The result was no consensus. Good faith disagreement over what material passes NOR criteria, however there is a strong enough belief that a substantial portion does pass it. Therefore a close of NC with an encouragement to rigorously discuss content at the talk page. MBisanz talk 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Unlikely that an encyclopedic article can be created on this topic: original research. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
As for allegations that say the article is OR and not based on sources, see Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [2](accessed December 26, 2008) which is one of my sources. Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Do you also want to delete this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Cricket_and_Baseball Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Three new sources have been made available, showing that there is a lot of comparison of the two empires. this is not original synthesis. Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Article creator Teeninvestor has already 'voted'
dougweller (
talk) 18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Preserve*
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. THERE ARE FOUR SOURCES SHOWING THIS. Is that not enough????? Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
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) 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Seeing the continued persistince of Teenivestor (who doesn't seem to shut up with his loud claims of quality of the article in question) I suggest that everybody reads carefully my final answer and arguments inside of Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (large post at the end). I continue to stand by my vote of DELETE but see no problem whatsoever with the proposal of Aecis. Flamarande ( talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Quote Flamarande:
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)
Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this should be subsumed into one of the Chinese history pages. It does not seem to constitute an independent field of study in academia. If it does, it should be edited to incorporate more established scholarly perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.167.221 ( talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply
See WP:SYNT Nowhere does it say putting two paragraphs of sourced facts next to each other is synthesis. Also, the article is in the process of revamp, if you have suggestions please place them in the talk page. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
This is from WP:SYNT: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. 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. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
Synthesis only occurs when the editor puts together multiple sources. If the editor just puts two paragraphs of facts next to each other (mostly for additional facts) WITHOUT comparing them, that is not synthesis. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I will provide an example of what you guys call "synthesis"
Say I have an article called "Comparing apples and oranges".(of course this is not notable, but bear with this example).
Then I have 2 sentences in the section "color" which are like this:
"Apples are red"(source: www.applecolor.com)
"Oranges are orange(source: www.orangecolor.com)
Does this constitute synthesis? Do I have to find a source that says Apples are red and oranges are orange? Regarding OR allegations, please see the sources. There are four credible sources that directly compare the two empires, and eight for details. Are you saying that I should not have ANY sources showing details????
I'll look on it. Also, this is a comparison of Rome and China in general. I plan to change the title if article survives AFD. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Also, see this section:
"The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
Therefore, as long as all your claims are sustained by your sources, it is not original Research. I would like to see one of the editors who voted delete to back up their arguments by finding a section that is not attributed to a source that directly support their position.
Also see: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Obvious_deductions
This is from WP: NOTOR: "Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics. " "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research. " Please read all wikipedia policy before preceding to argue. Selectively choosing to obey wikipedia policy and ignore others is a blatant disregard for wikipedia guidelines and violation of NPOV. I think here there is a fundamental misunderstanding of our original research policy. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I think you are misunderstanding that section; it simply tells the reader that both armies could deploy thousands of men to the battlefield. That is all. Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree completely with sharkD and Cmadler; However, some editors have been quite disruptive to my editing; neglecting others'opinion, and constantly making unsatiable demands. They even objected to my apple/orange above as they object to information being placed close to each other, saying that is synthesis. While I take their opinions into account and edit the article accordingly, they completely ignore my opinions. However, sharkD and cmadler, I will need yours and others assistance to set up a chart and subsections to wikipedia. I don't mean to be rude, but i have only been on wikipedia for seven days and I've been forced constantly to learn on the move. Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Good faith disagreement over what material passes NOR criteria, however there is a strong enough belief that a substantial portion does pass it. Therefore a close of NC with an encouragement to rigorously discuss content at the talk page. MBisanz talk 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Unlikely that an encyclopedic article can be created on this topic: original research. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
As for allegations that say the article is OR and not based on sources, see Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [2](accessed December 26, 2008) which is one of my sources. Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Do you also want to delete this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Cricket_and_Baseball Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Three new sources have been made available, showing that there is a lot of comparison of the two empires. this is not original synthesis. Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Article creator Teeninvestor has already 'voted'
dougweller (
talk) 18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Preserve*
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. THERE ARE FOUR SOURCES SHOWING THIS. Is that not enough????? Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
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) 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Seeing the continued persistince of Teenivestor (who doesn't seem to shut up with his loud claims of quality of the article in question) I suggest that everybody reads carefully my final answer and arguments inside of Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (large post at the end). I continue to stand by my vote of DELETE but see no problem whatsoever with the proposal of Aecis. Flamarande ( talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Quote Flamarande:
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)
Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this should be subsumed into one of the Chinese history pages. It does not seem to constitute an independent field of study in academia. If it does, it should be edited to incorporate more established scholarly perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.167.221 ( talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply
See WP:SYNT Nowhere does it say putting two paragraphs of sourced facts next to each other is synthesis. Also, the article is in the process of revamp, if you have suggestions please place them in the talk page. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
This is from WP:SYNT: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. 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. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
Synthesis only occurs when the editor puts together multiple sources. If the editor just puts two paragraphs of facts next to each other (mostly for additional facts) WITHOUT comparing them, that is not synthesis. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I will provide an example of what you guys call "synthesis"
Say I have an article called "Comparing apples and oranges".(of course this is not notable, but bear with this example).
Then I have 2 sentences in the section "color" which are like this:
"Apples are red"(source: www.applecolor.com)
"Oranges are orange(source: www.orangecolor.com)
Does this constitute synthesis? Do I have to find a source that says Apples are red and oranges are orange? Regarding OR allegations, please see the sources. There are four credible sources that directly compare the two empires, and eight for details. Are you saying that I should not have ANY sources showing details????
I'll look on it. Also, this is a comparison of Rome and China in general. I plan to change the title if article survives AFD. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Also, see this section:
"The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
Therefore, as long as all your claims are sustained by your sources, it is not original Research. I would like to see one of the editors who voted delete to back up their arguments by finding a section that is not attributed to a source that directly support their position.
Also see: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Obvious_deductions
This is from WP: NOTOR: "Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics. " "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research. " Please read all wikipedia policy before preceding to argue. Selectively choosing to obey wikipedia policy and ignore others is a blatant disregard for wikipedia guidelines and violation of NPOV. I think here there is a fundamental misunderstanding of our original research policy. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I think you are misunderstanding that section; it simply tells the reader that both armies could deploy thousands of men to the battlefield. That is all. Teeninvestor ( talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree completely with sharkD and Cmadler; However, some editors have been quite disruptive to my editing; neglecting others'opinion, and constantly making unsatiable demands. They even objected to my apple/orange above as they object to information being placed close to each other, saying that is synthesis. While I take their opinions into account and edit the article accordingly, they completely ignore my opinions. However, sharkD and cmadler, I will need yours and others assistance to set up a chart and subsections to wikipedia. I don't mean to be rude, but i have only been on wikipedia for seven days and I've been forced constantly to learn on the move. Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC) reply