This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The Simpson's episode Bart's Comet has several real astronomy references. For example, the numbers that Skinner and Bart read out at the telescope are real astronomical coordinates. Does looking up the coordinates on a star chart and describing their locations on the sky in the article count as original research? If so, can I get around this by referencing a star chart? TomLuTon ( talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
At Shepherds Flat Wind Farm we have the situation where a figure of 228 MW, and now 230 MW, has been calculated as the average power output of a wind farm not yet built. See Talk page for discussion. When does a calculation become OR? Johnfos ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
We've got a question at WP:ELN#ELNO_.239 that's not properly an External links question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?
The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good (secondary?) source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a handful of (important?) papers. The aspect involving NOR is whether these papers should be called out in the journal's article at all, since nobody seems to have written anything like "Journal X is famous for publishing these papers". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This came to my attention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#All Day (album) full of original research. All Day (album) has a "track listing" that is admitted OR. The listing is constructed from a set of lengthy pieces of music containing a number of songs and has been created by some WP editors. It also appears that Secret Diary, Unstoppable (Girl Talk album), Night Ripper and Feed the Animals have the same problem.
I removed the OR from All Day but is has been reinstated with the rational of WP:IAR and " there is no harm". More eyes on the explain why WP is not a place for original research would be great -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've been mulling on this. And on reflection Wikipedia is not even really the place for this information - that is what sites such as Whosampled exist for. So, actually I re-support removing these and providing Whosampled (and similar) lists as external links. Regardless of what sourcing has been provided OR is going on in the articles, and that is not appropriate -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
RFC started. Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Family Research Council has been a hotbed of contentious editing ever since the SPLC designated it a "hate group" last month. While the article has a number of POV issues, I believe there is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH first introduced here: FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as the result of a political attack by a "liberal organization" and "the left's smear campaign of conservatives", [1] but reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles [2] despite scientific evidence to the contrary. [3]
I take no issue with the first clause in the compound sentence, but the second clause, ([Perkins] reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles despite scientific evidence to the contrary.) is a synthesis of two cited primary sources: the MSNBC interview of Perkins and an APA study on sexual orientation. Without a reliable, secondary source, this statement cannot be taken as anything other than synthesis. At least one editor and one administrator apparently disagree with me. I'd appreciate additional feedback from this board. Uncle Dick ( talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is really in bad condition. "Cold Start" due to the latest wikileaks is all over in the news. So I think is relevant but the majority of it was written by an unregistered user: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cold_Start_%28military_doctrine%29&action=historysubmit&diff=335282532&oldid=319488768 I removed some totally irrelevant content, but I'm not familiar with the subject.-- Dia^ ( talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a walled garden maintained by an alumn, who insists on listing hundreds of people without articles whom I suspect of being non-notable. Can I get some help here? -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Some sources have been challenged as primary and not secondary. I think the following books are secondary, not primary. I'm not planning to use any of them in a study of its author personally, its scholarly method, its literary style, or the book itself apart from its content. Rather, I plan to use them for their content. Please tell me whether you consider any of them primary rather than secondary.
You may not have the books handy, so you may need to judge them contingently, and that's fine. I've borrowed them from libraries and will be returning them soon, so, if you want to know more, please ask soon, while I still have them. It can take months to get them again.
None of them are in the noticeboard archives, when searched by short title, author name by given name first, or author name by family name first.
Does anyone consider any of the books primary when used for their content? None of the other issues raised are being presented here, as they're being addressed in other ways.
Thank you very much. Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
They should all be considered primary in writing an overview of ideas about matriarchy, female superiority etc. The "new draft" you linked to is essay-like and original synthesis. An example of a suitable source to write about feminist ideas would be Sarah Gamble, The Routledge Companion to Feminism and Post-Feminism. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of wikipolicy is that primary documents must be used with care, but they are not prohibited.
It is my understanding that summarizing a primary document is not automatically a lapse from our policy on original research.
This edit removed a passage from an article on an Afghanistan political group. As I wrote on the talk page, I think the meaning of the testimony I paraphrased was clear enough that it did not require any original research to draft that paraphrase.
I'd be grateful for others' opinions, was my paaraphrase really a lapse from OR? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The whole section of the December incident on KZZQ is original research. I could not find any other sources other than message boards and Facebook that say that the event happened, and is relevant or real to begin with. Many others say the event was a stunt, but regardless, there are very few reliable sources for that part. Perhaps just a small message concerning a format flip would suffice, but the section smells of OR. -- milonica ( talk) 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some eyes on this please? The metrodome collapsed this morning and there is a good deal of awful quality editing, especially a lot of OR, occurring on the article. Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Eyes; it's all good now though. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There was a prior discussion somewhat related to this (link: [8]).
The situation is this: Currently, there is a dispute going on in regards to the title of an article. The article's title is currently under consideration for a change, based on that it breaks the rules of WP:NPOV. However, the people supporting the current title use the claim that it adjusts to WP:TITLE because the word is the "most used word" or most common word in the language. They use as a source for this claim the number of hits in Google search comparing both title candidates. Based on the google hit results (in which the current title gets more "hits") they claim the current title is the "most used" and therefore adjusts to WP:TITLE despite it breaks WP:NPOV.
Hopefully the above situation didn't confuse you, but that's just one part of the bigger problem. Back to the point, I challenge this claim by the users as original research, because:
I would like to know if you agree that using google hits to determine popularity ("most used") is original research. If not, could you please explain why? If yes, also please provide your input as it might help solve the situation.Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Jewish control of the media was changed to Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) and without any prior discussion. This happened after I pointed out that WP:RS use myth and conspiracy theory much more frequently than canard. I also pointed that WP:RS definitions show canard means lie and myth/conspiracy theory are not necessarily a lie, but misintepretation, misconception, or whatever, as even the WP:RS sometimes make clear. (FYI. I have opined that Accusation of Jewish control of media probably would be most NPOV title allowing all accusations to be described properly, without giving impression the article was about Jewish control of the media.)
WP:OR's first paragraph clearly applies, i.e.: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources. But despite requests, none has come up with WP:RS that say canard/lie equals myth/conspiracy theory.
Worse, this WP:OR/Synthesis has major BLP implications since it is supporting the article's current modus operandi of labeling propagators of canards (i.e., liars and fabricators) people who WP:RS do not describe as such. I've just been waiting for article title to be settled before do so. Maybe I should not wait.
Please feel free to add comments to this WP:Original Research reminder section. Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Re Lead sentence: Jewish control of the media is an antisemitic myth or canard alleging that Jews utilize control of mass media to promote Jewish interests. It is often regarded as a conspiracy theory and linked to the antisemitic myth of Jewish control of global politics and financial systems.[1][2][3][4]
On this articles talk page I have a whole section criticizing the first sentence on
Text-source_integrity grounds, quoting that policy: When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text-source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment, but adding text without placing its source clearly can lead to allegations of
original research, violations of the
sourcing policy, and even
plagiarism.
But twice they reverted my attempts to put references in following word or concept where they belong, instead sticking them all at the end, giving the false impression that all the sources have this exact view point when in fact each may have only portions of it, and in the references three of the four sources only define a word used. This seems to me to be editors trying to promote their own synthesized view without proper sourcing. I don't know if I'm nitpicking at this point or it's worth another chance to get it right and be reverted. Is it worth even putting the original research tag on?
I guess the solution is to just rewrite the sentence/definition to include more concepts (as they've tried to do without proper sourcing), but do it according to those and other WP:RS sources with properly placed cites and then if they revert it to a more WP:OR version really throw a fit. Soon. Thoughts?
CarolMooreDC (
talk) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
A recent 2009 study was deleted from Chiropractic#Treatment techniques. See Talk:Chiropractic#New Section: Causes of Adverse Effects from Chiropractic Techniques for the discussion.
This specific proposal is to restore the text. "A 2009 study to assess the prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries sustained by chiropractic students receiving and/or administering manipulation while attending a chiropractic college found the prevalence of injuries sustained was 31%, 44% of which was exacerbations of preexisting injuries. Injuries from receiving manipulation were most prevalent in the neck/shoulder at 65%, while hand/wrist injuries were most common when administering manipulations at 45%. Diversified, Gonstead, and upper cervical manipulations methods were considered to be the most related to injuries. [4]" [12]
An editor claims it is bordering on OR to use this decent study. The text is sourced in accodance with V policy. There are no other sources avaliable like this one. The source is too new for a review of the study. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem isn't
WP:OR, and so this doesn't belong on this noticeboard. The problem is with weight and medrs and consensus. Please don't mischaracterize other editor's positions, that is tendentious editing[Edit:another editor did in fact say it bordered on OR].
DigitalC (
talk) 02:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Editor Gekritzl is trying to add content to the lead that states that Seung-Hui Cho's mother sought an exorcism for him prior to the massacre. He has done so in the following revisions: [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17].
His sources are: an AP report about Cho's mom seeking help from the church and statements from the ministers, a Washington Post article about a Korean girl who may have died during an exorcism, a The Seattle Times article about the same case of the dead Korean teenage girl, and a Washington Post report about mental illness in immigrants. None of this sources specifically state that Cho's mother or the ministers were looking for an exorcism for Cho. The AP source (which is the principal one to justify the content) states that his mother looked for "help" in "several congregations", that a minister said that he thought Cho need "spiritual power" to help him, and that it was a "demonic power that was afflicting him". The Washington Post article repeats almost verbatim the statements of the AP source, and also states that "Exorcisms have a long history in Korean theology". The Seattle Post article is irrelevant to the subject of the article because it doesn't mention anything about Cho or the Virginia Tech Massacre; the article is about the death of a Korean teenage girl during a religious ritual similar to exorcism. The fourth source, the Washington Post report, is about the difficulties that immigrants, specially Koreans, find in procuring mental health attention and the alternatives they use instead. The report does mention Cho as a case of the problematic it discusses, and also repeats the assertions previously mentioned in the AP source. In another section of the same report, it is stated that "a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said that some [Korean] clergy may prescribe exorcism". Those are the facts and the statements that the given sources provide. As clear as it may be that the minister sought by Cho's mother may have been considering an exorcism, it is the synthesis of the sources (specifically the AP note and the Washington Post sources) that is used to infer that. Cho's mother looked for help from ministers who where very likely to prescribe an exorcism. Yes, that can be inferred from the sources and may not be away from the truth, but unfortunately it constitutes original research.
I'm writing in this noticeboard because the editor has been explained about this situation in his talk page, but still insists on adding the original research. Also, another editors have expressed concerns both about it being well sourced and also about it being original research. So I'm opening this thread to seek the opinion of a broader audience an to let everyone concentrate their arguments in a single point, hoping to reach consensus. Thank you all and please leave your opinions, as they will be much appreciated.-- Legion fi ( talk) 06:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but this conclusion is 100% wrong. As another WP editor pointed out: From the WP page on "No Original Research" -- Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. Seeking spiritual help to rid Cho of "demons" is the very definition of exorcism, and WP No OR encourages "your own words." The following sources disagree with you: WP:No OR, Webster's (definition of Exorcism) and the Catholic Enyclopedia (definition of Exorcism). Is using your own words "Original Research"? That's what this conclusion seems to say. Regardless of whether Dr. Harris said it or not, WEBTER'S and CE say it: attempting to get rid of demons is exorcism. Using synonyms is NOT OR. Geĸrίtzl ( talk) 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Some editors at What's My Name? (Rihanna song) are determined to cite this blog article as a source in tagging the song as part of the Ska genre. The only mention of the word ska comes in the phrase "ska-infused beats". As I have pointed out in the talk page, this is not the same thing as saying "ska song". It is just one solitary element of the song that the blogger is describing as infused with ska. Not the entire song. The blogger does not even say that the entire beat is ska otherwise the word "infused" would have been used in the phrase, let alone the entire song. To conflate "ska-infused beats" as "ska song" would be, in my view, original research. Likewise, the same group of editors are determined to cite this article as a source in tagging the song as part of the Electronica genre. The article does not even use the word electronica. Instead, it simply says that the song as an "electronic edge" (notice the absence of the "a" at the end of electronic). There are many music that uses or feature an electronic edge without falling into the electronica genre - industrial music, for instance. Or really, just about any modern pop music using synthesizers. To conflate "electronic edge" with "electronica song" is, again in my view, original research. I'm a fan of Rihanna myself but I think this is clearly a case of overzealous fans trying to credit the song as more genre-encompassing than it is. Considering how popular this #1 hit is, you would expect that there would be a lot more sources out there explicitly and directly describing the song as Ska or Electronica if it is so - without any need for any editor to misinterpret one thing for another thing. I would appreciate it if someone could help out. Thanks. -- 175.144.72.233 ( talk) 08:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Not an edit, but discussion, here. It starts out as a debate about content, but by the last few exchanges I now think this is about an editor who wishes to use WP to "publish" his own views, which as I understand it are an argument against, or correction, of two notable marxists, Louis Althusser and perry Anderson. Note: I do not think these guys' interpretations of Marxism are "the truth;" they are views of Marx and his ideas. But there is another editor who seems to think they are wrong and that he (the other editor) knows the truth and will use this article to spread it. I have tried explaining my concerns to him but ineffectively and would appreciate fresh eyes (and voices). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Here an editor is claiming that Less-lethal and non-lethal weapons are different things. Marcus Qwertyus 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I find this assertion by an expert about the way to treat WP:RS and WP:V issues startling. I'd appreciate the views of people who've dealt with experts on WP more than I have. I'll alert the editor who makes the assertion to this thread. David in DC ( talk) 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
COMMENT: There are actually two related problems. The specific one of them has to do with WP:RECENTISM, but it’s not sufficiently addressed by simply tagging articles. The problems are far worse than WP:RECENTISM suggests, because they are tied up with the fact that WP:V relies on newspapers far more than it should. Each venue of knowledge that WP covers, from the sciences to history to philosophy to aesthetics to current events, has its own standards of “reliability.” And all of the work that goes into deciding “reliability” for each of these domains takes time, which is why circumventing them by putting stuff in WP referenced to newspapers, or even by sourcing WP from “primary sources” can be a bad thing. It’s almost always a bad thing when you source from newspapers for anything other than current events, and it’s usually a bad thing when you source from primary peer-reviewed sources, unless you know what you’re doing (more on that later).
Example: we recently suffered through a spate of stories about “Arsenic eating bacteria”-- example: [18]. These were due partly to journalistic incompetence (arsenic-eating bacteria are not novel, and have been known and verified for years). The novel claim was bacteria using arsenic in their DNA and nucleotides. This was a scientific claim, but one from the primary literature which had not been verified yet, and had not yet made it to good secondary sources. So meantime WP had to struggle with it. It didn’t go well.
The only way to deal with such problems is to be much firmer in the use of news sources for non-current-events items. That would require a policy rewrite on WP:RS, which now merely notes that newspapers are not the best source for non-current events. But fails utterly to say what you do if all that is available (as above) for sourcing, is a primary source AND a news source that misquotes it. Which happens ALL the time.
The more general problem is epistemological. I note above that each field of knowledge has its own standards, and WP policy should allow each field to USE its own standards to evaluate the “reliability” (which means the likeliness of truth) for a potential “fact.” All that goes down the drain if we overuse newspapers. As for expertise, it takes an expert to tease truth out of primary sources, which is why WP prefers to quote from secondary sources (peer-reviewed academic reviews and texts). I generally think that this is a good idea, but WP:V doesn’t work until it really pushes this idea HARD. It is not the case that Wikipedia is about “verifiability, not truth.” Wikipedia IS about truth. “Likely true” is what RS means. The stuff in WP:V is only about getting your cites in, but having a cite doesn’t help if the cite isn’t to a reliable source, which means a sources that is likely a truthful one, per the standards in the field. In fact, if the cite is to something OTHER source (like the New York Times when it comes to arsenic bacteria), it can actually hurt the truth. WP:RS needs to be written to expressly say that it trumps WP:V. A verifiable source is worth nothing (in fact less than nothing) if it isn’t true. But a true statement is still valuable on WP, even if its source isn’t presently cited and referenced. In fact, most of Wikipedia consists of such statements, usually written by experts who know the secondary sources, and are donating their time to summarize their contents. Uncontroversial statements of fact that are uncited and aren’t BLP, can stay. And that is WHY they can stay. S B H arris 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Here [19] is a taste of the controversy on WP around sources on ages of people, from GRG, Rejuvenation Research, and The Guinness Book of World Records. Note that the thread ends without any real consensus. Part of the problem is that WP:V (specifically the part of WP:V that deals with RS, at WP:SOURCES), and WP:RS/IRS don’t really agree with each other. WP:V has a very general view on RS, which is actually pretty good (though the only thing that makes it “WP:V” is that it sits in the WP:V article!) It basically says that a “reliable source” is a source that experts in the field would deem reliable, and THAT depends on the field, and the context. Here is what it says:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
I’ve really got no problem with the above. However, it does NOT SAY many of the tortured things that exist at WP:RS/IRS, such as trying to denigrate primary and teriary sources, and elevate news sources:
Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable.
The above is a sentence from WP:RS/IRS that should not be allowed to stand without internal qualifiers. Even qualifiers that come later, are inadequate to fix the falseness of this statement. Mainstream news sources are not considered to be reliable by hardly anybody, and that includes other mainstream news sources. If The Washington Post prints it, does The New York Times believe it? And vice versa? Not necessarily. Often, no. Nor should they. News stories are a first draft of history even when they purport to be about current events, and at best are written under pressure and with minimal confirmation (sometimes one “independent” confirmation, and often none). If fact-checking at newspapers was as careful as they pretend, there would be none of the sorts of errors that they publish as “errata” a few days later. Many of which are pitiful, even in the NYT.
News stories should be viewed skeptically, as anybody who has ever been the target of a news article can attest. For example, recent articles about WikiLeaks make it clear that the journalists in question are not very clear on the difference between a wiki, Wikipedia, Wikia, WikiLeaks, The Wikimedia Foundation, and so on. So they write stuff that is full of mistakes. When it comes to itself, Wikipedia enjoys the luxury of simply disregarding such stories, on the basis that it is the expert on its own history, not the papers. But consider the import of that attitude. Suppose we all behaved that way? How would WP work?
Example: the “mainstream” news confusion is fixed up on WP’s article on WikiLeaks, partly by reference to an article in The Signpost [20]. But The Signpost is basically a blog about Wikipedia, since so far as I can see, WMF takes no responsibility for editing it, and not even for publishing it: “The Signpost is an independent publication which is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.” Thus, I think The Signpost in not an “RS” in matters except concerning The Signpost (I’ve asked them for clarification on their TALK page). HOWEVER, I suspect that I went about removing all citations to The Signpost for matters other than Signpost policy, I would be reverted for being contentious and for lacking common sense.
We come now to “common sense.” The Signpost is edited by WP insiders, and is likely to be reliable about arcane minutia related to the history of WP, and WP policy. Certainly more-so than any “mainstream media” when THEY write about Wikis. Right? Common sense (as outlined generally in policy in WP:SOURCES) suggests that The Signpost would be fine for these purposes. However, strictly speaking, it’s against much of the guidelines outlined at WP:RS/IRS to use it so. Thus, my point. The guidelines at WP:RS/IRS are violated all the time. And so they should be.
All this is exactly paralleled with the problems in mainstream papers about supercentenarian ages, as opposed to reports in blogs that follow gerontology, reports from the GRG, and so on. Common sense would suggest that that latter are more reliable, because they’re enthusiasts of the subject, and this is a main interest of theirs. Just as with The Signpost and WP issues. So, who are you going to trust? It basically comes down to that. The broad policy on RS, as found in WP:V ( WP:SOURCES) has it right. The commentary guidelines on it in WP:RS/IRS often strays from the path of common sense. The fact that the broadest and best statement of RS occurs in a section of the WP:V policy page, and most of the problems with RS thinking occur on the guideline WP:RS page (!), only makes all this harder.
I still think that “common sense RS” (as found in the V page summary) should trump V questions, since there’s no point in having verified cites to articles that err. Is it better to have no cite, or one to a dedicated blog, than a cite to mainstream news article that has it wrong? WP editors made their choice with The Signpost when it came to WikiLeaks. The most important thing is that the statements in Wikipedia be TRUE. Verification by using sources that experts consider reliable, are merely our method of fighting it out, when we disagree about the truth. They can’t be a primary goal, because WP:V isn’t actually the primary way that Wikipedia maintains true articles. Being watched by the eyes of informed people and experts, is how Wikipedia maintains true articles, to the extent that it does. It’s a shame this point isn’t better understood. Yes, you have to know what "raw data" or sources to cite from. There's no escaping that. S B H arris 03:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm also involved and lurking but had nothing to contribute because this discussion does not seem to be focused. Because I share both of the following styles, I think I can say David has a slightly indirect style and SB has a slightly wordy style, and these are both making it hard to find what might be real issues. SB might take up the unrelated epistemological questions, which are in fact very interesting, at WT:V. I think that David's question as stated is less likely to yield results here than elsewhere, because I don't see this board concluding with a consensus about any editors' advocacies until those POVs are actually carried out in specific article (or workgroup) edits. IMHO the solution is for these editors to interact with the developing consensus at WP:WOP by bold edits to that page, which they largely haven't done; I generally agree with IMJ above, and I believe this is also agreement with the WP:WOP procedural proposals. However, I don't want to ice-water this thread with my thoughts; it is probable that others will see in it some useful topic to continue discussion on. JJB 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOAPboxing. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Just to correct a reference above...the Gerontology Research Group does not have a Yahoogroup,it has a mail list run through the UCLA server.Robert Young has a Yahoogroup.I am on the GRG list and not on Robert's "World's Oldest People" Yahoogroup,which I consider an unnecessary duplication of a separate email list of my own.--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 ( talk) 03:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Megistias ( talk · contribs), a user who was involved in many Albanian-Greek disputes had created many maps before leaving wikipedia. His main focus was on southern Albania and the region of Macedonia(see Macedonia naming dispute and Northern Epirus) and in most of his maps he made many mistakes in order to prove the Greekness of the regions. These maps have to be corrected so a good map creator is needed to make the changes. Many of the maps also contradict each other.
(unindent)The source map for the first 3 maps of Megistias is found on p.6 of Wilkes's work [44]. He has moved the Bylliones from southwestern(Vlorë area) to central Albania and the Enchelei from the area around Lake Ohrid [45] in a much norther location [46], while the Manti also living around the lake aren't even present in his maps, instead their area is also included as Greek area.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Source | Map | Difference |
---|---|---|
*
a geographical term which the Greeks applied to a territory neighbouring their own, covers more or less the area of northern and central Albania down to the mouth of the Aous (Campridge Ancient History)
|
* the border is south of Vjose's/Aous mouth | *Almost none (perhaps we should put the border few pixels north
|
[ [50] | [ [51] | None |
I really don't understand why all this mobilization to readjust the maps and off course the title 'large-scale or' doesn't apply here. I have also to add that several other users produced similar maps that confirm Megistias' maps, like this one [File:Ancient Tribes.png]. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Please don't make or deductions, Wilkes's map exists and your own quote of says south of the river Aous. The borders of the Illyrian territory are were the Wilkes's map places them not where your or deductions place them. Btw please don't bring other irrelevant maps like the medieval movements one.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I come here to ask about this accusation of original research where SG says, "What you are writing amounts to original research,". I asked her to explain this where she wrote it but she has not. I truly with to know if I am engaging in OR or not. I believe I am not and only report exactly what the primary source states without any analysis or commentary. As an example
Mechanisms_of_schizophrenia#EEG Holinder et al Reversed temporal region asymmetries of P300 topography in left- and right-handed schizophrenic subjects "EEGs have demonstrated abnormalities in the schizophrenic brain, including nerve conduction in the temporal lobe depending on handedness of the patient." "LH and RH schizophrenics, however, showed lateralized asymmetries in temporal scalp regions: left < right P300 voltage asymmetry in RH schizophrenics and left > right P300 voltage asymmetry in LH schizophrenics. These data suggest that the schizophrenic pathology of P300 neural generators is lateralized according to handedness and provide the first evidence that LH and RH schizophrenics can be dissociated based on left-right voltage asymmetries in P300 topography."
I believe that what I wrote included no OR, no analysis and no commentary and only reported exactly what this peer-reviewed, published medical article wrote. If I am wrong then please help explain to me how and why. If I am not wrong and this is an invalid accusation by SG then I ask for her to rescind it and refrain in the future. Basket of Puppies 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
First, BoP, forum shopping and spreading this dispute across three different forums isn't helpful (see your inquiry at RS:N in addition to no support for your edits at Talk:Schizophrenia).
Second, see your edit warring to insert your particular views, based on outdated primary sources, here:
in addition to:
Third, see responses to that edit warring here and in the next section.
Fourth, you aren't helping your case by insulting fellow editors (several of whom happen to be qualified professionals in this area), removing talk page discussions with edit summaries of LOL; [55] [56] [57] [58] and failing to engage other editors on article talk. [59]
The first step in WP:DR is to discuss with fellow editors, none of whom agree with you, rather than dragging the dispute all over Wiki. This is looking more and more like tendentious behavior to insert a particular POV, and personalizing of a content dispute [60] after you improperly initiated a FAR when there was no support whatsoever for your edits. I recommend that you stop shopping forums to include your text, and start engaging other editors on talk; the work you need to do if you want to insert this text has already been spelled out several times in several places. Finding secondary sources to support your proposed text will be a better use of everyone's time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there appear to be WP:OR problems, specifically WP:PSTS, combined with WP:NPOV problems. Primary sources should be used with care, and are best when used to provide additional, important details not provided in secondary sources. It's unclear where this is being discussed, as BoP suggests (19:45, 28 December 2010). It also appears that BoF is improperly using this noticeboard by focusing on the accusation by SandyGeorgia, rather than on whether or not WP:OR applies, and if so how. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Removal_of_failed_verification_tag, there is a deadlocked discussion regarding this source: 15–16 with further information here: 8 . Resident editors seem to believe that "Reviews have also found that populations that are believed to be especially high consumers of aspartame such as children and diabetics are below the ADI for safe consumption, and this is suggested to be true even under very conservative worst-case scenario calculations of consumption", specific text under contention bolded, is a valid paraphrasing of the sources. The talk page discussion has some detail on the arguments in play. u n☯ mi 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"High intake scenarios performed by Arcella et al. (2004), Illback et al. (2003), the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) Report (2007), and van Rooij-van den Bos et al. (2004) suggested that chronic intakes will not reach the ADI."
"The SCF concluded in 2002 that high-level consumers, both adults and children, were unlikely to exceed the ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day for aspartame. Consumption by subgroups such as diabetics who are likely to be high consumers of foods containing aspartame were also well below the ADI. The data on aspartame exposure since 2001 confirm the SCF conclusions of 2002 and the National Experts conclude that there are no indications that a population group could exceed the ADI for aspartame."
Yobol ( talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)"Overall, the studies have very similar conclusions. Although the intake of aspartame has increased in recent years, the change is not dramatic, remaining well below the ADI, and worst-case scenario predictions suggest that chronic intakes will not reach the ADI."
Hi, Per WP:WEASEL I have tried tagging an article that is replete with these words with {{ quantify}} and {{ which?}} but being met with some resistance against the tagging. I asked the resident editors to either in-text attribute the vague wording to a source or give actual numbers, as they gave indication that they knew the number, the ordinal 3 was given in one case. Am I correct that we should avoid using vague wording when employing wikipedias voice or? u n☯ mi 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is compromise wording here that from a language standpoint is more accurate. Instead of saying Multiple reviews ... when in fact you know of and cite 3 reviews, one should write At least 3 reviews .... "Multiple" is vague while "3" may be precise but may actually be wrong as there could be more than 3, with reviews that exist but are not cited. By replacing "Multiple" with "at least X" removes the vagueness but doesn't lock into precision that may not be precise in reality. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This source [61] is an Italian freesheet from Giovinazzo, the hometown of one of the defendants in the Meredith Kercher case.
It contains this text (on page 9) discussing the arrival time of the police at the scene of the crime:
In English:
This seems to be potentially usable in support of various statements, but the mention of 12:58 appears to be speculation on the part of the publication. The source does not say that this is established fact or that it reflects the opinion of the defendant, defence lawyers or anyone else.
However, a number of editors believe it could be used to support one of the following:
Do either of these interpretations of the source appear plausible? -- FormerIP ( talk) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The next two lines of the source explains that the arrival of the Carabinieri was also captured by the camera and cross checked with telephone records:
Google translation to English:
As it says "telephone" instead of "cell phone", the text should be changed to:
-- Footwarrior ( talk) 02:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Now I must say several things:
Question to address NOR issue: Physical Geologic Driver viewable at Morbas . Please reference the chart...
The time differences CALC between ICS periods produce a commutative set having a summation of 417Ma. The commutative set has an alternating +/-3.5Ma time interval at the Oligene, O-S and P-Tr dates. This is a mathematical expression of the (Kepler) Conic Ellipse apsis.
Do we have a mathematical expression from an associated single datum base that qualifies under wiki CALC rules? Human interpolation is excluded from number base association, and cannot be OR ?
Morbas ( talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 17:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been working polishing/expanding USS Niagara (1813) for some time and have come across a pretty big block on making the article comprehensive. One of qualites of the ship is that its been "rebuilt" four times and is often the subject of controversy (see its talk page) relating to its essentially being a contemporary equivalent of the Ship of Theseus. However, there are no verifible sources that mention the Niagara as a Ship of Theseus. Would it be original research to conclude that it is indeed a Ship of Theseus based solely on the fact that little of ship's original material remain (that being the definition of a Ship of Theseus)? If it is, is there a way to still mention its ambiguity that doesn't became original research? (by not including it before, I succeeeded in pissing an IP off who was thinking that the people who own/operate the ship [no way affiliated, by the way] were complicit in writing the article) Niagara Don't give up the ship 04:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed wikilinks on two of the character names which link to specific interpretations of those words:
<NOWIKI> He works with [[Internationalism (politics)|International]] 4-8818 and [[Trade union|Union]] 5-3992. </NOWIKI>
Wouldn't such interpretations of these words be considered original research? I have not read the book but couldn't the author have been referring to some other concept of the words?
I am not trying to disparage the specific editor that did this -- I do not even know who it is, I have not looked at the edit history -- as I am sure it was a good faith effort to lend context. But isn't there a danger that allowing interpreted context via wikilinked word associations is a backdoor to violate WP:NOR ? Low Sea ( talk) 04:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Original_research/linkvios by 174.28.41.201
IP user 174.28.41.201 has been contributing original research to Jeopardy! theme music, which currently has passages that are OR outlined at the talk page Talk:Jeopardy! theme music#Original research. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the videos section of the Owen Honors article a user keeps inserting career details of Honors's superior officers without a single reliable source making the connection as to the importance of that information. I reverted twice per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. The latest reversion is here. Please advise. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the most recent comments at Talk:Ebionites#Recent removal of recently added template regarding recent changes to the article which may violate WP:PEACOCK, and allegedly, possibly other policies and guidelines as well. I also believe that there is some significant disagreement on the talk page of the article about how strongly enforced policies and guidelines should be on this content. Any input regarding how often guidelines can and should be ignored would also be welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been a long-running debate over the sales figures for the Mega Drive, affecting that article as well as History of video game consoles (fourth generation), Console wars, and List of best-selling game consoles. On one side of the debate, we have a number of sources (many reliable, some not) addressing the question:
On the other side of the debate, we have:
Much past discussion is available at Talk:Mega Drive/Archive 10 and Talk:Mega Drive/Archive 12#Total Mega Drive Sales. I've personally put off pursuing this, but I'm starting to feel its time this gets settled as it keeps coming up. So I ask for input from people familiar with WP:OR whether the 40 million figure is "allowed" by WP:CALC or whether the sources are too disparate, and if it is allowed whether the many reliable sources should be given equal weight or completely ignored in favor of this calculation. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we have to be exact? What about giving the figures in terms of a range (something like: "Sales have been estimated to be as low as $X <cite to RS with lowest number>) and as high as $Y <cite to RS with highest number>.") These can be changed as new estimates come in. Blueboar ( talk) 19:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to note that the initial post is not only based around very out of date info (nobody has been using the excel spreadsheet for ages now, being that most of the original sources its speaks of have been found), but is extremely misleading, the present sales figures for the US are based around many, many newspaper and magazine articles from the time, most of which clearly state that they have gotten their information from either Sega themselves, or from well regarded 3rd party sales trackers of the time such as Robertson Stephenson and CO, and GFK. None of the sources which the initial post holds in such regard, such as even IGN and Gamepro state where their figures even come from.
I think this was explained fairly well in the aforementioned page but there's a little more I can add in regards to US sales in particular.
Here's a timeline of sources
1. In May of 1994 the US total stood at a rounded 13 million - Businessweek
2. At the end of 1994 the US total stood at a rounded 14 million - Man!ac Magazine (attributed to GFK, Robertson Stephens and Co, Computer Trade Weekly, and Sega
3. At the beginning of 1995 the US total stood at a rounded 15 million - Newsday
4. Over (unfortunately it doesn't give a precise figure) 2 million were sold in the US during 1995 in total - Business Wire
5. 1.1 million were sold during 1996 in total - Business Wire
There are two sources for 20 million US sales up to March 1998 (not including Majesco because they took over from that point onwards) - The New York Times and Electronic Times
All of these sources back each other up fairly well and jar with the vague EGM "over 14 million" total figure for US sales.
Europe's sales also have a source for 8 million, the source being CVG magazine, which attributes the figure to Sega of Europe themselves.
Also, it was never mentioned that recent sources all got their figures from "a German magazine", what was said was that it was possible that sales totals were collated by 3rd party trackers and released to the public at the end of 1994, figures of which both Man!ac, and the recent websites could've been working from. Personally I don't "buy" that the more recently popularised figures for US and Worldwide sales both perfectly (29 + 14) matching those given in a magazine from 1994 could be easily attributed to coincidence.
I think the way the Content Note stands at the moment is as good as its going to get, Anomie's re-phrased version gives undue weight in my opinion, for instance, there is no reason to omit the section saying "though other sources state these figures were already reached by 1994" the Man!ac source is just as reliable as the general "14 million" figure sources, much moreso in fact being that it attributes its information properly. There is also no doubt that the 20 million figure does not include Majesco, because Majesco took over sales after the publication date of the New York Times article (this has even been sourced already) Jesus.arnold ( talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that this is all a horrible excercise in synthesis and we should be using the various *citable totals* of around 30 million. I don't see a problem with the other sources and figures being mentioned in the content note as they are now, just as long as they continue to be presented as claims rather than fact. Miremare 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am trying very, very hard to AGF, but it is difficult. You asked "How do you explain why we don't have a reliable source that supports your total, while we do have several that contradict it?" Though we've discussed this thoroughly above, and I've given you a summary statement, you still don't seem to acknowedgle the answer. I can do nothing more than repeat my earlier statements: Perhaps we don't have a single reliable source for the higher total, while there are several for the lower ones beacuse "the dates of the original information, different information collection methods, and different fact checking standards." There are a ton of other reasons, but those should suffice. LedRush ( talk) 20:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How sad that only one outside person really got involved, and the same old redacted have seized upon the slightest hint of support to completely ignore all reliable sources in favor of their inflated number.
Anomie
⚔ 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest, yet again, that we bring this to the talk page, or at least to the video game project page? This conversation simply doesn't belong here. Also, I made what I thought was a good compromise edit...tomorrow I will reprint on the talk page to get the ball rolling on specific wording so we're not bogged down with theoretical positions, procedural issues, and people being rude. LedRush ( talk) 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
My source is Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
The full quote I reference in the cite is:
“ | Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed: women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many body reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain. | ” |
The sentence I proposed is a precis from several sources for the overview article and says:
“ | Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder[11] that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack[12] led most of the townspeople to leave. | ” |
I am using this to cite two factors in the decision to leave. One being the events during the take over, the second being the expectation of a counter attack to retake the town. It is being alleged that this is WP:OR with the argument the wording is not the same as the cite.
Second opinions please. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it original research to cite videos of Eastern Orthodox baptisms, published on Youtube, as showing that those baptisms do not always involve total submersion of the child or adult being baptized? Is this different from citing books or articles that describe such baptisms? See the citations and a discussion on them. Esoglou ( talk) 08:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Over at Atheism, one finds the following demographics in the lead.
As you can see these stats cover a much larger group of "non-believers" than strictly atheists. I have tried arguing at the talk page that we should not be including demographics that heap all of these groups together, because that would be like saying that "55% of the worlds population identifies with Christianity, Judaism and Islam", on the
Judaism page. We already have separate entries on
agnosticism,
irreligion, etc. On the talk page I have suggested substituting that text for replacing that text with:
These stats come from a poll that has specific data for "atheism" as distinguished from "agnosticism". The reason why I'm asking about this here is because editors on the talk page argue that the most inclusive definitions of "atheist" might actually include the groups that the first source (Zuckerman) groups together, yet clearly distinguishes as "atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers". I believe doing so is original research. We can only add statistics to the page when the sources are reliable and have identified them as specifically "atheist". General stats on non-believers or the irrelgious should go into other broader entries like irreligion. Any advice would be helpful. Griswaldo ( talk) 13:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The distinction between atheists, agnostics and people who do not believe in gods is mostly philosophical hair-splitting. This was my first Google hit for "define:atheism". Note the second definition, which can be rephrased as "atheism, agnosticism, or not believing in a god". It appears to me that the first group is for people who don't believe in gods and are somewhat evangelistic about that, the second for people who do not believe in gods but haven't completely made up their mind, and the third is for people who don't believe in gods and reject or do not understand the hair-splitting. In other words: "atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers" is how a statistician defines atheists in order not to lose any due to terminological issues.
Articles tend to be dominated by the most extreme or most typical cases. But they are still also about the more general cases. E.g. the majority of the German population is nominally Christian, goes to church once a year (on Christmas), if that, plus on a few special occasions such as funeral services, has only very vague ideas of who that Jesus person was and what his relation to his mother and his two fathers is supposed to be, or why it is all supposed to matter. This is why German churches are being closed nowadays, or merged. Except at Christmas and maybe Easter they are empty. Yet we count all these people as Christians.
I don't think there is even the slightest problem with counting someone as atheist in the wider sense who, presented a huge choice including "atheist", "agnostic" and "do not believe in a god", ticks the second or third box rather than the first. One could similarly offer choices such as "Christian", "non-practising Christian" and "believe in God and Jesus". Hans Adler 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a problematic relationship here between "atheism" as an analytical category and "atheism" as a term of self-identification. Those who self-identify as "atheists" tend to adopt the broadest definition of the term analytically. It follows, to them, that others who espouse a certain set of basic beliefs are also atheists. However, those very people who are claimed by the atheists, but do not themselves self-identify as such, often adopt a stricter definition of the term, which is exactly how they justify not being atheists. The definitions Hans linked to are indicative of this analytical disagreement (1.Atheist definition - A lack of theistic beliefs vs. 2. Non-atheist definition - The belief that there are no gods) . To the non-atheist disbelievers the distinction is important in other words, and that is why, when they can, they use more exacting language to describe themselves. The idea that they don't know any better is not supported by empirical research. Qualitative research shows that people who have made the choice to consider themselves agnostics, for instance, have usually thought about the matter enough to conceive of a difference. "Atheist" means something to them that they do not identify with. I think we ought to be conscientious of these distinctions on Wikipedia. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at
Talk:Atheism up to this point has largely between Griswaldo and me. Something that I think I should point out is that there has never been any disagreement that the page should say "the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers" and so forth, so there is no issue of taking information from these sources and misrepresenting it as simply "the percentage of atheists". We have always been very clear about identifying the data the same ways that the sources themselves identify it. There is also, I think, agreement with Griswaldo having very helpfully found some newer sources that are more specific to atheism per se. The issue, rather, is about deleting what would end up being quite a bit of the page (including more than just the sentence from the lead quoted above), on the grounds that the page is about atheism, and therefore must not include any information that is not strictly and unambiguously about atheism and nothing else. Up to now, the page (which is a Featured Article, by the way) has always included information that includes so-called "weak atheism", which extends over a broad and imprecisely defined range of beliefs and nonbeliefs, but always being clear about what data are specifically about atheists, defined narrowly, and what data extend to a mixture of atheists and whatever else. So long as we don't mislabel the latter, and we don't, I don't think it's de facto mislabeling to include the information on the page, and there, I think, is where the disagreement lies. Perhaps like FormerIP, I am concerned that it may actually be OR to say, for example, that Zuckerman described the data as "the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers", so therefore this is not information about atheists at all, and must be deleted. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of Dacian group is based on User:EraNavigator original research on linguistics. Marking Costoboci and Carpi as non-Dacian (the articles were changed by the same author and disputed), and on top of it adding Dacian language to the Slavic group are all disputed and far from main stream research. Read what happen here. Look at the Changes to Empire 125 map section of the talk, which was since removed, I assume in good faith. See also this newer version of the file as well, which was moved to png format, losing the history of changes about the same time (November 19-20, 2010). Please also check the corresponding commons versions. This talk is also very relevant. And another broader point is this: Due to the hard work of the author, this map is used by a LOT of pages, and significant changes to it should involve more discussions and scrutiny from now on. It can no longer be updated with radical changes without impacting other articles. Otherwise it becomes some sort of Trojan horse, pushing incorrect information to many articles in one shot. So the reason I bring all this up is not the Dacia related articles, but the fact that a LOT of articles are using it are affected bu such radical changes.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
WaPo hate
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The Simpson's episode Bart's Comet has several real astronomy references. For example, the numbers that Skinner and Bart read out at the telescope are real astronomical coordinates. Does looking up the coordinates on a star chart and describing their locations on the sky in the article count as original research? If so, can I get around this by referencing a star chart? TomLuTon ( talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
At Shepherds Flat Wind Farm we have the situation where a figure of 228 MW, and now 230 MW, has been calculated as the average power output of a wind farm not yet built. See Talk page for discussion. When does a calculation become OR? Johnfos ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
We've got a question at WP:ELN#ELNO_.239 that's not properly an External links question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?
The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good (secondary?) source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a handful of (important?) papers. The aspect involving NOR is whether these papers should be called out in the journal's article at all, since nobody seems to have written anything like "Journal X is famous for publishing these papers". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This came to my attention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#All Day (album) full of original research. All Day (album) has a "track listing" that is admitted OR. The listing is constructed from a set of lengthy pieces of music containing a number of songs and has been created by some WP editors. It also appears that Secret Diary, Unstoppable (Girl Talk album), Night Ripper and Feed the Animals have the same problem.
I removed the OR from All Day but is has been reinstated with the rational of WP:IAR and " there is no harm". More eyes on the explain why WP is not a place for original research would be great -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've been mulling on this. And on reflection Wikipedia is not even really the place for this information - that is what sites such as Whosampled exist for. So, actually I re-support removing these and providing Whosampled (and similar) lists as external links. Regardless of what sourcing has been provided OR is going on in the articles, and that is not appropriate -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
RFC started. Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Family Research Council has been a hotbed of contentious editing ever since the SPLC designated it a "hate group" last month. While the article has a number of POV issues, I believe there is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH first introduced here: FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as the result of a political attack by a "liberal organization" and "the left's smear campaign of conservatives", [1] but reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles [2] despite scientific evidence to the contrary. [3]
I take no issue with the first clause in the compound sentence, but the second clause, ([Perkins] reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles despite scientific evidence to the contrary.) is a synthesis of two cited primary sources: the MSNBC interview of Perkins and an APA study on sexual orientation. Without a reliable, secondary source, this statement cannot be taken as anything other than synthesis. At least one editor and one administrator apparently disagree with me. I'd appreciate additional feedback from this board. Uncle Dick ( talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is really in bad condition. "Cold Start" due to the latest wikileaks is all over in the news. So I think is relevant but the majority of it was written by an unregistered user: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cold_Start_%28military_doctrine%29&action=historysubmit&diff=335282532&oldid=319488768 I removed some totally irrelevant content, but I'm not familiar with the subject.-- Dia^ ( talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a walled garden maintained by an alumn, who insists on listing hundreds of people without articles whom I suspect of being non-notable. Can I get some help here? -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Some sources have been challenged as primary and not secondary. I think the following books are secondary, not primary. I'm not planning to use any of them in a study of its author personally, its scholarly method, its literary style, or the book itself apart from its content. Rather, I plan to use them for their content. Please tell me whether you consider any of them primary rather than secondary.
You may not have the books handy, so you may need to judge them contingently, and that's fine. I've borrowed them from libraries and will be returning them soon, so, if you want to know more, please ask soon, while I still have them. It can take months to get them again.
None of them are in the noticeboard archives, when searched by short title, author name by given name first, or author name by family name first.
Does anyone consider any of the books primary when used for their content? None of the other issues raised are being presented here, as they're being addressed in other ways.
Thank you very much. Nick Levinson ( talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
They should all be considered primary in writing an overview of ideas about matriarchy, female superiority etc. The "new draft" you linked to is essay-like and original synthesis. An example of a suitable source to write about feminist ideas would be Sarah Gamble, The Routledge Companion to Feminism and Post-Feminism. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of wikipolicy is that primary documents must be used with care, but they are not prohibited.
It is my understanding that summarizing a primary document is not automatically a lapse from our policy on original research.
This edit removed a passage from an article on an Afghanistan political group. As I wrote on the talk page, I think the meaning of the testimony I paraphrased was clear enough that it did not require any original research to draft that paraphrase.
I'd be grateful for others' opinions, was my paaraphrase really a lapse from OR? Geo Swan ( talk) 03:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The whole section of the December incident on KZZQ is original research. I could not find any other sources other than message boards and Facebook that say that the event happened, and is relevant or real to begin with. Many others say the event was a stunt, but regardless, there are very few reliable sources for that part. Perhaps just a small message concerning a format flip would suffice, but the section smells of OR. -- milonica ( talk) 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some eyes on this please? The metrodome collapsed this morning and there is a good deal of awful quality editing, especially a lot of OR, occurring on the article. Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Eyes; it's all good now though. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There was a prior discussion somewhat related to this (link: [8]).
The situation is this: Currently, there is a dispute going on in regards to the title of an article. The article's title is currently under consideration for a change, based on that it breaks the rules of WP:NPOV. However, the people supporting the current title use the claim that it adjusts to WP:TITLE because the word is the "most used word" or most common word in the language. They use as a source for this claim the number of hits in Google search comparing both title candidates. Based on the google hit results (in which the current title gets more "hits") they claim the current title is the "most used" and therefore adjusts to WP:TITLE despite it breaks WP:NPOV.
Hopefully the above situation didn't confuse you, but that's just one part of the bigger problem. Back to the point, I challenge this claim by the users as original research, because:
I would like to know if you agree that using google hits to determine popularity ("most used") is original research. If not, could you please explain why? If yes, also please provide your input as it might help solve the situation.Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Jewish control of the media was changed to Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) and without any prior discussion. This happened after I pointed out that WP:RS use myth and conspiracy theory much more frequently than canard. I also pointed that WP:RS definitions show canard means lie and myth/conspiracy theory are not necessarily a lie, but misintepretation, misconception, or whatever, as even the WP:RS sometimes make clear. (FYI. I have opined that Accusation of Jewish control of media probably would be most NPOV title allowing all accusations to be described properly, without giving impression the article was about Jewish control of the media.)
WP:OR's first paragraph clearly applies, i.e.: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources. But despite requests, none has come up with WP:RS that say canard/lie equals myth/conspiracy theory.
Worse, this WP:OR/Synthesis has major BLP implications since it is supporting the article's current modus operandi of labeling propagators of canards (i.e., liars and fabricators) people who WP:RS do not describe as such. I've just been waiting for article title to be settled before do so. Maybe I should not wait.
Please feel free to add comments to this WP:Original Research reminder section. Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Re Lead sentence: Jewish control of the media is an antisemitic myth or canard alleging that Jews utilize control of mass media to promote Jewish interests. It is often regarded as a conspiracy theory and linked to the antisemitic myth of Jewish control of global politics and financial systems.[1][2][3][4]
On this articles talk page I have a whole section criticizing the first sentence on
Text-source_integrity grounds, quoting that policy: When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text-source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment, but adding text without placing its source clearly can lead to allegations of
original research, violations of the
sourcing policy, and even
plagiarism.
But twice they reverted my attempts to put references in following word or concept where they belong, instead sticking them all at the end, giving the false impression that all the sources have this exact view point when in fact each may have only portions of it, and in the references three of the four sources only define a word used. This seems to me to be editors trying to promote their own synthesized view without proper sourcing. I don't know if I'm nitpicking at this point or it's worth another chance to get it right and be reverted. Is it worth even putting the original research tag on?
I guess the solution is to just rewrite the sentence/definition to include more concepts (as they've tried to do without proper sourcing), but do it according to those and other WP:RS sources with properly placed cites and then if they revert it to a more WP:OR version really throw a fit. Soon. Thoughts?
CarolMooreDC (
talk) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
A recent 2009 study was deleted from Chiropractic#Treatment techniques. See Talk:Chiropractic#New Section: Causes of Adverse Effects from Chiropractic Techniques for the discussion.
This specific proposal is to restore the text. "A 2009 study to assess the prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries sustained by chiropractic students receiving and/or administering manipulation while attending a chiropractic college found the prevalence of injuries sustained was 31%, 44% of which was exacerbations of preexisting injuries. Injuries from receiving manipulation were most prevalent in the neck/shoulder at 65%, while hand/wrist injuries were most common when administering manipulations at 45%. Diversified, Gonstead, and upper cervical manipulations methods were considered to be the most related to injuries. [4]" [12]
An editor claims it is bordering on OR to use this decent study. The text is sourced in accodance with V policy. There are no other sources avaliable like this one. The source is too new for a review of the study. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem isn't
WP:OR, and so this doesn't belong on this noticeboard. The problem is with weight and medrs and consensus. Please don't mischaracterize other editor's positions, that is tendentious editing[Edit:another editor did in fact say it bordered on OR].
DigitalC (
talk) 02:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Editor Gekritzl is trying to add content to the lead that states that Seung-Hui Cho's mother sought an exorcism for him prior to the massacre. He has done so in the following revisions: [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17].
His sources are: an AP report about Cho's mom seeking help from the church and statements from the ministers, a Washington Post article about a Korean girl who may have died during an exorcism, a The Seattle Times article about the same case of the dead Korean teenage girl, and a Washington Post report about mental illness in immigrants. None of this sources specifically state that Cho's mother or the ministers were looking for an exorcism for Cho. The AP source (which is the principal one to justify the content) states that his mother looked for "help" in "several congregations", that a minister said that he thought Cho need "spiritual power" to help him, and that it was a "demonic power that was afflicting him". The Washington Post article repeats almost verbatim the statements of the AP source, and also states that "Exorcisms have a long history in Korean theology". The Seattle Post article is irrelevant to the subject of the article because it doesn't mention anything about Cho or the Virginia Tech Massacre; the article is about the death of a Korean teenage girl during a religious ritual similar to exorcism. The fourth source, the Washington Post report, is about the difficulties that immigrants, specially Koreans, find in procuring mental health attention and the alternatives they use instead. The report does mention Cho as a case of the problematic it discusses, and also repeats the assertions previously mentioned in the AP source. In another section of the same report, it is stated that "a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said that some [Korean] clergy may prescribe exorcism". Those are the facts and the statements that the given sources provide. As clear as it may be that the minister sought by Cho's mother may have been considering an exorcism, it is the synthesis of the sources (specifically the AP note and the Washington Post sources) that is used to infer that. Cho's mother looked for help from ministers who where very likely to prescribe an exorcism. Yes, that can be inferred from the sources and may not be away from the truth, but unfortunately it constitutes original research.
I'm writing in this noticeboard because the editor has been explained about this situation in his talk page, but still insists on adding the original research. Also, another editors have expressed concerns both about it being well sourced and also about it being original research. So I'm opening this thread to seek the opinion of a broader audience an to let everyone concentrate their arguments in a single point, hoping to reach consensus. Thank you all and please leave your opinions, as they will be much appreciated.-- Legion fi ( talk) 06:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but this conclusion is 100% wrong. As another WP editor pointed out: From the WP page on "No Original Research" -- Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. Seeking spiritual help to rid Cho of "demons" is the very definition of exorcism, and WP No OR encourages "your own words." The following sources disagree with you: WP:No OR, Webster's (definition of Exorcism) and the Catholic Enyclopedia (definition of Exorcism). Is using your own words "Original Research"? That's what this conclusion seems to say. Regardless of whether Dr. Harris said it or not, WEBTER'S and CE say it: attempting to get rid of demons is exorcism. Using synonyms is NOT OR. Geĸrίtzl ( talk) 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Some editors at What's My Name? (Rihanna song) are determined to cite this blog article as a source in tagging the song as part of the Ska genre. The only mention of the word ska comes in the phrase "ska-infused beats". As I have pointed out in the talk page, this is not the same thing as saying "ska song". It is just one solitary element of the song that the blogger is describing as infused with ska. Not the entire song. The blogger does not even say that the entire beat is ska otherwise the word "infused" would have been used in the phrase, let alone the entire song. To conflate "ska-infused beats" as "ska song" would be, in my view, original research. Likewise, the same group of editors are determined to cite this article as a source in tagging the song as part of the Electronica genre. The article does not even use the word electronica. Instead, it simply says that the song as an "electronic edge" (notice the absence of the "a" at the end of electronic). There are many music that uses or feature an electronic edge without falling into the electronica genre - industrial music, for instance. Or really, just about any modern pop music using synthesizers. To conflate "electronic edge" with "electronica song" is, again in my view, original research. I'm a fan of Rihanna myself but I think this is clearly a case of overzealous fans trying to credit the song as more genre-encompassing than it is. Considering how popular this #1 hit is, you would expect that there would be a lot more sources out there explicitly and directly describing the song as Ska or Electronica if it is so - without any need for any editor to misinterpret one thing for another thing. I would appreciate it if someone could help out. Thanks. -- 175.144.72.233 ( talk) 08:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Not an edit, but discussion, here. It starts out as a debate about content, but by the last few exchanges I now think this is about an editor who wishes to use WP to "publish" his own views, which as I understand it are an argument against, or correction, of two notable marxists, Louis Althusser and perry Anderson. Note: I do not think these guys' interpretations of Marxism are "the truth;" they are views of Marx and his ideas. But there is another editor who seems to think they are wrong and that he (the other editor) knows the truth and will use this article to spread it. I have tried explaining my concerns to him but ineffectively and would appreciate fresh eyes (and voices). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Here an editor is claiming that Less-lethal and non-lethal weapons are different things. Marcus Qwertyus 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I find this assertion by an expert about the way to treat WP:RS and WP:V issues startling. I'd appreciate the views of people who've dealt with experts on WP more than I have. I'll alert the editor who makes the assertion to this thread. David in DC ( talk) 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
COMMENT: There are actually two related problems. The specific one of them has to do with WP:RECENTISM, but it’s not sufficiently addressed by simply tagging articles. The problems are far worse than WP:RECENTISM suggests, because they are tied up with the fact that WP:V relies on newspapers far more than it should. Each venue of knowledge that WP covers, from the sciences to history to philosophy to aesthetics to current events, has its own standards of “reliability.” And all of the work that goes into deciding “reliability” for each of these domains takes time, which is why circumventing them by putting stuff in WP referenced to newspapers, or even by sourcing WP from “primary sources” can be a bad thing. It’s almost always a bad thing when you source from newspapers for anything other than current events, and it’s usually a bad thing when you source from primary peer-reviewed sources, unless you know what you’re doing (more on that later).
Example: we recently suffered through a spate of stories about “Arsenic eating bacteria”-- example: [18]. These were due partly to journalistic incompetence (arsenic-eating bacteria are not novel, and have been known and verified for years). The novel claim was bacteria using arsenic in their DNA and nucleotides. This was a scientific claim, but one from the primary literature which had not been verified yet, and had not yet made it to good secondary sources. So meantime WP had to struggle with it. It didn’t go well.
The only way to deal with such problems is to be much firmer in the use of news sources for non-current-events items. That would require a policy rewrite on WP:RS, which now merely notes that newspapers are not the best source for non-current events. But fails utterly to say what you do if all that is available (as above) for sourcing, is a primary source AND a news source that misquotes it. Which happens ALL the time.
The more general problem is epistemological. I note above that each field of knowledge has its own standards, and WP policy should allow each field to USE its own standards to evaluate the “reliability” (which means the likeliness of truth) for a potential “fact.” All that goes down the drain if we overuse newspapers. As for expertise, it takes an expert to tease truth out of primary sources, which is why WP prefers to quote from secondary sources (peer-reviewed academic reviews and texts). I generally think that this is a good idea, but WP:V doesn’t work until it really pushes this idea HARD. It is not the case that Wikipedia is about “verifiability, not truth.” Wikipedia IS about truth. “Likely true” is what RS means. The stuff in WP:V is only about getting your cites in, but having a cite doesn’t help if the cite isn’t to a reliable source, which means a sources that is likely a truthful one, per the standards in the field. In fact, if the cite is to something OTHER source (like the New York Times when it comes to arsenic bacteria), it can actually hurt the truth. WP:RS needs to be written to expressly say that it trumps WP:V. A verifiable source is worth nothing (in fact less than nothing) if it isn’t true. But a true statement is still valuable on WP, even if its source isn’t presently cited and referenced. In fact, most of Wikipedia consists of such statements, usually written by experts who know the secondary sources, and are donating their time to summarize their contents. Uncontroversial statements of fact that are uncited and aren’t BLP, can stay. And that is WHY they can stay. S B H arris 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Here [19] is a taste of the controversy on WP around sources on ages of people, from GRG, Rejuvenation Research, and The Guinness Book of World Records. Note that the thread ends without any real consensus. Part of the problem is that WP:V (specifically the part of WP:V that deals with RS, at WP:SOURCES), and WP:RS/IRS don’t really agree with each other. WP:V has a very general view on RS, which is actually pretty good (though the only thing that makes it “WP:V” is that it sits in the WP:V article!) It basically says that a “reliable source” is a source that experts in the field would deem reliable, and THAT depends on the field, and the context. Here is what it says:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
I’ve really got no problem with the above. However, it does NOT SAY many of the tortured things that exist at WP:RS/IRS, such as trying to denigrate primary and teriary sources, and elevate news sources:
Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable.
The above is a sentence from WP:RS/IRS that should not be allowed to stand without internal qualifiers. Even qualifiers that come later, are inadequate to fix the falseness of this statement. Mainstream news sources are not considered to be reliable by hardly anybody, and that includes other mainstream news sources. If The Washington Post prints it, does The New York Times believe it? And vice versa? Not necessarily. Often, no. Nor should they. News stories are a first draft of history even when they purport to be about current events, and at best are written under pressure and with minimal confirmation (sometimes one “independent” confirmation, and often none). If fact-checking at newspapers was as careful as they pretend, there would be none of the sorts of errors that they publish as “errata” a few days later. Many of which are pitiful, even in the NYT.
News stories should be viewed skeptically, as anybody who has ever been the target of a news article can attest. For example, recent articles about WikiLeaks make it clear that the journalists in question are not very clear on the difference between a wiki, Wikipedia, Wikia, WikiLeaks, The Wikimedia Foundation, and so on. So they write stuff that is full of mistakes. When it comes to itself, Wikipedia enjoys the luxury of simply disregarding such stories, on the basis that it is the expert on its own history, not the papers. But consider the import of that attitude. Suppose we all behaved that way? How would WP work?
Example: the “mainstream” news confusion is fixed up on WP’s article on WikiLeaks, partly by reference to an article in The Signpost [20]. But The Signpost is basically a blog about Wikipedia, since so far as I can see, WMF takes no responsibility for editing it, and not even for publishing it: “The Signpost is an independent publication which is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.” Thus, I think The Signpost in not an “RS” in matters except concerning The Signpost (I’ve asked them for clarification on their TALK page). HOWEVER, I suspect that I went about removing all citations to The Signpost for matters other than Signpost policy, I would be reverted for being contentious and for lacking common sense.
We come now to “common sense.” The Signpost is edited by WP insiders, and is likely to be reliable about arcane minutia related to the history of WP, and WP policy. Certainly more-so than any “mainstream media” when THEY write about Wikis. Right? Common sense (as outlined generally in policy in WP:SOURCES) suggests that The Signpost would be fine for these purposes. However, strictly speaking, it’s against much of the guidelines outlined at WP:RS/IRS to use it so. Thus, my point. The guidelines at WP:RS/IRS are violated all the time. And so they should be.
All this is exactly paralleled with the problems in mainstream papers about supercentenarian ages, as opposed to reports in blogs that follow gerontology, reports from the GRG, and so on. Common sense would suggest that that latter are more reliable, because they’re enthusiasts of the subject, and this is a main interest of theirs. Just as with The Signpost and WP issues. So, who are you going to trust? It basically comes down to that. The broad policy on RS, as found in WP:V ( WP:SOURCES) has it right. The commentary guidelines on it in WP:RS/IRS often strays from the path of common sense. The fact that the broadest and best statement of RS occurs in a section of the WP:V policy page, and most of the problems with RS thinking occur on the guideline WP:RS page (!), only makes all this harder.
I still think that “common sense RS” (as found in the V page summary) should trump V questions, since there’s no point in having verified cites to articles that err. Is it better to have no cite, or one to a dedicated blog, than a cite to mainstream news article that has it wrong? WP editors made their choice with The Signpost when it came to WikiLeaks. The most important thing is that the statements in Wikipedia be TRUE. Verification by using sources that experts consider reliable, are merely our method of fighting it out, when we disagree about the truth. They can’t be a primary goal, because WP:V isn’t actually the primary way that Wikipedia maintains true articles. Being watched by the eyes of informed people and experts, is how Wikipedia maintains true articles, to the extent that it does. It’s a shame this point isn’t better understood. Yes, you have to know what "raw data" or sources to cite from. There's no escaping that. S B H arris 03:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm also involved and lurking but had nothing to contribute because this discussion does not seem to be focused. Because I share both of the following styles, I think I can say David has a slightly indirect style and SB has a slightly wordy style, and these are both making it hard to find what might be real issues. SB might take up the unrelated epistemological questions, which are in fact very interesting, at WT:V. I think that David's question as stated is less likely to yield results here than elsewhere, because I don't see this board concluding with a consensus about any editors' advocacies until those POVs are actually carried out in specific article (or workgroup) edits. IMHO the solution is for these editors to interact with the developing consensus at WP:WOP by bold edits to that page, which they largely haven't done; I generally agree with IMJ above, and I believe this is also agreement with the WP:WOP procedural proposals. However, I don't want to ice-water this thread with my thoughts; it is probable that others will see in it some useful topic to continue discussion on. JJB 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOAPboxing. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Just to correct a reference above...the Gerontology Research Group does not have a Yahoogroup,it has a mail list run through the UCLA server.Robert Young has a Yahoogroup.I am on the GRG list and not on Robert's "World's Oldest People" Yahoogroup,which I consider an unnecessary duplication of a separate email list of my own.--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 ( talk) 03:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Megistias ( talk · contribs), a user who was involved in many Albanian-Greek disputes had created many maps before leaving wikipedia. His main focus was on southern Albania and the region of Macedonia(see Macedonia naming dispute and Northern Epirus) and in most of his maps he made many mistakes in order to prove the Greekness of the regions. These maps have to be corrected so a good map creator is needed to make the changes. Many of the maps also contradict each other.
(unindent)The source map for the first 3 maps of Megistias is found on p.6 of Wilkes's work [44]. He has moved the Bylliones from southwestern(Vlorë area) to central Albania and the Enchelei from the area around Lake Ohrid [45] in a much norther location [46], while the Manti also living around the lake aren't even present in his maps, instead their area is also included as Greek area.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Source | Map | Difference |
---|---|---|
*
a geographical term which the Greeks applied to a territory neighbouring their own, covers more or less the area of northern and central Albania down to the mouth of the Aous (Campridge Ancient History)
|
* the border is south of Vjose's/Aous mouth | *Almost none (perhaps we should put the border few pixels north
|
[ [50] | [ [51] | None |
I really don't understand why all this mobilization to readjust the maps and off course the title 'large-scale or' doesn't apply here. I have also to add that several other users produced similar maps that confirm Megistias' maps, like this one [File:Ancient Tribes.png]. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Please don't make or deductions, Wilkes's map exists and your own quote of says south of the river Aous. The borders of the Illyrian territory are were the Wilkes's map places them not where your or deductions place them. Btw please don't bring other irrelevant maps like the medieval movements one.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I come here to ask about this accusation of original research where SG says, "What you are writing amounts to original research,". I asked her to explain this where she wrote it but she has not. I truly with to know if I am engaging in OR or not. I believe I am not and only report exactly what the primary source states without any analysis or commentary. As an example
Mechanisms_of_schizophrenia#EEG Holinder et al Reversed temporal region asymmetries of P300 topography in left- and right-handed schizophrenic subjects "EEGs have demonstrated abnormalities in the schizophrenic brain, including nerve conduction in the temporal lobe depending on handedness of the patient." "LH and RH schizophrenics, however, showed lateralized asymmetries in temporal scalp regions: left < right P300 voltage asymmetry in RH schizophrenics and left > right P300 voltage asymmetry in LH schizophrenics. These data suggest that the schizophrenic pathology of P300 neural generators is lateralized according to handedness and provide the first evidence that LH and RH schizophrenics can be dissociated based on left-right voltage asymmetries in P300 topography."
I believe that what I wrote included no OR, no analysis and no commentary and only reported exactly what this peer-reviewed, published medical article wrote. If I am wrong then please help explain to me how and why. If I am not wrong and this is an invalid accusation by SG then I ask for her to rescind it and refrain in the future. Basket of Puppies 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
First, BoP, forum shopping and spreading this dispute across three different forums isn't helpful (see your inquiry at RS:N in addition to no support for your edits at Talk:Schizophrenia).
Second, see your edit warring to insert your particular views, based on outdated primary sources, here:
in addition to:
Third, see responses to that edit warring here and in the next section.
Fourth, you aren't helping your case by insulting fellow editors (several of whom happen to be qualified professionals in this area), removing talk page discussions with edit summaries of LOL; [55] [56] [57] [58] and failing to engage other editors on article talk. [59]
The first step in WP:DR is to discuss with fellow editors, none of whom agree with you, rather than dragging the dispute all over Wiki. This is looking more and more like tendentious behavior to insert a particular POV, and personalizing of a content dispute [60] after you improperly initiated a FAR when there was no support whatsoever for your edits. I recommend that you stop shopping forums to include your text, and start engaging other editors on talk; the work you need to do if you want to insert this text has already been spelled out several times in several places. Finding secondary sources to support your proposed text will be a better use of everyone's time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there appear to be WP:OR problems, specifically WP:PSTS, combined with WP:NPOV problems. Primary sources should be used with care, and are best when used to provide additional, important details not provided in secondary sources. It's unclear where this is being discussed, as BoP suggests (19:45, 28 December 2010). It also appears that BoF is improperly using this noticeboard by focusing on the accusation by SandyGeorgia, rather than on whether or not WP:OR applies, and if so how. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Removal_of_failed_verification_tag, there is a deadlocked discussion regarding this source: 15–16 with further information here: 8 . Resident editors seem to believe that "Reviews have also found that populations that are believed to be especially high consumers of aspartame such as children and diabetics are below the ADI for safe consumption, and this is suggested to be true even under very conservative worst-case scenario calculations of consumption", specific text under contention bolded, is a valid paraphrasing of the sources. The talk page discussion has some detail on the arguments in play. u n☯ mi 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"High intake scenarios performed by Arcella et al. (2004), Illback et al. (2003), the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) Report (2007), and van Rooij-van den Bos et al. (2004) suggested that chronic intakes will not reach the ADI."
"The SCF concluded in 2002 that high-level consumers, both adults and children, were unlikely to exceed the ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day for aspartame. Consumption by subgroups such as diabetics who are likely to be high consumers of foods containing aspartame were also well below the ADI. The data on aspartame exposure since 2001 confirm the SCF conclusions of 2002 and the National Experts conclude that there are no indications that a population group could exceed the ADI for aspartame."
Yobol ( talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)"Overall, the studies have very similar conclusions. Although the intake of aspartame has increased in recent years, the change is not dramatic, remaining well below the ADI, and worst-case scenario predictions suggest that chronic intakes will not reach the ADI."
Hi, Per WP:WEASEL I have tried tagging an article that is replete with these words with {{ quantify}} and {{ which?}} but being met with some resistance against the tagging. I asked the resident editors to either in-text attribute the vague wording to a source or give actual numbers, as they gave indication that they knew the number, the ordinal 3 was given in one case. Am I correct that we should avoid using vague wording when employing wikipedias voice or? u n☯ mi 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is compromise wording here that from a language standpoint is more accurate. Instead of saying Multiple reviews ... when in fact you know of and cite 3 reviews, one should write At least 3 reviews .... "Multiple" is vague while "3" may be precise but may actually be wrong as there could be more than 3, with reviews that exist but are not cited. By replacing "Multiple" with "at least X" removes the vagueness but doesn't lock into precision that may not be precise in reality. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This source [61] is an Italian freesheet from Giovinazzo, the hometown of one of the defendants in the Meredith Kercher case.
It contains this text (on page 9) discussing the arrival time of the police at the scene of the crime:
In English:
This seems to be potentially usable in support of various statements, but the mention of 12:58 appears to be speculation on the part of the publication. The source does not say that this is established fact or that it reflects the opinion of the defendant, defence lawyers or anyone else.
However, a number of editors believe it could be used to support one of the following:
Do either of these interpretations of the source appear plausible? -- FormerIP ( talk) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The next two lines of the source explains that the arrival of the Carabinieri was also captured by the camera and cross checked with telephone records:
Google translation to English:
As it says "telephone" instead of "cell phone", the text should be changed to:
-- Footwarrior ( talk) 02:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Now I must say several things:
Question to address NOR issue: Physical Geologic Driver viewable at Morbas . Please reference the chart...
The time differences CALC between ICS periods produce a commutative set having a summation of 417Ma. The commutative set has an alternating +/-3.5Ma time interval at the Oligene, O-S and P-Tr dates. This is a mathematical expression of the (Kepler) Conic Ellipse apsis.
Do we have a mathematical expression from an associated single datum base that qualifies under wiki CALC rules? Human interpolation is excluded from number base association, and cannot be OR ?
Morbas ( talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 17:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been working polishing/expanding USS Niagara (1813) for some time and have come across a pretty big block on making the article comprehensive. One of qualites of the ship is that its been "rebuilt" four times and is often the subject of controversy (see its talk page) relating to its essentially being a contemporary equivalent of the Ship of Theseus. However, there are no verifible sources that mention the Niagara as a Ship of Theseus. Would it be original research to conclude that it is indeed a Ship of Theseus based solely on the fact that little of ship's original material remain (that being the definition of a Ship of Theseus)? If it is, is there a way to still mention its ambiguity that doesn't became original research? (by not including it before, I succeeeded in pissing an IP off who was thinking that the people who own/operate the ship [no way affiliated, by the way] were complicit in writing the article) Niagara Don't give up the ship 04:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed wikilinks on two of the character names which link to specific interpretations of those words:
<NOWIKI> He works with [[Internationalism (politics)|International]] 4-8818 and [[Trade union|Union]] 5-3992. </NOWIKI>
Wouldn't such interpretations of these words be considered original research? I have not read the book but couldn't the author have been referring to some other concept of the words?
I am not trying to disparage the specific editor that did this -- I do not even know who it is, I have not looked at the edit history -- as I am sure it was a good faith effort to lend context. But isn't there a danger that allowing interpreted context via wikilinked word associations is a backdoor to violate WP:NOR ? Low Sea ( talk) 04:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Original_research/linkvios by 174.28.41.201
IP user 174.28.41.201 has been contributing original research to Jeopardy! theme music, which currently has passages that are OR outlined at the talk page Talk:Jeopardy! theme music#Original research. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the videos section of the Owen Honors article a user keeps inserting career details of Honors's superior officers without a single reliable source making the connection as to the importance of that information. I reverted twice per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. The latest reversion is here. Please advise. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the most recent comments at Talk:Ebionites#Recent removal of recently added template regarding recent changes to the article which may violate WP:PEACOCK, and allegedly, possibly other policies and guidelines as well. I also believe that there is some significant disagreement on the talk page of the article about how strongly enforced policies and guidelines should be on this content. Any input regarding how often guidelines can and should be ignored would also be welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been a long-running debate over the sales figures for the Mega Drive, affecting that article as well as History of video game consoles (fourth generation), Console wars, and List of best-selling game consoles. On one side of the debate, we have a number of sources (many reliable, some not) addressing the question:
On the other side of the debate, we have:
Much past discussion is available at Talk:Mega Drive/Archive 10 and Talk:Mega Drive/Archive 12#Total Mega Drive Sales. I've personally put off pursuing this, but I'm starting to feel its time this gets settled as it keeps coming up. So I ask for input from people familiar with WP:OR whether the 40 million figure is "allowed" by WP:CALC or whether the sources are too disparate, and if it is allowed whether the many reliable sources should be given equal weight or completely ignored in favor of this calculation. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we have to be exact? What about giving the figures in terms of a range (something like: "Sales have been estimated to be as low as $X <cite to RS with lowest number>) and as high as $Y <cite to RS with highest number>.") These can be changed as new estimates come in. Blueboar ( talk) 19:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to note that the initial post is not only based around very out of date info (nobody has been using the excel spreadsheet for ages now, being that most of the original sources its speaks of have been found), but is extremely misleading, the present sales figures for the US are based around many, many newspaper and magazine articles from the time, most of which clearly state that they have gotten their information from either Sega themselves, or from well regarded 3rd party sales trackers of the time such as Robertson Stephenson and CO, and GFK. None of the sources which the initial post holds in such regard, such as even IGN and Gamepro state where their figures even come from.
I think this was explained fairly well in the aforementioned page but there's a little more I can add in regards to US sales in particular.
Here's a timeline of sources
1. In May of 1994 the US total stood at a rounded 13 million - Businessweek
2. At the end of 1994 the US total stood at a rounded 14 million - Man!ac Magazine (attributed to GFK, Robertson Stephens and Co, Computer Trade Weekly, and Sega
3. At the beginning of 1995 the US total stood at a rounded 15 million - Newsday
4. Over (unfortunately it doesn't give a precise figure) 2 million were sold in the US during 1995 in total - Business Wire
5. 1.1 million were sold during 1996 in total - Business Wire
There are two sources for 20 million US sales up to March 1998 (not including Majesco because they took over from that point onwards) - The New York Times and Electronic Times
All of these sources back each other up fairly well and jar with the vague EGM "over 14 million" total figure for US sales.
Europe's sales also have a source for 8 million, the source being CVG magazine, which attributes the figure to Sega of Europe themselves.
Also, it was never mentioned that recent sources all got their figures from "a German magazine", what was said was that it was possible that sales totals were collated by 3rd party trackers and released to the public at the end of 1994, figures of which both Man!ac, and the recent websites could've been working from. Personally I don't "buy" that the more recently popularised figures for US and Worldwide sales both perfectly (29 + 14) matching those given in a magazine from 1994 could be easily attributed to coincidence.
I think the way the Content Note stands at the moment is as good as its going to get, Anomie's re-phrased version gives undue weight in my opinion, for instance, there is no reason to omit the section saying "though other sources state these figures were already reached by 1994" the Man!ac source is just as reliable as the general "14 million" figure sources, much moreso in fact being that it attributes its information properly. There is also no doubt that the 20 million figure does not include Majesco, because Majesco took over sales after the publication date of the New York Times article (this has even been sourced already) Jesus.arnold ( talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that this is all a horrible excercise in synthesis and we should be using the various *citable totals* of around 30 million. I don't see a problem with the other sources and figures being mentioned in the content note as they are now, just as long as they continue to be presented as claims rather than fact. Miremare 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am trying very, very hard to AGF, but it is difficult. You asked "How do you explain why we don't have a reliable source that supports your total, while we do have several that contradict it?" Though we've discussed this thoroughly above, and I've given you a summary statement, you still don't seem to acknowedgle the answer. I can do nothing more than repeat my earlier statements: Perhaps we don't have a single reliable source for the higher total, while there are several for the lower ones beacuse "the dates of the original information, different information collection methods, and different fact checking standards." There are a ton of other reasons, but those should suffice. LedRush ( talk) 20:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How sad that only one outside person really got involved, and the same old redacted have seized upon the slightest hint of support to completely ignore all reliable sources in favor of their inflated number.
Anomie
⚔ 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest, yet again, that we bring this to the talk page, or at least to the video game project page? This conversation simply doesn't belong here. Also, I made what I thought was a good compromise edit...tomorrow I will reprint on the talk page to get the ball rolling on specific wording so we're not bogged down with theoretical positions, procedural issues, and people being rude. LedRush ( talk) 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
My source is Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
The full quote I reference in the cite is:
“ | Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed: women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many body reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain. | ” |
The sentence I proposed is a precis from several sources for the overview article and says:
“ | Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder[11] that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack[12] led most of the townspeople to leave. | ” |
I am using this to cite two factors in the decision to leave. One being the events during the take over, the second being the expectation of a counter attack to retake the town. It is being alleged that this is WP:OR with the argument the wording is not the same as the cite.
Second opinions please. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it original research to cite videos of Eastern Orthodox baptisms, published on Youtube, as showing that those baptisms do not always involve total submersion of the child or adult being baptized? Is this different from citing books or articles that describe such baptisms? See the citations and a discussion on them. Esoglou ( talk) 08:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Over at Atheism, one finds the following demographics in the lead.
As you can see these stats cover a much larger group of "non-believers" than strictly atheists. I have tried arguing at the talk page that we should not be including demographics that heap all of these groups together, because that would be like saying that "55% of the worlds population identifies with Christianity, Judaism and Islam", on the
Judaism page. We already have separate entries on
agnosticism,
irreligion, etc. On the talk page I have suggested substituting that text for replacing that text with:
These stats come from a poll that has specific data for "atheism" as distinguished from "agnosticism". The reason why I'm asking about this here is because editors on the talk page argue that the most inclusive definitions of "atheist" might actually include the groups that the first source (Zuckerman) groups together, yet clearly distinguishes as "atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers". I believe doing so is original research. We can only add statistics to the page when the sources are reliable and have identified them as specifically "atheist". General stats on non-believers or the irrelgious should go into other broader entries like irreligion. Any advice would be helpful. Griswaldo ( talk) 13:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The distinction between atheists, agnostics and people who do not believe in gods is mostly philosophical hair-splitting. This was my first Google hit for "define:atheism". Note the second definition, which can be rephrased as "atheism, agnosticism, or not believing in a god". It appears to me that the first group is for people who don't believe in gods and are somewhat evangelistic about that, the second for people who do not believe in gods but haven't completely made up their mind, and the third is for people who don't believe in gods and reject or do not understand the hair-splitting. In other words: "atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers" is how a statistician defines atheists in order not to lose any due to terminological issues.
Articles tend to be dominated by the most extreme or most typical cases. But they are still also about the more general cases. E.g. the majority of the German population is nominally Christian, goes to church once a year (on Christmas), if that, plus on a few special occasions such as funeral services, has only very vague ideas of who that Jesus person was and what his relation to his mother and his two fathers is supposed to be, or why it is all supposed to matter. This is why German churches are being closed nowadays, or merged. Except at Christmas and maybe Easter they are empty. Yet we count all these people as Christians.
I don't think there is even the slightest problem with counting someone as atheist in the wider sense who, presented a huge choice including "atheist", "agnostic" and "do not believe in a god", ticks the second or third box rather than the first. One could similarly offer choices such as "Christian", "non-practising Christian" and "believe in God and Jesus". Hans Adler 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a problematic relationship here between "atheism" as an analytical category and "atheism" as a term of self-identification. Those who self-identify as "atheists" tend to adopt the broadest definition of the term analytically. It follows, to them, that others who espouse a certain set of basic beliefs are also atheists. However, those very people who are claimed by the atheists, but do not themselves self-identify as such, often adopt a stricter definition of the term, which is exactly how they justify not being atheists. The definitions Hans linked to are indicative of this analytical disagreement (1.Atheist definition - A lack of theistic beliefs vs. 2. Non-atheist definition - The belief that there are no gods) . To the non-atheist disbelievers the distinction is important in other words, and that is why, when they can, they use more exacting language to describe themselves. The idea that they don't know any better is not supported by empirical research. Qualitative research shows that people who have made the choice to consider themselves agnostics, for instance, have usually thought about the matter enough to conceive of a difference. "Atheist" means something to them that they do not identify with. I think we ought to be conscientious of these distinctions on Wikipedia. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at
Talk:Atheism up to this point has largely between Griswaldo and me. Something that I think I should point out is that there has never been any disagreement that the page should say "the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers" and so forth, so there is no issue of taking information from these sources and misrepresenting it as simply "the percentage of atheists". We have always been very clear about identifying the data the same ways that the sources themselves identify it. There is also, I think, agreement with Griswaldo having very helpfully found some newer sources that are more specific to atheism per se. The issue, rather, is about deleting what would end up being quite a bit of the page (including more than just the sentence from the lead quoted above), on the grounds that the page is about atheism, and therefore must not include any information that is not strictly and unambiguously about atheism and nothing else. Up to now, the page (which is a Featured Article, by the way) has always included information that includes so-called "weak atheism", which extends over a broad and imprecisely defined range of beliefs and nonbeliefs, but always being clear about what data are specifically about atheists, defined narrowly, and what data extend to a mixture of atheists and whatever else. So long as we don't mislabel the latter, and we don't, I don't think it's de facto mislabeling to include the information on the page, and there, I think, is where the disagreement lies. Perhaps like FormerIP, I am concerned that it may actually be OR to say, for example, that Zuckerman described the data as "the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers", so therefore this is not information about atheists at all, and must be deleted. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of Dacian group is based on User:EraNavigator original research on linguistics. Marking Costoboci and Carpi as non-Dacian (the articles were changed by the same author and disputed), and on top of it adding Dacian language to the Slavic group are all disputed and far from main stream research. Read what happen here. Look at the Changes to Empire 125 map section of the talk, which was since removed, I assume in good faith. See also this newer version of the file as well, which was moved to png format, losing the history of changes about the same time (November 19-20, 2010). Please also check the corresponding commons versions. This talk is also very relevant. And another broader point is this: Due to the hard work of the author, this map is used by a LOT of pages, and significant changes to it should involve more discussions and scrutiny from now on. It can no longer be updated with radical changes without impacting other articles. Otherwise it becomes some sort of Trojan horse, pushing incorrect information to many articles in one shot. So the reason I bring all this up is not the Dacia related articles, but the fact that a LOT of articles are using it are affected bu such radical changes.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
WaPo hate
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).