one of the problems of reading diffs... I'll take a closer read and give you a more informed opinion, as well as I can. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Genetic psychiatry POV (without refences) at Bipolar disorder

An editor operating under a pseudonym indicating a well-known researcher (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_WP:OUTING.3F) has done a large number of edits to Bipolar disorder to push the article towards the POV that bipolar disorder is mainly genetic. This would be all fine and dandy if he added references to support his/her point of view, but (s)he didn't. VG ☎ 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To keep discussion centralized, better reply at this WikiProject_Psychology thread, where discussion is already taking place. VG ☎ 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside views needed.

Unresolved

• The relevant content is: Many controlled clinical studies of spinal manipulation (SM) are available, but their results disagree,[1] and they are typically of low quality.[2].

Refs: 1) Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med. 99 (4): 192–6. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. PMID 16574972.

2)Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, San-Roman J, Miangolarra-Page JC (2006). "Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation and mobilization in tension-type headache, migraine, and cervicogenic headache". J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 36 (3): 160–9. PMID 16596892.

Johnston BC, da Costa BR, Devereaux PJ, Akl EA, Busse JW; Expertise-Based RCT Working Group (2008). "The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review". Spine. 33 (8): 914–8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b4be4. PMID 18404113. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The Fernandez-de-las-Penas article states that there are FEW (not many) RCTs investigating the effectiveness of SMT for TTH/CeH/M (headaches), and that the methodological quality of THESE papers is low. It does not state that the methodological quality of clinic studies of spinal manipulation in general are low, only that the few RCTs on headaches are of low quality. I think that stating that using this reference to state that "controlled clinical studies of spinal manipulation ... are typically of low quality" is OR.

Johnson 2008 states "Of 12 eligible trials, none made use of an expertise-based randomized trial design." (a specific type of RCT), but does not make any statements that the 12 trials they reviewed were or low quality, nor did they state that conctrolled clinical studies of SM are typically of low quality.

The editor who wrote this text has also using Bronfort et al (2004) to verify this statement. It states ""In spite of urgent calls for improved methodological quality of RCTs on spinal manipulation, it appears that even the most recently published RCTs have been of discouragingly low quality. Fifty-two (75%) of the 69 RCTs in this review exhibited relatively low quality (validity scores less than 50). Of the 43 trials accepted into evidence, 29 (67%) also had relatively low validity scores (6 to 44)." Even this source however, only states that the "RCTs in this review exhibited relatively low quality", and does not state that RCTs in general are "typically of low quality".

• So, the question for uninvolved editors, is - does this constitute OR?

DigitalC (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note: According to DigitalC, the text is appropriate for citing spinal manipulation. There is consensus that spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic. QuackGuru 05:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that diff is referring to a different problem, which I have not raised here. I do not think that the text above is appropriate anywhere. DigitalC (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC). It is also a misrepresentation of my comments - The article where the claim might be appropriate, and whether the claim itself is OR are two different problems - I have never stated that the text itself is appropriate. Please don't bring other disputes into this, and please respect that I am asking for input from uninvolved editors. DigitalC (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Shorter summary

• PMID 16574972 states Numerous systematic reviews of SM are available but they frequently arrive at vastly different conclusions. This source is therefore an excellent citation to support the statement that Many controlled clinical studies of spinal manipulation (SM) are available, but their results disagree,
• PMID 16596892 examined trials on tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine and stated Methodological scores ranged from 35 to 56 points out of a theoretical maximum of 100 points, indicating an overall poor methodology of the studies.
• PMID 18404113 states that none of the available trials on lower back pain used the best method available - expertise-based randomized trial design.

More citations on this point could be added, for example PMID 15989112 which states The effectiveness of spinal manipulation as a treatment for back pain remains uncertain and controversial. This is because of methodological weakness in many of the published clinical trials and also because of markedly opposing interpretations of the primary data by different reviewers. or PMID 8568990, which reviewed studies on lower back pain and stated Methodological quality was assessed using a standardized criteria list applied independently by two assessors (range, 0% to 100%). ..The methodological quality was low, with a median score of 23%. but I'm happy enough with how the current sources support the text. With so many sources available, I think the authors probably selected these three since they are the most recent reviews to address the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS, we are using the latest reviews available for the chiropractic article. QuackGuru 17:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue being raised here is not the first half of the sentence. I don't see how raising it here makes this a shorter summary, more just an obfuscation of the issue.

• PMID 16596892 only looked at 12 studies, ones which were focused on treatment of headaches. To extrapolate the narrow claims they made to an overall claim about studies in general is blatant OR.
• PMID 18404113 only states that none of them used "the best method available", not that they are of low quality (something can be high quality, without being 'the best').
• PMID 15989112 says that many of the trials are methodologically weak, not that the trials are typically weak. I would support changing the wording to say that "many are weak", because that would be reliably sourced.

I don't know how you can be happy with how the current sources support the text when none of the sources actually support the text. DigitalC (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my opinion, given as somebody who has not written any of the chiropractic article. If you don't like my opinion, I'm sure other people will comment, and perhaps other people's views on this will be closer to yours. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim, neither yours nor QuackGuru's opinion here are "outside opinions". You both have contributed in your own ways to the discussions at chiropractic. Please consider that DigitalC has specifically requested outside opinions here and that perhaps you and QuackGuru are interfering his/her goal here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the odd idea that commenting on an article that I have not contributed a single word to is somehow interfering with a call for outside opinions, but as I said, I do hope other uninvolved editors comment as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Poster child for OR

United States Senate elections, 2010 is largely comprised of unreferenced speculation and POV info. My own opinion is it needs to be hacked apart and probably 80% of its content deleted with extreme prejudice. Thoughts?  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Most of that is like predicting a film will be made to come out in 2010, it's crystal ball gazing. Quite a few 'If x then y' statements. dougweller (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I boldly hacked and slashed it (not all my edits), removing about half of it by byte size. (Additional help would be welcome!)  Frank  |  talk  02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image question

(Note: This is the image in question: the image page, and in context)

At Latin America, there is an image of white girls in team Mexico shirts to illustrate that 10-15% of Mexico and very large portions of the populations of other Latin American countries are white. This has caused one editor to claim that the uploader was lying, and another to claim that it violates OR. Talk:Latin America#White population in Mexico. I thought that this was covered by wp:OI: "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." as well as good faith that the uploader wasn't lying. Can somebody else comment as we seem to be going in circles. NJGW (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor claiming that it's OR, since NOR applies to image captions also, because the claim that those are Mexicans is not found in reliable sources but only emerges from the uploader him-/herself. (Btw, that part of Mexico's population — 9% (CIA) or 15% (Britannica) — is white in undisputable, IMO. So that's not an issue.) So the question is: can a Wikipedian take a picture of an unknown person and upload it with a description that reads "this is a Fooian", and that's it, that's a Fooian, based on no other source? SamEV (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd concur with SamEV. Are they Mexican? Are they white? I'd rather replace this image with a photo of a properly identified, named person that clearly identifies him/herself as white. One is just as good as three. NVO (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's not a breach of Wikiquette for me to say "Thank you". SamEV (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example of an image that was considered an image of Greeks once (so says the respectable National Film Board of Canada), then someone said Hey, it's Russians coming and now nobody can tell the truth except for the very people in the picture. Go figure. Attribution is important. NVO (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I wrote a fairly long reply to this discussion, but then decided to scrap it. This image is simply not a very good test case for WP:OI: it's not that it's an original image taken by a Wikipedian, but that it's a fairly unremarkable — and probably quite easily replaceable — low-res image of potentially identifiable living people, with no information on where and when it was taken (including no Exif data) or who the subjects are, uploaded by a "hit-and-run uploader" with no other contribs. I don't really know how Commons tends to regard such images, but if it was on Wikipedia and didn't happen to be used in any articles, I don't expect anyone on IfD would object to its deletion.

(Incidentally, the main thrust of my discarded comment was that the real issue — barring BLP concerns — is not whether the image actually depicts white Mexicans but whether it's a good illustration for a section discussing white Mexicans. But nevermind.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the main point SamEV seems to be making is that almost any picture that doesn't contain famous people/things is OR. There are other pictures on the same page or Indigenous South Americans, Cuban salsa dancers, and Central American Mestizos which says are also OR. My reading of the OR image policy is that the images should not "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments", and so all four of these images are not an OR problem. Can we get some more people to weigh in as Sam is raising a global issue rather than a specific one? NJGW (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion at Greek Canadian, NVO. There's a Russian flag over their heads, and no Greek flag, so calling them Russians seems entirely appropriate, I agree. On the other hand, don't disregard entirely the description of them as Greeks, just in case it they really were Russians of Greek ancestry. In any case, this seems like a good little mystery. Maybe you could try contacting Russian Canadian and/or Greek Canadian people or organizations in Vancouver.

Thank you too, Ilmari Karonen. To be sure, my objection is not the fact that a Wikipedian may have taken the picture, but the entire lack of an outside source concerning these subjects' nationality/citizenship. But now that you bring up the right to privacy, I'd also add that as another reason why an already-public figure should be used instead. Besides, the BLP policy states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Unsourced it is, and this discussion is itself proof that the image has proven contentious.

I wonder what it will take for you, NJGW, to see that: the image has zero reliable source attribution. That's the crux of it. SamEV (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think there are other reasons for the picture to be inappropriate, that's a topic for another place... right now we're discussing whether it violates the current OR image policy. According to your standard, the image at Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse, all but perhaps the historical photographs at petroleum, all the photographs at Naval Infantry (Russia), and all the photos at fish would be OR. I'm not asking you to keep telling me I'm wrong, I'm asking other people to have a look at the question. NJGW (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to correct you: it's not my standard, it's Wikipedia's.

And if there are more violations, then there are more violations; whether it be additional reasons why the image is wrong, or other instances of NOR violations. SamEV (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I certatinly agree that the image and caption at Latin America constitute OR. Images should clearly depict what is discussed in the text. This picture does not. There is more than reasonable doubt as to whether the people depicted in the image are indeed Mexicans. It is just as likely that they are Europeans or Americans. Tourists who happen to be wearing team Mexico shirts. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And thank you too, Blueboar. (I thought I'd break with the thanking tradition, but couldn't.) SamEV (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

John Lott

I really would like help with this as whenever I remove any OR it gets replaced. The replaced text here [6] seems clearly OR, as does this whole section [7]. I don't want to get into an edit war which is why I have come here to get some comments. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Original Synthesis?

In the Yamashita's gold article this sentence is added by an anonymous ip editor:

On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold [reference 1 here] and awarded approximately $13 million. [reference 2 here]

Reference 2 makes no mention of the events that took place in Reference 1. Is this an example of original synthesis? Jim (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no requirement for reference 2 to do a recap of the full history of the golden Buddha. But, it isn't clear whether the $13M in ref 2 was for only the Buddha or if it included the gold bars too. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Squidfryerchef, but reference 2 does not mention the trial of Feb 28, 2000. Reference 2 could be refering to the original trial of 1996? Jim (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say; it almost requires a flowchart to go through the figures. Maybe more sources should be brought in to reach agreement. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe there is an issue concerning whether the award was for the golden buddha, or the 17 bars, or both. The issue being disputed by JimBob is whether there is any judgment at all for the theft of any portion of the treasure! Reference 1 was dated after the hearing on the value of the gold, but before the trial court's decision. Reference 2 was dated after the trial court's decision, but while the decision was still pending on appeal. JimBob conveniently failed to provide you with reference 3 which clarifies the exact nature of the judgment awarded. [reference 3 here] This article was dated after the judgment became final and states: "Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996.Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996." The article also makes clear that the claims assigned to the GBC were the claims for theft of the treasure. He also left out Reference 4, also dated after the final judgment and also confirming the existence of a judgment for the theft of the treasure. reference 4 here (see page 2)] That source provides: "Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas." The Solicitor General obviously combines the $6 million awarded to the estate and $13m awarded to the GBC to reach its $19m figure awarded to the "Roxas claimants" defined as both. There are many other authorities as well. I invite you to review the article and talk page for a full recitation of all the sources JimBob is battling against. Remember, the exact amounts are not the real dispute, JimBob refuses to allow any mention of the fact that Roxas' successors have any judgment whatsoever concerning the theft of the treasure, which cannot be rationally supported by reference to the applicable authorities.

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Jim (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And the sky is blue... Your statement makes no sense in relation to the facts of this case. A and B can be put together to reach conclusion C when conclusion C is reported as a fact in reliable sources D, E, F and G (which is the situation we have on the Yamashita's Gold article) 70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no... that is the entire point of this part of NOR. A and B must not be put together in that way, unless a source puts them together. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Art punk

Users keep reverting to version of the article that talks about subgenres that could not be found to be based of off this type of music. There were citation needed tags up for a week for this and none could be found, but people are still reverting back to that version.

To quote another user "I think there is some original research here in classifying subgenres of art punk, and I don't see a lot of sources that back up the assertion that these are actually subgenres of art punk. Where sources exist specifically for art-punk these should be in the article, and if bands that have sources to support 'art-punk' as a description also have sources that use these subgenres as descriptions, that would give some legitimacy to associating these genres as part of art punk, but it needs to be demonstrated. Generally, I think effort needs to go into finding sources that specifically refer to 'art punk', and the article should then be based on that."

Could some of you weigh in on what should be done with the article?Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the primary source or secondary source classification of highway maps

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul McKenna

An editor continues to return this material to the article which appears to be violation of WP:SYN [8]. i.e. Taking sources talking about validity of particual degrees from a university and applying such reasoning to the subject of the article. I have reached my revert limit, and would request the OR material be removed and the page semi protected to prevent continued IP vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Food Chemical News source used in aspartame controversy

I started a thread over at RS/N about this source, but the suggestion at the talk page by ScienceApologist is that this is original synthesis. The article is entitled "Aspartame Adverse Reaction Reports Down in 1994 From 1985 Peak". Since the controversy centers around the health effects of aspartame, it is hard to see why this is synthesis. The information added:[9]]

In 1995, FDA Epidemiology Branch Chief Thomas Wilcox reported that aspartame complaints represented 75% of all reports of adverse reactions to substances in the food supply from 1981 to 1995. He stated that "there is still concern" about the substance and that "some people have an intolerance [to aspartame]".

II | (t - c) 18:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not reference any "aspartame controversy". Therefore using it as evidence of any kind of "asparatame controversy" is baldly original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what we call wikilawyering. The article has plenty of sources, including the ones which say aspartame is safe, which do not use the words "aspartame controversy". Wilcox mentions "concerns". Is he not talking about a controversy? Anyway, let's let uninvolved people comment. That's what this is for. You've said this is synthesis, but you're misusing or misinterpreting what synthesis is. Synthesis is when you take two sources and make a synthetic claim from them. This takes one source and the language that it uses directly. As far the source being directly related -- its title pretty much says it. The source is about the reported adverse health effects from aspartame. These are at the center of the controversy around aspartame.II | (t - c) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the source, but on the face of it, II seems to have the better case. The aspartame controversy, legitimate or otherwise, is about claims that aspartame has adverse health effects. So, this report appears relevant, and the absence of the words "aspartame controversy" doesn't change this. OTOH, it's important to be sure that the FDA position is represented correctly. For example, saying "there is still concern" might mean that "the FDA is still concerned", or "even though aspartame is safe, there is still public concern", or someting in between.JQ (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for; for a little while, I was beginning to think I must be crazy. The source is a bit dated; I believe the source said the FDA also stopped taking these reports when related aspartame in 1995 (although I can't check until Monday when I have access to my workplace database). I believe the most recent source is a 1999 article in the FDA Consumer, where the reporter states that the FDA regards it as basically safe and well-tested, and that is in the lead of the article. But that statement doesn't invalidate Wilcox's comments, or the fact that there have been a lot of adverse health effect reports. These reports were either generated by the controversy or caused the controversy; either way, clearly they are very directly related to the controversy! As far as the concern referenced by Wilcox, it is not clear whether he was talking about public concern or agency concern, but it's probably a bit of both, and it's probably outside of our purview to interpret exactly what he means. Anyway, I should probably try to keep the discussion to a less intimidating size for newer uninvolved people. II | (t - c) 07:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

People should not be commenting without reading the source. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. the purpose of this noticeboard is to allow uninvolved editors to comment. If the issue is clearly presented, they can make general comments without going into details. MaxPont (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In particular, this user is doing a textbook case of synthesis: "if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." The source is directly related to reports of allergies to aspartame: NOT the aspartame controversy. If you can find a third-party source which indicates that this source is somehow relevant to the aspartame controversy, then that would allow us to consider your proposal (as it would at least no longer be an original research claim).ScienceApologist (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

II has an obviuos case here, the wikilawyering by ScienceApologist above is twisting words and terms in a ridiculous way.MaxPont (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This question only arises because Aspartame controversy has been forked from Aspartame in an unhelpful way (POV-fork). The whole of the controversy article should be merged back into Aspartame. But if that would result in an overly long article - I don't think it would - then the sub-article should be Health effects of aspartame. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

IF so, the issue should not be discussed here. BTW, the article recently went through a deletion review[10] resulting in a blatant Keep decision according to WP:snowball.MaxPont (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If the source is "directly related to reports of allergies to aspartame", why does the source never use the word 'allergies'? Did you even read the source? What are the last two words in it? II | (t - c) 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. The source says "there is still concern". Sounds like another way to say "controversy" to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The "magic words" test will never work with many article titles, especially controversial ones where the article is given a name that approximates NPOV and most of the sources will have anything but a neutral POV. The source may still be inappropriate for other reasons, but that it doesn't use the exact phrase of the article title is a technicality at best. SDY (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Panzuriel

There is a dispute on the about whether the OR cleanup template is appropriate for the article Panzuriel. The article itself contains such unsupported opinions as:

"Although Panzuriel's worshippers generally have no creation myths of their own, other sources attribute to Panzuriel a protean creative power. According to myth, Panzuriel acts with the other gods to strengthen the evil races of the sea. Because the others accept Panzuriel's help, they grow increasingly under his control."

I would be grateful if someone independent of the dispute would make their views known on the article's talk page. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Economic freedom

Are claims that economic freedom is "controversial term" and that "As with freedom generally, there are various definitions, but no universally accepted concept of economic freedom" original research if they are based on this quote: "The content of freedom has been a subject of such controversy over the centuries that it would be extremely foolish to expect to resolve all that [here]. It would be equally a mistake to look for one "authentic" characterization of the basic idea of freedom."?

Is it original research to use sources that say "freedom" as sources for claims about "economic freedom"? One user argues that "Any source that says "freedom" could be enhanced (or harmed) by certain economic policies, is talking about economic freedom." To me that doesn't make sense because economic policies can affect wide range of freedoms. For example, if some country would introduce a special tax that targets independent publishers who oppose government that measure would affect freedom of speech. -- Vision Thing -- 12:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that "Economic freedom" is a controvercial term. But it would be best to find a source that says this specifically. I would avoid using sources that talk about "Freedom" in general. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The argument is actually that the sources are discussing economic freedom, but they don't happen to string the words together there. In context, it makes sense. These sources, by the way, are: Bronfenbrenner, Martin (1955), "Two Concepts of Economic Freedom", Ethics 65 (3) and Sen, Amartya, Rationality and Freedom, p. 9. I haven't looked at them closely just now (or I can't remember exactly what they said), but I believe that this is similar to the wikilawyering seen above with Food Chemical News. Since "economic" and "freedom" are not stringed together exactly, even though they appear on the same page, this is "OR". Anyway, Vision Thing, where exactly is that quote?

Anyway, I just looked through Brofenbrenner. He says on page 161: "At the heart of the controversy ... on the nature of economic freedom". Look it up. If you want the full-text, drop a note on my talkpage and email me. Matter seems settled with that quote. II | (t - c) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be in a bad position to actively defend my additions for the next few weeks, planning on spending some un-wiki time. If anyone wants the fuller context on whether material in the Economic freedom article is OR, I suggest checking out the talk page and archive. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, quote is from Rationality and Freedom p.9 and it was provided by Cretog8 on my request. As for Bronfenbrenner, he is a good source for describing views in the history section because his work is from 1955, and in my view he can't be used to describe situation today. -- Vision Thing -- 08:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As is already evident, this has nothing to do with WP:OR, and everything to do with WP:OWN. VisionThing is clutching at every possible straw to exclude anything that would contradict his preferred view. Most ludicrously, VT wants to exclude Franklin D. Roosevelt as not notable enough. JQ (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some actual arguments concerning OR, or you came here just to slant me? -- Vision Thing -- 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can leave it at that, and see if any uninvolved readers want to take a look.JQ (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Second intifada

I'm having a dispute with another editor at Second intifada. He has added links to a series of articles as references for the sentence "Some view the start to be the September 28 2000 riots and injuries soon after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif." The sources are descriptions of the riots, and are reliable enough primary sources regarding them, but do not actually make the claim that September 28 was the start of the Second intifada, or that that "some view" it as the start. I've removed the references as a violation of WP:SYNTH, and potentially of WP:V. However, another editor insists that because they are reliable sources, they can be added "as description of the events". The discussion is here: Talk:Second_Intifada#WP:NOR_based_on_primary_sources. I'd appreciate third party views. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a debate over whether to include background information about the riots. While there are a few editors that interpret SYNTH as every reference literally has to mention the title of the article, that's not workable for a variety of reasons. For instance, merged articles would become impossible. While the long-term solution would be to have a full-length article about the riots and put all the background information there, for the time being you could cite clauses separately i.e.: "Some sources view a series of riots on Sep 28, in which W, X, Y, Z happened (background info cites), as the start of a "second Intifada" (cite analysis pieces that specifically use the term Intifada). Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A paragraph about the use of the terms Wilderness acquired diarrhea and Wilderness diarrhea

Is the following paragraph original research? Thanks.

"Use of the terms 'wilderness acquired diarrhea' and 'wilderness diarrhea' has been limited to a small number of journal articles although it has been the subject of many. The term 'wilderness acquired diarrhea' has appeared in articles where the traveller is infected during a wilderness trip and may have symptoms during or after the trip, whereas the term "wilderness diarrhea" has appeared exclusively in articles where the trips are long enough so that the symptoms most likely appear during the trip. But this is not clearly definitive because of the small number of articles that use the terms."

Please note that the above referenced articles are the only ones that I know of that have used these terms.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be considered a synthesis to make that extrapolation. You could maybe allude to the point youre making by quoting the sources in a certain style without adding any assumptions, i.e. "Account X talked about wilderness diarrhea. Account Y, about short trips, talked about the risk of wilderness-acquired diarrhea", with no more elaboration. That doesn't exactly come out with the point you were trying to make, but it doesn't contradict it either and leaves room to flesh it out if sources are found for your point. But how wide is the scope of the article? We dont want to get into an "undue weight" problem either. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm interested in your suggestion. Please copy the paragraph, paste it below, and edit it the way you think it should be. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Re your questions, you can check that at the article where the paragraph came from, Wilderness acquired diarrhea. Also, please note that we don't have any references that specifically define the terms. There are no references that specifically say that the terms mean the same thing or that they mean different things. All we have to go on as far as the references are concerned was described in the paragraph. As far as I can see, the paragraph is not concluding what the meaning of terms is but is simply presenting what the state of the situation is regarding the limited use of the terms. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is unreferenced, and likely original research. The references need to verify what the text is stating, which is "The term 'wilderness acquired diarrhea' has appeared in articles...". If the references don't state this, and you are stating this based on the articles (that include the term), then it is original research. One shouldn't be describing articles, rather summarizing & paraphrasing them. DigitalC (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Would the editors here please put Wilderness acquired diarrhea on their watchlists for a couple of weeks? This issue has been discussed at length (here, on the artcle's talk page, on my user talk page...), but Bob has been insisting that this bit of original research be included in the article despite obvious violation of WP:OR and the opposition of every editor that has discussed it with him. I'd appreciate your support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See my recent message on the Talk page . --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Typographic terminology

There is a dispute between myself and another editor on Template talk:Typography terms, and there is a great need for input from other editors. I believe the issue is related to WP:NPOV/undue weight and WP:OR. The argument is whether to include the link Gaelic script as a typographic classification. Is it original research to create a novel classification system that is not represented in any of our sources? Additionally, is it undue weight to link to Gaelic script, when the vast majority of typographic texts don't even mention it? Only two sources have been provided so far, and apparently neither one is even discussing typographic classifications... scratch that, a third source has been provided, but I have generally ignored it as it is self-published on the user's personal website. And while not the COI noticeboard, perhaps that is another issue at play here as well. Anyway, there seems to be quite a large number of policy points tangled up in this mess, and both myself and the other party have been quite verbose on the talk page. I apologize for that, and would greatly appreciate the time anyone could put into weeding through and examining this dispute. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm the other editor. :-) I believe that Andrew C is making far too much about NPOV/"Undue Weight"/OR. I'll try to summarize the arguments.

1. Classification of typefaces is a fairly marginal activity in any case. In 1954 Vox classified both Roman types and Blackletter types. He overlooked Gaelic types but as these were confined to Ireland this is not particularly surprising.
2. Most books on typography (and there are not that many of those either) don't attempt to classify; they are concerned with other matters. A book may discuss typographic styles without attempting to put them into a classificatory framework.
3. In 1924 E. W. Lynam published The Irish Character in Print, a discussion of 21 different Gaelic typefaces, ranging from 1571 to 1922. He describes the fonts and their differences but does not attempt to apply a vocabulary of subclassification. He does clearly distinguish Gaelic types from Roman types, and he also mentions the analogous distinction of Blackletter types from Roman types. He does not equate Blackletter types and Gaelic types.
4. In 1990 Mícheál Ó Searcóid presented at a TeX User's Group conference The Irish Alphabet, an article on the origin, history and present-day usage of the Irish typeface.
5. In 1992 Dermot McGuinne (head of the department of Visual Communications at the College of Marketing and Design in Dublin) published Irish Type Design: A history of printing types in the Irish character. He likewise describes carefully the different features of different Gaelic typefaces, in ten chapters about the different Gaelic type styles, and one chapter, "The Roman v. the Irish character" in which he also clearly distinguishes Gaelic from Roman typefaces. He does not attempt to apply a vocabulary of subclassification.
6. Brendan Leen of the Cregan Library, St Patrick's College, Drumcondra, published a web page Four centuries of printing in the Irish character; it is not about Roman types or Blackletter types.
7. In 2005 Mathew D. Staunton's article Trojan Horses and Friendly Faces: Irish Gaelic Typography as Propaganda appeared in La revue LISA (ISSN 1762-6153. Vol. III; n°1. 2005).
8. In 2000, Michael Everson (that's me) published a History and classification of Gaelic typefaces in which a subclassification of Gaelic typefaces was proposed. This has evidently been considered to be useful and at least somewhat authoritative as it has at least been linked to by Luc Devroye, Ciarán Ó Duibhín, Vincent Morley, Daveth Fox, and has been added to the articles corresponding to Gaelic type in Italian and Spanish. (I guess you could claim that was an uncritical translation, but one might assume that the Italian and Spanish editors looked at the site and knew what they were doing. The article was published the year before the Wikipedia came into being, and four years before I ever started editing on the Wikipedia.
9. In 2002 Vincent Kinane's A Brief History of Printing and Publishing in Ireland was published by the National Print Museum of Ireland. This does not discuss classification, but it is interesting to note that the first book printed in Ireland was The Boke of Common Praier published in Blackletter in English in 1550. The first book printed in Irish was Aibidil gaeoidheilge agus Caiticiosma printed in 1571 in a hybrid Gaelic type (the first Gaelic typeface).
10. Everyone seems to agree that Blackletter type can be subclassified as (at least) Textualis, Rotunda, Schwabacher, and Fraktur
11. Everyone seems to agree that Roman type can be subclassified as (at least) Old style, Transitional, Modern, Slab serif, and Sans-serif
12. Everyone who knows about Gaelic type (minority type as it is) seems to agree that it can be subclassified as Angular, Uncial, Grotesque. And those who know about Gaelic type certainly do differentiate it from Roman type and Blackletter type.
13. Andrew C suggests that all of the above may violate WP:OR. But I am not Lynam and Ó Searcóid or McGuinne; nor am I Staunton or Kinane or Leen, and they all distinguished Gaelic type from Roman type. My 2000 classification draws on external sources: the fonts themselves, Lynam, and McGuinne. Distinguishing Gaelic from Roman and Roman from Blackletter and Blackletter from Gaelic is typeface classification, and the sources cited above all make those distinctions. Sub-classifying any one of these forms is quite verifiable. If one says that Roman type X is "slab-serif", you can look at its serifs and see if this is true. If one says that Gaelic type Y is "angular", you can look at its "a" and see if this is true.
14. Andrew C suggests that my activity here may not violate WP:NPOV. It is difficult to rationalize this alongside Wikipedia policy regarding WP:EXR. The central question here is "Is Gaelic type a top-level class alongside Blackletter type and Roman type?" Am I "neutral" as far as this question goes? Well... no: I am quite sure that these three classes are distinct, even if Gaelic is the "smallest". But this view (that Gaelic type ≠ Roman type) is held by everyone, specialist or not, in Ireland who has had anything to do with the cló Gaelach.
15. ISO 15924 gives unique codes Latn to generic or Roman-type-specific text, and (We agree that the Roman alphabet and the Gaelic alphabet are both the same at the level of the Latin script, but Roman type and Gaelic type are distinct. One of the chief identifiers is that the former is based on Carolingian letterforms, while the latter is based on Insular letterforms. This is not Original Research, either. It is common knowledge.
16. Andrew C suggests that "undue weight" is given to Gaelic type if it is considered a top-level class alongside Blackletter and Roman type. Now, nobody disputes that Gaelic type is in the minority. It was used in only one country for a minority language for 400 years. It has, however, got unique origins in insular letterforms and has had its own internal history of development. Wales' criterion is "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"; well, I have named prominent adherents in Gaelic typography.
17. I'd better bring this to an end. WP:EX comes to mind. Though my 2000 page is on my website, others have cited it, and Luc Devroye even used its terminology in his own description of various Gaelic typefaces. I don't know how many experts in Gaelic typography there are. Morley and Ó Duibhín and McGuinne are. Bolger will lecture on them tomorrow in Dublin (I'm looking forward to it). A number of people consider me to have some expertise in this area. Assuming that I do... I have still endeavoured to show how other specialists have distinguished Gaelic from Blackletter from Roman. I think I have a hard time understanding Andrew C's continuing doubt.
18. I'm glad to have this opportunity to discuss these matters. Do I have a conflict of interest? I do not believe so. I have an interest: to ensure that the Typography articles in the Wikipedia describe typeface classification accurately, and that Gaelic typefaces are not overlooked. -- Evertype·✆ 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
19. I have just learned this morning that Brian Doyle cited my 2000 Classification in his Master's Thesis Scríoḃ na nDaoine: Orthographic Variation, Ideology, and Literacy Practices in Irish for the Faculty of the Department of Linguistics, Northeastern Illinois University. -- Evertype·✆ 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what extent it proves anything, but Image:Scripts in Europe (1901).jpg, published long before Michael or any of the rest of us were born, seems to put the Gaelic script on a par with Fraktur. —Angr 09:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The rubrics are: German Alphabet (Fraktur); Latin Alphabet (Antiqua); Limited use of Fraktur along with predominant Antiqua; Irish script along with predominant Antiqua; Cyrillic Alphabet; Greek Alphabet; Arabic Alphabet; Kalmuck-Mongolian Script. (Boy, I'd love to have an original of that framed at home.) I agree with Angr: This classifies Blackletter type distinct from Roman type distinct from Gaelic type. -- Evertype·✆ 10:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From reading the above, it sounds as if the basic classification is verifiable to reliable sources, but the subclassifications are not and may rely on OR. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The subclassification of Gaelic type into Angular, Uncial, and Grotesque may have been devised by Michael Everson, but it has been published outside of Wikipedia already - indeed it was published before Wikipedia even existed. WP:COS says, "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." Michael's subclassification has been published, and has even been cited by others in their own research. Just because a Wikipedian is the one who has published the work doesn't make the work an unreliable source, and certainly doesn't make repeating it here OR. —Angr 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, since when is "uploading to a personal website" the same thing as being "published". Fails WP:RS. As for being cited by others, these are blogs and personal websites that don't even "cite" the classification scheme that Evertype has proposed we include on the template (Angular, Uncial, Grotesque). I have to ask, are we reading the same links? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." I trust we can all agree that Michael is an established expert on this topic, and his subclassification has been cited by others, not only in their blogs and personal websites, but in a master's thesis as well. —Angr 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a borderline case, and I believe you are pushing the limits of notability and reliability. To the point, the master's thesis doesn't utilize Everson's classification system, but merely states Everson (2000) tabulated and categorized more than 100 Gaelic typefaces created between 1567 and 2000. The words "angular" and "grotesque" do not appear in the thesis, nor does "grotesque" appear in any of the webpages (scratch once at Luc's). That said, I do agree that multiple sources have describe two variations of historical Irish typefaces related to Irish manuscript culture (the rounded related to uncial, and the more angular one related to later minuscules and native tongue manuscripts--and this isn't just on webpages, McGuinne discusses these two in his book). But I think the detail of these issues can be resolved further at the Gaelic type article. This is about the typographic terms template. I believe my comment below is more to the point. I'll keep in mind your assessment of Everson's own work. Thanks for your input thus far.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We may be at the edge of the limits, but I don't think we have crossed over into OR. The research was done years ago. I stipulate that "grotesque" should not at this time be on the template. -- Evertype·✆ 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, earnestly.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Blueboar's comment it sounds as if the basic classification is verifiable to reliable sources. Evertype proposes that the three basic classifications are "Blackletter" "Roman" and "Gaelic". Not a single source mentions just these three in such a manner. NOT A SINGLE SOURCE. Sure we have multiple sources, when discussing the history of printing in the Irish language which discuss the use of two different character styles (in some texts referred to as alphabets), Irish vs. Roman. Then we have other sources that discuss blackletter along side serif typefaces, sans serif, slab serf, etc. How is mixing these sources to come up with a novel classification scheme not found anywhere (in published, reliable sources) NOT original synthesis? We have to also keep in mind that Irish is not unique in that typographers cut special typefaces in order to print in other languages as well. I think there could be a place for the Gaelic type link on the template, surely, but the current state, and the expanded Evertype proposal is original synthesis, and undue weight.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. This isn't for a paragraph in an article about typefaces. This is for Template:Typography terms, a VDE that's included at the bottom of various pages. And the debate is about whether to include "Gaelic" at the end of "Blackletter · Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif · Gaelic". And there's dozens of very specialized typesetting terms, i.e. Hamburgefonts, also in the template, so I don't see any "undue weight". I think we all agree there is such a thing as a "Gaelic" or "Celtic" typeface; we've all seen it before. I really don't see any "original research" happening in the template. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current proposal is to separate Roman, Blackletter, and Gaelic in the template, since the template is defective because "Blackletter · Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif · Gaelic" places both Blackletter and Gaelic at the same level as subclassifications of Roman, which they really are not (not even in sources that classify Blackletter and Roman only). So the current proposal is:

Blackletter type: Textualis · Rotunda · Schwabacher · Fraktur

Roman type: Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif ·

Gaelic type: Angular · Uncial · Grotesque

Angr has a point about subclassifications of Gaelic not (yet) having articles; I would however say that "Angular (linking for now to "Insular") and "Uncial" would be sufficient. -- Evertype·✆ 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your feedback. Excuse me while I briefly respond. My concern is that we have under the heading "classification" a list of terms generally found in most typographic texts, and then "Gaelic" which is a very specialized, minority use word. Your rational sounds like we could include "sci-fi fonts" or "techno fonts" as a classification as well, because we've all see Star Wars and Star Trek logos. Or that we could include "typewriter fonts" or "heavy metal fonts" or any number of other "groups". The concern is that typography scholars have significant ways to group major text typefaces, and mixing in a classification that isn't part of that grouping seems to me like we are creating a novel or synthesized, original list. Does that make sense? If it does, can you try to clear up my confusion and explain to me how it isn't a case of combining source A with source B to create conclusion C. I think a way to address my concern would be to split up the classification section, the major from the minor, or something along those lines (and clearly include Gaelic somewhere, just not next to sans serif, old style, etc). Do you see any sense in working towards a compromise like that? Thanks for your time!-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a hundred-year-old map from a German encyclopedia showing where sci-fi fonts, techno fonts, typewriter fonts, and heavy metal fonts are used in Europe? Is there a four-letter ISO 15924 code for a sci-fi font, a techno font, a typewriter font, or a heavy metal font? And more to the point, since what we're talking about is a navigation box, do we have articles on sci-fi fonts, techno fonts, typewriter fonts, or heavy metal fonts? The Gaelic type is in every way comparable to Fraktur, and putting it in the template is not OR, nor does it violate NPOV. I agree the subclassifications of the Gaelic type probably don't belong in the navbox, but only because we don't have articles on them. —Angr 10:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To Andrew I would reiterate what I said to him elsewhere: Everyone knows that Hungarian and Finnish are Uralic languages, but so is Nenets—even if most people have never heard of it. If the seminal classification of typefaces was made by Vox in 1954, and if Vox did not know about Gaelic type, that means nothing more than that he didn't know about it. Everyone who writes about Gaelic type distinguishes it from Roman type. The whole Gaelic-Roman dispute is entirely parallelled by the Antiqua-Fraktur_dispute. I'm not just making this stuff up, Andrew. I was at a lecture last night at the National Print Museum in Dublin and it was all about Gaelic and Roman type. Everyone in the room shared a common reference—even if it is a reference that you do not share or that you do not find in sources available to you—and your protestations that "mixing in a classification that isn't part of that grouping seems to me like we are creating a novel or synthesized, original list" is just a sign that you don't know this material as well as I or others do. However, given your comment about splitting up the classification section, and given Squidfryerchef's comment, I think that there are grounds to revise the Template. -- Evertype·✆ 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my analogy fails, but I think my actual point stands. ISO codes have nothing to do with type design, but instead alphabet/script. What is the ISO code for a transitional serif typeface? What is the ISO code for sans serif? Where on the 1900s map does it mention sans serif, or old-style, or modern? Again, it is about scripts/Alphabets, not type design. Furthermore, the 1900s map includes more than "Blackletter, Antiqua, and Irish". It also contains Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, and "Kalmükisch-Monoglische" (which I believe refers to Clear script, which was replaced in the 1920s, and now is possibly no longer used for western typography). I would not be opposed to having a section that contains Greek, Cyrillic, Blackletter, and Gaelic (and perhaps others). But it is inappropriate to mix serif based classifications not found on your 1901 map with the script based classifications. Mixing the two is original synthesis, no?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should really stop the "undue weight" argument now. You have not made anything near a plausible case. Regarding the map, yes, it contains Greek, Cyrillic, and Arabic, but those are different scripts. Gaelic is Latin script, not anything else, and so that observation is a red herring. Fraktur coexisted with Antiqua just as Irische Schrift coexisted with Antiqua. (By the way—as I have said before—Lynam does mention all three and he does not equate any two of them.) You are right it is inappropriate to mix serif-based classifications (which are subclassifications of Roman type) with either Blackletter or Gaelic in the template, and I have now corrected this mistake. I do not believe that you have made a case that distinguishing Roman/Blackletter/Gaelic at the top level of classification is Original Research. I do not believe you have made a convicing case that this synthesis is novel either. And I do not believe that your suggestion that we are giving Gaelic type "undue weight" is tenable. What would be useful now is to do as Angr suggests, and as you yourself suggested, and work on improving the articles so they better reflect what we now have in the Template. -- Evertype·✆ 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is not a novel synthesis, where are the sources? Is it too much to ask for a single source that classifies Latin typefaces into three (and only three) distinct classifications: Blackletter, Roman, and Gaelic? Can we quote from that source verbatim?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is. You know what? Every sentence in the Wikipedia does not have a footnote. Having said that, would you like me to mention Lynam 1924 yet again? He mentions the Roman-Gaelic dispute right alongside mentioning the Antiqua-Fraktur dispute. He does not equate Gaelic with Blackletter. Further, we have seen a map from 1901 which distinguishes these three varieties of Latin script. Moreover, we have consensus amongst all scholars that Roman ≠ Gaelic. And in generalist typographic materials available to you, we have consensus that Roman ≠ Blackletter. Your thesis seems to be that if we don't have a book somewhere that says what I am saying, we must abandon all hope and assign Gaelic to the category of separate script, like Greek and Cyrillic. And frankly, that thesis is ridiculous. You really do have to listen to the experts sometimes. I am quite sure that what we have been discussing here meets Wales' criterion that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I have, as I have said, named prominent adherents in Gaelic typography. In fact I was in a room full of people last night who agreed with me about this. (I mentioned this classification dispute.) So yes, right now, it is too much to ask for a single source that does what you want. Why? Because the people who wrote generalist books you are familiar with overlooked Gaelic type. That does not mean that Gaelic type has no classification within Latin-script typography. it does not mean that Gaelic type is "foreign" like Greek or Cyrillic. It means that some generalists overlooked Gaelic type. And those specialists who have dealt with Gaelic type distinguish it from Roman type, and none of them ever call it Blackletter, and Lynam who did mention Blackletter didn't equate the two. I don't think there's any justification for insisting on further doubt here. -- Evertype·✆

Comment: I am finding this discussion far too technical for this noticeboard. Please remember that those of us who reply to your questions here do so because we are familiar with the policy... we do not necessarily know much of anything about typography. So, could someone please outline both sides of this dispute in a way that someone who knows nothing about typography can understand? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for all this. My outstanding concern (as the template currently stands) is that we have a "classification" that says there are three major groupings: "Blackletter, Roman, and Gaelic". My concern is that this is novel (original) classification scheme. I also believe the listing lacks context, and has hierarchy (or weight) issues. Evertype's concern is that if we used exclusively the major existing classification scheme's it would exclude (rightly so) Gaelic type, his pet project in real life, and would be ignoring a notable minority grouping. I think there is a way to compromise that simply isn't a matter of correcting the oversights of major classification schemes (which I believe is what has happened in the current state of the template). I don't want to remove the link, I just believe it needs to be appropriately contextualized. I believe Evertype is completely fine with the current state of the template, and seems to oppose making it clear that there aren't simply three main groups "Blackletter, Roman, and Gaelic", at least if we are following sources. If you have specific concerns or questions about typography, I'd be glad to try to explain more.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is to help users navigate. The NPOV principle does not apply in the same way that it does in article mainspace. So I don't think there is any problem if the template shows "Blackletter", "Roman" "Celtic". To give an analogy: if I was developing a template for "Lakes of France" and I included "Lakes of the Indre", "Lakes of Bouches-du-Rhone" but not "Lakes of Seine-Maritime", that would not imply that there are no lakes in Seine-Maritime or that they are somehow unimportant. The probable explanation would simply be that we do not have an article on them right now. It is not an NPOV issue. Please get back if there are complexities I haven't understood. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting. I believe this isn't a case of us having an incomplete classification scheme because we don't have articles on those topics yet. I believe Evertype thinks there are three and only three major classification groups "Blackletter" "Roman" and "Gaelic", something not supported by sources. If I am wrong, then I'm curious if there is more than 3 major groups, and I'm curious where we should put information about non-Latin western typography and Cyrillic, Greek, etc.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"His pet project"? That is most uncivil, Andrew. I am to others, at least, a respected expert in Gaelic type and design. -- Evertype·✆ 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no ISO 15924 code for "transitional serif typeface" because that is a subdivision of Roman type. ISO 15924 allows users to indicate both "Latg" for Gaelic type and "Latf" for Blackletter type in bibliographical contexts precisely because these are unique from each other and from generic Latin. That's a kind of classification, by the way. Even if it wasn't made by Vox in 1954. -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Lets take a step back and see where Evertype and Andrew agree... Do you both agree that something called "Gaelic type" actually exists? Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I do. -- Evertype·✆ 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then is the dispute simply a matter of figuring out how and where to list it on the template? Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew (for whom I shall, cheekishly, speak here) thinks that because no general text on typography makes a specific distinction between Roman/Blackletter/Gaelic, that the three cannot be considered to be a top-level classification (as you can see in the current revision of the template) simply because no general text on typography specifically describes this. Now, as I have said, every sentence in this encyclopaedia does not have a footnote, but never mind that. Every text on Gaelic type distinguishes it from Roman type (whether or not the ATypI classification—which is a popular source for texts on general typography—mentions Gaelic or not). The ATypI classification does distinguish Roman from Blackletter. Both Roman and Blackletter have ATypI-published sub-classifications (Latn: slab-serif, transitional, etc.; Latf: fraktur, rotunda, schwabacher); to date I am the most notable person to have proposed a formal sub-classification for Gaelic types (not trying to hide anything here); that classification has been referenced by others (on their websites). But that was published a long time ago. So, because generalist typographic texts have not made a three-way distinction, Andrew believes that the Wikipedia should ignore Gaelic types in the classification. I can find no reason why this is a good idea. There is plenty of cumulative evidence that Gaelic types are unique. For one, they are not Carolingian. For another, they were developed for Ireland and used from 1571-1960. I don't think the Wikipedia should ignore this, even if ATypI's 1954 classification ignored Gaelic type. -- Evertype·✆ 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's see what we have here. We agree that the Gaelic typeface exists, and we agree that it is not a subcategory of Roman or Blackletter type families. What we don't agree on is whether Gaelic is important enough to be at the top of a three-way classification tree. We do agree though it's notable enough to merit a WP article, something that keeps decorative or "sci-fi" typefaces from being added to the template. My opinion is that if in the future there were more articles on various Latin typefaces that had long use in various countries, but were neither Roman or Blackletter, then they could be combined with Gaelic in a new toplevel category called "regional". But because they don't yet exist, then the Roman/Blackletter/Gaelic division is the most appropriate; we wouldn't create a "miscellaneous" category with only one member. To me, "there is no deadline" governs here. As far as the original research policy goes, that's for facts and figures. It's to prevent WP from containing facts that are only attributable to Wikipedia. It doesn't apply to how much weight to we want to give to a particular topic or what color to do the pie charts in. Those decisions are up to a consensus of editors, and yes it is OK to do your own deductions on the talk pages to argue for or against. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Squids take on this seems right to me. Blueboar (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still fill uneasy about this, but the current version has grown on me (though I still think there is probably a better solution). My energy on this topic has run low. Anyway, thanks. I appreciate everyone's time and input. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

NBA depth chart articles

On various NBA depth charts (the chart that somewhat shows who plays how much and when they enter the game), there are two schools of thought on how to keep them up-to-date:

1. Keep them consistent with an external source such as espn.com which lists the depth charts for each team. For example, here is a depth chart: {{2008–09 Detroit Pistons depth chart}} and here is the corresponding ESPN depth chart.
2. Base them on playing time determined from each NBA games boxscore. This method would use various boxscores: Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3.

I think it's appropriate to only use the first method since there is a reliable source which lists the exact information which is used in the template. I this the second method is inappropriate because the editor has to analyze the playing time of each player to determine where they fit in the depth chart. This method is ambiguous since it's not defined how to make this decision. Does it take into account all the playing time to date? Just the playing time in the last game? All the playing time in the last week?

I'm curious what everyone else has to say on the subject. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see method 2 as original research because it is based on the editor's analysis of the players' recent minutes played, and any answers to your questions are original research as well...unless there is a reliable source that specifically defines the "depth" of a team. —LOL ^T/_C 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think option #2 is the better one. Also, the NBA.com box scores now specify which players were on the inactive list that game. ● 8~Hype ^@ 21:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would say wait for a reliable source to list a depth chartDigitalC (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We should have a reliable source for this sort of thing, as I don't believe that minutes played is the only factor in setting the depth chart - so option 1 would be my preference. That said, a list of players by team, sorted by the average number of minutes played per game (backed by a source for that stat) wouldn't be original research itself, since all we'd be doing is ordering the list by value, which is objective (48 is greater than 40, for example). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the pages the depth charts are included on have a sortable statistics table that has average minutes played as one of the columns. That might be a good place to be able to see that information, although it will not be sorted by position as it would be on the depth chart. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of NBA depth chart template for past teams

I really the idea of creating a wiki template to illustrate a team's depth chart. Has anyone thought of using this template for pages about non-current/past teams? I feel that it would be a good addition to include for past teams to provide a visual of that team's role and reserve players during a particular season. However in such a case, I think the "Inactive" column would be unnecessary. Does anyone know if there is a way to modify the template so that only the starter and reserve columns show? --Djrun (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stock market bottom

The article's talk page says that the article has been referred here, but I can't find the section (probably because the article was originally written in August). The real problems might be reliable sources, recentism, and WP:Crystal Ball but there certainly is a bunch of original synthesis going on. Especially with the section that essentially says that TODAY is a market bottom (the DOW Jones Industrial Average went up 400 points and somebody wants to predict that it will keep going up. I will delete all unreliable sources (that means little will be left) and perhaps start a deletion request. Smallbones (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the previous notice here is in archive 4, October 6 Smallbones (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fathers' rights

An editor, User:Michael H 34, has repeatedly inserted a sentence [11] from page 48 of this reliable source [12] into the History and Background section of Fathers' rights movement article. The problem in my view is that neither the book, the chapter, nor the involved paragraph is about the fathers' rights movement but about child custody through the ages, and that the inclusion of this sentence is therefore Original Research.("If the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research"). Indeed, the sentence occurs in a section about the 'father absence' motif, which is specifically noted to be a move away "from a concern with father's rights". More details of my analysis can be found here.[13]. Michael H 34 disagrees and argues for its inclusion. Can we have an outside opinion please? --Slp1 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Any chance that somebody could offer an opinion? --Slp1 (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If the source itself does not mention Fathers Rights Movement, and no 3rd Party source links the source to Fathers Rights Movement, then the information can't be verifiably linked to the Fathers Rights Movement. So adding it into the article is wp:syn. However, rather than deleting it totally, consider adding it into Father or another related article as its a wellformatted cite, and the information is of value. --Davémon (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Disaster Risk Management in East Asia

The article Disaster Risk Management in East Asia has survived AfD but it seems wrong to me. The article began as a direct copy of a World Bank report that the article's author was involved in producing. After getting dinged on the copyright violation, the author paraphrased the article. It's still entirely a publication of original results, albeit in a different format from the original report and the original report is the only reference cited. it isn't an encyclopedic article where a topic is given and then core, neutral information about the topic is given. Instead, it's a report written for a specific purpose and written from a specific perspective. The fact that it remains makes a mockery of the policy, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought," because, evidently, Wikipedia does. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There may be many other issues involved here, but to make one thing clear: a report for the World Bank counts as a reliable independent source. I suspect that the article may not be necessary though. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the article and AfD now. The big problem is that it is not about disaster risk management in east Asia, but about a set of activities of the World Bank. Perhaps it could be merged with "emergency management", where the World Bank's role already has a small section. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By definition of "independent", it is not an independent source if the person citing it is the person who wrote it. And this article is original research. It isn't the same thing as a person writing an encyclopedic article that is a genuinely encyclopedia-style article, written from scratch as such, and finding it convenient to cite, judiciously, as if at arm's length, his own works in places where anyone else writing the same article might appropriately make the same citations. This is a case of a person treating her own work as the rough draft for the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a WP:COI and problematic for that reason. But sometimes material added in this way is worth keeping. It is quite a different case from someone simply adding their own ideas without getting them published by an organisation as reputable as the World Bank. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Horned God

We are engaged in a dispute at the moment at Talk:Horned God, about what is and isn't permissible in the article under WP:SYN policy. The "Horned God" is a term that encompasses a number of different ancient deities from diverse cultures throughout Europe, Asia and even further afield, all of which are depicted with horns or antlers. The gods are linked by the disputed theories of a number of authors and historians, most notably Margaret Murray and Gerald Gardner, but there have been others since, and probably previously as well. These writers claim that the different horned gods have common historical roots (or possibly — but I can't offhand cite an author who claims this — that they represent an archetypal principle or an actual god that reappears independently in different cultures).

The article is about that WP:FRINGE theory, and we have no disagreement about discussing the theories of Murray and Gardner, the role that the Horned God has since taken under modern neopaganism, and criticism of the claimed origins of this deity by historians such as Ronald Hutton, who treats the god as pseudo-historical, actually derived from Romantic depictions of the god Pan, and from the Christian devil.

So far, so good. The problem comes with other authors who make no specific reference to Murray or Gardner, but discuss the same horned deities and the same scenarios of cultural interrelationship, providing evidence for or against. One example is Georg Luck, currently a Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University and expert on magic in late antiquity, who provides an account virtually identical to Murray's regarding a syncretic horned god of Europe: he states that the Greek Pan was syncretised with a Celtic horned deity, resulting in a powerful horned deity around which the "pagani", those resistant to conversion, rallied; this god, according to Luck, provided the prototype of the Christian devil. Another example is the archeologist Timothy Taylor, an acknowledged expert on the Gundestrup cauldron, who claims that the figures depicted on the cauldron, traditionally interpreted as Celtic gods, are in fact stereotyped representations of Indian deities. This includes the deity normally equated with the Celtic Cernunnos, which Taylor suggests is representing Pashupati, an ancient Indic cattle god. Margaret Murray proposed exactly the same connection between the Gundestrup cauldron's "Cernunnos" and Pashupati.

So citing these two scholars, Luck and Taylor, would potentially provide some support to a disputed theory; but can we legitimately refer to them in the article? They seem eminently relevant, and provide interesting contextual information on how the Horned God theory sits against wider academic thinking. I'm sure there are other examples too, historians who don't directly mention the names of Murray or Gardner but fairly directly address their theories, or elements of their theories.

I note again that while Murray and Gardner are among the most notable proponents of the theory, they are not its only supporters, and the fact that they are not mentioned specifically by, say, Luck or Taylor, seems neither here nor there to me.

Any advice would be much appreciated. I will advise others at Talk:Horned God that I have raised this question, so we should have some comments below. Fuzzypeg★ 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you discuss what Luck and Taylor say seperately from Murry and Gardner? If I understand the dispute, the OR issue stems from attempting to tie the various sources together. If you simply lay out what the various sources say (with clear attribution as to who says what), and don't try to link them together, then I would think there would be no OR involved. Am I wrong? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I need to say is that Luck and Taylor are just my examples given here to illustrate the dilemma; neither author has specifically been challenged yet. But we are arguing over the principle on which they will eventually stand or fall, that is, can we mention any source that doesn't specifically refer to Murray's or Gardner's theory? One editor is telling us this would be WP:SYN, but I feel otherwise, since I don't think we're intending to impose our own interpretations on their theories or represent them as backers of Margaret Murray herself; we're simply hoping to provide information on how the concept of a cross-cultural Horned God is seen by academia. Most academic historians and archeologists would avoid mentioning Murray in either support or condemnation, I believe, even if they are aware of her work; she is too much persona non-grata. But should this prevent us mentioning their findings? Is it to be an article only about the shoddiness of Murray's and Gardner's working methods, or can we legitimately expand it into a serious discussion of the Horned God as treated by a wider group of people: flakes, hucksters and respected scholars alike? Fuzzypeg★ 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument is essentially that by not limiting ourselves to sources that directly reference Murray or Gardner, we would be creating a WP:COATRACK. We might have to wait for User:Davemon to clarify this, though. Fuzzypeg★ 00:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I do not see the problem with using the theories of these workers. The article is about the general concept in various manifestations, not specifically about either Murray or Gardner--if it were the bio article on either of them, I might give a different view. I think the article would gain by giving an account of the most important different approaches. it's not as if there were going to be one actual "consensus' on a topic like this. Fuzzypeg, just what sort of extraneous material are you concerned about? DGG (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Music to my ears, DGG. And in my attempt to explain things neutrally, I might not have made my own position clear enough: I hope to add such material myself, whereas another user is threatening wholesale deletion of anything he doesn't approve of, and has even threatened to turn the article into a dab page. I want to clarify the WP:SYN policy so we can get back to editing as normal. I'm not looking for free license to add whatever I want to the article, I just feel he's over-applying the policy.

The WP:SYN policy says: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." So if the cited sources do reach the same conclusion, and are directly related to the article subject, then we're fine, right? The only question remaining is: what is the article subject? And I propose that subject not be limited to just criticising Gardner and Murray. Fuzzypeg★ 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends entirely on how the data is presented in the context of the article. --Davémon (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The debate is actually quite simple. It's about the removal of a list of deities which are not related to the subject of the article in reliable sources. The sources (where cited) do not propose that the deities relate to the Horned God (the subject of the article), and therefore the article is misrepresenting those sources, and misleading readers. Much of the disputed content is totally unsourced. The sources which would be required to establish the links have not presented themselves over the past 6 weeks, despite frequent posts to the talk-page by several editors on the subject. It is highly unlikely that these sources exist at all.

Where the "historical origins" fringe-theories are discussed, they need to be summarised and not have all the evidence simply re-iterated in a list which makes no reference to them being part of a fringe-theory as article currently does. The fringe-theory needs to be explained, not restated.

This has been cross-posted at WP:FTN#Horned god, where another discussion which missed this central debate was started, in the hope that we can establish a way forward with this article. Davémon (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to improve this list of deities, by adding more well-cited material explaining how these deities have been equated by various Horned God theorists. I and other editors are holding back until we can resolve some points of policy, so that our work will not be unilaterally deleted again while we're still just figuring out structure. Almost all (possibly all) the deities in the list are mentioned by Murray, Gardner or both, and I believe most of them are also mentioned by the critical historian Ronald Hutton, in discussion of Murray's theory. I'd have to check my books at home for this. The deities are related to the subject of the article, and yes, they're mentioned in reliable sources, not just in WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. I can't see a problem either way, though.

I was hoping for more offers of advice, but my requests for help here and at WP:FTN seem to have achieved little more than to spill the argument into multiple pages. Time to look into the next phase of dispute resolution, perhaps. Fuzzypeg★ 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Research papers from academic sites

Hi,

Are research papers from academic sites allowed to be used such as these?

• Multiple But Complementary Identities:India and the Tamils (Note: This one seems to be a copy of part of a text on pdf.)
• POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF PERIYAR - Louis Antony

Also, are PDF files allowed to be used for quoting sources?

Wiki Raja (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The format of a source does not usually affect its reliability. Thus, a PDF file might be reliable or not, depending on whether the website that hosts it, it's author, etc is reliable.

As for the two sources you are asking about: No, we can not call them reliable... in the case of Multiple But Complementary Identities:India and the Tamils we have an excerpt from a larger text, with no indication of who wrote it or whether it has been reviewed. The fact that it is hosted on the columbia.edu server does not mean that it is authoritive, simply that someone at Columbia saved it onto the server.

As for POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF PERIYAR, it seems to be a personal webpage or Self-published source (hosted on tripod.com). While we dp know the author (Louis Antony), we don't know if this paper has been reviewed or how it was recieved. At best, it might be acceptable for a statement of Mr. Antony's opinion, if (and this is a big if) he is considered a noted expert in his field of study (ie someone who's opinion is noteworthy). Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to help with a content dispute

Hello, I'm having a bit of a conflict with another user over some content that, to me, is clearly a violation of Wiki's policy towards OR - specifically synthesis of info. The article is Adriana Lima and the specific content is that she opened and closed the first segment of the upcoming Victoria Secret Fashion Show, being the first model to ever do so. She has no published sources, only photo galleries as citations and a collection of Youtube videos on the talk page that everyone is supposed to watch in order to put all of it together to see that the user is right. I've told the user to at least wait some time for the show to be held so a reliable source can publish something about it, but the user refuses and openly plans to revert anything to the contrary.

Here is the specific section in the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adriana_Lima#Adriana_opening_and_closeing_segment_first_ever_angel_to_do_so.

Could someone drop by and offer their opinion? Thanks! Mbinebri (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Using websites to quote sources.

Hi,

Just would like to know if the following news and informational websites are permissible according to Wikipedia requirements to be used to quote sources for a biography:

• About Periyar: A Biographical Sketch from From 1879 to 1909
• Periyar
• Anti-Hindi sentiments still alive in TN
• Thanthai Periyar
• E.V. Ramaswami Naicker and C.N. Annadurai
• The boy who gives a truer picture of Periyar
• Superiority in Numbers

Wiki Raja (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Déjà Vu (film)

Resolved

This article contains a section on timelines in the movie that was written by a wikipedian, who then had the section approved by the writers of the movie by asking on the forum of the writer's website. It's currently undergoing GA review, and I have put it on hold seeking a second opinion on this section. Does this still count as original research? Million_Moments (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely questionable. The timeline was indeed Original Research on the part of a Wikipedian, but the subsequent comments on that research by the writer gives it a post-facto acceptance. That said, I am not at all happy with sourcing questionable material in a GA candidate to a forum. Forums are generally not considered reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblack metal

Hi, this is a general query, I've been checking out some pages, and checking out guidelines, with a view to contributing, but I'm a bit confused.An article like that listed in the heading - one of many examples that seem to fit the bill in terms of causing me some confusion - clearly contradicts the WP:OR guidelines but it appears to have gone entirely unnoticed. I don't see one reputable published secondary source to support the contents as currently presented.

I mean, if there is no published research on the history of a subject isn't it then synthesis to create one and support it with web hosted cites including interviews, reviews, forum entries etc. (the example above also has multiple non-english sources).

According to wiki guidelines I have read no one should have any objection if I simply scrubbed pages like this because of a general lack of verifiable secondary sources.

If there are no answers here can someone point me to a place where these issues can be clarified because it seems to me that original research is a huge grey area (elephant in the room} on wikipedia - on the one hand it's against policy but on the other, as long as no one objects, it's OK. Very confusing, plus the implications do no bode well for wiki's reputation.

Any thoughts, tips, or general musings might clarify this for me! Thanks. Measles (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good place to begin with your query. If I've understood you correctly, you think that the article lacks independent references and you want to know if it can be deleted on that basis. I've had only a quick look and I tend to agree that the referencing is not good. I tagged it as in need of further references. But there are one or two things cited that may be independent - it would need some more eyes on it. But no, articles cannot be "simply scrubbed" just for this reason. They can be put through the Articles for Deletion process, so that users have a chance to comment. I think in this case the tag may prove to be a spur to people to pull out some independent sources that mention this musical genre. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for your feedback, but I still see some kind of grey area on here regarding OR, it seems it stays unless someone objects, and even if the ones objecting are operating within the remit of policy on OR the onus is on them to validate a case for removing said OR based content. It's as if there's an attitude that if you wait long enough a verifiable secondary source will turn up; but what if you waited so long that the secondary source is based on information that started it's life as wikipedia OR? it really seems like there is an unspoken policy on the creation of WP:OR content; in the hope that through some memetic process the information will take on a life of it's own. Measles (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is one of courtesy... and the intent of WP:Verifiability... the key to deletion of material is whether it can be verified, not whether it currently is verified. When you come across information that is unsorced, the first thing you should do is see if you can source it yourself. If you can not source it, and you still think the material is doubtful or is OR, it is certainly appropriate to question it... however courtesy demands that you give other editors a chance to respond to your questioning ... and to fix the problem by locating and providing sources. So, the standard proceedure is to tag the article, section or statement in question, (and leave a message on the talk page outlining your concerns) and then wait a while. If, after a reasonable time there is no response, then you can remove the questionable material. (Note: if the article is a biography of a living person, or "BLP", the rules are stricter, you should remove unsourced and questionable material as a first step and leave a message as to why on the talk page). It may be that you can solve the issue by removing a single sentence or paragraph... it may be that you end up gutting the article back to a stub... or it may be that the article is in such bad shape that the best bet is to propose it for outright deletion at AfD. That depends on the article and what is wrong with it. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagging and waiting seems reasonable but: "fix the problem by locating and providing sources", in principal this seems workable, but, there are many topics which exist where there may be some evidence of sub-cultural usage of a term or involvement in an activity, which one could maybe verify first hand, or verify by looking at websites. But what if one cannot verify the content using reliable published secondary sources because none exist? surely then there are grounds for the content being excluded from the encyclopedia in accordance with the various policies relating to verifiability and original research? Measles (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of puns in British comedy shows

The folowing paragraph was deleted from the pun article with the reason "needs to have the sources":

Pun-based jokes are a common feature of British comedy and humor, for example in the TV shows I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and My Word, and in the performances of comedian Tim Vine and Countdown's host Richard Whiteley.

It would seem to me that this is a case where the primary sources are sufficient: anyone could check whether those shows and folks make use of puns. Besides, the linked articles do make that claim. So, what part of this statement could be "original research"? Can't we just tag it with {{tl:fact|...}} instead of just deleting it? (This paragraph is not mine, by the way; I am just unwilling to delete other people's good-faith and potentially valid contributions.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A "fact" tag would have been a better approach, rather than an outright deletion, and even then it is overkill. The statement is not very controvercial can indeed be cited to the examples themselves. Return the statement, and cite a representative eppisode of each example that contains lots of puns. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Headline map at Spanish Empire

The longstanding and referenced "anachronous" map at Spanish Empire is repeatedly being changed [14] by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to a map that he has uploaded in the last few days, for which zero references have been provided. Drawing maps of the Spanish Empire presents a problem in that Spain claimed far more than it actually ruled or settled, so you'll find slightly different maps depending on the author/source. However, the referenced version [15], which has been on the article for over a year, is at least verifiable - it represents the "lowest common denominator", if you will, of maps that you will find in reliable sources. EuroHistoryTeacher's version [16] is totally unreferenced.

I have tried explaining the policies of WP:V and WP:OR to him but to no avail, he just continues to revert the map. I would appreciate some assistance/advice here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps seem to be an issue recently (another map was recently debated at RS and RSN). There are two ways to look at a map... 1) If it is being used as a source for information, then the map needs to be verifiable and come from a reliable source. 2) If it is being used as an illustration it can be classified as an image, and we allow for WP:NOR#Original images.

In this case, the map of the Spanish Empire is being used mearly as an illustration, so there is no OR or V issue involved. The decision to use one map over another is mearly an editorial choice. Consensus at the article talk page should gouvern. Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the policy suggests something entirely different - "as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". If I drew a map, colouring the whole world pink, and suggesting that it was all part of the British Empire, that would be original research, wouldn't it? So what's the difference between this and someone else uploading a map of the world suggesting that Spain claimed/ruled certain areas that reliable sources say did not? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK... I have taken a second look at the article in question... so let me rephrase... there are two types of editor-created images in wikipedia: 1) images that mearly illustrate things discussed in the text of the article (these images do not need to be sourced, since the text they are illustrating should be sourced). 2) images that depict things not discussed in the text (such images are introducing new facts, and so do need to be sourced).

So, in relation to map at the Spanish Empire article... the first question is, does the article text discuss the extent of Spainish claims? If so, then it is not considered OR to include an editor-created map illustrating what the text says. However, if the article text does not discuss the extent of Spanish claims, then the editor-created map goes beyond the text and might be OR (that depends on whether it can be sourced). Having taken a second look at the article, I don't see a discussion of the extent of spanish claims. Hence, the image is not based upon the text. It is introducing new facts, facts that need to be sourced.

This leads to the second question: can these facts be sourced? You seem to indicate that there is not one single reliable source that says Spain claimed the disputed areas... if this is indeed the case, then yes, it is clearly OR to depict Spain claiming these areas... but, if there is even one reliable source that says Spain did claim these areas, then the map is not OR. It might be representing a minority view, but it is not OR. Hope this clarifies things for you. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

BlueBoar , yes THERE IS sources that say Spain claimed or had a sphere of influence or military presence in the areas i colored in the map in pink , and red were actual possessions , but Red Hat Ferrick does not want to understand (sophism). I have already provided many sources but he does not want to accept them , this is not my problem and is not the problems of our wiki readers , so they should be fed correct and verifiable information , which is exactly what im trying to do but Red Hat Ferrick is in serious (nonsense) opposition . Greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, numerous reliable sources have been provided by several editors, with me among them, that state the extent of Spain's empire, and which include the areas in EuroHistoyTeacher's map. They also include other areas whose inclusion Pat opposes, too. SamEV (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I do not see how there could be an OR violation here. Slap some sources into the map's caption and be done with it. It really seems to be simply a dispute as to which map is best. That should be determined by consensus on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second everyone. We are talking about two different maps here. On the one hand we have the issue of the Portuguese colonies. That, I agree, is a matter for the talk page, consensus and possibly dispute resolution: references can be found which support BOTH versions of the map, and it would be downright untrue for anyone to suggest or imply otherwise. The map I brought to this page is this [17] dealing with "claims and areas of trade". For that, only ONE reference was provided and it was a self published website, therefore it is not a reliable source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's take an example. Parts of Cambodia and Vietnam are shaded in EuroHistoryTeacher's map. What is the reliable source provided for that? You can read it here [18], where EuroHistoryTeacher writes "He thinks that Cambodia and southern Vietnam were not spanish claims of sovereingty. well it is and i have already proven it , it was so widely followed in Spain where it has now entered vernacular . Spanish-speaking people today say when (rferring to something that is very far ) : esta mas lejos que en la conchinchina (old name for Indochina/Cambodia)" So this is a reliable source and not original research, is it - the fact that there is a saying in Spanish? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I challenged EuroHistoryTeacher to provide references for each part of the map that I consider potentially original research. This was the reply [19] - not a single reference provided, just a bunch of his arguments. And then this [20] where I'm told to "Google the facts" or "go to a library". Please can someone explain to him that this is not how Wikipedia works? I have tried repeatedly without any success. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that EuroHistoryTeacher's map is actually conservative. There is a good argument for coloring a lot more at least pink... According to the famous Bull written Pope Alexander VI (the Borgia Pope)... Spain was given all newly discovered land to West of an imaginary line drawn 100 leagues west of the Azores, and Portugal was given everything to the east of that line... Due to this, Spain at one time could (and did) claim ALL of North America. Also, when Balboa crossed Panama and "discovered" the Pacific Ocean, he claimed all lands that touched on that ocean for Spain. So, since the map is supposed to show what was ever claimed in pink... the map should color all of North America, every Pacific island, Australia, New Zeeland and the entire coast of China in pink. Then, of course, we have to remember that for several years, Spain and Portugal were united. So we can color in everything on Portugal's side of the Pope's line... Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia. Oh yeah... reliable source... see: William Manchester's A World Lit Only by Fire (Little Brown, 1993) Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm reading this at the original research noticeboard! You're even worse than EuroHistoryTeacher! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A different concern about the map

Looking at this map yet again, I do have a different concern that relates to WP:OR... The map mushes together all eras and times... it does not represent the Spanish empire at any one particular time or in any one era. It represents all the territory claimed or controled by Spain... ever... in one single map. I think this is a bit misleading, and may technically be a WP:SYNT issue. It does not take into account the fact that some of these territories were first claimed by Spain well after others had become independent or were ceeded to other European empires. This makes it look like Spain's Empire was larger than it ever was at any one point. Yes, the caption does indicate that the map is anacronistic... but even with the caption I am uneasy with it.

To relate this to something more people might be familiar with... Imagine a map that showed the British Empire at its greatest extent, say around 1900 (Colored red for colonies and pink for Dominions as was typical), but also include in your coloring Hanover in Germany, all of North America east of the Mississippi, the modern US States of Hawaii, Washington and Oregon. All of these areas were at one point or another undisputed British territory... but I think it would be misleading and possibly Original Synthesis show them all as the British Empire in one single map.

I would strongly encourage the editors at Spanish Empire to not lump everything into one map... I think it would be better to have several maps, one for each century or something. For the Header map, I would represent the empire at it's greatest actual extent (ie have it represent the one point in time when Spain claimed the most amount of land... say during the early 1600s) Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if we take the maps of the Spanish monarchy in different epochs, and we attached them together into one, we will have an animated map, will not we?. Trasamundo (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of an animated map! That would be the perfect solution to my concern. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BlueBoar if you guys think on doing a non-anachronous on the main map on the Spanish Empire article , expect me to do this in the portuguese, british , french , dutch , etc empires articles. You cannot show non-achronous maps , it seems irrelevant.

That's also one reason i put a date on the main map of the Spanish Empire art. (1492-1975) , so readers can understand what we are talking about here , and not to mention the second word of the parragraph is ANACHRONOUS--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar - a map that is anachronous and clearly labelled as such is not in any way original research simply because of the fact that it is anachronous. This map is anachronous [21] as is this one [22]. As long as the anachronous map on display at WP is the union of all maps that can be found in reliable sources, then it is not original research at all. What is original research is when someone reads "the British king was king of Hanover" and then decides to colour in Hanover as "British" on such a map. You will not see a single map of the British Empire in a reliable source which does that. Or indeed, that Spain participated in a military expedition to Cambodia so therefore Cambodia should be coloured in as part of the Spanish Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that all this depends on how you draw the map. While I very much like the idea of an animated map, anothre idea would be to use different colors to show the empire in different eras. As for Cambodia... is it shown as a claim or a conquest? You do not have to have sent an expedition to some place to claim it. After all, the Spanish objected to the English settling in Virginia and claimed the area was Spanish territory. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure exactly which category EHT believes it is - he has labelled the pink colour trade/exploration/claim, which is misleading enough as it is - how is the reader supposed to know which is which? As I pointed out to him, historians normally denote trade routes and exploration on maps with arrows. What actually happened was that Spain participated in a military expedition with France, so I can only deduce he is suggesting it was a claim. But I have never seen, and EHT is yet to produce, any reliable source which says that Spain claimed this area. Therefore he is engaging in synthesis. The European powers engaged in a lot of military expeditions at that time, notably in China (see Eight-Nation Alliance, French intervention in Mexico). But a military expedition is not the same as an official claim on territory. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Request review of DCEETA

Can someone cast an eye over this version of the article in the light of the ongoing discussion on the talk page here.

It's becoming clear that the author who prefers that version of the article appears to have a few issues about the US Intelligence Community and the National Reconnaissance Office in particular and is using the article as a vehicle to vent his frustrations. I would contend that much of what he's trying to write is misrepresentation of the sources, synthesis, structured to avoid the suggestion that it is OR and contains excessive use of block quoting to circumvent this policy and others. There is also fairly explicit POV in this preferred version however I think this is the most appropriate policy to use to address it.

VMT

ALR (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of the Beast. 'Psefisato' not only means calculate but also vote

Because there is an ongoing OR dispute at Talk:Number of the Beast (and because I may have a more strict definition of OR, see here), I'm here to seek the council of this noticeboard. Here is what it boils down to, is it OR to publish an original translation of the bible here on wikipedia? For example, if a Greek word has two meanings in a lexicon, and every known English bible translation uses meaning A, is it OK to point out that meaning B exists as well, even though there are no published sources that mention that meaning in the context of that bible verse? The relevant talk page discusison is here and the text in question is: [In Revelation 13:18, t]he author of the Bible uses the word 'psefisato' (ψηφισάτω) in order to figure out the symbolism of this number. This Greek word can be translated either as 'calculate-count' or as 'vote'.(ref)Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ISBN 1565632095 [23].(ref) My concern is that we cannot cite (and thereby verify) that any published bible translation uses the word "vote" at Rev. 13:18. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All English translations of the Bible inherit from the Latin translation. This is the reason you cannot find any English translation. But it is obvious, and you can find it in any Greek dictionary, that this word also means vote. We do not mention possible OR scenarios that may occur due to of this alternative translation, we only mention the alternative translation. An accurate-complete translation of a word cannot be considered OR. Xicsies (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that in the absence of a source discussing the precise point it's original synthesis. Interpretation of the Bible is a very complex art/science. Similar questions have been raised frequently in relation to Qur'anic texts and the answer has to be the same: we do not make our own interpretations of these ancient documents. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree... this is a case where we need to limit our coverage to what published translations have said, and not rely on our own translations. If there are scholars who have used (or even discussed) the "vote" translation, then we can mention that... if not, we should not. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not a scholar myself, so I don't know what scholars discuss or use or what are allowed to do. But if there is not any scholar worldwide that have ever used or discussed this obvious translation, this seems very very strange to me. In that case, my POV is that this is an apparent and obvious case of censorship. I don't want to prejudice, but I feel that this censorship is going to happen once again here in wikipedia. Xicsies (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are not a scholar yourself, in this case Koine Greek, how can you be so certain that the word used in the original usage meant 'vote'? How can you be so sure that 'vote' meaning is not a (later) development from a primary meaning of 'calculate'? You are making assumptions about the source (ala "it means vote now, so it meant vote then") that are not evident in the source, and that is OR. Moreover, you are interpreting the source yourself, which is also OR. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

All scholars agree that 'psefizo' in Greek Koine also means vote. For example, here is a source [24]. Can you find a reliable source which claims that 'psefizo' does not also mean 'vote'? You cannot. At the same time, many many interpretations have been proposed for Revelation, and it is at least suspicious if we cannot find a single scholar that has ever examined this alternative translation and the alternative interpretations that occur. Even if scholars finally concluded that 'vote' is not the correct word to use, why there is not anyone that has ever examined it? Xicsies (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Xicsies... are there any scholars who translate the word as "vote" in relation to the bible? Don't specualate or assume... do you know of any? If not, it is not our job to speculate on why this is so.

What we think or assume does not matter. All that matters is what the sources say. If scholars have translated the word as "vote", then we can mention that fact (and, importantly, provide a citation to where they have done so). If not, then we can not. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The primary meaning of 'psefizo' is vote, not calculate. Ask any scholar about it, without mentioning Bible, and you will get the answer. Not only in 'Koine' but also in modern Greek it is the same. I just wonder why we cannot find any scholar that examined this primary meaning, and why all scholars unanimously agreed that 'psefizo' only means calculate, without even daring to explain their decision with arguments. I think if this is the case, we have a clear case of censorship, as long as the alternative meaning, 'vote', and the possible interpratation that occur due to this translation, is embarassing for those who fund scholars, the money owners. Xicsies (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely free to wonder why all the scholars reject the "vote" translation. However, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss our own speculations as to why things are the way they are. There are lots of other venues where you can do so. Call it censorship if you wish... but those are Wikipeida's rules. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is NOT that scholars reject the translation. The strange thing is that they don't even dare to discuss about it and present their arguments, the reason why they reject the primary translation and accept the secondary. Don't you think so? In any case, my POV is that OR is considered to be the interpretation of a text, and not the translation of a word. This article is not about a normal text, it is about Revelation. In such an obscure text as Revelation is, all alternative translations should appear. For that reason, and for this really strange behavior of the scholars, I believe wikipedia should warn readers about alternative translations, without of course entering into OR interpretations. Xicsies (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't find it strange at all. I am sure there is a good reason (and since biblical translation isn't really my cup of tea, I don't really care what that reason is). You say that a translation is not OR... I disagree. By choosing between possible translations you impact the meaning of the text... and that is an interpretive action. Finally, you are incorrect in saying that all "alternate translations" should appear. By our rules, only "alternate translations" that are discussed by reliable sources should appear. This is backed by several of Wikipeida's core polieces... see: WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS just to name the big three. Call it censorship if you wish... but them's the rules. Either find a reliable source for your interpretation or drop it. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'reliable source'? Can a translation be considered more reliable than the original text? Xicsies (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See: WP:Reliable sources. Essentially a reliable source is something that has been published by an expert, something that we can cite. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered yet another suspicious behavior of the scholars (most bible translators are not scientists-scholars-experts but religious-scholars, and this causes the problem). It is about the word 'psephos' [25]. It means either stone, or vote. In ALL bible translations, expect the new NAS (New American Standard), it is ALWAYS translated either as 'stone' or as 'voice'(!!!). Isn't that strange too? It seems that the very word 'vote' is a taboo for all religious translators. In this searchable online Bible of over 100 versions [26], the word 'vote' appears only once, and it is again only in NAS. After this second incident, can all those religious-translators be considered 'experts', so that their testimony-translation be considered 'reliable source'? Xicsies (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that is strange. It must be a conspiracy! Seriously... yes, all those religious-translators can be considered experts. It does not matter whether these experts are religious scholars or scientists... we are talking about sources written by people who are indeed considered experts in their field (people who usually have PhDs in Ancient Greek as well as in religious studies). Please read our polices and guidelines. If you don't agree with them, too bad. I'm done. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is not a conspiracy, then what it is? It seems that you become part of the conspiracy. If you are not doing it knowingly, maybe there is a daemon inside you. I am done too. Keep censoring, the truth will rise one day. Xicsies (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added the conspiracy and the daemon salt, just to boost the discussion. This unfortunately resulted the opposite. I was just kidding, sorry if I offended you. But I still wonder about the reason why not a single expert has ever mentioned the alternative translation. Maybe there are some experts, but as long as I am not an expert or scholar myself I don't know them. Maybe an expert can help us, and affirm whether there are some experts who talked about the subject, or not. Xicsies (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And meanwhile, we can't use an interpretion in this context without a reliable source using it in this context. dougweller (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I recently discovered a RS written in Greek, by Andreas of Caesarea. Unfortunately I couldn't find a translation of this patristic Greek text. The discussion about it takes place here. Xicsies (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) A friend tells me (and gives me permission to post:

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I have had the privilege of working on two New Testament translations. One was the _Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels_ and the other was a fresh translation of UBS4 into English.

I find no merit to Xicsies' point of view. To begin with his assertion that the "primary meaning" of psefisato means "to vote" is wrong. It comes from the counting of stones at a jury or after an election. Thayer's lexicon is a respected one but a newer one (at least Bauer Arndt and Gingrich) might help. Second of all, the idea of voting does not fit the context. Try it in Rev 13.18 and see. dougweller (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Search ANY Greek dictionary about the alternative meanings of the word 'Psefisato'. This word also means vote. No scholar can deny that, even if some of them claim that 'calculate' is the primary meaning. Why nobody, never discussed the alternative meaning? Maybe we have to VOTE the number of the beast, not calculate it. The idea of voting may not fit the context of Rev 13.18, but it fits the context of Rev 13.17-13:18."And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding ***** the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

Lets examine why it fits the context:

What is this number , that no one can buy or sell without it, that we have to vote for it? Money obviously is a number. Also it is known that king Solomon earned 666 talents each year from taxation. So 666 maybe was money's and taxer's nickname. Maybe Jews were using it in order to talk about money and taxes without Romans to understand them. The author of the Bible maybe simply recommends people to vote in order to define the nature of money and the nature of taxes, instead of letting Caesar or any other powerful military king or minority to decide about it. While all these various calculations really do not make sense, this alternative translation and explanation fits the context and makes sense, doesn't it? Xicsies (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter whether it makes sense or not... it only matters whether a reliable source said it. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your quote is very funny! It seems equivalent to: "Reliable sources" are allowed to say nonsenses, and we believe them! Xicsies (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I did phrase that awkardly. What I really meant to say was: It does not matter whether it makes sense to us or not... if no reliable source says it, then neither can we. Blueboar (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question, by way of analogy

Let's say that an article on a foodstuff related to Taiwanese cuisine cites a source that says that the dish in question is eaten in Taiwan. Imagine that there are some editors who keep changing the Taiwan to read Republic of China, using the rationale that the term Taiwan is misleading since it is not the proper political/administrative name for the place. Other editors suggest in the spirit of compromise that the word Taiwan should be prefaced by "the island of" to make it clear its geographical region, while still others say that the term should be removed altogether and replaced with Taiwanese people. Regardless, some editors insist that we should use what the source uses per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Would changing the terminology in question to achieve WP:CONSENSUS be acceptable? Or would it be WP:OR? Tiamut^talk 12:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, changing the name is acceptable... unless the statement is in the form of a direct quote. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Or you could toss a coin to decide which name and then mention the alternate name(s) in a footnote. Or sit down and discuss it at leisure over [[WP:tea]] or a selection of meze. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So when determining how to name places mentioned in a WP:RS, rather than using what is written in the WP:RS, we can change the term even if by doing so we change the meaning to something different than that which the author intended? Tiamut^talk 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's best to stick to the source unless that creates huge problems for readability. A footnote really might be helpful. Say if we are writing about photovoltaics and are trying to be consistent for readability but one of our sources does not use "photovoltaics" instead saying "electricity from solar cells", we have the choice of paraphrasing "photovoltaics" or we can use the source's words and put "i.e. photovoltaics" in a footnote. This happens all the time and it usually doesn't create any POV problems. The main thing is to make sure that the meaning of the source is transferred into the article in a way that enlightens the reader about the article topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but I don't think it's workable in the situation I'm thinking of (which Itsmejudith is likely familiar with). The analogy I offered above pertains to disputes over the names of places that are points of political contestation and where there are different viewpoints regarding how to name the place. How would you decide which one name to use throughout in the article and which to relegate to the footnotes? And wouldn't we run amok of WP:NPOV that way? Tiamut^talk 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I've read the whole sorry history of the controversy on the talk page. I can't fault the logic of Eleland's post on the 4th (just yesterday). A footnote still might help reach compromise. "Palestine" since the sources say that. As it's linked, then the reader can see straight away that it is the historic region that is meant. But to make it crystal clear you footnote "the historic region, overlapping with present-day Israel". But I still agree with Blueboard that it isn't OR if you paraphrase to "eastern Mediterranean coast" or some such. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The footnote idea is not bad. I think my hesitancy to embrace it fully derives from a concern that while it may put an end to the dispute at Hummus, it is likely to feed further disputes elsewhere.

I don't really know what the situation is like at articles outside of the I-P domain, but with those in it, every single sentence has to be sourced and reflect exactly what the source says. Failing that, editors will write according to their POV and revert each other endlessly. Even with that stringent requirement, we still run into problems, as is the case at Hummus.

If it is true that it is not important to follow the terminology used by a source, how do we ensure WP:NPOV and prevent edit-warring? People will just start changing names to the name they prefer. (I saw once, for example, someone go through the whole article History of Palestine and change all "Palestine"s to "Israel"s. If that's not WP:OR, if it is indeed allowed, what's to stop people from edit-warring across multiple pages to insert the term that accords with their POV? Tiamut^talk 17:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to acknowlege that the name is disputed, by using both names... writing it as "Palistine/Israel". Just a suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that everytime "Palestine" is mentioned that we append "Israel" as well? Does the inverse hold true too? Because I don't think that would go down too well.

Besides which, there are other sources cited in the article that discuss the consumption of hummus in Israel and it is mentioned without any qualification in the article, despite the fact that almost a third of the world does not hold formal diplomatic relations with it.

Again, my concern lies in finding a solution where the logical outcome does not involves POV edit-warriors inserting their favoured terms across multiple articles. This is, in a sense, a kind of precedent. If "Palestine" cannot be mentioned unless it is qualified every time, we have a lot of work to do in "fixing" this encyclopedia to live up to that standard (a standard not articulated anywhere in our policies, as far as I can tell). I thought however that the applicable standards were more clearly cut, embodied say in WP:NPOV i.e. representing all significant viewpoints in an article using WP:RS's to avoid WP:OR. If that's not how we work here, then I don't really know what I've been doing all this time. Why bother finding refs at all when I can simply change "Israel" to read "Palestine" to my heart's delight? Tiamut^talk 18:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I am not... It depends on what you are talking about. In some articles it makes sence to use Palestine, in other articles it makes sense to use Israel... and in some we are going to have to resign ourselves to constant debate and edit warring, because which name is chosen has a direct baring on the subject of the article. However, there are articles where the name of the region does not really matter. Hummus is a good example. The name of the region has absolutely no impact on the fact that Hummus is eaten there. In articles such as Hummus, the debate over the name is a distraction that has no relation to the subject of the article. In those articles I think it does make sense to use Palistine/Israel... or any of a dozen other non-political names (other suggestions off the top of my head would be: "the Levant", "the Holy Land" or "far-eastern Mediteranian"... heck even "Outremer" would be a better option than continuing to debate over a name that is irrelevant to the topic of the article). Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you are suggesting that we not name countries as political units in the article at all, in favor of using broad, neutral, geographical designations? What happens when someone wants to discuss local variations of hummus or its history. Because the places where the word Palestine are used in the article are to refer to events in the history of the origins of chickpeas (as per the usage in the source) and a local variation known as Laban ma Hummus. Israel is mentioned by name as well to discuss the popularity of Hummus there and how it's an integral part of Israeli cuisine. So how do we include this information exactly? (if we do not use the terms used by the sources) Or do we not include this information at all? (Because some people just can't handle it.) I'm sorry, but I'm still trying to understand how this works practically, in the article there, and in other places. Tiamut^talk 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the NOR noticeboard, all we can say here is that it is probably not OR to change the exact name of a geographical area when you paraphrase a source. Personally, I don't see any problem with using "Palestine", but that is because I am used to it in British sources from way back. (T.S. Eliot "God was man in Palestine and lives today in bread and wine".) Since others object you will have to go back to the talk page or RfC or mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, you summarize my view correctly... avoid political names unless you are specifically discussing political things. In articles such as Hummus, you should use Israel if the article is talking about the actual modern political entity named Israel (For example, a statement such as "The government of Israel offers tax insentives for growers of Hummus") or specifically to the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Otherwise avoid it. The same should apply to Palistine ... only use that if referring to a specific political unit known by that name ("The Romans encourage the groth of Hummus in their province of Palistine"). Otherwise use a neutral term.

In the context of the origins of chickpeas, I assume chickpeas were cultivated long before there ever was an Israel or a Palistine, so a neutral term can certainly be used. If you need a historical name that covers the same local ground during the dawn of agriculture, have you thought about using "Canaan"? (It should be safe, I can't remember ever having an edit war about an article pushing a pro-Canaanite POV).

In any case, for articles such as this, unless you are directly quoting a source, or referring to a specific political entity, I see no reason not to substitute a neutral term. Certainly not one based on NOR. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like yet another NOR debate that's really about accurate writing. Anyway, from my reading of the matter, the opening paragraph that says hummus is popular in the Levant is the most correct, because that includes all the involved countries. The disputed text, about the alternate recipe using yogurt that's popular in part of the region, really depends on which context the cited authors were using. I initially assumed that "Palestinian Territories" was the most correct reading, and that the authors were contrasting Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan to the rest of the region. But from the limited preview available in Google Books, "Israel" doesn't appear in the book at all. So I'm about 85% sure that the definition of "Palestine" used here is equivalent to "Israel and the Palestinian Territories". But I've also found a source that specificially mentions yogurt and chickpeas as an Israeli dish,[27] so we can cite them both to be positive. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 Philadelphia Phillies season

One user in particular persists in adding unconfirmed information to this sports article. For the purposes of sport contracts and rosters, players are not added until their contracts are official and until they have passed physicals. NoseNuggets continues to re-add information without concern for its official status, meaning that it is unverifiable and therefore in violation of both WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. This is not a first-time issue for this particular user, who also refuses to use talk pages to discuss as requested in edit summaries and on his talk page. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dreams from My Father

An editor has added a table to the article that combines speculation and interviews from several newspaper sources. The speculation revolves around characters in Barack Obama's book, Dreams from My Father. Obama apparently modeled some of the characters on real life people. The table gives the name of the supposed real life person, and the character in the book, based on these varied sources. Some of the sources are pure speculation by the writer, some are interviews with people who say they were that character. This appears to be Synthesis, in my opinion. This also appears to me to be skirting violation of WP:BLP. I suggest you go see for yourself, since it's rather complex: Dreams from My Father#Speculation on basis for characters. Feedback would be appreciated. Priyanath ^talk 20:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I added the text in the article about this being 'speculation'. Previously it was being presented without any qualification. Priyanath ^talk 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian Genocide

These two possibly OR edits [28] (also the same [29] [30] [31][32][33][34] and so on) and [35] (also the same [36][37][38][39] [40] [41]) are reverting again and again by the users User:Adoniscik and User:Turkish Flame (already was warned for the editwarrings). First edit is misinterpreting the Clark University site. and the second edit is adding "The Recognition and Denial of Armenian Genocide" (the user calls it Massacres) to Armenian foreign relations templete while it is not something directly related. A comment will be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaz conveniently forgets to mention that (s)he began the reversions after I inserted a sentence to balance his insertion. Please can you explain how I'm misinterpreting the meaning of the concept of a funded chair? You have not been forthcoming in the talk page. I won't bother to enumerate your numerous reversions without referring to the talk page and silly attempt to play the anti-Semitism card. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem in the first link provided above:

The source being cited states:

Taner Akcam , PhD.
Associate Professor; Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies etc.

But the text being inserted, and for which that source is being cited, states:

Armenians, esp. in the diaspora, have funded scholars on this issue, for example [[Taner Akcam]], raising accusations of bias from Turkish quarters.

The OR issues are these:

• "Armenians, esp. in the diaspora,..." Its not really evident from the source that its "Armenians, esp. in the diaspora" who are funding the chair. The source merely suggests that an Armenian studies chair at ClarkU is sponsored by Aram/Kaloosdian/Mugar (whoever they are).
• "raising accusations of bias from Turkish quarters..." A faculty directory does not raise any accusations whatsoever. Its just a faculty directory.

The solution:

• Drop the "esp. in the diaspora"
• Find one of those "Turkish quarter" sources that "raise accusations of bias" and cite it.

I didn't check more than the first link. One issue at a time. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are past this. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen

The following regards edits by user DarlieB User talk:DarlieB. These are the diff's going back through time:

• [42]

• [43]

• [44]

As you can see they are focused on removing any mention of the exact context in which Alice Dreger's work comes to us. The publication it was in, Or of her academic affiliation. Her affiliation would not be significant in most cases but it is in this one. It cuts two ways. Yes it does smack of an appeal to authority but it does also suggest a possible conflict of interest, since the person she was supposed to be impartially researching also works at Northwestern. That is a important tidbit that should be in this article IMO. The fact that they both work at the same place is highly suggestive.

Then in one of her edit summaries she alleges that "no investigation took place". Again she asserts this without a source. No one else has decided that Dr Dreger's looking at the time date stamps on emails is "not an investigation". Perhaps she can say it's an inadequate, or minimal, or pharsical etc. etc. investigation. But to say so could only be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

FYI Alice Dreger is a Bioethics who works at Northwestern University who attempted to write a history of the whole controversy around the book The Man Who Would Be Queen. In the paper she produced which was published in a journal, which many think is biased in favor of the book. At issue here is a claim made by critics of the book, and one of the subjects of the book that the author of the book had sex with the subject. A subject who was at the time a post-op transsexual woman. Dreger makes the counter claim that this is impossible because on the date in the formal complaint that the subject filed Bailey was taking care of his kids. He has emails between him and his wife which say this which place him far from where the subject says he was on that day. Many in the Transsexual/Transgender community think this is really flimsy "proof" to say the least.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries do not generally require citations to reliable sources. What's the point here? Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries don't. But points of view do. Based on her edit summaries she is clearly pushing the POV you like. Which is ironic that she choose to delete a fact that can be interpreted as hinting a conflict of interest on the part of Dreger. In her zeal to make Dreger sound less authoratative she has also removed info that would imply her conflict of interst. To include that info means mentioning where dreger works and her job title which would seem to give her authority as a by product of suggesting that conflict of interest.

Dick are you totally sure you want to fight me on that one? Part of chess is knowing when not to capture that pice.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about winning. I know people have been taking you to task today, but don't take it as a fight. It might be worth taking a break for a little while. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

H, you say "Based on her edit summaries she is clearly pushing the POV you like. Which is ironic that she choose to delete a fact that can be interpreted as hinting a conflict of interest on the part of Dreger." I don't see a POV here, or what fact you could be referring to; the only fact removed was that Dreger's comment was quoted in the NYT, which would still be apparent from the cited source and still should be removed from another place. I'm not following what's bugging you about these edits. And I'm not fighting, I'm asking. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Darlie also removed Northwestern University ethicist Alice Dreger. Why remove that? The only reason could be to push the POV that Derger was an unreliable source by making her sound less authoratative. As if she was just some random person writing this. It is ironic that Darlie would do that and that on her talk page you would call it "a good first step". User_talk:DarlieB#Dreger_and_NYT A step which removes the implied notion (Which since no reliable source says it we cannot explicitly write this in the article) that there is a conflict of interest on the part of Dreger. I will "so fix it" myself. Since you agree that the fact she works at NU is important. Right? ?_? --Hfarmer (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed that detail. Certainly I'm OK noting her affiliation, since it's relevant that it's the same as Bailey's as you note. As an interpretation of "I do social justice work in medicine. I'm a medical humanist, writer, speaker, patient advocate, a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics in the Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program at the Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University in Chicago. ... I hold a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Indiana University," it seems to me that ethicist is a bit of a POV stretch. But not as unrealistic as calling her a historian would be; how about just "professor"? Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I know WP is not about winning. It's also not about letting one POV prevail over the other just because it is popular among the editors. That POV has to be the POV of reliable sources as deemed by WP:RS. I don't agree with all of it but the policy is what it is. I cannot help it if most of the critics only publish on their blogs. If I can be taken to task then I reserve the human right of taking other people to task! It is not uncivil to do that is it?--Hfarmer (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but little details like this hardly deserve a big noticeboard discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Research claimed if synonyms of "lobby" used in lobby articles

Lengthy discussion has exhausted itself. Best to open new discussion if there are any hanging questions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lobbying is described as trying to influence politicians and government. However, one editor holds that no article can be used as a source unless it uses some variation on the word lobby, even if the source describes in detail all the machinations common to lobbying and says the purpose is to "inform" or "influence" politicians. He calls any such use "original research" and immediately deletes the material, even well known historical examples of concerted lobbying. While the following currently is an issue in Israel lobby in the United Kingdom (including being used as an excuse to change the name of the article), it also has been an issue in Jewish Lobby and Israel lobby in the United States and is an issue that could be used to effectively gut articles or AfD Arab lobby, China Lobby, Energy Lobby, Pharmaceutical lobby, Cuban-American lobby. In general I do think there should be at least two or three WP:RS that use the term "___ lobby" but after that use of terms that are synonymous and WP:RS descriptions that clearly indicate lobbying should not be considered original research. Thanks for your input. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Is the objection really over just applying the term "Lobby", or is it really over applying the term "Israel Lobby". I think you are correct if the issue is whether someone is a "lobbyist" (ie attempting to influence policy) but to tie that person to the "Israel Lobby" needs a more definitive source. For example: a person who meets with an MP to promote better trade policies with Israel is clearly a "lobbyist", but you need a direct source to say he is part of the "Israel Lobby". Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC) At this point sticklers demand that Israel and the word "lobby" both be in the article and tied. Are you saying this is only a WP:BLP issue where both Israel and lobby must be describing explicitly person's actions, affiliations, etc?? That's more understandable, though not yet an issue in this article. (Lengthy quotes of diatribes against some who say there is an Israel lobby in Britain is the BLP problem in that article.) The more relevant issue is more WP:RS says GROUP A did a, b, c to influence policy/attain its policy goal/for the betterment of Israel (or China or Cuban-Americans or Energy industries, etc) that only could be obtained through influencing in some way politicians, legislation, government - but the actual word "lobby" is not used. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC) My point is this... Given the title of the article, there is going to be an automatic assumption by the reader that anyone mentioned in the article as being a "lobbyist", or any act mentioned as being "lobbying", is in some way directly tied to something called: the "Israel Lobby". So my question was... when the editor or editors who are objecting state an objection to the terms Lobby, Lobbyist, and Lobbying, could he/she/they really be stating an objection to tieing the persons or actions under discussion to the narrower concept of "(insert name here) Lobby", rather than objecting to the broader concept of "Lobby"? Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Well based on the way this is described. We have sources that say person X went to some legislative type body and advotated/promoted/argued for pro Israel legislation. Isn't that the definition of lobbying? Sometimes sources don't want to say "lobbying" or "lobbyist" because it has a negative connotation to some ears. They will instead describe precisely what the person did. I don't see how using our own intellectual capacity for reason and concluding therefore that person was lobbying is research. Unless looking in a dictionary is now research.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC) From WP:OR, "Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context.". If the source doesn't want to say "lobbying" or "lobbyist" because of a negative connotation, we shouldn't use that source in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the source. Its a clear case of WP:OR violation. DigitalC (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Looking through the talk page of the article, it seems that the real issue was not to the use or non-use of the term Lobbying in the sources... it was that the sources do not tie that action (what ever you want to call it) to the "Israel Lobby", which has all sorts of connotations and associations attached to it. In other words... while it is not OR to say that the actions discribed are "lobbying", or that the person doing them is a "lobbyist" etc. ... it well might be OR to discuss that lobbying within the context of one of the Israel Lobby articles. Given the context, you need a source that directly ties a specific lobbying action to the term "Israel Lobby". Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC) First, Blueboard doesn't quite get the question, which is: if the actions described are clearly "lobbying" but are not called that (in large part because of reasons Hfarmer notes) and are explicitly said to be for Israel or Pharmaceuticals or Energy (etc. other lobby articles), is it WP:OR to put them in an article called _____ Lobby? To quote leads of other articles that will be affected here, in that much info might be deleted: Energy Lobby is the umbrella term used to name the paid representatives of large oil, gas, coal, and electric utilities corporations who attempt to influence governmental policy. The Pharmaceutical lobby, also known as the "drug lobby," refers to the paid representatives of large pharmaceutical and biomedicine companies who seek to influence government policy. It seems to me there was some policy statement or guideline I quoted six or eight months ago that allowed something a little more general as is done in those two leads, but frankly I'm too tired today to look for it. In case anyone else wanders along and can think of what it might be in the interim. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I get the question... I am saying that in this situation it probably is OR to put them in the article... To identify someone as being part of a specific group (ie "The <Insert name here> Lobby"), or to identify their actions as being on behalf of that specific group, you do need a source that directly ties that person or action to the specific group. Otherwise it is WP:SYNT. This is especially true when the very name of the Lobby in question is controvercial. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I'm sure all of the industries or groups whose name is used before the word "Lobby" consider it controversial, especially much maligned energy companies. Meanwhile I remembered what the page in question is: Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research. Sections which might apply are: Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. So if Israel or Energy Lobby is defined as anyone doing a lot of lobbying for Israel or Energy companies and Lobbying is defined as xyz and a group is doing xyz for Israel or Energy companies, then one can say the group is part of the Israel or Energy lobby. Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented. Zionist/pro-Israel/Jewish or Oil/Coal/Nuclear power efforts/protests/contributions/communications etc to influence/change/shape etc policy/law/administration/etc for benefit of Israel or Energy companies are part of "Israel Lobby" or "Energy Lobby." CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid deduction 1 doesn't follow. A person can lobby for Israel without being part of the "Israel Lobby" as a movement. Deduction 2 is just... way too vague. Essentially, you're claiming that anyone who supports Israel is part of a broader "Israel Lobby," which is WP:SYN. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I don't see how. If I go to washington and try to influence congressmen and senators by buying them expensive gifts, and meals, so that I can talk to them about the merit's of the Israeli claim to 100% of the west bank. How would I not be a Israel lobbyist? --Hfarmer (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I can think of many reasons why someone might lobby congress on this issue... the lobbyist could be a Christian Fundamentalist who thinks firm Israeli control over the West Bank will hasten the rebuilding of the Temple (a prerequisite for the Second Coming), he could be an arms dealer who thinks that if the US continues to support Israel's claim, the conflict will continue and he can sell more arms to people on both sides. The more I read this thread, the more I think there may be a disconnect here on what constitutes the "Israel Lobby" in the first place. Hfarmer seems to be saying that anyone who lobbies Parliament or Congress with a pro Israeli stance is automatically part of the "Israel Lobby". I would disagree with that. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I added the definition of lobbyist to the lobbying article since lobbyist redirects there. For both words, among the many definitions, from both dictionaries and govt agencies overseeing lobbyists, there are both very broad definitions including any individual who attempts to persuade, and narrower ones that mean only organizations or individuals who get paid for it. So I think we have to opt for the broader definition, which includes the narrower. This is one support for those who choose to so define it broadly in any article on a "___ Lobby." Note that because of holidays this discussion probably will drag on for a couple weeks. Let's not get blinded by concerns that any particular national or business or or other lobby will get smeared but stay concerned with general wiki policies. Which reminds me, I forgot to mention Arab lobby so adding in first list above. Also I'm pushing for clear guidance because I'm very interested in lobbying in general and I can think of a few other "___ Lobby" articles I'd like to start. And again I'd start with several WP:RS saying there is a "____ lobby" and then include other info as this discussion, or any final discussion where appropriate, consenses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC) OK, here's a few comments from an uninvolved editor: At least in the U.S., there's a very clear definition of lobbying. Lobbyists have to be registered, and tax-exempt nonprofits can't lobby. I don't know what the British rules are like, but if we were writing a contentious article on lobbying in the US, it would make sense to demand that everything grouped into that article be either a registered lobbyist or described by some notable commentator, without hyperbole, of being a lobby. On whether "Israel lobby" wrongly implies a centralized organization. I could go either way on this. People always talk about the "tobacco lobby" or the "pharmaceutical lobby" and nobody assumes they are single organziations, why would they assume the same of "Israel lobby"? However, because something like "Israel lobby" is going to attract a lot of unwanted attention, maybe it does make sense to use the less bold "Pro-Israel lobbying in the United Kingdom". On whether "Jewish lobby" and "Zionist lobby" belong in the article. "Jewish lobby", no. That could be the basis of a separate article about Jewish causes that don't necessarily have anything to do with Israel. Again, I don't know about the UK, but in the US there are orthodox Jewish organizations that aren't interested in Israel, while on the other hand there are many "Christian Zionist" organizations that would belong in the article, not to mention groups that have nothing to do with religion but lobby because they do business with Israeli companies. "Zionist lobby", yes. I know the term "Zionist" attracts all sorts of attention, but originally it's just a synonym for pro-Israel. If we were discussing organizations pre-1948 that would have been the preferred term. And this would be particularly relevant to the UK who controlled that territory during the interwar period. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! Using your format a couple replies: Actually the US Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 does have exemptions (less than 20% of activity) for nonprofits and individuals. One problem in the article I am going to try to correct today is that a POV source's claim there isn't organized lobbying in Britain, so there is no Israel Lobby. The BBC details on the history and current status of lobbying was deleted as WP:OR the first time I put it in! The "unwanted attention" or the "special circumstances" or "exceptionalism" claim is a big problem and the article is filled with attacks on British pols who dared to even say there was any kind of pro-Israel lobby, despite existence of a number of organizations. But obviously I don't think smear tactics used against anyone perceived as critical of Israel should bias the way articles are written in wikipedia. So I probably should bring this to arbitration per arbitration of early 2008--but waiting til get all my sources straight and see how close I can get the article to way I think it should be so POV issues will stand out better. (Plus solve this WP:OR problem.) Re: Jewish Lobby it sometimes clearly refers to pre-dominantly pro-Israel lobbying and other times to non-Israel related issues, so obviously it only should be used where the reference in the source is explicitly to pro-Israel lobbying. (Two such cases are currently in the article. Others might in future be more controversial.) Re: pre-1948 Balfour Declaration and British Mandate of Palestine period, THAT WP:RS information was deleted because the sources weren't found to use the word "lobbying," instead using a varieties of synonyms or descriptions OF lobbying. One of the reasons I brought this here in the first place! CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC) From another uninvolved editor: Follow the sources. If the sources don't use the term lobby, lobbying or lobbyist, then they probably shouldn't be used for an article with that in the title. If the source didn't use those terms, then it is impossible to determine whether the author(s) intended the source to be used to discuss lobbying, and therefore it fails WP:OR (see my post above for the exact quote as to why). DigitalC (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC) From a somewhat involved editor: I believe people have the comparative cart before the horse. All other lobbies, mentioned above for comparative purposes, grew from something that already existed with words defined to describe them. This is true whether it is the energy or pharmaceutical industry, China, Cuba Arabs or most of any one can imagine. The pro-Israel lobby is very different from these, because this lobby existed before its currently accepted descriptor, Israel. This lobby was propagated by a fervent Zionist ideology, a dream, something that didn’t exist. It has since morphed into something that does support something existing. Whatever it is and whatever should be included in the article should come from its history and its activities, all adequately RS'd. The history of the pro-Israel lobby considerably predates the establishment of Israel in 1948. Tivnan notes the following in the first paragraph of his introduction. <ref>Edward Tivnan, ''The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy''. Touchstone Books, 1987. ISBN 0671668285, ‘Introduction’, p13. </ref> Before Israel existed as a state, it existed as a political lobby first in the capitals of Europe and then in Washington. Zionism was the romantic dream of a band of nineteenth-century European ideologues who often could agree on only one thing: that to achieve a “normal” life in an anti-Semitic world, Jews required a “Jewish state.” Zionist leaders worked tirelessly to convince the rest of the world to help them make that dream a reality. They met with hostility and skepticism. Foremost among their doubters were the Jewish leaders of America. The term ‘Zionist propaganda’ is not uncommon to describe its output and methods throughout its history, because that is their history. It would be appropriate in this case to consider the uniqueness of this lobby and not try to over-homogenize it with other, quite different lobbies, which use a more commonly accepted yardstick of what constitutes a ‘lobby’ its methods and means. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the Tivnan reminder; any chance he actually uses UK or Britain in the book discussing Israel and lobbying? :-) To Digital C - I quote two sections from Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research above and now below without my comments: Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented. If these don't apply to this situation, perhaps you could explain why, as opposed to other situations where it does apply. Also, in case there is confusion in this topic in general, while it may be that writers do not use lobby because of a negative connotation, on the other hand we cannot assume the lack of use is because the writers do so unless they somehow make that clear, for example saying, "I don't want to use the 'l' word" or something. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC) I suggest trying to find a source that expressly identifies the pharma lobby et al as lobbies. Due to its negative connotations, no "non-partisan organization that furthers the public interest" (not kidding!) is going to call itself a lobby, but all those lobbies have their critics, and at least one of those critics is going to use the word "lobby". For example, calling the oil lobby a "lobby" might be found in the publications of the renewable-energy lobby. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC) I definitely agree that WP:RS using "lobby" need to be identified several times in the article, and perhaps at least once in each section and definitely in any description of any individual's action. The question is, once that is adequately established, can articles that robustly describe the activities of incluencing and lobbying be then deleted as WP:OR?? Or should we rename all these articles "Influencers of legislation on ____" since influence is maybe 10% easier to find in articles than lobby :-) Also WP:Naming Conventions would suggest that a frequently used shortcut phrase makes "___ Lobby" acceptable where it is in fact used. Holidaying too much to link to specific sections :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Related: When only title of source uses word lobbying A related issue is - if the Title of the article or book uses the phrase “lobby,” but the text of the article (or relevant section of book) only describes lobbying, I assume there should be no problem with WP:OR. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC) No problem that I can think of. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC) A caveat... if we are talking about a specific lobby then we could be in OR territory. If the title uses the phrase "lobby" but does not name a specific lobby, then it would be OR to say that the lobbying described in the text was an action on behalf of the specific lobby. For example, if a book about a famous lobbyist is entitled "Life In The Lobby", and describes various actions normally considered to be lobbying, we can say that these actions do infact constitute lobbying... but, we can not say that the actions constituted lobbying on behalf of a specific Lobby (Israel Lobby, Oil Lobby, Religious Lobby, etc.). For that we need a source that ties the lobbying actions to the specific Lobby named. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC) All the sources I refer to use "Israel Lobby" in the main title of the article; many do not use it again in the rest of the article. So it sometimes is claimed that therefore the article is not relevant! (I.e., if article contains something individuals do NOT want to see in it as opposed to something they do and then it never becomes an issue; frustrating.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC) In which case there is no OR involved. If the authors use the term "Israel Lobby" in their title, then the lobbying actions have indeed been connected to the Israel Lobby. It is not OR to discuss this connection. I suppose the next question is whether we should phrase such discussion as fact or as opinion. Should we say: "X did Y" or should we atribute the statement: "According to author A, X did Y". However, this is not really a WP:NOR question (it is more a WP:RS issue, as it depends on the level of reliability of the source). Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC) That would seem to comply with wikipolicies, but that doesn't stop some people from reverting such material. Maybe it needs to be an explicit note in Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research (and much of that I think belongs in WP:OR]]. By the way I'm going to present a couple of examples of things declare "WP:OR" soon so people can see how ridiculous it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC) I hadn't looked at this in a while, although I was involved earlier. There is an issue that lobbying generally in the UK isn't as organized and regulated as it is in the US. But it's catching up, and there are now recognized lobbying organizations. UK lobbyists now even have their own trade association, the Association of Professional Political Consultants. The UK Parliament itself now has a web page on how to lobby.[45]: "Lobbying is the practice of individuals and organisations trying to influence the opinions of MPs and Lords. Methods of lobbying vary and can range from sending letters, making presentations, providing briefing material to Members and organised rallies." So pretending there is no "lobbying" in the UK is futile at this point. --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, but Carol, along with the article that included "Israel lobby" in the headline (though not in the body of the article), you added a whole series of sources that yet again did not even refer to "lobbying", much less "Lobbying on Israel in the U.K.". You need to stop doing that. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) On the other hand, if only the title of an article refers to lobbying- and that title is written by an editor possibly over the objections of a writer who would not have used the term lobbying- surely that introduces questions over the appropriateness of using the title to summarize the thrust of the article? Nevard (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Obviously every edit needs discretion; if there is no real description of any activities commonly known as lobbying and the editors had some inexplicable reason for putting it in, including space considerations, it could be challenged. But since the whole point of WP:RS is that some editor has edited the stuff, unless it looks totally irrelevant or misleading, it might be relevant as a backup to better sourced material which would precede it, as is true with many sources. I don't use any myself in this article, though titles have been used for emphasis on a couple different places in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Examples of allegedly "WP:OR" material removed This talk page link includes the material removed from the article and some discussion. In brief: Originally much of same material was removed as being "WP:OR" but now after changing it to include exact quotes and more sources explicitly mentioning some variation on lobby and Israel it is removed merely as "not mentioning lobbying"?!?!? Possible semantic issues that have not been clarified? Fact that the only sources that do not directly mention lobbying and Israel are there for transitional purposes since this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in WP:wikilawyering per WP:These_are_not_original_research which explicitly comes out against such wikilawyering. The two sections removed are details about Zionist lobbying and Balfour declaration and whole section on British Board of Deputies which is the leading Jewish community group which several sources say engages in lobbying on Israel. (I struck through one sentence that didn't pass muster on third look; and see I somehow dropped a whole relevant sentence from another which I reinserted.) I'm all for beefing up sections with better references. But I believe wholesale deletion is just not good cooperative editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Almost Consensus position/with still unanswered question: I think this sentence from "Fullstop" neatly wraps up the discussion: "Due to its negative connotations, no "non-partisan organization that furthers the public interest" (not kidding!) is going to call itself a lobby, but all those lobbies have their critics, and at least one of those critics is going to use the word "lobby". Nevertheless the question remains about related explanatory or transition material that helps an article make sense in an encyclopedic fashion. Example below: Using Source A which mentions "Widget Lobby" one writes: Mr. Jones, in working for Company A, which is part of the Widget Lobby, lobbied Cong. Smith on January 5, 2009. Using Source B in next sentence which describes Jan 5 incident, but does not use phrase "Widget Lobby" one writes: When Mr. Jones was speaking with Cong. Smith about the Widget bill before Congress, Jones told Smith 5 million dollars would be raised for his opponent for office if he didn't vote for the bill. Smith complained to the media, which reported on the controversy nationwide. Using Source C which does mention "Widget Lobby" but provides only the details in quotes one says: Mr. Jones was fired from his job with Company A for "unauthorized statements to Cong. Smith about contributions and the widget bill" during his January 5 visit. Right now some editors are deleting B because "Widget lobby" is not explicitly mentioned, leaving the reader wondering what Mr. Jones said that was so bad. While each such edit must be discussed on its merits, suppression of relevant information under mines the goal of making a comprehensible encyclopedia. (The concern of the essay which should be upgraded to policy: WP:These are not original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Referred dispute back to article talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hy there Today I noticed the new article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. In my opinion this article shows original research and original synthesis. The well-intended author wanted to compare the two empires, took a couple of points and then tries to argue how one empire fell and the other one vanished by presenting a couple of conclusions. While I personally think that the subject by itself is quite interesting Wikipedia is not the proper place to publish one's personal theories and views. Its neutrality is also a bit suspect (A pro-China view seems to be present) but that is besides the point. Flamarande (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC) It's not really original research, as the information is derived from several sources; I did add a cleanup template. Could take out the conclusions section as well, I think this belongs more on the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC) While a lot of the basic information is not OR, I think many of the conclusions are. So yes, some work does need to be done to bring the article in line with NOR. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC) The basic information has been manipulated. The author only presents what facts he wants, calls it "evidence for larger trends", and then reaches his own conclusions. IMHO that's Original Research. 'Nuff said. Flamarande (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC) I dispute that completely. I have already modified a great amount of the information to remove any speculative bias. I invite anyone to search through the article. There is no place in the article where I state that in conclusion, so and so. ALl the controversial facts in the article are backed up by citations. 76.66.50.175 (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC) The facts (battles) are not the problem. It is the conclusions that you draw from them (and you only mention a picked handful of battles). They are your own conclusions and that's the problem. Flamarande (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Not really. I mentioned battle of Mayi(Early Han) battle of Mobei(Middle Han) and for the Romans i mentioned (Battle of Zama) early roman, Battle of Carrhae(middle roman) for a comparison at certain times. Four MAJOR battles i dont think is a handful. You would be welcome to choose your own battles to show your own point.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC) So basicly you picked four battles/campaigns and compared then to each other reaching your own conclusions. Do you have any idea in just how many campaigns and in how many battles the Roman army prevailed and defeated its enemies? How many sieges the Roman army made? How many peoples and nations they conquered? And notice: you picked the four battles/campaigns; it wasn't a historian/military historian at all. It was only you. You don't seem to base any of the sections of the article upon a work/books written by professional historians at all (in which the historian(s) compares the two empires with each other). You simply thought it would be interesting to compare two different empires, both of them figuratively on opposite sides of the "known world" who had different cultures, religions, economies, forms of government, armies, climates, geography, neighbours and enemies. IMHO this means that the whole article is from the bottom up quite clearly OR and unpublished synthesis and has no place whatsoever within Wikipedia. Sorry Flamarande (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed that the article is unnecessary. We should concentrate on having good articles on the Roman Empire and Han Empire, then if readers want to make their own comparisons they can. An article like this is only justified if there is scholarly work that makes the comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC) If you didnt notice there is nowhere in the article a section where "I" compare the article; the facts are simply listed for the reader to compare. There are many such articles on wikipedia, where information is provided side by side. Flammarande is continuing to say that i am "Comparing" and using "OR" but if you notice in the talk page his claims are all OR and nowhere in the article is there an article where I conclude or compare the two empires. There are simply facts layed side by side. As to other articles see comparison of 2000s figher aircraft. See external sources for scholarly work. I challenge you to find one sentence in the article which is synthesis and not sourced. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC) How many of the sources actually compare the two empires? I hope they all do, because it looks very much to me as though this is much more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. Eg, "The Chinese economy was much more liberal than the Roman one, which depended largely on slave labor." - does your reference here actually compare the two economies? dougweller (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC) A) No it doesn't and B) it's the website of a distance learning company. Putting the article up for AfD right now, no point in prolonging the agony. Sorry teeninvestor, but some of us have strong opinions about sourcing in history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC) I find it hard to believe that no historians have published comparisons of these two empires... but without some discussion about what historians have said when they compare these two empires, (and citation to the historians), it does indeed come across as being OR (more specifically WP:SYNT). I agree with the AfD... but suggest that teeninvestor ask that the article be placed in his/her user space... so that he/she can hit the books and work on a new version of the article that focuses upon reporting what the historians say. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC) I suspect that earlier historians probably have made such comparisons already. However to compare two nations/states with different peoples, religions, cultures, forms of government, and economies who then had to face different challenges (different geography, climate, neighbours and enemies) with different results is simply unwise. Such comparisons are by default very difficult and controversial and precisely because of this largely avoided by modern historians these days. Formerly they would do it exactly to demonstrate the "superiority of one against the other" but I like to think that these days serious academics are wiser and much more cautious than that. Such comparisons are good enough for a friendly debate between friends (and usually both sides only reveal their ignorance and learn that they truly don't know all that much about the relevant subjects). Flamarande (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC) As I said, check comparisons between the GDP of Indian states and countries! is there a source that compares the indian states' GDP and countries'GDP? the source cited shows there is slave labor in Roman Empire, while there is less in china. Putting facts side by side is not banned on wikipedia. Also, "Some of us have strong opinions"? you dont own wikipedia Itsmejudith.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC) And neither do you or I. I agree with the placement of the article towards Teeninvestor's userpage. Teen, to be honest: I have nothing against you, the Han empire (I admit that I'm a bit pro-Roman though :), or with such an article (IF it is based upon proper works by accepted historians). I have been there were you seem to be now. Some time ago I have made OR in the article SPQR (and then learned from my mistakes). It's all too easy to do it, you read something somewhere, and then compare it with something else you read somewhere else. It makes sense and then you jump to obvious conclusions (that's what I did then and what you made now). What one must/should do in this case is read a couple of books in which these authors compare these two empires which each other (a single book is technically enough but the more the better). The subject of the book must be the comparison of these two empires. Flamarande (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC) what do you wish to do with this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Cricket_and_BaseballTeeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC). Also, I do have a source in which Han and Roman Empires are compared; check comparing two classical civilizations, china and Rome- China institute.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC) See WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS. I am getting increasingly concerned that you continue to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong. dougweller (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Three new sources have been made available which compares two empires. See article for more details Teeninvestor (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC) The Earth and its peoples, World history outline, <http://www.course-notes.org/World_History/Outlines/The_Earth_and_Its_Peoples_4th_Edition_Outlines/Chapter_6_An_Age_of_Empires_R_0> (Accessed December 27, 2008) Hyper history net, Decline of Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw07hanromecollapse33100120.htm>(Accessed December 27, 2008). Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf>(Accessed December 27, 2008) Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [46](accessed December 26, 2008) Is this not enough sources on this subject??? Theres a ton of material about this on the web. These sources and probably 100+ others you can find on google shows this article is not original research. They make it obvious that this article is NOT OR or synthesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC) No, Teeninvestor, I don't own the encyclopedia, and the debate can go on. Sorry if I bit you. I note that your work has been accepted into Wikiversity, which could be appropriate. I also note from your reference 2) that the China Institute in America ran a course on this topic and you should probably draw this fact to the attention of the Wikiversity people. Perhaps the topic is more suitable for a course than an encyclopedia article at the moment. Putting facts side by side - sometimes it is banned, sometimes not - it depends on whether an original synthesis is created. I will look at the other article you mention, but it may also be poor, so don't necessarily expect that I'll be convinced. History articles have to be sourced from the work of reputable historians, for example a statement about slavery in ancient Rome could be sourced to Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology by Sir Moses Finley. In the meantime you could follow Blueboar's advice about working on the article in your own user space. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC) I've also pointed out on the article's talk page that some of the sources used don't meet our criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. Some are obvious problems, ie using other Wikis or essays, others a bit more complicated, eg relying on an academic who isn't a historian for this article isn't, I believe, acceptable. Other material on the web can't prove that this article isn't OR - what is happening here is, I believe, a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy on original research. dougweller (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC) The point is that there are enough sources that are acceptable so that the article is sourced, accurate and notable(I'm sure you wont disupte notability.). I welcome any attempts to improve the article, but deleting it makes no sense; its information is accurate, its notable, and it has reliable sources. My work has been accepted into wikiversity, and there is an ENTIRE category of articles similar to mine r u going to delete them as well?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comparisons Teeninvestor (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC) What does your work being on Wikiuniversity have to do with this discussion? dougweller (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Your work has been transwikied into Wikiversity precisely because that is the appropriate venue for editors who wish to publish their Original Research... OR that is not allowed here on Wikipedia. And just so you know, being "accepted" in Wikiversity does not have any weight here at Wikipedia. Assuming that at least some of the sources you have found are reliable... the next step is for you to edit the article to tell the reader what these sources say, rather than what you say. Let me make up an example to show you what I mean. Suppose one of your sources discusses the military tactics of both the Han and Roman Empires, and reaches the conculsion that the key difference in fending off barbarian invasion was that the Han remormed its tactics while the Romans did not. You could then say: "According to historian X, the Han Empire succeeded in repelling Barbarian invasions by reforming its military tactics, while the Roman Empire did not.<cite the historian>." This tells the reader that the information (both the underlying facts and the conclusion) is based upon what the reliable historian says... not what user:Teeninvestor happens to think. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC) What i said is what the sources said! I did not put anywhere in the article where i said "in conclusion, han empire was better than roman" and stuff like that. I simply presented the facts for the reader to study. That is within wikipedia policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Not always... in many ways the problem is less with what you say in the article, but with how you do so. When you take a bunch of statements from disperate sources and link them the way you do, you clearly imply a conclusion... which is almost as bad as stating the conclusion out right. And it is still a form of WP:SYNT. You take items that may have never been compared before and link them. If these comparisons have been made and linked by reliable sources, then say this in the article... and tell us what conclusions those sources have reached. Don't use on your own intelegence to make the connections... use the sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC) You should not be presenting facts culled from various sources and synthesized into an article, but what reliable sources say about the subject, ie what reliable sources say comparing the two empires. 22:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk) Teen, do you have a credible source written by a historian that directly compares the two empires or not? For example I just love the beginning of the economy section. "The Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman one. [47] But if someone cares to follow the link, the author (a geopolitician - not an historian - and he doesn't seem to deal with ancient geopolitics at all but to have modern interests and concerns) never ever compares the two empires with each other. He writes that "China was the largest economic power on earth for most of two millennia before the 18 century". He doesn't compare it with ancient Rome or even mentions the Roman Empire at all. So basicly you noticed the relevant sentence, reached your own conclusion (the Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman economy), and then wrote you conclusion as a fact. And to be completely honest: this happened in most of the "sourced material". Exactly this approach is OR and unpublished Synthesis. Flamarande (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Exactly. That source states China's economy was the largest for two millenia, which shows it is larger than the Roman Empire. As to the organized part, that was also from a source which state: "The han economy was more organized than all other economies at the time." which proves my point.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC) No, it just says that the Chinese economy was the largest for most of two millennia before the 18th century. There is absolutely no direct comparison with the Ancient Roman economy. Flamarande (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, if you have one source that talks about size, and another that talks about organization, and you put them together in this way... that is a WP:SYNT violation. I think the problem here is that you are "trying to prove a point"... let that go. Focus on what each source has to say... attribute what the source says to its author so everyone knows who is saying what. Start with the sources that make a direct comparison between the two empires, and then expand upon what they say by discussing sources that only talk about one empire. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) BlueBoar please see my source below. Also, remember this is a debate about whether the article should stay. See my source and arguments below. Also, regarding the top, i made an error. there was one source say it was largest, and another talking about how it was largest AND most organized. And no, i am not trying to prove a point. I have nothing against the Roman Empire or its people and culture. Will you not agree that I have found several credible sources that directly supports the topic, and therefore it should stay. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) No... the place for a debate over whether the article should stay is at WP:AfD... this page is for discussing the OR problems. If they can be fixed then there is no need to nominate the article for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC) The main point is whether the article should stay. The point is that this article does fit the criteria for notability, accuracy, source, etc... Even if you disagree with the article's contentions, it is obvious this article fits the criteria for inclusion. Remember, there is also a whole category of contentions. I think this is more of a content dispute than a dispute about whether the article should stay. Also, theres at least two reliable sources on this article, (China institute, princeton university) comparing the two empires directly and numerous others fleshing out the details, so you cant say its not sourced. The original contention was OR, which these sources certainly show the article fits the crieteria for inclusion.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Also, by stating I "implied" WP: SYNT, the detractors of the article are themselves violating the policy(Concluding i must have "implied" violations). As I have stated repeatedly, I simply put a description of both empires in each area side by side; in no way does that violate wikipedia policy. Also, see wikipeia category of comparison articles. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Puting a two things side by side can violate the policy if you don't cite to a source that has placed the same items side by side. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) In response to Flammarande's comment above whether i have a source written by a credible historian, I do. Here I have found a book directly comparing the two empires by an expert in the field who is a credible historian: Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires by Walter Sheidel, professor of classics and world history, stanford university. ISBN 9780195336900. You might want to work with that. I am already adding information from this to the article. As for more credible sources check this page http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Heres a link http://books.google.com/books?id=QjS7W-BtXOkC&pg=PR17&dq=Rome+and+China:+Comparative+Perspectives+on+Ancient+World+Empire#PPR7,M1 It is a direct online source about Rome and china being compared! What do you have to say about that! this is one of my sources. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Great!... now go read Prof. Sheidel's book, and then edit the article to include some discussion about what he has to say in his book. This is what we have been telling you to do all along. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Blueboar the point I'm trying to make is that my points have shown that the article is worthy of preservation, but several people are now trying to delete it. Please proceed to make your vote at AFD if you believe this article should stay, which i believe is what you think. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Teen, I strongly advise you to buy and to read the book in question (and can only hope that you buy and read more than one) because the larger part of it seems to be unavailable from the internet. If you only had bought and read the book before creating the article....Flamarande (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Teen, this isn't the place to try to argue whether an article should be preserved or not (make those arguments at AfD if it is actually nominated)... this page is for dealing with OR problems. It sounds as if you now have enough sources that you can fix these OR problems. Why don't we end this conversation on this good note, and let you get to work reading the sources and actually fixing the article. Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Blueboar, the article has been nominated already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires Flamarande (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Since now you both seem to agree that with this source OR is resolved I suggest you two go to the AFD board to prevent A legitimately SOURCED article from being DELETED! and im sure you can change your mind on your delete vote flamarande.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) You truly don't get it, do you? Noone is or was against the article in particular, or against the subject in general. What most (I in particular) of the users who voted 'delete' find appaling is how you pick some dubious sources, twist them into your own liking, and then write down sentences which were never defended by the original person/source at all. Let me pick up (again) the beginning of the economy section. "The Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman one. [48]" - the whole sentence is mighty, powerful and leaves absolutly no space for any doubts. I followed the link, reading and studying the text. The author (a Indian geopolitician) is not (and never claims to be) a historian or and historian who studies economy. He writes that "China was the largest economic power on earth for most of two millennia before the 18 century". The authour never ever compares the Han empire with the Roman empire. He never mentions the Roman Empire or the Han Empire at all. The whole text is mostly about the recent (last 40 years) political development of China. To be honest I think he speculates a lot (his forecast of failure for the European Union is very funny and quite dubious). So what happened here? I'm going (yet again) to explain to you how you did Original Research and Unpublished Synthesis. You noticed the single sentence, and then twisted the sentence it into your own conclusion "the Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman economy". Afterwards you wrote it down and presented it as a fact. However the original source never said that the economy of the Han empire was larger and more organized than the econmy of the Roman Empire. That's quite clearly your own conclusion. As a matter of fact he writes: "China was the largest economic power on earth for most of two millennia before the 18 century". I already presented this problem above but you seem to be unable to understand that what you did is unacceptable for a serious article in Wikipedia. Your answer was: "Exactly. That source states China's economy was the largest for two millenia, which shows it is larger than the Roman Empire. As to the organized part, that was also from a source which state: "The han economy was more organized than all other economies at the time." which proves my point." What you truly did was twist the original statements into your own liking and this action is clearly forbidden in Wikipedia. Exactly this is what we are not supposed to do at all. And this happenend not only in the Economy section; it happenend nearly everywhere. IMHO it isn't a legitimately SOURCED article. It is the product of someone who doesn't understand reliable sources, academic fairness, or neutrality at all. Just as another example: You claim that Huns are the same nation that was defeated by the Han empire but then beat the Roman empire, but it is clear that the identidy of the Huns is considered unclear by the overwhelming majority of Historians. I clearly showed you in the article-talkpage how and why the vision "Huns VS Roman Empire" is not true. The current article is largely your own world-view "supported" (clearly not) by random sentences you picked up from the internet. I will also acknowledge that you have done a terrific job in "sanatizing" some of the more clearly outragous statements. However I will continue to stand by my vote of "Delete" - as an alternative I see no problem with the fair proposal of Aecyr (The article survives - but more of less 90 % gets deleted). Flamarande (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I fully acknowledge that this was a BITE but I feel that I had to answer with nothing but the truth (IMHO). I really think this debate needs to return to the article talk page... we all agree that there are serious OR problems with the article as currently written, and we all (I hope) agree that there are probably enough sources out there to support a completely rewritten article on this topic. The key is for us now to stop bickering about what the current article looks like, and move towards achieving the rewritten article. Those discussions should take place at the article talk page, not here. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Please calm down flamarande. I'm sure there's a compromise as of now. This subject is obviously suitable for wikipedia, therefore I believe it should stay. As to the content of the article, We are all very flexible here. I don't understand reliable sources? please state one thing in the article now that is false and not factually accurate. You have only argued about the military section and part of the economic section, not elsewhere. You have yet to produce one concrete example. If you continue with personal attacks, I may have to file a wikiquette alert. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Suggestions: The article at present is based primarily upon the web page from the China Institute; that page in turn is part of an institute to prepare such material, [49]. I consider it a reliable source at an elementary level. But the additional material for it must be gotten from actual sources which discuss the comparison. It can not be assumed that comparing general statements about one to similarly general statements about the other in different sources is sufficient--unless utterly obvious, it will be OR, as will such over-generalizations as the current text abut religions.The web p. lists without full reference some usable sources including especially The Cambridge illustrated history of China by Patricia Buckley Ebrey 1996; ' and its source p. lists Arthur Cotterell (ed.). 1996. The Penguin Encyclopedia of Classical Civilizations. You need however to actually read the books, not just look in GBooks for isolated phrases. DGG (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:SYNTH in Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Resolved: Section removed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved I believe that this edit in the OCRT article constitutes original research by synthesis. This statement compares and contrasts various primary sources to create a novel synthesis never discussed in a reliable third-party publication. There is no third-party source discussing Al Buttnor's joint affiliation with OCRT and Scientology, nor is there any third-party source saying that "most of the text" of an OCRT article "is identical with an official Church of Scientology site" or anything to that effect. This comparison was undertaken by Wikipedia editors on their own initiative. It may be good investigative reporting - but it is not good encyclopedia writing. *** Crotalus *** 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Each page on OCRT concerning Scientology lists the authors of the page.[50] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is in Ontario, Al Buttnor is/was an official Toronto Org in the public eye, and I've met Al Buttnor, in Ontario. Small world. It isn't investigative reporting or rocket science, this is listing a contributor to the site, as documented on the site, with sourced background information. There is no other part of the article that has a third-party source, and if it wasn't for the site's apparent popularity in being cited and Wikispammed, it should have been successfully AfD'ed years ago. No third parties mention the uncredited plagiarism/copyvio, but if not handled here, I'm sure that there are other venues for that concern. Certainly I would seek a RS/N that they not to be used as a RS for Scientology articles at the very least. AndroidCat (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC) In general OCRT is not a reliable source, because it is a collection of self-published essays written by a few people who run the website. They are a good resource for locating actual sources by using their footnotes, but the website itself does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. But for information about their own website, such as author names and discussion of their articles, they can be used as a primary source, in my view. Regarding the synthesis question, my view would be that it's basic factual information, like 1+1=2, to note that the text of two webpages is identical. Some may disagree, but I would not consider that to be synthesis. There seems to be a synthesis jump in stating that the author of "most" of the Scientology articles are written by that author though. That could be addressed by simply listing the names of the articles he wrote and citing them, in other words, something like this" "The articles on OCRT titled <list titles with footnotes> are co-authored by Al Buttnor, Director of Public Affairs and Human Rights for the Church of Scientology Toronto <with footnote>. The same articles have also been published on the official Scientology website <with footnotes>." To me that appears to avoid synthesis while managing to include the correct information --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC) In additon to the SYNT issues... I don't see any claim of notability in this article, no indication as to what makes the organization notable under WP:ORG. I have left a note on the talk page to this effect, and alerting editors that unless the article is re-written to establish notability, I may nominate it for deletion (I'll give people a few weeks to respond). Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC) There are all sorts of WP:NOR issues with the article, but this is one of the more egregious. People are constructing a criticism of the OCRT based on their interpretations of primary sources (in this case, pages found on the website itself). If someone thinks there's a concern that OCRT articles about Scientology being written by a Scientologist, then they should find a secondary source that raises that concern. If they think the articles on Scientology reproduce verbatim articles on Scientology website, then they should find reliable sources making that claim. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC) As I've said on the article talk page, I disagree that listing affiliation of a significant contributor is original research. There are probably thousands of articles in which we given some indication of a person's notable affiliations which aren't necessarily mentioned in the same source as for the article. For example, if we have a list of notable alumni and we indicate that "Joseph Hedebeck" is a best known as a running back for the Jets, we don't necessarily need a single source that makes both assertions. So long as there is no doubt about identity, and that the assertion is relevant to the article or otherwise appropriate, then this type of identification is standard procedure on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC) The question of whether two documents are (essentially) identical is separate. That would appear to be the kind of self-evident assertion that any reader could confirm for themselves, assuming both sources are linked. If so, that'd be no more original research than showing a picture of a building and writing a caption saying that it is painted yellow. However, if the documents are only similar and not identical then that conclusion would be original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC) The last time I checked, the OCRT page was an identical sub-set of the CoS article by Heber Jentzsch, credited to Bruce A. Robinson. (The site blocks Wayback, so there's no neutral way of tracking changes.) AndroidCat (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Geosurveillance - AfD in progress

Article deleted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved Please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geosurveillance. I sent this to AfD. It's a postmodernist essay, and looks like WP:SYNTH type original research. I'm not sure whether it's just someone's rant, or whether there's accepted postmodernist theory behind this position. There are plenty of references, but they're only vaguely relevant to the "geosurveillance" topic. The article needs a look from people who take Focault seriously. --John Nagle (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC) It's definitely based on subjects that Foucault was interested in, but definitely a synthesis, rather than a summary or exegesis. Not a rant though, and would be fine on Wikiversity. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary list of "Riff-driven songs"

Resolved

 – inline citations have been added. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This article offers little more than a poorly organized, highly questionable list of songs. The term "riff-driven" is vague and the article doesn't cite a single source to establish it is a relevant song category.

Does the definition of a term in a source imply the term?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – answered. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I have both a general and a specific question. Generally if there are sources on a topic that use the same definition for different terms can we say that those terms are equal. i.e. source 1 states explicitly that A=F, source's 2 through five state B=F, C=F, D=F, E=F, F=F is it original research to conclude that A=B=C=D=E=F and use all of those sources in an article about A? My specific question has to do with the article Homosexual transsexual. I am in a long running dispute that partly hinges on the above general question. The specific dispute comes down to this. Multiple authors have defined the term homosexual transsexual as being (in the male to female case) " "homosexual transsexuals" are attracted to men. They are very feminine from an early age." [51]. (I point here to the personal webpage of an author but this mirrors what he has written in books and others have written in peer reviewed journals. RS is not an issue here.) To describe IMO the phenomena of transsexuals who are feminine from an early age and sexually attracted to men. (another issue is term VS phenomena) Multiple other authors have written about the phenomena things like this... "From all that has been said, it seems evident that the question "Is the transsexual homosexual?" must be answered "yes" and " no." "Yes," if his anatomy is considered; "no" if his psyche is given preference. What would be the situation after corrective surgery has been performed and the sex anatomy now resembles that of a woman? Is the "new woman" still a homosexual man? "Yes," if pedantry and technicalities prevail. "No" if reason and common sense are applied and if the respective patient is treated as an individual and not as a rubber stamp." [52] Is it or to conclude that the second author is writing about the same thing as the first? The concept that transsexuals who are attracted to men are in some sense a variety of homosexual male? There are some other simmilar cases that occur in this article? A court case where the judge defines that the ruling applies to "gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico". (A couple of RS's make the connection to transsexuality more plainly) A number of historical and cross cultural groups which in sources that describe them say that they were/are attracted to men, dressed as and lived/live as women, were constitutionaly feminine from a young age. But these sources of course use terminology that is not in English. i.e. transwomen from thailand are called kathoey. But in thailand effeminate homosexuals males have also also been called kathoey. They translate by google into "lady boy". Is is OR to make a coonection between a group like that and this concept/term/phenomena?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Sounds like what's being described here is simply a merged article; that's perfectly fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Not a merger. The main articles Kathoey etc. Will have the most information. The article Homosexual transsexual as a couple or a few sentences about these groups.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) The starting equations may not be generalized anywhere apart from basic arithmetics. Even if all sources report contemporary point of view on generally uncontroversial subjects, the underlying definition of "what is F?" may be incompatible, and the concepts of "what is equal?" may be different too. Consider, for example, Species problem in biology. NVO (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC) So if I write about an Orange colored citrus fruit commonly grown in florida and used of orange juice being called an orange. Then someone writing in Chinese about an Orange colored citrus fruit commonly grown in florida and use for orange juice being called (whatever the chineese word for orange is). Writing here that (whatever the chineese word for orange is)= orange would be OR?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Correct me if I am misunderstanding exactly what are asking... are you asking whether you can translate non-english terms such as "kathoey" as the English term "transexual", and if doing so is OR? I gather that Translation is often a tricky issue... In any language there are some words that can clearly be equated as being the same thing, while other words will not have an exact counterpart in other languages. Because of cultural nuances, two words from different languages may be close in meaning, and yet not be exacly the same. The potential for OR depends on how close the meanings are, and whether reliable sources have linked the terms. We often have to look at the context of how the words are used. From your discription, it seems as if these non-english words are contextually close enough to "transexual" that they can be equated. Another option is to discuss them as being similar, but not exactly equal, in concept. In that case I would suggest placing the discussion in a seperate section, where you can discuss the similarities but also note the differences. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC) You are partly right about the issue. The cultural context of non western transsexuals means that they may understand themselves in a number of ways. However there is a commonly accepted measureing stick. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association defines "Gender Identity Disorder" based on criteria x,y,z,. In each case (except for the court case) there are secondary sources which use the standards in that book (or a simmilar autoratative primary source) to make the case that the group they are writing about is equivalent to what we in the west call "transsexuals". Another issue is the term "homosexual transsexual". They are defined simply as transsexuals who are attracted to the same biological sex (and opposite mental gender). There are many sources which define the term "homosexual transsexual" they all boil down to the preceeding sentence. The hard question I guess is if a source writes "Kathoey are male to female transsexual or transgender women who are attracted to men...." Is is OR to conclude that the writer has called them homosexual transsexuals? On the other hand should we demand that any and all sources explicitly mention the word "homosexual transsexual" verbatim just like that?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I take it that the consensus is that equating words such as kathoey, Hijra (south Asia), Mukhananthun, etc with transsexual is ok and not OR?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I would disagree with extending this beyond specific sourced comparison. A statement of equivalence in such definitions is usually not an exact identity. Even the example of "orange" is in fact not so simple--there are a number of varieties and species: is a tangerine an orange? is a blood orange an orange? Different languages may have subtly different definitions here,and going beyond the stated facts is in my pinion OR even in a case like this one. Certainly it is for sexuality. I do not think any sexual terms are clearly defined enough across cultures to make extended statements of identity. This is one of the areas where I would be most reluctant to do this, and I think the specific ones asked just above are examples of this--the cultural roles are different. The people to whom the term is applied in one culture might well not be so in another--the equation of physical and social and emotion sexual roles is not all that straightforward. I'd as soon equate the concept of God across cultures,, or use a translation of "democracy" to have the same meaning in one language as another. DGG (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Let me ask you this then. Suppose we were writing a article about homosexuality across cultures. If I have a source from India that refers to the homosexual males there as "Evening people" then goes on to describe them taking part in homosexual sex. Under your interpretation I could not use such a source to write about homosexuality in india. I would instead have to write a article about the evening people and NEVER MENTION that they are basically homosexual males. That is a close analogy to what I am talking about here. How about the question of using research that does not use the exact same verbatim term "homosexual transsexual"? Such as Dr. Benjamin's quote which is largely critical of the notion that male to female transsexuals are on some level homosexual males. Please keep your remarks general and on the principle. To pick through case by case would be a monumental task. Does the term "homosexual transsexual" have to appear verbatim (not in translation, not some related term that begins with A just homosexual transsexual).--Hfarmer (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I think I see the distinction here... While your source from India refers to the homosexual males there as being "Evening people", does the source refer to Evening People as homosexuals. In other words, does the source equate the two terms completely. Or does it say that homosexual males are a sub-set of Evening People (or is the source saying that there is an overlapping conjunction... some evening people are homosexual, some are not... and some homosexuals are Evening People, and some are not). If it is clear from the context that the source does indeed completly equate the two terms, then I see nothing wrong with reporting that according to the source, the two terms are the same. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) The sources on that topic basically describe the evening people as all being queer. Some being Hijra transwomen, some being bisexual or homosexual males. To the point though. In analogy from that to the article homosexual transsexual. There are similar sources from India Thailand etc. Like in the case of Kathoey RS's describe that as benig a name Thai's give to both transwomen and effeminate homosexuals. Or the Benjamin quote that ask "is the transsexual homosexual". So it seems we have a consensus four who favor making the connections, vs two DGG and Jokestress who do not. At least for now that is the consensus. Thankyou.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC) The question being posed here is fundamentally forum shopping. The problem as I see it is that the underlying concept "Homosexual Transsexual" is a controversial fringe theory that Hfarmer has been trying to present as if it wasn't a fringe theory. Hfarmer is trying take a small fringe theory and include unrelated research from elsewhere in the world to support that. Hfarmer is consistently abusive in talk pages, has made implied legal threats, has admitted to ownership issues with the article homosexual transsexual and has displayed a fundamental failure to understand NPOV. I can't even enter a discussion without being personally attacked, such as having my gender identity attacked by being referred to as a man, or having my name referred to as a fantasy. The problem has become so bad that I've been considering requesting that Hfarmer be topic banned from transsexual related articles. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC) First let me address the forum shopping allegation. What other real "forums" has this been at? The OR concern with this article using sources that do not have the actual verbatim phrase "homosexual transsexual" in them is relatively recent. User:Jokestress asserted that. We haggled basically me and her alone about that. Two people cannot be a consensus. So I took the issue here seeking un interested opinion. I am sure that if I misrepresented Andrea's position she would have said soemthing. (Her position that a source must be western and have the term "homosexual transsexual" in it. Or using it is OR. She repeats basically that on the talk page of homosexual transsexual many times in our discussion.) I posed the question to the forum and with one exception they felt that it was not OR to interpret a source like say the Benjamin quote at the top of this page as being about "homosexual transsexuals" Or a RS which is about "men who live and dress as women who are attracted to men." as being an example of homosexual transsexuals. This forum which has many many people agreed with me. It's a good thing too because many things that are critical of BBL theory make no explicit mention of "homosexual transsexual" anywhere and would also have to be excluded if Jokestresses's position were adopted. The article would be denuded of much information that all sides agree is vital to having any sort of article at all. If you think I am abusive there are other forums for hearing that out. I don't think anything would happen to me though. Because those "legal threats" were in response to another user minorly slandering me. Taking the fact that I was a guest of a border in the house of a involved person here in Chicago and taking that to make me out like I broke into the house. No one would stand for that. Then there are the "Ownership issues". Those are not on my part. I have been left alone to be the one who actually does the editing on most of these articles. Only Jokestress has ever done substantial editing of these articles aside from me as I recall. However unlike her I get blamed for everything that is wrong. Alice if you don't like something change it! Be WP:BOLD but be prepared for me to disagree with you if you try to slant the article the other way. (Ask user JamesCantor if he feels I am on his side why don't you?) Also Alice says I called her a man? On her user page At the top she writes "I am a Transgendered person. More specifically, a male who cross-dresses as a female. As is the case for most cross-dressers, I am a heterosexual male and cross-dressing has nothing what-so-ever to do with sexual behavior. In real life, I'm two completely separate and distinct people. A man with a relatively normal life (if there is such a thing!) and a woman who has a fairly distinct personality and a quite separate life." She is in her own words a male crossdresser! I could have called Alice She and just as well had her say I was not respecting her gender identity that way. IMO CD's TV's and true part time DQ's, basically TG's who dress for fun, money, or kicks don't deserve to be called SHE. Most such people do not like being called she/her in my experience. They are males who enjoy some aspect of the feminine acoutremaents. OTOH actual transsexual women like me and Jokestress are transsexual women even when sleeping and not wearing a stich. We don't put it on. IMO it is a insult to transsexuals everywhere (pre, post, and non op) who deal with this 24*7 for a part time heterosexual crossdressers to colonize our collective identity as transsexual women! You know what I can save us all allot of time here. What Alice has written here has nothing to do with WP:OR and should be redacted. But I will leave it to someone else to do it. I suggest you take this issue to formal mediation and we will hear this out. At worst I will be topic blocked. But then so would most people writing on this topic. Thats the nuclear option and would hurt us all. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC) what you want is a RfC either of the article or the general question. Many general questions that come here and are presented as general questions are in fact dealing with very specific issues--and this is obviously one. A general rule about what counts as OR is never going to be more than a general guideline: OR, like RS, is one of the things that has many nuances and not all matters are yes/no. On one hand, if there is a firm chain of undoubtedly reliable statements from good authorities that various things are exact synonyms, and each link of the chain has clear consensus, it's not OR to summarize this, though one must be prepared to specify the full logical chain. But on the other hand if there is a long chain of things where each pair's equivalence is stated by one or two people who may be only relatively authoritative in only part of the field, made perhaps as passing statements without full consideration or given as the usual sort of very rough equivalents in a dictionary list of synonyms, and not all of the equivalences have full consensus in the subject, then saying that the two at the ends are identical is OR, and very contestable OR at that that would never pass any proper peer review. it's like saying that 2.1 is approximately equal to 2, and 2.2 is approximately equal to 2.1, and continuing until 2=4. I am fairly clear in my own mind which of the paradigms I give here is relevant in this particular subject. DGG (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC) and, by the way, I think that Hf's longer paragraph above is entirely inappropriate in this context, and very close to an extended BLP violating personal attack on an individual; I urge any admin who agrees with me to redact it. Some other comments by those tkingt his personally are pershaps also suitable for redaction. In general it is not the best of ideas to use oneself or one's associates as examples. DGG (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC) What are you talking about I was accused of making implied legal threats, and referring to Alice J. Markham as a man. The implied legal threats thing comes from my defending my right to not be slandeered. I was a guest of a border in the home of Diedre McCloskey. At the time Dr. McCloskey was out of the country. The border was a person who sought me out for advice and I thought it would be nice to have TG/TS friend who was also a graduate student. We would comisserate about how miserably TG/TS peoople are treated at UIC at the graduate level. That's neither here nor there. Someone tried to spin that fact into my "breaking into" McCloskey's house. You damm right I'll threaten a lawsuit in that situation. How much more personal does it get. Am I just supposed to take that because I am standing up for actual neutrality on a unpopular subject? As for what's in that paragraph about me calling Alice Markham a man. It says on that character's userpage that alice Markahm is a "heterosexual male crossdresser". Then goes on to explain that Alice J is a sort of female personae. I am sorry but I have a personal policy I don't call part timer's she on the internet. If I am out in public with a part timer I call them she because at least I know they have put it out there. It takes guts for most CD's to step out. But being on the internet is different. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Let me see if I understand your position on the substantive matter. It is your opinion that only reliable sources that say "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim) is the same as "{whatever term no matter how it is defined.}". Or the source must discuss "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim) is that your position? Because if it is just so you know allot of really valuable critical comments will be excluded because many of them do not mention "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim). So far as I know there is only one such RS that is critical that mentions "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim). There are a few others that mention Autogynephilia but if those are allowed... "because everyone knows that HT is used in the theory of Autogynephilia"... Then one should just as well be able to see a piece of litrature that ask as Benjamin did "is the transsexual homosexual" and include it. For it's remarks critical of the idea. One should also be able to look at how words are defined in reliable sources. Remember there is pre existing wikipedia wide consensus that gathereing information under a common heading is not or (see WP:NOTOR).--Hfarmer (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)