![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A dispute has arisen in regards to the wording in burden regarding the tagging or removing of content. This request for comment is to establish the specific wording for just that part of the "Burden of evidence" section of our "Verifiability" policy. Found here.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Beta-secretase_2 currently states "The physiological function and role of BACE2 in Alzheimer's disease is unknown." might need updating there is a article at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250401.php but it is poorly written, containing: "BACE2 then cuts beta-amyloid into smaller pieces, which in turn, destroys it" but then later in the article: "...by using BACE2 to block beta-amyloid destruction." leaving the reader confused (is it destroying or blocking the destruction of beta-amyloid?).
the articles source materiel may be more useful: http://www.molecularneurodegeneration.com/content/7/1/46/abstract the pdf has a section labeled: "BACE2 cleaves AB at 3 sites" however it also has a section labeled: "BACE2 does not degrade fibrillar AB" (isn't fibrillar the Alzheimer form?)
should any of this be mentioned as a footnote or "additional references" in the wiki article or is it still too original or non-peer reviewed to mention?
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there an established procedure for adjusting for inflation? For example, the article on the Bath School disaster has the following sentence (emphasis mine):
"The Red Cross also managed donations sent to pay for both the medical expenses of the survivors and the burial costs of the dead. In a few weeks, $5,284.15 (about $70,698 today) was raised through donations, including $2,500 from the Clinton County board of supervisors and $2,000 from the Michigan legislature."
There are several ways of adjusting for inflation, and they all become out of date rather quickly. It's important to provide context to monetary amounts, but what is the best way to do it? Andrew ( talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted this at the Help Desk and they suggested i bring my issues here. My post there was:
-- Found5dollar ( talk) 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I am posting this because the article on "the world's largest flower "Rafflesia is incorrect. While the article itself on Rafflesia is accurate, Rafflesia is not the worlds largest flower. Amorphophallus sp. is considered the world's largest. A picture and more detail is posted on my website http://www.facebook.com/Wi.thyme
As a general principle would we agree that a statement such as "Many/some authors now support the theory that [some novel theory proposed by an amateur historian]" can be reliably supported (and thus made verifiable) by a string of references (to represent the "many" or "some"), placed just after the "many" word in the sentence, to cites of: a set of college course notes, a literature review, a paper published by an organisation accused of being a "predatory" or fraudulent publisher and the local news section of a science club website - all of which do refer to the amateur historian's theory, directly or indirectly? MeasureIT ( talk) 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Article and relevant section: Bane in other media#The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Article edit history: Edits Relevant discussion: Talk:Bane_in_other_media
Relevant section text: "Bane was reportedly born and raised in a foreign penitentiary [13][14] known only as the Pit,[15] where he spent most of his life incarcerated as a prisoner. There, he became the friend and protector of a young girl who like him was born in the Pit. After the girl's mother was killed by the prison's crazed inmates, Bane protected her for several years until she escaped by climbing up to the surface (it is initially implied that Bane was the child who escaped, then revealed that he was the child's protector).[16]"
What's wrong with it: Synthesis, original research, misrepresentation of sourced material Source 13-14 is a small book meant for little children that came out before the movie and does not attempt a comprehensive look into the story of the film in any way (I've read some of it). It only states that character in movie was born in an unnamed prison. It states nothing about being raised in a prison or being born and raised in the Pit that appears in the movie. The article definitively states what is only cloaked in rumor in the film--that is Source [15], which is a quote from IMDb. Source [16] is a comprehensive article that is part of a series of articles written about the movie. It states that the background given the origination of said character is false and is used to cloak the identity of another character in the film's plot. In the film's story the audience is fed this legend and many flashbacks about a child that originated in a prison and that later escaped. It turns out to be another character in the film's reveal scene near the end. There's nothing stated by sources that Bane spent most of his life in the Pit.
How I've edited the article in the past: I've edited the article in the past to reflect the ambiguity (rumor) of the place of birth instead of definitely stating it. Or I've written that the "the origin story is used as misdirection" and used Source [16] to support it.
Why finding reliable sources is difficult: Most professional film reviews do not divulge spoilers or give thorough analysis of a film's plot.
Easyjusteasy ( talk) 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see the encyclopaedic purpose of this article. The problems could be resolved by merging it back into Bane and then cutting the whole thing down. Give links so that people who are interested can follow the stories up. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bechdel test is a relatively popular test for gender bias in works of fiction. A work passes the test if it features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man.
My question is: Would it be original research for Wikipedia to classify works according to whether or not they pass this test (e.g. through a category, and/or an infobox entry with a footnote explaining which passage in the work meets the test) based only on the work itself? I suspect that it would, but I'd like to hear the opinion of others. (This is an abstract question, unrelated to any particular article or dispute.)
The relevant passage from WP:NOR is:
The question therefore is whether applying the Bechdel test based on the work itself (as a primary source) is a statement of fact akin to a plot summary, or an act of interpretation. I suspect that it is the latter, because what counts as a "conversation" can be a matter of interpretation (see Bechdel test#Limitations and problems), as can the question of whether the participants or subjects of a conversation are women or men (e.g., in the case of persons of ambiguous or unknown gender, or non-human characters). This would seem to rule out any system of Bechdel-categorization of articles about works of fiction (except of course for articles that cite a reliable source that makes a statement about whether or not the work meets the test.) That's a bit regrettable because the results of such a categorization might well be interesting. Sandstein 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Applying the Bechdel test without citing a secondary source that does so is probably OR in most cases. But in the case of Jane Austen, there's no shortage of secondary sources talking about the depiction of women in her novels; this is the case with many works of literature, art, and film. So the kind of information one gets from applying the Bechdel test could be covered in many articles, just not in the infobox-y way Sandstein's question contemplates. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. It is not up to Wikipedia to "test" anything at all. Collect ( talk) 13:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right noticeboard, but I've gotten into a dispute about the breadth of information that should be present in this article. I have been arguing that we should focus on organic milk only in this article. Other editors feel we should be discussing other organic products like organic fruits and vegetables. For instance, this source is being used for discussion about organic produce and other organic products not directly linked to organic milk (see for instance this diff or this diff. Is this appropriate? Yobol ( talk) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
There have been secret camps for detainees, at Guantanamo -- the names of at least three secret camps have become known: Camp Strawberry Fields, Camp No, and Camp Platinum/Camp Seven.
The DoD continues to deny the existence of Camp No. We didn't know where either of the two other camps were, other than that they were not operated by JTF-GTMO and were not contained within the JTF-GTMO campus. But in 2009 Jason Leopold, who has published many articles on Guantanamo, published a crop of a google satellite image, showing Camp Platinum/Camp Seven. I uploaded it, supplying what I thought were valid fair use templates.
A week or so ago a {{ di-replaceable fair use}} tag was placed on the image, asserting it was a "replaceable fair use" image. Leaving out the rest of the details the original challenger and I are disagreeing over what kind of experimenting with google constitutes original research.
My position is that since the journalist who published the non-free image in question had published previous articles on Guantanamo, and is an expert on Guantanamo, their publication of the image made it verifiable, but that any previously unpublished image a wikipedia contributor cropped from google would be unreferenced, unverifiable, and a lapse from WP:OR. I think the challenger may be claiming that the experimenting the acknowledge performing with google fell under the exemption our rules barring original research have for routine calculation.
The challenger may also have been asserting that the previously published image I uploaded should be erased, then replaced. Erased, because it was not esthetically pleasing, and then replaced with a higher resolution crop done by one of us. While I agree a more esthetically pleasing crop is certainly possible, any crop one of us made would be unverifiable and thus unusable, and I believe it would be a lapse from WP:OR.
Some years ago I came across a tiny image about 80px * 80px, of an important Afghan warlord named Hazrat Ali, who was based in Torkham, Nangarhar Province, he was reported to have been corrupt, and to have been bribed by al Qaeda to let Osama bin Laden slip across the Afghan/Pakistan border. A few years later a Navy SEAL officer published a tell-all book under the pen-name Dalton Fury, about attempts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden in late 2001. He was interviewed by 60 minutes, who broadcast clips from formerly secret video recorded by the Navy SEALS. Those clips included several short segments showing "General Ali", an unreliable Afghan warlord from Torkham, Nangarhar, whose lack of cooperation allowed Osama bin Laden slip across the border. This warlord shared the same last name as Hazrat Ali, who was reported to have helped OBL slip across the border, he was also the warlord from Torkham, and he looked like Hazrat Ali. I asked for opinions as to whether I could use snapshots from the Navy SEAL video to replace the 80x80 image of Hazrat Ali with the superior quality images of General Ali, from the Navy SEAL video. The consensus was that, because my judgment that the images were of the same individual was unverifiable the images couldn't be identified as Hazrat Ali. I think the same principle should apply to the challenger's experiments with google. I think because they are unverifiable they lapse from WP:OR.
I'd appreciate third party opinions please.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 13:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
At Visual FoxPro, an IP and new editor have repeatedly added an unreferenced section to the article that appears to be original research. Could someone else take a look at it? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. Recent months have seen the UK Independence Party (UKIP) do better in opinion polls in the UK. UKIP claim to have supplanted another party, the Liberal Democrats, as the third party in British politics. There has been much editing activity around UKIP's rise and how best to reflect this. The particular OR concern here is over how to report and describe the opinion poll data. The key discussions here are at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory. There are various issues here, but the OR one is around text written by Sheffno1gunner that I and some others feel constitutes OR. Sheffno1gunner (and some others) feel it does not. (There is also a somewhat related issue around what to highlight in a table: see Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, although I'm not certain if that counts as an OR issue or not.) Some additional perspectives and thoughts on this would be very valuable to help resolve current disagreements. Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 ( talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
At Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority there is a dispute over what the actual allegations against Mr Assange is. One contention is that the court protocols can be used as sources for the allegations contained in them, while another editor's contention is that it would constitute original Research. (There is also a dispute over what the allegations actually are, and this issue is a part of that dispute) The dispute arose after a revert, and the discussion can be found here: Talk:Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Revert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.161.146 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 January 2013
I'm a little unclear over what exactly needs to be resolved. I would assume that the dispute is that different editors want to put in different versions of what the allegations are. It's important what the various sources are and why they might be giving different versions. If one of the versions is an editor's translation of a document in Swedish, then that one is right out as obvious research: we are inevitably going to prefer an outside source's translation unless it contains an error extraordinarily gross and self-evident to any Swedish reader. Thus we'll never prefer an editor's translation of a court document which is in Swedish.
Looking through the discussion, it seems to me that the " Summary to Assist the Media" published by the British judiciary constitutes a perfectly valid and accurate secondary source. It is recounting what is in the warrant put out by Swedes, and it summarizes the charges as well as justifying that summary through (presumably translated) quotations. Comparing that with the documents in Swedish is Right Out. I see no obstacle to using that summary. Mangoe ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Gospel of the Hebrews is getting WP:OR by an IP - needs help. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The following section from this article is entirely sourced with primary sources (Bible quoations), yet the supplementary statements consists of interpretations of these passages in an attempt to connect them with the article subject (freedom of thought, a term they don't mention themselves):
The obvious impediment to censoring thought is that it is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, and harder to regulate it. Many famous historical works recognize this. The Bible summarizes in Ecclesiastes 8:8: "There is no man that has power over the spirit, to retain it; neither has he power in the day of death." A similar sentiment is expressed in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he likens those who attempt to control the emotions of their neighbours to "the children in the marketplace" who try to produce dancing with a happy song and mourning with a dirge, and then express frustration at their futility in trying to do so ( Matthew 11:16). The concept is developed more specifically in the writings of Paul ("For why should my freedom [eleutheria] be judged by another's conscience [suneideseos]?" 1 Corinthians 10:29.)
I first made aware of the problem of OR July 2011, and have since taken up the subject again, however no reliable secondary sources has been cited in the section. Still User:Til Eulenspiegel reverts my attempt at removing the section in question, claiming that there are lots of sources, yet having himself failed to provide a single one. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Several editors have brought up similar concerns on the Talk page without any real discussion ensuing, so I am bringing the question here. Most of the article is well referenced, but the section about the statistical breakdown appears to be completely original research. Andrew 327 03:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Can OR experts please review the above mentioned article and help to decide whether it fully complies with the WP:OR policy.
It contains many statements which are not directly supported by a specific reliable source, but which are based on personal interpretation and extrapolation from one or two sample sources. Examples include:
Additionally, when questioned about the reliability of a self-published blog, the editor replied on the talk page: "As regards the reliability of his [Naughtin's] 2007 publication - how "reliable" was the small boy who shouted "Why isn't there emperor wearing any clothes?"
Stevengriffiths ( talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The article on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election gives the results for the four main parties in UK politics (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP). There is an additional column giving which party is in the lead. As you can see in the discussion at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, three editors ( User:Sheffno1gunner, an IP editor and User:Nick Dancer) agreed to add a column marked "3rd party lead" comparing which of the two smaller parties, LDems and UKIP, are ahead in each poll and by how much, with additional colour shading of the 3rd party leader. This is in response to UKIP's rise in the polling in recent months. Subsequently, myself and two other editors objected to this change. There has been lengthy discussion and a degree of local consensus has emerged to keep the new column.
However, I remain perturbed. This looks like original research to me and that core policy should override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so I seek further input on the matter.
Reliable sources should be our guide. I've not seen any reliable source that presents polling data like this. That said, some reliable sources do discuss the UKIP/LDem difference and who's ahead (as cited in the article). "Third party lead" as a phrase is not used (in this context) anywhere on a basic Google search, except in references to this page. No other Wikipedia article has a "3rd party lead" this. This all seems like a massive warning sign to me.
It seems to me that "3rd party lead" largely represents the interests of particular editors and while those editors may have an argument about why such a statistic is interesting, as they've laid out in Talk page discussion, it clearly constitutes OR/ WP:SYNTH. It also represents a bias in the article because it is there to draw particular attention to UKIP's rise in the polls. Talk page discussion has not engaged with the OR issue. Reliable sources do not present polling data in this way. While there is some RS interest in whether the LibDems or UKIP are ahead in the polls, it is not pronounced and it is not reported in this manner.
Some further background notes... The rise in the polls of UKIP in recent months has led to considerable discussion on Wikipedia around how best to cover the party. Sheffno1gunner, the IP editor and Nick Dancer have generally argued for more coverage of UKIP, while others have felt that some of the changes proposed would be undue. I recognise a balance is required here and am not suggesting that either side of that debate are inherently right or wrong. However, there have been concerns and discussions as to whether content on this issue has strayed into original research. We've had lengthy discussions at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory on other possible OR issues around UKIP (and I came here before about the former -- see above). In the latter example, discussion got rather heated and the IP editor expressed some fundamental disagreements with policies like WP:RS.
This very issue of how well UKIP are doing in the polls compared to the LibDems has itself been used by some of the same editors as an argument for greater coverage of UKIP, in particular in a number of discussions on what parties to include in infoboxes for forthcoming elections: see Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Addition_of_UKIP_Debate and Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Election_Box.
What to include in tabulations of opinion polls has often been fraught. Articles about other countries have tackled OR concerns before; see Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 for example. There is much that one could include in a table of poll results, so it becomes an almost artistic judgement about how much is too much. Sheffno1gunner has, for example, opposed including the Greens etc. on the polling tables for the 2014 Euro-elections on the grounds that it makes the table too busy: see Talk:European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_Polling.
My concerns about OR may be misplaced, of course. But with the discussion often getting heated and difficulty coming to agreement, it would be very helpful if we could get some more heads looking at the problem. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you. petrarchan47 t c 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Redhanker seems obsessed with proving how evil Iran is, to the extent that he ignores talk page requests that he stop engaging in WP:Soapbox on article talk pages and adding primary sourced and non-source material to articles. A perfect example is today's revert I did removing a number of such examples of his recent edits from one article. Here is a discussion on proper WP:RS pn the same article at WP:RS Noticeboard on his misuse of primary sources. (At this diff even another editor I disagree with on many articles agrees he's becoming disruptive.)
Just reviewing Special:Contributions/Redhanker, it looks like he does this on a lot of articles. User talk:Redhanker shows at least four recent AfDs (some speedy) on poorly sourced/POV articles regarding Iran he created, plus a couple deletions of categories he deleted. Like I said on the talk page, this is probably the first time I've sought to have an editor sanctioned/banned from an article for something less than being a sockpuppet or repeated 1rr/3rr. Any help someone would like to offer to explain these policies to User:Redhanker on Veterans Today talk page, his talk page, or talk page of any other article they personally find of interest welcome. Very frustrating. CarolMooreDC 20:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 is going through a peer review here. In the peer review, it was suggested that a background section was needed to provide more context to the discussion. However, one user brought up the fact that it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I would ask for your opinion on the subject. Thanks for your time. Casprings ( talk) 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for input concerning a possible original research issue in section 7.4 ("Pseudoscience") of the Waldorf education page. There are two parts of the issue. Editors of this page have approached the problem through many discussions on TALK for over two weeks and there have been several rounds of edit/undo. No consensus for how to resolve this has been established. [NOTE: The image in question may or may not be on the page currently. If you don't see it, please respond to issue #2 noted below.]
Despite ample discussion having occurred, editors of this page have reached an impasse. We would appreciate the input of fellow Wikipedians to help us resolve this issue. Thank you. Jellypear ( talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Jellypear ( talk) 13:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the entry about Zac Toa at Theories of Humor an example of Original Research? Why is this acceptable, given that a previous entry was deleted, on the grounds that it was only an unvetted thesis? Isn't Mr. Toa's brief book an "unvetted thesis"? It is surely not sufficient for a dissertation, or an academic article.
Editors deleted the entry by an established scholar in the field, who has now been invited to speak at a humor conference having Daniel C. Dennett and John Morreall as the keynote speakers. That scholar is a Professor Gontar, who, just by being admitted to that high-profile event is now "vetted" and established as a scholar. If Five Elements is not Original Research, then can the other deleted theory return? Cdg1072 ( talk) 02:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Human rights abuses in Kashmir ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Currently it says: "Human rights watch has also accused the Indian security forces of using children as spies and messengers, although the Indian government denies this allegation."
The linked source is
User:Darkness Shines is behaving unreasonably this time on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Our terse conversation can be seen here and here; it won't take long just go through the first discussion and preferably, both. He wants to include a assertion that is not supported by the source.
Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Someone has used the 1930 U.S. census as a source for the Lynn Fontanne article, interpreting it to come to a conclusion about her date of immigration and citizenship status. There is further speculation appended to the citation about her "likely" British citizenship status. This all seems like original research to me, but my deletion of it was reverted. Comments, please. -- Mesconsing ( talk) 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is something called the argument from silence, which is a type of argument found in historical analysis. The portion of the text below, from Jesus, after the first reference about lack of physical evidence, classifies a variety of arguments as being this type. It also implies that the opening statements about physical evidence constitute an argument from silence, even though the argument doesn't apply to a lack of physical evidence. I think 1) classifying an argument type is an act of research/analysis, and should be done by sources not editors, 2) most of the sources don't classify anything as an argument from silence, 3) the very last sentence may be allowed, since it actually applies the argument to the topic, but should be attributed in the text.
There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him. [257] The argument from silence that that lack of documents mentioning Jesus indicates that Jesus did not exist goes back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[258] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[259] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[260] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[260] In general, an argument from silence can not be definitive and may be questionable, given the circumstances in which it is made.[261][262] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[263] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[264] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[99][249] Humanpublic ( talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Heterophobia has existed for some time as a redirect to Homophobia#"Heterophobia", but has recently had some content added that reads very much to me as original research/original synth. A single user has cobbled together a few isolated incidents (ie, a single faked hate crime), some unsourced statements (heterophobia started during the sexual revolution) and some less than ideal sources (a YouTube video, lifesitenews.com) into an article about "Heterophobia" that differs wildly from the sourced "Heterophobia" section of the Homophobia article. I and two other editor have reverted it back to being a redirect, but User:3abos is reverting us all, so I thought maybe there should be a few more people keeping an eye on the situation. Dawn Bard ( talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is more with the content of the article. While the referenced sources outline events which could be construed as
Heterophobia, only the blog posts seem to make that assertion. To me, making this leap constitutes
Original Research,
WP:NPOV, or at least
WP:PRIMARY. In addition, blog posts are generally unacceptable for
WP:Verifiability.
Josh3580
talk/
hist
00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
[
[12]] is definitely a blog post. I could not find anything about the "Degradation of Religious Liberty" in the article[
[13]] you referenced for that. You defined heterosexuality as people who support the traditional definition of marriage. While I support that, I'm afraid that isn't what makes me a heterosexual. Also, the first sentence in the history says that "Heterophobia began during the sexual revolution in the 1960s and takes many forms." Where does that information come from? Again, the events are documented, but not the opinions. That is the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion site.
Josh3580
talk/
hist
01:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is still paying attention to this, the content in question has now been repeatedly re-added to the homophobia article since Heterophobia was fully protected. Dawn Bard ( talk) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcomed on Prophecy of the Popes, specifically on whether the final paragraph of the lead (as of this version) contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. A related talk page thread is here.-- Trystan ( talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Can someone comment here:
Talk:Continuation_War#Original_research_in_this_article
We need more comments.
Basically, reliable sources say that an event occurred, but a user says that primary sources he looked at show no evidence of it and implies a conclusion in the article text... -
YMB29 (
talk)
00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Boys, boys! Or maybe, girls, girls! Take a WP:Wikibreak if you have to. Come back in a week. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, all. I had a few discussions recently with User:Paul venter and checked out some of his other recent contributions. Calappa calappa had an inuse tag on it, so I waited a few hours and then edited to remove several sources: one to a gallery, one to flickr, and two to videos. The sources have their own WP:RS issues, but those aside, the photo and video sources seemed to be supporting statements that are Paul's own observations derived from the photos and videos. For example, the gallery says nothing similar to "Except for the front, the carapace curves down on all sides, covering the eight ambulatory legs in a design similar to that of Horseshoe crabs" but that is the statement it is anchoring. However, the gallery itself does contain an image that does look an awful lot like a horseshoe crab.
Anyway, Paul reverted, suggesting there is no original research. I'm bringing this here without first discussing it further with Paul since he clearly has an issue with me, accusing me of stalking on a few occasions. I'm not sure one-on-one discussion would have been productive so I'm bringing the possible OR issue to the noticeboard's attention. Thanks, Rkitko ( talk) 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Upon Talk:Clockwork universe theory we had a very sophisticated discussion about whether the scientific consensus is that the world in itself would be indeterministic. Since the other party objected to quoting Interpretations of quantum mechanics#Comparison of interpretations and an article by a Nobel prizewinner in physics as evidence that there is no such scientific consensus upon this matter and has produced no reliable sources to substantiate his/her view, I ask for an objective review of this claim in respect to being original research and/or original synthesis. If there are no reliable sources which affirm with utmost certainty that the scientists have consensually agreed upon the world in itself being indeterministic, I ask for either stating that there is no scientific consensus upon this issue or to the total deletion of any claims about present-day scientific consensus in respect to this issue. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The point at issue was not whether 't Hooft was a Nobel prize winner and especially not on any of the issues in the Wikipedia page on scientific consensus which did not in any way discuss a clockwork universe, determinism, or 't Hooft but rather discussed how science evolves in general. This obfuscation is frustrating and contributes to a smoke screen of indirection about the fact, in my opinion, that 't Hooft doesn't claim anything like what the other correspondent claims he says. I put in several references to 't Hooft's papers and to other works in a similar vein to try and clarify the issue. That these references support my position is not my fault because I had nothing to do with them whatever. I do, however, recommend reading them and welcome an informed critique. Best wishes...
Why not submit the issue to 't Hooft himself or one of his gratuate students? Couldn't hurt to ask, not so? JudgementSummary ( talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. This was the subject of the famous Bohr–Einstein debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr and there is still no consensus.
In his last writing on the topic citation needed, Einstein further refined his position, making it completely clear that what really disturbed him about the quantum theory was the problem of the total renunciation of all minimal standards of realism, even at the microscopic level, that the acceptance of the completeness of the theory implied. Although the majority of experts in the field agree that Einstein was wrong, the current understanding is still not complete (see Interpretation of quantum mechanics).
Look at the references I gave you. We have good scientific evidence via Bell's theorem for indeterminism. You can't deny the evidence just because you can't seem to understand it. And your criticism "Criticism of the claim that Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism" is unscientific and factually WRONG. And you keep quoting and re-quoting the wikipedia page on scientific consensus which does not discuss t'Hooft or quantum mechanics or indeterminism or Bell as if you had such consensus. Why you want to supress the findings of a major branch of physics is beyond me. JudgementSummary ( talk) 11:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
And you seem to be requiring a scientific consensus on the subject which will NEVER happen especially given the many uninformed/uneducated opinions on ALL aspects of quantum mechanics... From your writings I see you have a strong religious requirement for your point of view but that is not a reason to supress mention of literally hundreds [maybe a thousand] of peer-reviewed references to the validity of the indeterministic findings of quantum mechanics experiments based on Bell's experiments... JudgementSummary ( talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Two offshoots of creationism—[[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]]—have been characterized as [[pseudoscience]] by the mainstream [[scientific community]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/science|title=Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations |publisher=National Center for Science Education|accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>
The key question is whether to understand the nature of this probability as epistemic or ontic. Along epistemic lines, one possibility is that there is some additional factor (i.e., a hidden mechanism) such that once we discover and understand this factor, we would be able to predict the observed behavior of the quantum stoplight with certainty (physicists call this approach a "hidden variable theory"; see, e.g., Bell 1987, 1-13, 29-39; Bohm 1952a, 1952b; Bohm and Hiley 1993; Bub 1997, 40-114, Holland 1993; see also the preceding essay in this volume by Hodgson). Or perhaps there is an interaction with the broader environment (e.g., neighboring buildings, trees) that we have not taken into account in our observations that explains how these probabilities arise (physicists call this approach decoherence or consistent histories15). Under either of these approaches, we would interpret the observed indeterminism in the behavior of stoplights as an expression of our ignorance about the actual workings. Under an ignorance interpretation, indeterminism would not be a fundamental feature of quantum stoplights, but merely epistemic in nature due to our lack of knowledge about the system. Quantum stoplights would turn to be deterministic after all.
— Robert C. Bishop in Robert Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition, OUP, 2011, p. 90
So, was Einstein wrong? In the sense that the EPR paper argued in favour of an objective reality for each quantum particle in an entangled pair independent of the other and of the measuring device, the answer must be yes. But if we take a wider view and ask instead if Einstein was wrong to hold to the realist's belief that the physics of the universe should be objective and deterministic, we must acknowledge that we cannot answer such a question. It is in the nature of theoretical science that there can be no such thing as certainty. A theory is only 'true' for as long as the majority of the scientific community maintain a consensus view that the theory is the one best able to explain the observations. And the story of quantum theory is not over yet.
— J.E. Baggott, Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy, and the Meaning of Quantum Theory, OUP, 2004, p. 203
Please read the references I gave you and read why Bell's theorem is exceptionally strong experimental evidence the world is indeterministic. It really isn't that hard to understand... and no you still misquote Schroedinger's equation... what you said is wrong... and your section on "criticism of the claim quantum mechanics is indeterministic" is not only off point, mistates what the references say, and in more than one area completely wrong.... the question seems to be why you want to write on the subject anyway... just curious...
JudgementSummary ( talk) 06:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) For reference, it is the wavefunction itself which is probabilistic/indeterministic. Schroedinger's equation, given precise initial conditions, describes with great accuracy how the wavefunction evolves in time; but this is not determinism. The consequences of a probability wave are that we cannot predict individual microscopic events and we get such things as tunneling thru energy barriers. Now is the wavefunction real or just a mathematical construct. Bell derived an equation that allows us to TEST EXPERIMENTALLY whether the wavefunction is real or not.
Quite a suprise that this is possible. Experiments all indicate the wavefunction is real, that nature is indeterministic, and that God plays dice. And like Einstein said when the Nazi's got 2000+ German physicists to sign a paper saying Relativity was nonsense... something to the effect, that "all the opinion in the world was meaningless if the theory gave correct predicitions, but that a single predictive failure would destroy it entirely" I would have thought you understood that.... but in any event you might think about it a little.... and again read the references on Bell's theorem I gave when I first wrote the section Objections due to Quantum Mechanics.... please... JudgementSummary ( talk) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully we are beyond your name calling and religious objections in Talk:Clockwork universe theory. Tgeorgescu and Tgeorgescu.
You demand a simpler explanation for Bell's Theorem than given in the references I quoted when I wrote Clockwork Universe:Objections due to Quantum Mechanics which provides well accepted experimental evidence for the indeterminism of quantum particles. I for one would like to see an error free version of your submission of the paragraph you wrote in Clockwork Universe::Criticism of the Claim Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism. You make grandiose claims for determinism, misunderstand Bell's theorm, and even quote results which provide definitive experimental proof for INdeterminism as doing exactly the opposite.
Why can't you simply read the wikipedia page on Bell's theorem and the conclusion which flatly refutes your assertions.
The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics [which for the uninitiated means hidden variables and its inherent determinism unlike quantum mechanics]
And just exactly what loopholes remain... not non-locality (over 18 km already tested).... not efficiency (over 90% and even one at 100% but not non-local).... ? see the wikipedia page on Bell's experiments....
AND THEN you say that "even if you show both of the above using reliable sources, it still amounts to a case of WP:SYNTH, since you are drawing your own conclusion rather that letting reliable sources speak".... Even if I reference/quote RELIABLE SOURCES, that is not good enough for you??? Really??? Without further comment, I think I will let that rest on its own merits. Thank you.
And please remove your unfounded opinions in your section which really is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Really and thanks JudgementSummary ( talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Experimenters have repeatedly stated that loophole-free tests can be expected in the near future (García-Patrón, 2004). On the other hand, some researchers point out that it is a logical possibility that quantum physics itself prevents a loophole-free test from ever being implemented (Gill, 2003, [14]; Santos, 2005, [15] ).
Another quote from Wikipedia: Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In 1964, [[John Stewart Bell|John Bell]] showed through [[Bell's theorem|his famous theorem]] that if local hidden variables exist, certain experiments could be performed where the result would satisfy a [[Bell's theorem|Bell inequality]]. If, on the other hand, [[quantum entanglement]] is correct the Bell inequality would be violated. Another [[no-go theorem]] concerning hidden variable theories is the [[Kochen-Specker theorem]]. Physicists such as [[Alain Aspect]] and Paul Kwiat have performed [[Bell test experiments|experiments]] that have found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations<ref>Kwiat, P. G., ''et al.'' (1999) [http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003 Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons], ''Physical Review A'' '''60''', R773-R776</ref> (excellent scientific certainty). This rules out local hidden variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones (which would refute [[quantum entanglement]]). Theoretically, there could be [[Bell test loopholes|experimental problems]] that affect the validity of the experimental findings. [[Gerard 't Hooft]] has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the [[superdeterminism]] loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models.<ref>G 't Hooft, ''The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701097]; ''Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408]</ref>
I've read the Clockwork universe theory article and was struck by vast amounts of religious material included. Only the first paragraph deals with the theory, the rest of the article is rubbish. Serious, God created the Big Bang, you can get your head cut off saying that in some countries. Whatever you two are fighting over, it looks like it's about who can destroy the article the quickest.
You two need to work cooperatively, or move on to other (and separate) articles. More important, you two need to move your fight to another site, these web pages here at Wikipedia are for discussions to improve articles. This is NOT a debate club. - Watchwolf49z ( talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This hasn't stopped. User Talk:JudgementSummary is writing an WP:OR essay in this article under the guise of Considerations. I've tried explaining that's his work is OR, and at best WP:SYN, but he hasn't desisted. In his "sourced" contributions, zero sources even mention the Clockwork universe theory. In every paragraph, he develops arguments about clockwork universe theory not found in any of the sourced material. Taken together, his contributions make the article a WP:COATRACK for his personal views on philosophy and life in general. I've tried explaining, but he persists. — Wing gundam ( talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
One difficulty is that Clockwork Universe isn't really a "theory" per se but rather a paradigm that was based largely on Newton's laws/gravity which unified the heavens and earth. So issues related to mathematical predictability of physical systems and especially on new insights into Newtonian mechanics are relevant.... The book referenced clockwork universe returns time and again to these multiple themes all interwoven into the paradigm.... hope this helps clarify the issue... thanks.... JudgementSummary ( talk) 09:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Not to mention the fact that the clockwork universe was used by various religious groups to support various philosophical stands... so traditional religions and new ones like Deism are also tightly interwoven. What is not relevant is a discussion of watches/clocks or celestial mechanics... or even philosophical issues not directly related to mathematical predictability of mechanical systems JudgementSummary ( talk)
I've taken a look at the Wikipedia article on Civil Rights Movement Leader, Bayard Rustin, and what I've found is that a large chunk of the content is not sourced. For the sourced material, it does not constitute as a reliable but yet mainstream source of which some of the content, particularly relating to homosexuality, is rather scandalous. I am creating this notification in hope to get a person to take a look at it; I don't want to be deleting an entire article with information unless it's by consensus. Publius Valerius Poplicola ( talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the author, Amin Shokrollahi, of some mathematical work that is available over the internet, is aggressively attempting to put his article and links to it into Wikipedia using sock puppetry. At this point, I do not want to get into an edit war with this person, so I would like to turn this issue over to more experienced editors to decide what to do. Please see the edit history of List of matrices and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shokrollahi digraph. — Anita5192 ( talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There's an article that has some uncited statements that I find troublesome.
An example of a uncited conditional statement: Albeit that these early 'native' Irish were Catholic upon arrival, their descendants today, [are] predominantly Protestant as it would have been practically impossible to retain their Catholicity in such a hostile environment.
An example of an uncited, non sequitur: Many Americans descended from the early Irish retain their surnames through the male line. Thus traditional Irish-Celtic surnames are common throughout America.
Am I correct in thinking that these examples violate Wikipedia:No original research by intimating conclusions that are not supported within that section of the article? If not, why not? I'm not questioning the truthfulness of the statements as I just don't know about Irish immigrants and Catholicism in North America during the colonial / Federal eras, the subject of that section of the article. The missing verb is another, more obvious, matter that even I can identify. Thanks for your input in helping me understand this concept of original research, Wordreader ( talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Editors of the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States are debating a question of dog breed identification. The case in point is a fatal dog attack that occurred on April 20, 2012, which The Post and Courier, a newspaper published in Charleston, South Carolina, reported as follows: [ [17]]:
In the context of the report, "the authorities" included the County Sheriff and animal control officers. The report included photographs of the dog that killed the victim.
The article identified the dog's breed as golden retriever- Labrador retriever mix, but two Wikipedia editors, User:Chrisrus and User:Mantion, discussed the photographs in the article and decided the authorities were incorrect based on a review photographs of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers and changed the identification. This has led to a couple of edit reversions follwed by a rather lengthy discussion at Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Clear Case of misIdentification. about whether to keep the identification from the original citation or leave the identification as determined by the Wikipedia editors.
Question: Is changing the breed identification justified by the editor's arguments, or is the change supported only by WP:OR? Astro$01 ( talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There is also a discussion on this matter on Jimbo Wales talk page, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Verifiability_vs._Truth. What should we do when someone comes to us and points out an error in the sources? Is there any way to fix it without violating WP:OR? Chrisrus ( talk) 06:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
--
Amadscientist (
talk)
10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be a textbook example of what WP:NOR forbids. The identification just isn't certain enough to invoke an exception, it is just an editor's opinion based on a tiny photograph. Zero talk 11:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Please look at the dog you will see if you Google Images "Aiden McGrew", and then also Google pictures of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever images you trust, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nova_Scotia_Duck_Tolling_Retriever.
Please view videos like this one of the dog in question, http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP4dGgl516Qf7vp0P, vs. this Best of Breed competition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4YAdmUQK
And also Google up "Golden/Labrador Retriever mix" images and have a look at a bunch of them for comparison, and some videos such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNyCB-ts8I.
If you do this, and combine it with the knowledge that, while the ability to recognize breeds is not all that hard to come by, the ability to recognize a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever is quite rare, then you will like me agree with the author of the edit, User:Mantion, who called it "A clear case of misidentification" and like me want to get it right.
I am trying to find a way to use images to cite it to satisfy likely challenges, but don't know how to cite an image. I am thinking about offering Astro and the WP:OR patrol a compromise that might say "Breed: Reportedly a Golden/Labrador Retriever Mix, but apparently a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (cite images of the dog, cite images of NSDTR). I'm open to other ideas. Chrisrus ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
authorities said
"What is the relevant weighting between the photo-interpretive skills of J. Random Wikipedian and edit-checked reporting where the reporters interviewed law enforcement authorities who
- Physically interacted with the dog and
- Questioned the dog's owners?"
Having looked at the picture of the dog and various golden/lab mix pictures, I really don't see what the basis is here for dissenting with the statement from the paper. The variance of such pictures is extensive, and I see plenty that I would characterize as close enough; also, it's pretty questionable that someone who had a fairly rare breed of dog wouldn't know it. It's one thing to contest an obvious mistake (say, if the dog looked like a bulldog or a borzoi), but in this case we're looking at some fine distinctions that I don't know that most expert dog breeder would accept as definitive. I see from the original assertions a certainty about size that is unjustified: springers are only supposed to range up to 50 lbs, but when I was a kid we had one that weighted 70, and down the street from us there was a golden that weighed 108. I see no indication that either of the two objectors have expert qualifications. It's time to close this down and report what the sources report; the second-guessing, from what I can see, has no strong authority behind it. Mangoe ( talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcome on the 2nd para of the lede section, Culture of India.
The user Dravidianhero has injected into the lede, "why" and how many such cultural variations exist. The sources he has cited, do not support the sweeping conclusions such as "evolved mainly..." and "largely independent of foreign...". The cited sources additionally do not support the claim in the lede's 2nd para of "two major subcultural variations".
I would appreciate if the community members can check the sources in the 2nd para of the lede, and advise if the following contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India [2] Why these variations "mainly evolved" [3] Whether the culture of South India developed largely independent of foreign influences
A related talk page thread is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Culture_of_India#OR:_subcultural_variations_evolved_mainly_by_contact_with_Muslim_powers
Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy: Original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented.
The original research idea/positions advanced by Dravidianhero, and not directly or equivalently supported by the cited sources: [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India; [2] These variations "mainly evolved" by contact with Muslims; [3] The culture of South India developed "largely independent of foreign influences." Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
To avoid copy vio, you simply write in your own words the ideas/positions the authors make: you should neither cut and paste, nor should you create novel theories the authors do not make. Nowhere do the cited sources advance or even vaguely suggest your three specific ideas/positions above. Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have already explained OR issue above. Please invite an admin. Wiki policy states: Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. I have asked you to identify where, on which pages, the three sources advance the three specific positions/ideas above. You have failed to provide the evidence. Those authors do not advance any of three claims you have added. Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 16:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked for sources to 1) verify that the category which this template covers is a well-defined category in religious studies, and 2) where sources can be found to support the inclusion of specific writers in the category. See Template talk:Modern Dharmic writers which shows that this has been a concern pretty much since the creation of the template. Previously the article Dharmic religion was deleted and redirected following this deletion discussion and Category:Dharmic religions was deleted following this deletion discussion, primarily because no sources were brought forward to support such a description or categorization. I believe this template is based on nothing but personal preference and original research. My requests for supporting sources have been met only with argumentation, but no sources. Could I please get some help with this? Thank you. Yworo ( talk) 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Below are some examples, which you could yourself have easily found instead of arguing the whole day by googling.
*The terms Eastern and Western religion are largely synonymous with Dharmic religon and Abrahamic religion, respectively. Religions of the World by Lewis M. Hopfe
*Jainism is an ancient dharmic religion from India. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism By Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz
-- Trphierth ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The user User:Seipjere is editing some of his WP:OR at his talk page. I removed it referencing WP:OR and WP:UPNOT but he's reverted with the comment This is a contentious issue and clearly Tippy Goomba does not understand it's significance (or science). TippyGoomba ( talk) 15:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Members of the aviation task force believe that by making CGI computer graphics images of plane crashes and posting the images in the articles, it could be against the Wikipedia rules against original research. Some accident reports show diagrams of how the plane crash occurred. This may not be true for every accident. If anyone would like to weigh in, please add your comments WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for people familiar with original research to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information. Moxy ( talk) 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, I hope I'm in the right place but I have an anonymous user who is claiming that Jonestown transcripts published by Sandiago State University are not valid as research material even though all I am doing is summering the remainder of the wiki article. These tapes are very well known and the information cited is, in both cases, an almost direct quote. Originally I only provided one citation but added a second due to a user who kept reverting. Since these citations were already present in the article and since the information is explicit in both and not an interpretation I feel that these sources are entirely valid.
The page I am trying to edit is this one (I have linked to the version of the page they keep reverting so that you can see the citations in place, which were lifted from further down the article). In most cases I know I shouldn't even provide citations in the header but I thought these were contentious enough to need a little backing up.
Hadashi ( talk) 09:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Since this is a history article, sources should conform with WP:HISTRS. (I know that still has the status of an essay, but it is based on a lot of experience, especially the modus operandi over the years of WP:MILHIST.) It would be good if the article Jonestown and related ones could gradually be cleaned up so that they rely more on academic sources and less on news sources and journalistic books. The only way of complying with WP:NPOV in this series of articles is to raise the bar on sourcing. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how much of this article is OR, but it has an extrememly unbalanced use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Of the 150 sources listed I lost count at 100 that are either the website of the main author of the website. Very little of the article is sourced to secondary or third party sources in order to establish weight. Some additional eyes would be nice. Arzel ( talk) 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As a result of changes to the lead of the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, based on this portion of a WP:FA review, Arzel made a claim of WP:OR in the lead. Discussion on the subject can be found at the WP:FA review, here and the article talk page, here. I would ask editors to look at the article, and in particular the lead section, and evaluate it for WP:OR. Thanks you in advance. Casprings ( talk) 18:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
what is this i dont even. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could someone please comment on the following statement:
"If a source says a river flows from north to south it is not "synthesis" to say it flows from a high elevation to a lower one and does not "advance a new position". i.e.If Puerto Ricans are US citizens because they live in Puerto Rico it is hardly synthesis to say Puerto Rico is part of the US because we are not advancing a new position."
[Note: Congress passed a law in 1917 that made Puerto Ricans citizens. The US Supreme Court decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922 that granting citizenship to Puerto Ricans did not make Puerto Rico part of the U.S.]
TFD ( talk) 04:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
Three years ago, user Naturalistic summed up this problematic article far better than I could:
"I am not saying that there is nothing of value in this article. However, there is not much that passes Wikipedia criteria. As pointed out above under BIAS, much of it reads like promotion and proof of Pandeism and attempt to boost the concept to a significance/prominence that it does not possess outside of this Wikipedia article. Outside of this article and links created to it, Pandeism has virtually no presence in the real world. -There is not a single book on the subject. -There is not a single web domain, -There is not a single membership organization. Google scholar [1] gives only 3 results and none of them seem to be about Pandeism as such (by comparison, Pantheism gives 29,800]. Most significantly, Google Dictionary gives only five results for pandeism and ALL of them are from Wikipedia or Wiktionary: [2] This last point proves clearly the lack of notability Taken together the above points prove that Wikipedia/Wiktionary are being abused here to promote an ideology that barely existed before the Wikipedia entries."
It's disheartening to see that it still stands largely undisputed years later. Basically all historical and even modern references to the word "pandeism" are used interchangeably with pantheism. There's no such thing as pandeism as a discrete philosophy with its own intellectual tradition that can discerned separately from pantheism, or any number of other pantheistic religious doctrines. 70.238.130.173 ( talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
All the above comments in this section of the page seem very reasonable to me. This article seems to be almost entirely a rambling discussion of ideas that might or might not belong to a movement or association of people with a particular belief. There is nothing in the article that indicates whether, in the world in which we live, there actually exists such a movement or association of people. I think that, for its survival in the Wikipedia, the article needs to establish the real existence of such a movement or association of people. Without that, the article is own research or speculative chatter, and should be deleted. On the evidence so far offered here, it is without that. Conclusion: it should be deleted unless good evidence is produced here very shortly. Chjoaygame ( talk) 08:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Chjoaygame ( talk) 08:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor provided on the article's talk page these sources:
2011, Paul Bradley This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning, page 156: "On the other hand, Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it."
2011, Alan H. Dawe, The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything, page 48: "Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself)."
2010, Dr. Ronald Bish, Jesus: The Way, the Truth and the Life, page 19: "Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it."
2008, Shane T. Foster, We Are The Imagination of Ourselves, page 77: "The first is known as "Pandeism," which is a combination of pantheism and deism (a philosophical concept which states that whatever force led to the creation and/or existence of the cosmos no longer exists in any applicable or accessible form)."
Of these authors, I am personally familiar with Alan Dawe, whose book won a prestigious award for philosophical literature, and which has as its essential thesis the proposition that our Creator ("God") became our Universe to share in our experiences. He acknowledges the term Pandeism but eschews the use of any theological nomenclature for his theory so as not to have it boxed in. Notably, Bernard Haisch espouses essentially the same theory in The God Theory. Now, here's the rub. We cannot redirect Pandeism to Pantheism because Pantheism is not Deistic. The notion of a Creator actually becoming our Universe to experience through our lives is as old as time; Hinduism in some forms expresses it. Eriugena expressed it. Numerous examples are presented in the article as it stands, Deepak Chopra, Warren Sharpe, Scott Adams, and such. But in Pantheism, there simply is no Creator at all, so it doesn't fit. Now we could as one editor proposed retitle this Theory that God became the Universe -- clearly this theory exists, and is not Pantheism, nor traditional Deism -- but that title is unwieldy, and it is unnecessary if there exists a word, as there does, which sources use to denote such a theory. I suppose it could be moved to some such title and have it noted in the opening that this theory is sometimes named Pandeism, but why go to the trouble? DeistCosmos ( talk) 04:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Seeing the above evidence, I now see that the article should stand with its current title. I have taken the liberty of thinking I can "improve" the article as it stood. I have only changed the lead, mainly to shorten the sentences and make them easier to understand. I intended to leave the main meaning unchanged. Chjoaygame ( talk) 08:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
We could still us some help over here. TippyGoomba ( talk) 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
After long frustration with this article (and one editor in particular), I bodly dynamited the article on Friday. I simultaneously opened an RFC on the dynamiting and would like input from folk here into that RFC.
The article has many problems, including, at its absolute worst, straight-forward reference fraud. But the more endemic problem, in my opinion, is the kind of original research described at WP:NEOLOGISM:
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Input would be appreciated. And, regardless of anyone's opinion on the dynamiting, the participation of experienced editors in getting the article into shape would be greatly appreciated. -- RA ( talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, first let me apologize for the length of the post, and emphasize that any committed input would be immensely appreciated, as well as extremely helpful in solving a very difficult OR dispute. A long, repetitive, and heated NOR discussion over at Talk:Syrian civil war; the section in question is " Naming of the opposition fighters". The issue concerns whether the term "Free Syrian Army" refers to a singular organization, or is a vaguely-defined label referring to several organizations and factions. My position is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", engendered by the liberal and vague usage of the term in the media (as explained by sources).
There are numerous media links that use the term "Free Syrian Army" (FSA). However, none (that I've seen thus far) state explicitly that that it is a singular faction. Two sources were brought forth that deal specifically with the meaning of the term [18] [19]. They explain, quote: "the FSA label is used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support". Here are a few more excerpts:
..and so on. To "counter" the above, opposed users cite media links using the term "Free Syrian Army" in various contexts they deem inescapably support the notion the term refers to a singular organization. Then I reply that the usage of the term therein chimes completely with explanation in the sources ("a shorthand for a number of factions.."), and point out WP:STICKTOSOURCE, affirming that the media links do not " directly and explicitly" support their position - that such conclusions are OR. And so it goes on, over and over and over again.
Here's a bunch of googled media links just recently brought-up as a counter to the above-quoted sources, reportedly in support of the position that the FSA is a singular organization [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] etc.. No doubt there are dozens more. Taking into consideration the position of the previously-cited sources, is it WP:OR to claim these links contradict them in the relevant question? My position being that the quoted links do not address the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", but merely use it - and that completely in accordance with how the above sources describe their use. -- Director ( talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The term is a neologism as far as application to walls/fences/borders and one used almost entirely by the state of Israel. However, evidently in a POV attempt to make it seem politically legit (as opposed to probably against international law) some editors have included in the article everything from the Great Wall of China to a fence separating animal parks in Africa, retrospectively calling them "separation barriers". They did so without any references, or references that do not contain the phrase, or just wikilinks to articles about walls and barriers that have no references using the phrase. They also have gone to all these articles and put separation barrier in the lead description, text and/or see alsos, as well as putting the article itself in Category:Separation barriers.
Last month I announced I was going to clean it up if there was not proper referencing and asked the one objecting editor if he was going to start referencing. He did not.
So last night I was on a roll and checked every reference I had not already tagged, both in the article and in every linked article. (I also did books/news archive/scholar searches and found barely any mentions except for Israel's use. I did search specifically in middle east countries where phrase IS most likely to be used and found just one ref which added.) Thus the cleaned up version looked like this, with three ref'd sections and Uzbekistan which I didn't have energy to complete checking.
The editor above immediately reverted the whole thing back. When I asked again if he intended to reference the material, he just left an incomprehensible message. I then added more section/inline "references needed" tags, but this is absurd. (Note: There also has been massive vandalism by multiple socks of a pro-Israel individual so the article is now protected.)
I'd appreciate hearing a few NPOV comments on this in Talk:Separation_barrier#Multiple_issues_cleaning_up_now. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the best thing to do when a user may have visual evidence that a source is incorrect, but admits that there may be no source to prove his counterclaim?
I am trying to maintain quality on a Good Article in this case, and want to make sure we are not introducing OR into the article.
The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Isometric perspective on Pool of Radiance. BOZ ( talk) 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone who is, I gather, a family genealogist has added as his only edit a chunk of material to the head note of this category asserting that the commonly supposed ancestry of James Polk is incorrect. I haven't deleted this outright on the possibility that references to support the passage could be found, but obviously the passage cries out to be contested. Mangoe ( talk) 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy of not citing certain sites on the basis that they are deemed "unreliable", but its editors are free to plagiarize 100% unique and new mythbusting information from those very sites to correct Wikipedia's own errors and then justify not citing the author of that work on the grounds that he/she published it on an unreliable site. This is a licence for plagiarism. Wikiepdia has been now quite rightly outed - and shamed - and the wiki-editor has been named: here.
Can this institutionalized stealth plagiarism policy be brought to a rapid end please?
You should cite the author and their unique work - do not plagiarize their unique work as though Wikipedians discovered it with irrational, painfully ironic, self-serving policies to assist editors with their guilt neutralization in order to help Wikipedia and its volunteers justify plagiarism and vainglorious intellectual theft! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendersghost ( talk • contribs)
In a nutshell this is what is written on Mike Sutton's Best Thinking Blog about how Wikipedia has blatantly plagiarized his original work (Sutton 2013):
Wikipedia's psychopathic self-serving stealth plagiarism policy is that if unique information discovered by an author is reliable and valuable enough to plagiarize, because it is essential to correct Wikipedia's own errors, then that author and originator should not be cited if Wikipedia's rules state that the site where the author published the unique information, from which they just plagiarized the author's work, is an unreliable source of such information.
Bendersghost ( talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC).
Somebody recently radically changed the Bitcoin article from it saying it was a virtual currency to a digital commodity. This doesn't have a citation and is likely original research. -- KyleLandas ( talk) 22:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
an edit i made referring to Copernicus as the first person to note this theory was reverted. i have since supplied 2 additional sources in talk, neither of which have been accepted, nor the edit restored.
is there a better way to phrase the relationship to the theory that would not be considered OR? first noted by Copernicus [41] Darkstar1st ( talk) 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to see the point of this debate. It reads like a personal power struggle to "win" (or refuse to "lose") rather than a discussion of OR. Darkstar seems to have provided a number of sources which say that old Copperknickers has been credited as the originator of the QTM. Whether or not this is true, historically important, or relevant to this or that particular article are separate questions, but I cannot see how it is OR. Paul B ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A Fact template at Home Nations added to the assertion that the Republic of Ireland national football team “is not referred to as a Home Nation.” was removed and a thread started on the talk page. It was asserted that because the statement was negative, it did not need a citation. However, without a cited reference, who is to know whether the statement is OR or not? Noticeboard opinion would be welcomed. Daicaregos ( talk) 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi! There was a person who was removing sections of Bacliff, Texas arguing that they were factually incorrect. In the process of the discussion the person posted several statements at User_talk:WhisperToMe#Bacliff.2C_Texas and I replied to her at Talk:Bacliff,_Texas#Houston_Press_reply_.232. I would like OR noticeboard members to take a look because she is attempting to undermine the credibility of a published source that AFAIK would fit Wikipedia's definition of a Wikipedia:Reliable source by using non-published and/or non-reliable sources to challenge statements made in the article, and questioned the existence of a person quoted in an article (so far she hasn't explained why). This is the source article that is being challenged.
She has not, so far, displayed any intent to add content to the article using these methods. She is just using them to challenge a source.
Here are particular statements of interest:
Are these legitimate methods to evaluate statements in published sources that can be used by Wikipedia articles? WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this an example of "original synthesis" as provided in the examples at " Implied conclusion?
The source is an article from the U.S. conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation, "Understanding Poverty in the United States", which says, "only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description." It supports this thesis by mentioning the percentage of nominally poor people who own air conditioners, microwave ovens, vehicles, DVD or VCR players, video game systems, etc. [45]
The Wikipedia article says, "Over 80% of poor American households have air conditioning, three quarters own at least one automobile, about 40% own their homes, and the average poor American has more living space than the general population average in every European nation except Luxembourg and Denmark. Most of them have a refrigerator, stove, microwave, telephone, and television. About half have computers and less than half have internet service." ( United States#Income, Poverty, and Wealth [46]) It does not however cite the Foundation in the text or explicitly report their conclusions.
This appears to be in rebuttal to the statement that the U.S. has high relative poverty rates. While a neutral source may mention the level of amenities enjoyed by Americans, it would also mention relative levels of access to health care, education and other services, as well as general health, expected lifespan and vulnerability to crime.
TFD ( talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A dispute has arisen in regards to the wording in burden regarding the tagging or removing of content. This request for comment is to establish the specific wording for just that part of the "Burden of evidence" section of our "Verifiability" policy. Found here.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Beta-secretase_2 currently states "The physiological function and role of BACE2 in Alzheimer's disease is unknown." might need updating there is a article at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250401.php but it is poorly written, containing: "BACE2 then cuts beta-amyloid into smaller pieces, which in turn, destroys it" but then later in the article: "...by using BACE2 to block beta-amyloid destruction." leaving the reader confused (is it destroying or blocking the destruction of beta-amyloid?).
the articles source materiel may be more useful: http://www.molecularneurodegeneration.com/content/7/1/46/abstract the pdf has a section labeled: "BACE2 cleaves AB at 3 sites" however it also has a section labeled: "BACE2 does not degrade fibrillar AB" (isn't fibrillar the Alzheimer form?)
should any of this be mentioned as a footnote or "additional references" in the wiki article or is it still too original or non-peer reviewed to mention?
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there an established procedure for adjusting for inflation? For example, the article on the Bath School disaster has the following sentence (emphasis mine):
"The Red Cross also managed donations sent to pay for both the medical expenses of the survivors and the burial costs of the dead. In a few weeks, $5,284.15 (about $70,698 today) was raised through donations, including $2,500 from the Clinton County board of supervisors and $2,000 from the Michigan legislature."
There are several ways of adjusting for inflation, and they all become out of date rather quickly. It's important to provide context to monetary amounts, but what is the best way to do it? Andrew ( talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted this at the Help Desk and they suggested i bring my issues here. My post there was:
-- Found5dollar ( talk) 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I am posting this because the article on "the world's largest flower "Rafflesia is incorrect. While the article itself on Rafflesia is accurate, Rafflesia is not the worlds largest flower. Amorphophallus sp. is considered the world's largest. A picture and more detail is posted on my website http://www.facebook.com/Wi.thyme
As a general principle would we agree that a statement such as "Many/some authors now support the theory that [some novel theory proposed by an amateur historian]" can be reliably supported (and thus made verifiable) by a string of references (to represent the "many" or "some"), placed just after the "many" word in the sentence, to cites of: a set of college course notes, a literature review, a paper published by an organisation accused of being a "predatory" or fraudulent publisher and the local news section of a science club website - all of which do refer to the amateur historian's theory, directly or indirectly? MeasureIT ( talk) 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Article and relevant section: Bane in other media#The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Article edit history: Edits Relevant discussion: Talk:Bane_in_other_media
Relevant section text: "Bane was reportedly born and raised in a foreign penitentiary [13][14] known only as the Pit,[15] where he spent most of his life incarcerated as a prisoner. There, he became the friend and protector of a young girl who like him was born in the Pit. After the girl's mother was killed by the prison's crazed inmates, Bane protected her for several years until she escaped by climbing up to the surface (it is initially implied that Bane was the child who escaped, then revealed that he was the child's protector).[16]"
What's wrong with it: Synthesis, original research, misrepresentation of sourced material Source 13-14 is a small book meant for little children that came out before the movie and does not attempt a comprehensive look into the story of the film in any way (I've read some of it). It only states that character in movie was born in an unnamed prison. It states nothing about being raised in a prison or being born and raised in the Pit that appears in the movie. The article definitively states what is only cloaked in rumor in the film--that is Source [15], which is a quote from IMDb. Source [16] is a comprehensive article that is part of a series of articles written about the movie. It states that the background given the origination of said character is false and is used to cloak the identity of another character in the film's plot. In the film's story the audience is fed this legend and many flashbacks about a child that originated in a prison and that later escaped. It turns out to be another character in the film's reveal scene near the end. There's nothing stated by sources that Bane spent most of his life in the Pit.
How I've edited the article in the past: I've edited the article in the past to reflect the ambiguity (rumor) of the place of birth instead of definitely stating it. Or I've written that the "the origin story is used as misdirection" and used Source [16] to support it.
Why finding reliable sources is difficult: Most professional film reviews do not divulge spoilers or give thorough analysis of a film's plot.
Easyjusteasy ( talk) 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see the encyclopaedic purpose of this article. The problems could be resolved by merging it back into Bane and then cutting the whole thing down. Give links so that people who are interested can follow the stories up. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bechdel test is a relatively popular test for gender bias in works of fiction. A work passes the test if it features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man.
My question is: Would it be original research for Wikipedia to classify works according to whether or not they pass this test (e.g. through a category, and/or an infobox entry with a footnote explaining which passage in the work meets the test) based only on the work itself? I suspect that it would, but I'd like to hear the opinion of others. (This is an abstract question, unrelated to any particular article or dispute.)
The relevant passage from WP:NOR is:
The question therefore is whether applying the Bechdel test based on the work itself (as a primary source) is a statement of fact akin to a plot summary, or an act of interpretation. I suspect that it is the latter, because what counts as a "conversation" can be a matter of interpretation (see Bechdel test#Limitations and problems), as can the question of whether the participants or subjects of a conversation are women or men (e.g., in the case of persons of ambiguous or unknown gender, or non-human characters). This would seem to rule out any system of Bechdel-categorization of articles about works of fiction (except of course for articles that cite a reliable source that makes a statement about whether or not the work meets the test.) That's a bit regrettable because the results of such a categorization might well be interesting. Sandstein 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Applying the Bechdel test without citing a secondary source that does so is probably OR in most cases. But in the case of Jane Austen, there's no shortage of secondary sources talking about the depiction of women in her novels; this is the case with many works of literature, art, and film. So the kind of information one gets from applying the Bechdel test could be covered in many articles, just not in the infobox-y way Sandstein's question contemplates. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. It is not up to Wikipedia to "test" anything at all. Collect ( talk) 13:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right noticeboard, but I've gotten into a dispute about the breadth of information that should be present in this article. I have been arguing that we should focus on organic milk only in this article. Other editors feel we should be discussing other organic products like organic fruits and vegetables. For instance, this source is being used for discussion about organic produce and other organic products not directly linked to organic milk (see for instance this diff or this diff. Is this appropriate? Yobol ( talk) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
There have been secret camps for detainees, at Guantanamo -- the names of at least three secret camps have become known: Camp Strawberry Fields, Camp No, and Camp Platinum/Camp Seven.
The DoD continues to deny the existence of Camp No. We didn't know where either of the two other camps were, other than that they were not operated by JTF-GTMO and were not contained within the JTF-GTMO campus. But in 2009 Jason Leopold, who has published many articles on Guantanamo, published a crop of a google satellite image, showing Camp Platinum/Camp Seven. I uploaded it, supplying what I thought were valid fair use templates.
A week or so ago a {{ di-replaceable fair use}} tag was placed on the image, asserting it was a "replaceable fair use" image. Leaving out the rest of the details the original challenger and I are disagreeing over what kind of experimenting with google constitutes original research.
My position is that since the journalist who published the non-free image in question had published previous articles on Guantanamo, and is an expert on Guantanamo, their publication of the image made it verifiable, but that any previously unpublished image a wikipedia contributor cropped from google would be unreferenced, unverifiable, and a lapse from WP:OR. I think the challenger may be claiming that the experimenting the acknowledge performing with google fell under the exemption our rules barring original research have for routine calculation.
The challenger may also have been asserting that the previously published image I uploaded should be erased, then replaced. Erased, because it was not esthetically pleasing, and then replaced with a higher resolution crop done by one of us. While I agree a more esthetically pleasing crop is certainly possible, any crop one of us made would be unverifiable and thus unusable, and I believe it would be a lapse from WP:OR.
Some years ago I came across a tiny image about 80px * 80px, of an important Afghan warlord named Hazrat Ali, who was based in Torkham, Nangarhar Province, he was reported to have been corrupt, and to have been bribed by al Qaeda to let Osama bin Laden slip across the Afghan/Pakistan border. A few years later a Navy SEAL officer published a tell-all book under the pen-name Dalton Fury, about attempts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden in late 2001. He was interviewed by 60 minutes, who broadcast clips from formerly secret video recorded by the Navy SEALS. Those clips included several short segments showing "General Ali", an unreliable Afghan warlord from Torkham, Nangarhar, whose lack of cooperation allowed Osama bin Laden slip across the border. This warlord shared the same last name as Hazrat Ali, who was reported to have helped OBL slip across the border, he was also the warlord from Torkham, and he looked like Hazrat Ali. I asked for opinions as to whether I could use snapshots from the Navy SEAL video to replace the 80x80 image of Hazrat Ali with the superior quality images of General Ali, from the Navy SEAL video. The consensus was that, because my judgment that the images were of the same individual was unverifiable the images couldn't be identified as Hazrat Ali. I think the same principle should apply to the challenger's experiments with google. I think because they are unverifiable they lapse from WP:OR.
I'd appreciate third party opinions please.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 13:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
At Visual FoxPro, an IP and new editor have repeatedly added an unreferenced section to the article that appears to be original research. Could someone else take a look at it? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. Recent months have seen the UK Independence Party (UKIP) do better in opinion polls in the UK. UKIP claim to have supplanted another party, the Liberal Democrats, as the third party in British politics. There has been much editing activity around UKIP's rise and how best to reflect this. The particular OR concern here is over how to report and describe the opinion poll data. The key discussions here are at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory. There are various issues here, but the OR one is around text written by Sheffno1gunner that I and some others feel constitutes OR. Sheffno1gunner (and some others) feel it does not. (There is also a somewhat related issue around what to highlight in a table: see Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, although I'm not certain if that counts as an OR issue or not.) Some additional perspectives and thoughts on this would be very valuable to help resolve current disagreements. Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 ( talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
At Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority there is a dispute over what the actual allegations against Mr Assange is. One contention is that the court protocols can be used as sources for the allegations contained in them, while another editor's contention is that it would constitute original Research. (There is also a dispute over what the allegations actually are, and this issue is a part of that dispute) The dispute arose after a revert, and the discussion can be found here: Talk:Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Revert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.161.146 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 January 2013
I'm a little unclear over what exactly needs to be resolved. I would assume that the dispute is that different editors want to put in different versions of what the allegations are. It's important what the various sources are and why they might be giving different versions. If one of the versions is an editor's translation of a document in Swedish, then that one is right out as obvious research: we are inevitably going to prefer an outside source's translation unless it contains an error extraordinarily gross and self-evident to any Swedish reader. Thus we'll never prefer an editor's translation of a court document which is in Swedish.
Looking through the discussion, it seems to me that the " Summary to Assist the Media" published by the British judiciary constitutes a perfectly valid and accurate secondary source. It is recounting what is in the warrant put out by Swedes, and it summarizes the charges as well as justifying that summary through (presumably translated) quotations. Comparing that with the documents in Swedish is Right Out. I see no obstacle to using that summary. Mangoe ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Gospel of the Hebrews is getting WP:OR by an IP - needs help. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The following section from this article is entirely sourced with primary sources (Bible quoations), yet the supplementary statements consists of interpretations of these passages in an attempt to connect them with the article subject (freedom of thought, a term they don't mention themselves):
The obvious impediment to censoring thought is that it is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, and harder to regulate it. Many famous historical works recognize this. The Bible summarizes in Ecclesiastes 8:8: "There is no man that has power over the spirit, to retain it; neither has he power in the day of death." A similar sentiment is expressed in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he likens those who attempt to control the emotions of their neighbours to "the children in the marketplace" who try to produce dancing with a happy song and mourning with a dirge, and then express frustration at their futility in trying to do so ( Matthew 11:16). The concept is developed more specifically in the writings of Paul ("For why should my freedom [eleutheria] be judged by another's conscience [suneideseos]?" 1 Corinthians 10:29.)
I first made aware of the problem of OR July 2011, and have since taken up the subject again, however no reliable secondary sources has been cited in the section. Still User:Til Eulenspiegel reverts my attempt at removing the section in question, claiming that there are lots of sources, yet having himself failed to provide a single one. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Several editors have brought up similar concerns on the Talk page without any real discussion ensuing, so I am bringing the question here. Most of the article is well referenced, but the section about the statistical breakdown appears to be completely original research. Andrew 327 03:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Can OR experts please review the above mentioned article and help to decide whether it fully complies with the WP:OR policy.
It contains many statements which are not directly supported by a specific reliable source, but which are based on personal interpretation and extrapolation from one or two sample sources. Examples include:
Additionally, when questioned about the reliability of a self-published blog, the editor replied on the talk page: "As regards the reliability of his [Naughtin's] 2007 publication - how "reliable" was the small boy who shouted "Why isn't there emperor wearing any clothes?"
Stevengriffiths ( talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The article on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election gives the results for the four main parties in UK politics (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP). There is an additional column giving which party is in the lead. As you can see in the discussion at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, three editors ( User:Sheffno1gunner, an IP editor and User:Nick Dancer) agreed to add a column marked "3rd party lead" comparing which of the two smaller parties, LDems and UKIP, are ahead in each poll and by how much, with additional colour shading of the 3rd party leader. This is in response to UKIP's rise in the polling in recent months. Subsequently, myself and two other editors objected to this change. There has been lengthy discussion and a degree of local consensus has emerged to keep the new column.
However, I remain perturbed. This looks like original research to me and that core policy should override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so I seek further input on the matter.
Reliable sources should be our guide. I've not seen any reliable source that presents polling data like this. That said, some reliable sources do discuss the UKIP/LDem difference and who's ahead (as cited in the article). "Third party lead" as a phrase is not used (in this context) anywhere on a basic Google search, except in references to this page. No other Wikipedia article has a "3rd party lead" this. This all seems like a massive warning sign to me.
It seems to me that "3rd party lead" largely represents the interests of particular editors and while those editors may have an argument about why such a statistic is interesting, as they've laid out in Talk page discussion, it clearly constitutes OR/ WP:SYNTH. It also represents a bias in the article because it is there to draw particular attention to UKIP's rise in the polls. Talk page discussion has not engaged with the OR issue. Reliable sources do not present polling data in this way. While there is some RS interest in whether the LibDems or UKIP are ahead in the polls, it is not pronounced and it is not reported in this manner.
Some further background notes... The rise in the polls of UKIP in recent months has led to considerable discussion on Wikipedia around how best to cover the party. Sheffno1gunner, the IP editor and Nick Dancer have generally argued for more coverage of UKIP, while others have felt that some of the changes proposed would be undue. I recognise a balance is required here and am not suggesting that either side of that debate are inherently right or wrong. However, there have been concerns and discussions as to whether content on this issue has strayed into original research. We've had lengthy discussions at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory on other possible OR issues around UKIP (and I came here before about the former -- see above). In the latter example, discussion got rather heated and the IP editor expressed some fundamental disagreements with policies like WP:RS.
This very issue of how well UKIP are doing in the polls compared to the LibDems has itself been used by some of the same editors as an argument for greater coverage of UKIP, in particular in a number of discussions on what parties to include in infoboxes for forthcoming elections: see Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Addition_of_UKIP_Debate and Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Election_Box.
What to include in tabulations of opinion polls has often been fraught. Articles about other countries have tackled OR concerns before; see Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 for example. There is much that one could include in a table of poll results, so it becomes an almost artistic judgement about how much is too much. Sheffno1gunner has, for example, opposed including the Greens etc. on the polling tables for the 2014 Euro-elections on the grounds that it makes the table too busy: see Talk:European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_Polling.
My concerns about OR may be misplaced, of course. But with the discussion often getting heated and difficulty coming to agreement, it would be very helpful if we could get some more heads looking at the problem. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you. petrarchan47 t c 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Redhanker seems obsessed with proving how evil Iran is, to the extent that he ignores talk page requests that he stop engaging in WP:Soapbox on article talk pages and adding primary sourced and non-source material to articles. A perfect example is today's revert I did removing a number of such examples of his recent edits from one article. Here is a discussion on proper WP:RS pn the same article at WP:RS Noticeboard on his misuse of primary sources. (At this diff even another editor I disagree with on many articles agrees he's becoming disruptive.)
Just reviewing Special:Contributions/Redhanker, it looks like he does this on a lot of articles. User talk:Redhanker shows at least four recent AfDs (some speedy) on poorly sourced/POV articles regarding Iran he created, plus a couple deletions of categories he deleted. Like I said on the talk page, this is probably the first time I've sought to have an editor sanctioned/banned from an article for something less than being a sockpuppet or repeated 1rr/3rr. Any help someone would like to offer to explain these policies to User:Redhanker on Veterans Today talk page, his talk page, or talk page of any other article they personally find of interest welcome. Very frustrating. CarolMooreDC 20:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 is going through a peer review here. In the peer review, it was suggested that a background section was needed to provide more context to the discussion. However, one user brought up the fact that it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I would ask for your opinion on the subject. Thanks for your time. Casprings ( talk) 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for input concerning a possible original research issue in section 7.4 ("Pseudoscience") of the Waldorf education page. There are two parts of the issue. Editors of this page have approached the problem through many discussions on TALK for over two weeks and there have been several rounds of edit/undo. No consensus for how to resolve this has been established. [NOTE: The image in question may or may not be on the page currently. If you don't see it, please respond to issue #2 noted below.]
Despite ample discussion having occurred, editors of this page have reached an impasse. We would appreciate the input of fellow Wikipedians to help us resolve this issue. Thank you. Jellypear ( talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Jellypear ( talk) 13:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the entry about Zac Toa at Theories of Humor an example of Original Research? Why is this acceptable, given that a previous entry was deleted, on the grounds that it was only an unvetted thesis? Isn't Mr. Toa's brief book an "unvetted thesis"? It is surely not sufficient for a dissertation, or an academic article.
Editors deleted the entry by an established scholar in the field, who has now been invited to speak at a humor conference having Daniel C. Dennett and John Morreall as the keynote speakers. That scholar is a Professor Gontar, who, just by being admitted to that high-profile event is now "vetted" and established as a scholar. If Five Elements is not Original Research, then can the other deleted theory return? Cdg1072 ( talk) 02:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Human rights abuses in Kashmir ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Currently it says: "Human rights watch has also accused the Indian security forces of using children as spies and messengers, although the Indian government denies this allegation."
The linked source is
User:Darkness Shines is behaving unreasonably this time on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Our terse conversation can be seen here and here; it won't take long just go through the first discussion and preferably, both. He wants to include a assertion that is not supported by the source.
Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Someone has used the 1930 U.S. census as a source for the Lynn Fontanne article, interpreting it to come to a conclusion about her date of immigration and citizenship status. There is further speculation appended to the citation about her "likely" British citizenship status. This all seems like original research to me, but my deletion of it was reverted. Comments, please. -- Mesconsing ( talk) 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There is something called the argument from silence, which is a type of argument found in historical analysis. The portion of the text below, from Jesus, after the first reference about lack of physical evidence, classifies a variety of arguments as being this type. It also implies that the opening statements about physical evidence constitute an argument from silence, even though the argument doesn't apply to a lack of physical evidence. I think 1) classifying an argument type is an act of research/analysis, and should be done by sources not editors, 2) most of the sources don't classify anything as an argument from silence, 3) the very last sentence may be allowed, since it actually applies the argument to the topic, but should be attributed in the text.
There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him. [257] The argument from silence that that lack of documents mentioning Jesus indicates that Jesus did not exist goes back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[258] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[259] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[260] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[260] In general, an argument from silence can not be definitive and may be questionable, given the circumstances in which it is made.[261][262] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[263] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[264] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[99][249] Humanpublic ( talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Heterophobia has existed for some time as a redirect to Homophobia#"Heterophobia", but has recently had some content added that reads very much to me as original research/original synth. A single user has cobbled together a few isolated incidents (ie, a single faked hate crime), some unsourced statements (heterophobia started during the sexual revolution) and some less than ideal sources (a YouTube video, lifesitenews.com) into an article about "Heterophobia" that differs wildly from the sourced "Heterophobia" section of the Homophobia article. I and two other editor have reverted it back to being a redirect, but User:3abos is reverting us all, so I thought maybe there should be a few more people keeping an eye on the situation. Dawn Bard ( talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is more with the content of the article. While the referenced sources outline events which could be construed as
Heterophobia, only the blog posts seem to make that assertion. To me, making this leap constitutes
Original Research,
WP:NPOV, or at least
WP:PRIMARY. In addition, blog posts are generally unacceptable for
WP:Verifiability.
Josh3580
talk/
hist
00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
[
[12]] is definitely a blog post. I could not find anything about the "Degradation of Religious Liberty" in the article[
[13]] you referenced for that. You defined heterosexuality as people who support the traditional definition of marriage. While I support that, I'm afraid that isn't what makes me a heterosexual. Also, the first sentence in the history says that "Heterophobia began during the sexual revolution in the 1960s and takes many forms." Where does that information come from? Again, the events are documented, but not the opinions. That is the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion site.
Josh3580
talk/
hist
01:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is still paying attention to this, the content in question has now been repeatedly re-added to the homophobia article since Heterophobia was fully protected. Dawn Bard ( talk) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcomed on Prophecy of the Popes, specifically on whether the final paragraph of the lead (as of this version) contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. A related talk page thread is here.-- Trystan ( talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Can someone comment here:
Talk:Continuation_War#Original_research_in_this_article
We need more comments.
Basically, reliable sources say that an event occurred, but a user says that primary sources he looked at show no evidence of it and implies a conclusion in the article text... -
YMB29 (
talk)
00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Boys, boys! Or maybe, girls, girls! Take a WP:Wikibreak if you have to. Come back in a week. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, all. I had a few discussions recently with User:Paul venter and checked out some of his other recent contributions. Calappa calappa had an inuse tag on it, so I waited a few hours and then edited to remove several sources: one to a gallery, one to flickr, and two to videos. The sources have their own WP:RS issues, but those aside, the photo and video sources seemed to be supporting statements that are Paul's own observations derived from the photos and videos. For example, the gallery says nothing similar to "Except for the front, the carapace curves down on all sides, covering the eight ambulatory legs in a design similar to that of Horseshoe crabs" but that is the statement it is anchoring. However, the gallery itself does contain an image that does look an awful lot like a horseshoe crab.
Anyway, Paul reverted, suggesting there is no original research. I'm bringing this here without first discussing it further with Paul since he clearly has an issue with me, accusing me of stalking on a few occasions. I'm not sure one-on-one discussion would have been productive so I'm bringing the possible OR issue to the noticeboard's attention. Thanks, Rkitko ( talk) 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Upon Talk:Clockwork universe theory we had a very sophisticated discussion about whether the scientific consensus is that the world in itself would be indeterministic. Since the other party objected to quoting Interpretations of quantum mechanics#Comparison of interpretations and an article by a Nobel prizewinner in physics as evidence that there is no such scientific consensus upon this matter and has produced no reliable sources to substantiate his/her view, I ask for an objective review of this claim in respect to being original research and/or original synthesis. If there are no reliable sources which affirm with utmost certainty that the scientists have consensually agreed upon the world in itself being indeterministic, I ask for either stating that there is no scientific consensus upon this issue or to the total deletion of any claims about present-day scientific consensus in respect to this issue. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The point at issue was not whether 't Hooft was a Nobel prize winner and especially not on any of the issues in the Wikipedia page on scientific consensus which did not in any way discuss a clockwork universe, determinism, or 't Hooft but rather discussed how science evolves in general. This obfuscation is frustrating and contributes to a smoke screen of indirection about the fact, in my opinion, that 't Hooft doesn't claim anything like what the other correspondent claims he says. I put in several references to 't Hooft's papers and to other works in a similar vein to try and clarify the issue. That these references support my position is not my fault because I had nothing to do with them whatever. I do, however, recommend reading them and welcome an informed critique. Best wishes...
Why not submit the issue to 't Hooft himself or one of his gratuate students? Couldn't hurt to ask, not so? JudgementSummary ( talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. This was the subject of the famous Bohr–Einstein debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr and there is still no consensus.
In his last writing on the topic citation needed, Einstein further refined his position, making it completely clear that what really disturbed him about the quantum theory was the problem of the total renunciation of all minimal standards of realism, even at the microscopic level, that the acceptance of the completeness of the theory implied. Although the majority of experts in the field agree that Einstein was wrong, the current understanding is still not complete (see Interpretation of quantum mechanics).
Look at the references I gave you. We have good scientific evidence via Bell's theorem for indeterminism. You can't deny the evidence just because you can't seem to understand it. And your criticism "Criticism of the claim that Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism" is unscientific and factually WRONG. And you keep quoting and re-quoting the wikipedia page on scientific consensus which does not discuss t'Hooft or quantum mechanics or indeterminism or Bell as if you had such consensus. Why you want to supress the findings of a major branch of physics is beyond me. JudgementSummary ( talk) 11:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
And you seem to be requiring a scientific consensus on the subject which will NEVER happen especially given the many uninformed/uneducated opinions on ALL aspects of quantum mechanics... From your writings I see you have a strong religious requirement for your point of view but that is not a reason to supress mention of literally hundreds [maybe a thousand] of peer-reviewed references to the validity of the indeterministic findings of quantum mechanics experiments based on Bell's experiments... JudgementSummary ( talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Two offshoots of creationism—[[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]]—have been characterized as [[pseudoscience]] by the mainstream [[scientific community]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/science|title=Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations |publisher=National Center for Science Education|accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>
The key question is whether to understand the nature of this probability as epistemic or ontic. Along epistemic lines, one possibility is that there is some additional factor (i.e., a hidden mechanism) such that once we discover and understand this factor, we would be able to predict the observed behavior of the quantum stoplight with certainty (physicists call this approach a "hidden variable theory"; see, e.g., Bell 1987, 1-13, 29-39; Bohm 1952a, 1952b; Bohm and Hiley 1993; Bub 1997, 40-114, Holland 1993; see also the preceding essay in this volume by Hodgson). Or perhaps there is an interaction with the broader environment (e.g., neighboring buildings, trees) that we have not taken into account in our observations that explains how these probabilities arise (physicists call this approach decoherence or consistent histories15). Under either of these approaches, we would interpret the observed indeterminism in the behavior of stoplights as an expression of our ignorance about the actual workings. Under an ignorance interpretation, indeterminism would not be a fundamental feature of quantum stoplights, but merely epistemic in nature due to our lack of knowledge about the system. Quantum stoplights would turn to be deterministic after all.
— Robert C. Bishop in Robert Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition, OUP, 2011, p. 90
So, was Einstein wrong? In the sense that the EPR paper argued in favour of an objective reality for each quantum particle in an entangled pair independent of the other and of the measuring device, the answer must be yes. But if we take a wider view and ask instead if Einstein was wrong to hold to the realist's belief that the physics of the universe should be objective and deterministic, we must acknowledge that we cannot answer such a question. It is in the nature of theoretical science that there can be no such thing as certainty. A theory is only 'true' for as long as the majority of the scientific community maintain a consensus view that the theory is the one best able to explain the observations. And the story of quantum theory is not over yet.
— J.E. Baggott, Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy, and the Meaning of Quantum Theory, OUP, 2004, p. 203
Please read the references I gave you and read why Bell's theorem is exceptionally strong experimental evidence the world is indeterministic. It really isn't that hard to understand... and no you still misquote Schroedinger's equation... what you said is wrong... and your section on "criticism of the claim quantum mechanics is indeterministic" is not only off point, mistates what the references say, and in more than one area completely wrong.... the question seems to be why you want to write on the subject anyway... just curious...
JudgementSummary ( talk) 06:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) For reference, it is the wavefunction itself which is probabilistic/indeterministic. Schroedinger's equation, given precise initial conditions, describes with great accuracy how the wavefunction evolves in time; but this is not determinism. The consequences of a probability wave are that we cannot predict individual microscopic events and we get such things as tunneling thru energy barriers. Now is the wavefunction real or just a mathematical construct. Bell derived an equation that allows us to TEST EXPERIMENTALLY whether the wavefunction is real or not.
Quite a suprise that this is possible. Experiments all indicate the wavefunction is real, that nature is indeterministic, and that God plays dice. And like Einstein said when the Nazi's got 2000+ German physicists to sign a paper saying Relativity was nonsense... something to the effect, that "all the opinion in the world was meaningless if the theory gave correct predicitions, but that a single predictive failure would destroy it entirely" I would have thought you understood that.... but in any event you might think about it a little.... and again read the references on Bell's theorem I gave when I first wrote the section Objections due to Quantum Mechanics.... please... JudgementSummary ( talk) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully we are beyond your name calling and religious objections in Talk:Clockwork universe theory. Tgeorgescu and Tgeorgescu.
You demand a simpler explanation for Bell's Theorem than given in the references I quoted when I wrote Clockwork Universe:Objections due to Quantum Mechanics which provides well accepted experimental evidence for the indeterminism of quantum particles. I for one would like to see an error free version of your submission of the paragraph you wrote in Clockwork Universe::Criticism of the Claim Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism. You make grandiose claims for determinism, misunderstand Bell's theorm, and even quote results which provide definitive experimental proof for INdeterminism as doing exactly the opposite.
Why can't you simply read the wikipedia page on Bell's theorem and the conclusion which flatly refutes your assertions.
The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics [which for the uninitiated means hidden variables and its inherent determinism unlike quantum mechanics]
And just exactly what loopholes remain... not non-locality (over 18 km already tested).... not efficiency (over 90% and even one at 100% but not non-local).... ? see the wikipedia page on Bell's experiments....
AND THEN you say that "even if you show both of the above using reliable sources, it still amounts to a case of WP:SYNTH, since you are drawing your own conclusion rather that letting reliable sources speak".... Even if I reference/quote RELIABLE SOURCES, that is not good enough for you??? Really??? Without further comment, I think I will let that rest on its own merits. Thank you.
And please remove your unfounded opinions in your section which really is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Really and thanks JudgementSummary ( talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Experimenters have repeatedly stated that loophole-free tests can be expected in the near future (García-Patrón, 2004). On the other hand, some researchers point out that it is a logical possibility that quantum physics itself prevents a loophole-free test from ever being implemented (Gill, 2003, [14]; Santos, 2005, [15] ).
Another quote from Wikipedia: Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In 1964, [[John Stewart Bell|John Bell]] showed through [[Bell's theorem|his famous theorem]] that if local hidden variables exist, certain experiments could be performed where the result would satisfy a [[Bell's theorem|Bell inequality]]. If, on the other hand, [[quantum entanglement]] is correct the Bell inequality would be violated. Another [[no-go theorem]] concerning hidden variable theories is the [[Kochen-Specker theorem]]. Physicists such as [[Alain Aspect]] and Paul Kwiat have performed [[Bell test experiments|experiments]] that have found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations<ref>Kwiat, P. G., ''et al.'' (1999) [http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003 Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons], ''Physical Review A'' '''60''', R773-R776</ref> (excellent scientific certainty). This rules out local hidden variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones (which would refute [[quantum entanglement]]). Theoretically, there could be [[Bell test loopholes|experimental problems]] that affect the validity of the experimental findings. [[Gerard 't Hooft]] has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the [[superdeterminism]] loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models.<ref>G 't Hooft, ''The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701097]; ''Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408]</ref>
I've read the Clockwork universe theory article and was struck by vast amounts of religious material included. Only the first paragraph deals with the theory, the rest of the article is rubbish. Serious, God created the Big Bang, you can get your head cut off saying that in some countries. Whatever you two are fighting over, it looks like it's about who can destroy the article the quickest.
You two need to work cooperatively, or move on to other (and separate) articles. More important, you two need to move your fight to another site, these web pages here at Wikipedia are for discussions to improve articles. This is NOT a debate club. - Watchwolf49z ( talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This hasn't stopped. User Talk:JudgementSummary is writing an WP:OR essay in this article under the guise of Considerations. I've tried explaining that's his work is OR, and at best WP:SYN, but he hasn't desisted. In his "sourced" contributions, zero sources even mention the Clockwork universe theory. In every paragraph, he develops arguments about clockwork universe theory not found in any of the sourced material. Taken together, his contributions make the article a WP:COATRACK for his personal views on philosophy and life in general. I've tried explaining, but he persists. — Wing gundam ( talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
One difficulty is that Clockwork Universe isn't really a "theory" per se but rather a paradigm that was based largely on Newton's laws/gravity which unified the heavens and earth. So issues related to mathematical predictability of physical systems and especially on new insights into Newtonian mechanics are relevant.... The book referenced clockwork universe returns time and again to these multiple themes all interwoven into the paradigm.... hope this helps clarify the issue... thanks.... JudgementSummary ( talk) 09:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Not to mention the fact that the clockwork universe was used by various religious groups to support various philosophical stands... so traditional religions and new ones like Deism are also tightly interwoven. What is not relevant is a discussion of watches/clocks or celestial mechanics... or even philosophical issues not directly related to mathematical predictability of mechanical systems JudgementSummary ( talk)
I've taken a look at the Wikipedia article on Civil Rights Movement Leader, Bayard Rustin, and what I've found is that a large chunk of the content is not sourced. For the sourced material, it does not constitute as a reliable but yet mainstream source of which some of the content, particularly relating to homosexuality, is rather scandalous. I am creating this notification in hope to get a person to take a look at it; I don't want to be deleting an entire article with information unless it's by consensus. Publius Valerius Poplicola ( talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the author, Amin Shokrollahi, of some mathematical work that is available over the internet, is aggressively attempting to put his article and links to it into Wikipedia using sock puppetry. At this point, I do not want to get into an edit war with this person, so I would like to turn this issue over to more experienced editors to decide what to do. Please see the edit history of List of matrices and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shokrollahi digraph. — Anita5192 ( talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There's an article that has some uncited statements that I find troublesome.
An example of a uncited conditional statement: Albeit that these early 'native' Irish were Catholic upon arrival, their descendants today, [are] predominantly Protestant as it would have been practically impossible to retain their Catholicity in such a hostile environment.
An example of an uncited, non sequitur: Many Americans descended from the early Irish retain their surnames through the male line. Thus traditional Irish-Celtic surnames are common throughout America.
Am I correct in thinking that these examples violate Wikipedia:No original research by intimating conclusions that are not supported within that section of the article? If not, why not? I'm not questioning the truthfulness of the statements as I just don't know about Irish immigrants and Catholicism in North America during the colonial / Federal eras, the subject of that section of the article. The missing verb is another, more obvious, matter that even I can identify. Thanks for your input in helping me understand this concept of original research, Wordreader ( talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Editors of the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States are debating a question of dog breed identification. The case in point is a fatal dog attack that occurred on April 20, 2012, which The Post and Courier, a newspaper published in Charleston, South Carolina, reported as follows: [ [17]]:
In the context of the report, "the authorities" included the County Sheriff and animal control officers. The report included photographs of the dog that killed the victim.
The article identified the dog's breed as golden retriever- Labrador retriever mix, but two Wikipedia editors, User:Chrisrus and User:Mantion, discussed the photographs in the article and decided the authorities were incorrect based on a review photographs of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers and changed the identification. This has led to a couple of edit reversions follwed by a rather lengthy discussion at Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Clear Case of misIdentification. about whether to keep the identification from the original citation or leave the identification as determined by the Wikipedia editors.
Question: Is changing the breed identification justified by the editor's arguments, or is the change supported only by WP:OR? Astro$01 ( talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There is also a discussion on this matter on Jimbo Wales talk page, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Verifiability_vs._Truth. What should we do when someone comes to us and points out an error in the sources? Is there any way to fix it without violating WP:OR? Chrisrus ( talk) 06:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
--
Amadscientist (
talk)
10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be a textbook example of what WP:NOR forbids. The identification just isn't certain enough to invoke an exception, it is just an editor's opinion based on a tiny photograph. Zero talk 11:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Please look at the dog you will see if you Google Images "Aiden McGrew", and then also Google pictures of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever images you trust, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nova_Scotia_Duck_Tolling_Retriever.
Please view videos like this one of the dog in question, http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP4dGgl516Qf7vp0P, vs. this Best of Breed competition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4YAdmUQK
And also Google up "Golden/Labrador Retriever mix" images and have a look at a bunch of them for comparison, and some videos such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNyCB-ts8I.
If you do this, and combine it with the knowledge that, while the ability to recognize breeds is not all that hard to come by, the ability to recognize a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever is quite rare, then you will like me agree with the author of the edit, User:Mantion, who called it "A clear case of misidentification" and like me want to get it right.
I am trying to find a way to use images to cite it to satisfy likely challenges, but don't know how to cite an image. I am thinking about offering Astro and the WP:OR patrol a compromise that might say "Breed: Reportedly a Golden/Labrador Retriever Mix, but apparently a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (cite images of the dog, cite images of NSDTR). I'm open to other ideas. Chrisrus ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
authorities said
"What is the relevant weighting between the photo-interpretive skills of J. Random Wikipedian and edit-checked reporting where the reporters interviewed law enforcement authorities who
- Physically interacted with the dog and
- Questioned the dog's owners?"
Having looked at the picture of the dog and various golden/lab mix pictures, I really don't see what the basis is here for dissenting with the statement from the paper. The variance of such pictures is extensive, and I see plenty that I would characterize as close enough; also, it's pretty questionable that someone who had a fairly rare breed of dog wouldn't know it. It's one thing to contest an obvious mistake (say, if the dog looked like a bulldog or a borzoi), but in this case we're looking at some fine distinctions that I don't know that most expert dog breeder would accept as definitive. I see from the original assertions a certainty about size that is unjustified: springers are only supposed to range up to 50 lbs, but when I was a kid we had one that weighted 70, and down the street from us there was a golden that weighed 108. I see no indication that either of the two objectors have expert qualifications. It's time to close this down and report what the sources report; the second-guessing, from what I can see, has no strong authority behind it. Mangoe ( talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcome on the 2nd para of the lede section, Culture of India.
The user Dravidianhero has injected into the lede, "why" and how many such cultural variations exist. The sources he has cited, do not support the sweeping conclusions such as "evolved mainly..." and "largely independent of foreign...". The cited sources additionally do not support the claim in the lede's 2nd para of "two major subcultural variations".
I would appreciate if the community members can check the sources in the 2nd para of the lede, and advise if the following contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India [2] Why these variations "mainly evolved" [3] Whether the culture of South India developed largely independent of foreign influences
A related talk page thread is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Culture_of_India#OR:_subcultural_variations_evolved_mainly_by_contact_with_Muslim_powers
Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy: Original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented.
The original research idea/positions advanced by Dravidianhero, and not directly or equivalently supported by the cited sources: [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India; [2] These variations "mainly evolved" by contact with Muslims; [3] The culture of South India developed "largely independent of foreign influences." Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
To avoid copy vio, you simply write in your own words the ideas/positions the authors make: you should neither cut and paste, nor should you create novel theories the authors do not make. Nowhere do the cited sources advance or even vaguely suggest your three specific ideas/positions above. Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have already explained OR issue above. Please invite an admin. Wiki policy states: Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. I have asked you to identify where, on which pages, the three sources advance the three specific positions/ideas above. You have failed to provide the evidence. Those authors do not advance any of three claims you have added. Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 ( talk) 16:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked for sources to 1) verify that the category which this template covers is a well-defined category in religious studies, and 2) where sources can be found to support the inclusion of specific writers in the category. See Template talk:Modern Dharmic writers which shows that this has been a concern pretty much since the creation of the template. Previously the article Dharmic religion was deleted and redirected following this deletion discussion and Category:Dharmic religions was deleted following this deletion discussion, primarily because no sources were brought forward to support such a description or categorization. I believe this template is based on nothing but personal preference and original research. My requests for supporting sources have been met only with argumentation, but no sources. Could I please get some help with this? Thank you. Yworo ( talk) 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Below are some examples, which you could yourself have easily found instead of arguing the whole day by googling.
*The terms Eastern and Western religion are largely synonymous with Dharmic religon and Abrahamic religion, respectively. Religions of the World by Lewis M. Hopfe
*Jainism is an ancient dharmic religion from India. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism By Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz
-- Trphierth ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The user User:Seipjere is editing some of his WP:OR at his talk page. I removed it referencing WP:OR and WP:UPNOT but he's reverted with the comment This is a contentious issue and clearly Tippy Goomba does not understand it's significance (or science). TippyGoomba ( talk) 15:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Members of the aviation task force believe that by making CGI computer graphics images of plane crashes and posting the images in the articles, it could be against the Wikipedia rules against original research. Some accident reports show diagrams of how the plane crash occurred. This may not be true for every accident. If anyone would like to weigh in, please add your comments WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for people familiar with original research to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information. Moxy ( talk) 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, I hope I'm in the right place but I have an anonymous user who is claiming that Jonestown transcripts published by Sandiago State University are not valid as research material even though all I am doing is summering the remainder of the wiki article. These tapes are very well known and the information cited is, in both cases, an almost direct quote. Originally I only provided one citation but added a second due to a user who kept reverting. Since these citations were already present in the article and since the information is explicit in both and not an interpretation I feel that these sources are entirely valid.
The page I am trying to edit is this one (I have linked to the version of the page they keep reverting so that you can see the citations in place, which were lifted from further down the article). In most cases I know I shouldn't even provide citations in the header but I thought these were contentious enough to need a little backing up.
Hadashi ( talk) 09:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Since this is a history article, sources should conform with WP:HISTRS. (I know that still has the status of an essay, but it is based on a lot of experience, especially the modus operandi over the years of WP:MILHIST.) It would be good if the article Jonestown and related ones could gradually be cleaned up so that they rely more on academic sources and less on news sources and journalistic books. The only way of complying with WP:NPOV in this series of articles is to raise the bar on sourcing. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how much of this article is OR, but it has an extrememly unbalanced use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Of the 150 sources listed I lost count at 100 that are either the website of the main author of the website. Very little of the article is sourced to secondary or third party sources in order to establish weight. Some additional eyes would be nice. Arzel ( talk) 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As a result of changes to the lead of the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, based on this portion of a WP:FA review, Arzel made a claim of WP:OR in the lead. Discussion on the subject can be found at the WP:FA review, here and the article talk page, here. I would ask editors to look at the article, and in particular the lead section, and evaluate it for WP:OR. Thanks you in advance. Casprings ( talk) 18:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
what is this i dont even. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could someone please comment on the following statement:
"If a source says a river flows from north to south it is not "synthesis" to say it flows from a high elevation to a lower one and does not "advance a new position". i.e.If Puerto Ricans are US citizens because they live in Puerto Rico it is hardly synthesis to say Puerto Rico is part of the US because we are not advancing a new position."
[Note: Congress passed a law in 1917 that made Puerto Ricans citizens. The US Supreme Court decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922 that granting citizenship to Puerto Ricans did not make Puerto Rico part of the U.S.]
TFD ( talk) 04:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
Three years ago, user Naturalistic summed up this problematic article far better than I could:
"I am not saying that there is nothing of value in this article. However, there is not much that passes Wikipedia criteria. As pointed out above under BIAS, much of it reads like promotion and proof of Pandeism and attempt to boost the concept to a significance/prominence that it does not possess outside of this Wikipedia article. Outside of this article and links created to it, Pandeism has virtually no presence in the real world. -There is not a single book on the subject. -There is not a single web domain, -There is not a single membership organization. Google scholar [1] gives only 3 results and none of them seem to be about Pandeism as such (by comparison, Pantheism gives 29,800]. Most significantly, Google Dictionary gives only five results for pandeism and ALL of them are from Wikipedia or Wiktionary: [2] This last point proves clearly the lack of notability Taken together the above points prove that Wikipedia/Wiktionary are being abused here to promote an ideology that barely existed before the Wikipedia entries."
It's disheartening to see that it still stands largely undisputed years later. Basically all historical and even modern references to the word "pandeism" are used interchangeably with pantheism. There's no such thing as pandeism as a discrete philosophy with its own intellectual tradition that can discerned separately from pantheism, or any number of other pantheistic religious doctrines. 70.238.130.173 ( talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
All the above comments in this section of the page seem very reasonable to me. This article seems to be almost entirely a rambling discussion of ideas that might or might not belong to a movement or association of people with a particular belief. There is nothing in the article that indicates whether, in the world in which we live, there actually exists such a movement or association of people. I think that, for its survival in the Wikipedia, the article needs to establish the real existence of such a movement or association of people. Without that, the article is own research or speculative chatter, and should be deleted. On the evidence so far offered here, it is without that. Conclusion: it should be deleted unless good evidence is produced here very shortly. Chjoaygame ( talk) 08:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Chjoaygame ( talk) 08:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor provided on the article's talk page these sources:
2011, Paul Bradley This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning, page 156: "On the other hand, Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it."
2011, Alan H. Dawe, The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything, page 48: "Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself)."
2010, Dr. Ronald Bish, Jesus: The Way, the Truth and the Life, page 19: "Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it."
2008, Shane T. Foster, We Are The Imagination of Ourselves, page 77: "The first is known as "Pandeism," which is a combination of pantheism and deism (a philosophical concept which states that whatever force led to the creation and/or existence of the cosmos no longer exists in any applicable or accessible form)."
Of these authors, I am personally familiar with Alan Dawe, whose book won a prestigious award for philosophical literature, and which has as its essential thesis the proposition that our Creator ("God") became our Universe to share in our experiences. He acknowledges the term Pandeism but eschews the use of any theological nomenclature for his theory so as not to have it boxed in. Notably, Bernard Haisch espouses essentially the same theory in The God Theory. Now, here's the rub. We cannot redirect Pandeism to Pantheism because Pantheism is not Deistic. The notion of a Creator actually becoming our Universe to experience through our lives is as old as time; Hinduism in some forms expresses it. Eriugena expressed it. Numerous examples are presented in the article as it stands, Deepak Chopra, Warren Sharpe, Scott Adams, and such. But in Pantheism, there simply is no Creator at all, so it doesn't fit. Now we could as one editor proposed retitle this Theory that God became the Universe -- clearly this theory exists, and is not Pantheism, nor traditional Deism -- but that title is unwieldy, and it is unnecessary if there exists a word, as there does, which sources use to denote such a theory. I suppose it could be moved to some such title and have it noted in the opening that this theory is sometimes named Pandeism, but why go to the trouble? DeistCosmos ( talk) 04:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Seeing the above evidence, I now see that the article should stand with its current title. I have taken the liberty of thinking I can "improve" the article as it stood. I have only changed the lead, mainly to shorten the sentences and make them easier to understand. I intended to leave the main meaning unchanged. Chjoaygame ( talk) 08:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
We could still us some help over here. TippyGoomba ( talk) 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
After long frustration with this article (and one editor in particular), I bodly dynamited the article on Friday. I simultaneously opened an RFC on the dynamiting and would like input from folk here into that RFC.
The article has many problems, including, at its absolute worst, straight-forward reference fraud. But the more endemic problem, in my opinion, is the kind of original research described at WP:NEOLOGISM:
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Input would be appreciated. And, regardless of anyone's opinion on the dynamiting, the participation of experienced editors in getting the article into shape would be greatly appreciated. -- RA ( talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, first let me apologize for the length of the post, and emphasize that any committed input would be immensely appreciated, as well as extremely helpful in solving a very difficult OR dispute. A long, repetitive, and heated NOR discussion over at Talk:Syrian civil war; the section in question is " Naming of the opposition fighters". The issue concerns whether the term "Free Syrian Army" refers to a singular organization, or is a vaguely-defined label referring to several organizations and factions. My position is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", engendered by the liberal and vague usage of the term in the media (as explained by sources).
There are numerous media links that use the term "Free Syrian Army" (FSA). However, none (that I've seen thus far) state explicitly that that it is a singular faction. Two sources were brought forth that deal specifically with the meaning of the term [18] [19]. They explain, quote: "the FSA label is used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support". Here are a few more excerpts:
..and so on. To "counter" the above, opposed users cite media links using the term "Free Syrian Army" in various contexts they deem inescapably support the notion the term refers to a singular organization. Then I reply that the usage of the term therein chimes completely with explanation in the sources ("a shorthand for a number of factions.."), and point out WP:STICKTOSOURCE, affirming that the media links do not " directly and explicitly" support their position - that such conclusions are OR. And so it goes on, over and over and over again.
Here's a bunch of googled media links just recently brought-up as a counter to the above-quoted sources, reportedly in support of the position that the FSA is a singular organization [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] etc.. No doubt there are dozens more. Taking into consideration the position of the previously-cited sources, is it WP:OR to claim these links contradict them in the relevant question? My position being that the quoted links do not address the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", but merely use it - and that completely in accordance with how the above sources describe their use. -- Director ( talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The term is a neologism as far as application to walls/fences/borders and one used almost entirely by the state of Israel. However, evidently in a POV attempt to make it seem politically legit (as opposed to probably against international law) some editors have included in the article everything from the Great Wall of China to a fence separating animal parks in Africa, retrospectively calling them "separation barriers". They did so without any references, or references that do not contain the phrase, or just wikilinks to articles about walls and barriers that have no references using the phrase. They also have gone to all these articles and put separation barrier in the lead description, text and/or see alsos, as well as putting the article itself in Category:Separation barriers.
Last month I announced I was going to clean it up if there was not proper referencing and asked the one objecting editor if he was going to start referencing. He did not.
So last night I was on a roll and checked every reference I had not already tagged, both in the article and in every linked article. (I also did books/news archive/scholar searches and found barely any mentions except for Israel's use. I did search specifically in middle east countries where phrase IS most likely to be used and found just one ref which added.) Thus the cleaned up version looked like this, with three ref'd sections and Uzbekistan which I didn't have energy to complete checking.
The editor above immediately reverted the whole thing back. When I asked again if he intended to reference the material, he just left an incomprehensible message. I then added more section/inline "references needed" tags, but this is absurd. (Note: There also has been massive vandalism by multiple socks of a pro-Israel individual so the article is now protected.)
I'd appreciate hearing a few NPOV comments on this in Talk:Separation_barrier#Multiple_issues_cleaning_up_now. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the best thing to do when a user may have visual evidence that a source is incorrect, but admits that there may be no source to prove his counterclaim?
I am trying to maintain quality on a Good Article in this case, and want to make sure we are not introducing OR into the article.
The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Isometric perspective on Pool of Radiance. BOZ ( talk) 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone who is, I gather, a family genealogist has added as his only edit a chunk of material to the head note of this category asserting that the commonly supposed ancestry of James Polk is incorrect. I haven't deleted this outright on the possibility that references to support the passage could be found, but obviously the passage cries out to be contested. Mangoe ( talk) 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy of not citing certain sites on the basis that they are deemed "unreliable", but its editors are free to plagiarize 100% unique and new mythbusting information from those very sites to correct Wikipedia's own errors and then justify not citing the author of that work on the grounds that he/she published it on an unreliable site. This is a licence for plagiarism. Wikiepdia has been now quite rightly outed - and shamed - and the wiki-editor has been named: here.
Can this institutionalized stealth plagiarism policy be brought to a rapid end please?
You should cite the author and their unique work - do not plagiarize their unique work as though Wikipedians discovered it with irrational, painfully ironic, self-serving policies to assist editors with their guilt neutralization in order to help Wikipedia and its volunteers justify plagiarism and vainglorious intellectual theft! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendersghost ( talk • contribs)
In a nutshell this is what is written on Mike Sutton's Best Thinking Blog about how Wikipedia has blatantly plagiarized his original work (Sutton 2013):
Wikipedia's psychopathic self-serving stealth plagiarism policy is that if unique information discovered by an author is reliable and valuable enough to plagiarize, because it is essential to correct Wikipedia's own errors, then that author and originator should not be cited if Wikipedia's rules state that the site where the author published the unique information, from which they just plagiarized the author's work, is an unreliable source of such information.
Bendersghost ( talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC).
Somebody recently radically changed the Bitcoin article from it saying it was a virtual currency to a digital commodity. This doesn't have a citation and is likely original research. -- KyleLandas ( talk) 22:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
an edit i made referring to Copernicus as the first person to note this theory was reverted. i have since supplied 2 additional sources in talk, neither of which have been accepted, nor the edit restored.
is there a better way to phrase the relationship to the theory that would not be considered OR? first noted by Copernicus [41] Darkstar1st ( talk) 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to see the point of this debate. It reads like a personal power struggle to "win" (or refuse to "lose") rather than a discussion of OR. Darkstar seems to have provided a number of sources which say that old Copperknickers has been credited as the originator of the QTM. Whether or not this is true, historically important, or relevant to this or that particular article are separate questions, but I cannot see how it is OR. Paul B ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A Fact template at Home Nations added to the assertion that the Republic of Ireland national football team “is not referred to as a Home Nation.” was removed and a thread started on the talk page. It was asserted that because the statement was negative, it did not need a citation. However, without a cited reference, who is to know whether the statement is OR or not? Noticeboard opinion would be welcomed. Daicaregos ( talk) 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi! There was a person who was removing sections of Bacliff, Texas arguing that they were factually incorrect. In the process of the discussion the person posted several statements at User_talk:WhisperToMe#Bacliff.2C_Texas and I replied to her at Talk:Bacliff,_Texas#Houston_Press_reply_.232. I would like OR noticeboard members to take a look because she is attempting to undermine the credibility of a published source that AFAIK would fit Wikipedia's definition of a Wikipedia:Reliable source by using non-published and/or non-reliable sources to challenge statements made in the article, and questioned the existence of a person quoted in an article (so far she hasn't explained why). This is the source article that is being challenged.
She has not, so far, displayed any intent to add content to the article using these methods. She is just using them to challenge a source.
Here are particular statements of interest:
Are these legitimate methods to evaluate statements in published sources that can be used by Wikipedia articles? WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this an example of "original synthesis" as provided in the examples at " Implied conclusion?
The source is an article from the U.S. conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation, "Understanding Poverty in the United States", which says, "only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description." It supports this thesis by mentioning the percentage of nominally poor people who own air conditioners, microwave ovens, vehicles, DVD or VCR players, video game systems, etc. [45]
The Wikipedia article says, "Over 80% of poor American households have air conditioning, three quarters own at least one automobile, about 40% own their homes, and the average poor American has more living space than the general population average in every European nation except Luxembourg and Denmark. Most of them have a refrigerator, stove, microwave, telephone, and television. About half have computers and less than half have internet service." ( United States#Income, Poverty, and Wealth [46]) It does not however cite the Foundation in the text or explicitly report their conclusions.
This appears to be in rebuttal to the statement that the U.S. has high relative poverty rates. While a neutral source may mention the level of amenities enjoyed by Americans, it would also mention relative levels of access to health care, education and other services, as well as general health, expected lifespan and vulnerability to crime.
TFD ( talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)