This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Can someone explain: "Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making great advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed anything significant to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E.[ref name="History of Science"] "History of Science"[/ref] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking."
The comment made on the talk page, which was then erased and I had to go through history to find it was:
Your reference doesn't actually contain the claim you made in the article, and it reads more as an opinion piece than as encyclopedic content. See the policy against original research or synthesis
We are allowed to add things aren't we? If you review the history you only find 5 Latin Europeans that made significant (other than rewriting others works) contributions, while there were multiple original discoveries/advancements in science and engineering by others during this period. That is neither Original research or synthesis, any more than saying there are 5 red apples in a multitude of red and yellow apples and oranges. The statement of a simple truth is not research or synthesis, if it was then Wikipedia could be nothing other than a collection of quotes from people who have been published!
As far as the translation of the Arabic texts, this is common knowledge for anyone who has ever dealt with the sciences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 April 20
And I now better understand what is going on. You will prevent any idea you do not like to nit-picked to death, and yet those false ideas you agree with are perfectly acceptable. And I know this because you have not removed or annotated any of the items I have listed, just used the old excuse, well other people did it but I'm not going to say anything because deep down in my heart I believe them to be right.
Lets look at the quote - "However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[8][9]" You have let this be part of the article for quite some time now, and I can analyze it this way:
This same analysis can can be applied to statement after statement in Wikipedia. As a matter of fact youre analysis can be applied to any non directly quoted statement anywhere in Wikipedia. My statement of facts meets the same criteria as other statements made, and as such should be accepted if Wikipedia is an even handed organization. The rules must be followed, but they must be applied equally to all.
And my source is as reliable and probably less biased one way or the other than many of the sources quoted in this article. Their criteria may be, since they are basically Latin European, slightly biased in favor of Latin Europeans. I thought one of the criteria for Wikipedia was not "Truth" but rather accuracy in who said/did what?
After reading my original statement over again, I think I would change it to read: Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E. [1] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking.
To make it more of statement of the facts. I changed "they can not", implying that I know what they can do, to "they have not" a statement of fact. And, I realize it is impossible to sight all possible works to prove a negative, but the negative is still valid. Then anyone who knows of them quantifying this can site a source as a counter argument.
Interesting quote right below this entry space; "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 ( talk • contribs)
Then look at things like:
"Baronius's "dark age" seems to have struck historians as something they could use, for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages, with his original Latin term, "saeculum obscurum", being reserved for the period he had applied it to. But while some historians, following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records, others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians."
Really - who says "for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages" - No source.
And - "being reserved for the period he had applied it to" - Who reserved this? The author of this article?
And - "But while some historians" - Again, how would I verify this?
And - "following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records" - Who said this is so, there are no sources. Is this also original research?
And - "others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians." this statement is so full of original research and down right falsehoods it is laughable.
This is only from one paragraph in the article, imagine what can be done if the entire article is analyzed. How can anyone with any sense of fairness say that what I have put forth is not acceptable when that same person has accepted this. Fair application of the rules is not being used here, but rather a hidden agenda.
And just because you (Cuchullain) say quit or you will not be liked by "everybody" else is an answer? Who ever thinks that getting closer to the truth is best handled by the FEELINGS of the majority is either not aware of reality or not mature enough to understand that one cannot allow blatant half truths to be left standing.
Mr Mike Rosoft:
Your statement -
"apparently, you looked at a particular list of people who contributed to the development of science (with no clear criteria for inclusion), found out that it only listed five Europeans during the period of 250 CE - 1200 CE, and added it as a statement of fact to the article. I am afraid this is a textbook example of original synthesis, which is outside of scope of Wikipedia"
The wording from Wikipedia on this manner is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I have not reached or implied any conclusions. I have simply stated a set of facts. Those facts are; and they are not in any way a conclusion on my part:
1. Only about 5 Latin Europeans provided original research during this 1000yr period - Not my research, just a fact that is published.
2. None of the cited authors that I could find said anything about this dearth of advancement in the Latin European region during the Dark ages.
I did not make any conclusions as to what caused this dearth of advancement as in Wiki's example:
" A simple example of original synthesis:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."
You will notice that in the first example, an analysis of their performance is implied by the use of the word but to IMPLY that they were not doing their job, and in the second example they use the word only to imply that they had done a good job.
A true none synthesized statement would be:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
My statement makes no such analysis. I do not say anything about the dark ages themselves, only that the authors of today have not quantified the dearth of contributions. I drew no conclusions what so ever, and I did not imply any conclusions either!
And anyone who follows the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure with any fairness would just point out what they think any analysis in my statment was. Just stating - ITS ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND NOT ALLOWED is not following Wiki's procedures and is not in any sense part of dispute resolution, so I am assuming that the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of the opposing arguments are just that - wastes of time and energy. If anyone has valid arguments about possible synthesis I would be more than happy to read and consider them. Otherwise I think we should stick to Wiki's general rules - offer proof of your arguments and avoid the personal and emotional attacks.
"If you want to argue a point be concise" - Please inform the editors who have responded with the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of this. Without multiple illogical responses I could be concise, with a lot fewer words.
Concise point #1 - Several editors attack using ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals - I do not respond. Editor says - No more discussion everyone agrees and you have not said otherwise. Like I'm going to let that happen!
Point #2 - No - It was not mentioned in ANY book - that is my point! Nobody has quantified that.
Point #3 - What words imply that I think they (the authors) are wrong? [I see this as a truly possible synthesis problem.]
Point #4 - Some authors were - Dwyer, John C., Church history: twenty centuries of Catholic Christianity, (1998);Syed Ziaur Rahman, Were the “Dark Ages” Really Dark?, Grey Matter (The Co-curricular Journal of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College), Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 2003;Daileader, Philip (2001). The High Middle Ages. The Teaching Company.
ISBN
1-56585-827-1. "Catholics living during the Protestant Reformation were not going to take this assault lying down. They, too, turned to the study of the Middle Ages, going back to prove that, far from being a period of religious corruption, the Middle Ages were superior to the era of the Protestant Reformation, because the Middle Ages were free of the religious schisms and religious wars that were plaguing the 16th and 17th centuries."; etc.
In addition there are enough religious references in the article to choke the proverbial horse. The article itself seems to imply it was all Religions fault some how and someone is trying to apologize for it.
Point #2 - OR is drawing a conclusion based on 2 different sources. I did not draw any conclusions. To quote Wiki's own requirements - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion". What conclusion have I reached? None. I have simply stated that no authors have quantified that. A statement of fact, not a conclusion.
Point #3 - You missed my revision. I changed "they cannot quantify" to "they have not".
Point #4 - Because I am not willing to spend my time to quote everything about these authors, I will remove the religious from the statement and make it.
Although scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E.
[1] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking.
Beyond this, this point has nothing to do with synthases and as such I will no longer discuss it.
On a personal note Mr. Paul Barlow - the statement "but admitedly your English is rather to confusing to know exactly what you are trying to say." is just an antagonizing ad hominem attack which may well indicate you are running out of logical arguments against my statement. That is often, but not always, the route these things take when one side is loosing.
Excellent source. Will use it and then when this finished, add the science part.
References
Please intervene to settle an overlong unresolved discussion about the legitimacy, in Christianity and abortion#Early Christian thought on abortion, of using A Companion to Bioethics by Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer in support of the statement that early Christians "believed, as the Greeks did, in delayed ensoulment, or that a fetus does not have a soul until quickening, and therefore early abortion was not murder".
The source states: "Following Aristotle, various thinkers—including Thomas Aquinas—thought that only the abortion of an animated fetus constituted homicide. ... By and large, this view remained dominant until 1869". A defender of using this source has stated that it "says the view was held from Aristotle through 1869, which more than encompasses the period we're talking about. Why would we assume early Christians were exempted if the source doesn't say so?" and "to assume that their (the early Christians') view was different, in the absence of a source that says so, contravenes WP:V." The opposite view has been expressed thus: "(The source) does not state that the dominant view was shared by that minority who were Christians. It's their view, not the dominant one, that's in question. ... To assume that their view was the same, in the absence of a source that 'directly and explicitly' ( WP:OR), 'clearly and directly' ( WP:V) says so, contravenes WP:OR."
Discussion of the question is found in the last third of Talk:Christianity and abortion#"Catholic Answers" and "Facts of Life", starting at 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC). Esoglou ( talk) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
On the possible use of original research in the article. Been open for two weeks but only two users have participated. Need more participation in order that a consensus become clear. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone weigh in on the discussion at Talk:White_Latin_American#Pictures_have_got_to_go regarding the image gallery here and the WP:EGRS policy. None of the people in the image gallery are sourced as self-identifying as "White Latin Americans" so the inclusion is basically OR. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2011 over a section of the article "Contentious Ridings", listing in table form the constituencies that meet one of three criteria (e.g. slim margin of victory in the previous election) thought to make the district a swing riding. The source given in the current version of the article is "Data adapted from Elections Canada Official results". There have been edits deleting this section which were promptly reverted: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I'm not asking for enforcement; rather, I'm posting here in hopes that users experienced with the NOR policy can make useful suggestions to preserve this section of the article. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The article on the Patria case reads like original research. One section for instance, "European Union Art. 346 and Arms Trade", not only provides hypotheses for corruption allegations, but also decides for the reader how likely each hypothesis is. The Background section reads like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. 83.84.195.88 ( talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This template suggests there is such a thing as a "Kawi family" of scripts. I do not know of any publication that mentions this concept. Without reliable source, this is OR. Martijn →!?← 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Are the last two paragraphs in Peak_oil#Effects_of_rising_oil_prices original research? 206.188.60.1 ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Her speech at Gorbachov's birthday celebration imply that her family was represed by the communistic regime in SSSR and that is why they left in 1979. Therefore I think there is no doubt that she does not support but oppose communism BHillbillies ( talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a content dispute at the Irreligion article regarding the removal of referenced information from the article. A discussion has been started in this section of the talk page. Any comments there would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam Talk 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been debating with another editor at Talk:Objectivist Party#Synthesis concerns about material pulled from a primary source that pre-dates the party's existence. Decades ago, Ayn Rand made comments in a Q&A session to the effect that she did not want a political party to be created based on her ideas. Fast forward to 2008, and a small political party was founded claiming to be based on her ideas. My take is that referencing Rand's earlier comment from primary sources is original research, because there is no source that connects those comments to the specific subject of the article, which formed long after her death. The other editor doesn't see a problem. Given the low traffic of the article, there is a lack of other input, so feedback from outside editors would be appreciated. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
is used a reference to support the "Nested sustainability" diagram on a number of articles, none of which seem sourced to that reference or relevant to the article.
Specifics:
None of these texts are supported by the reference, and the relationship of the diagram to the article is also not supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article on USANA there is a quote from a Forbes article from a consultant in nutritional research, Anthony Almada, claiming that USANA's business model (ie MLM) means they do not do research on the efficacy of their products [5], ie an essentially derogatory assessment of the companies products. It's been discovered that in addition to his consulting firm Almada is also cofounder and CEO of at least three other nutritional products company, Genr8 [6], Fein Innovation, and Fierce Foods, Inc [7], ie competitors to USANA. At least one of these, GenR8 was active at the time of his quote. Forbes did not mention this potential COI. Would it violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to include the additional info on Almada in the article? Say simply adding "and cofounder and CEO of several nutritional products companies" or similar to his brief bio. It could be construed as combining material from multiple sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (ie that the "expert" is an industry competitor and this should be considered when assessing his opinion). Thoughts?-- Insider201283 ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
your rants here are off-topic for this question I've asked on this board, which is posing a relatively simple question. Take it to talk on the article please. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I drag some eyes over to Talk:Weeping Angels to comment in an RfC regarding some especially dull edit-war? Please centralise all dialogue there. Ta. ╟─ Treasury Tag► without portfolio─╢ 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is full of unsubstantiated, uncited, unverifiable claims. It is full of weasel words, and what appears to be independent research. The offending section is the subheading Cosmology. Miloserdia ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
An article filled to the brim, nay, overflowing with original research and synthesis. I made some of the easy edits--tags, rm of all-too obvious synthesis and OR, trimmed the images a bit, marked some incomprehensible grammar. This strikes me as the pet project of one editor who is responsible for all of its content, and reminds me of articles like Tahash. It has the usual traits of such labors of love: torturous grammar and verbosity, abundant use of images, etc--but more to the point, heavy reliance on primary sources and even explicitly stating that acts of synthesis and comparison (i.e., original research) are taking place. Note my edit summaries for edits where I removed or marked some egregious examples. If any of you feel an invisible spirit moving you toward improving the encyclopedia, here's just the project for you. Drmies ( talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories could use a few experienced editors to patrol it for OR and SYNTH violations. Cheers! Location ( talk) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been pretty bold in editing this. There's been a lot of attention drawn to this individual. Out of sensationalism and other factors, it has turned into a very large convoluted idea or theory of the truth. It would appear that there's very little verifiable information. I've requested citations on what needs to be removed, but if anyone would like to contribute to clarifying it so that it is factual and according to WP:BIO, it would be appreciated. Mnemnoch ( talk) 07:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:BIO#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators Mnemnoch ( talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a bit of an edit war going on over what I see as a clear case of OR, but at least one other current editor does not and keeps deleting the tag. A bit of history in that I added the tag originally back in 2009 and it was discussed in talk but got nowhere, I eventually left that section, which needs a lot of work, and later the article (and WP) for a year or so. I started editing again recently. Today another editor removed the tag so it showed up in my watch list. I checked the article, the problem was still there except worse - the only source used for the claim, a primary source website, was now non-existent. That means of course that now it can't even be investigated by new eyes to see if it is OR or not. To top it off, the claims are about living people, so WP:BLP applies however they're not particularly controversial, they are however in my opinion being used to push a particular POV. So, that's the background, here's the specifics - [12] -
Multiple high-ranking Amway leaders such as Richard DeVos and Dexter Yager are also owners and members of the board of Gospel Films, a producer of movies and books geared towards conservative Christians as well as co-owner (along with Salem Communications) of Gospel Communications. [1] dead link
The source is a now defunct organisations website. The original "OR" problem I raised is that the source didn't even mention the topic of the article, Amway. To make the statement someone had to first connect to Amway Richard DeVos (not hard, he's co-founder and mentioned in the article) and Dexter Yager (not mentioned at all in the article other than this statement) and then research those people to find this information about them and independently connect it to Amway. To me that's clearly original research, even if factual. The next problem is the apparent POV reasoning behind why it was added - to create some POV particular image of Amway. In reality it's a far more complex picture. The founders are well known conservative christians, as are some of the top leaders in the US, but the majority of Amway's revenue and sales force are in countries like China, Indonesia, and India, where christians Amway reps are in a very small minority. There are literally thousands of "top ranking" Amway reps and Amway executives. It's simply silly to go around researching each ones affiliations outside of Amway and reporting them in the article so a clear idea of "overall" culture might somehow be obtained. So, in short we have some unsourced trivial OR being used to push a POV. I didn't think it should be in the article 2 years ago, and now that the source is gone I definitely think it should be removed. Comments appreciated. -- Icerat ( talk) 01:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, while the OR problem for that particular source is now covered, it seems to me that, as it stands, there is still a clear case of WP:SYNTH in this whole section, which is an OR issue. Adding in a small number of organisational/religious affiliations of a couple of a corporate "leaders" under a section "Politics & Culture" appears to me to be a clear violation of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my bold). What purpose does independently researching these affiliation and publishing them in the article serve other than to imply that these affiliations mean something about the corporate culture? A list of directorships and/or alleged religious/political views or affiliations of all "leaders" of a multinational company of 13000 employees and 3 million independent reps is undoubtedly extensive, and if of WP standard should be in the article on those individuals, not in this section of an article on one of his companies. -- Icerat ( talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
References
Real-time contrast chart contains results of the author's research in the field of quality control. Currently discussion of the subject of the article has only been published as a technical report at Arizona State University, but is apparently slated to appear in one of the American Society for Quality's journals. This raises several questions:
It doesn't get much more "original" than speculation.
Canada has just finished the 41st election. The date for the next election has not even been set. An election is only decided AFTER all the votes are counted. Rating the parties based on how many seats they used to have is speculative at best. The point of an election is that it begins from nothing. Although Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister today, at the beginning of teh next election day, he becomes the former Prime Minister until the ballots are cast.
This page is highly prejudicial in this apparent prediction of who the next Prime Minister will be.
In doing this, Wikipedia casts aside any claim to neutrality.
Harry Blue5 has over a period of several weeks repeatedly reverted the "Later Appearances" part of Revan to remove what he describes as Original Research. Trouble is, he has deleted wholesale a whole series of assertions with varying degrees of OR-ness, and at no time has an explanatory entry been put on the discussion page. I've added something to the discussion page on this, but to summarize a little discrimination would be in order. Sdoradus ( talk) 07:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I deleted a "citation needed" tag in Tractor beam and posted the following reason on the Talk page. It seems to me that this may be a good place to raise the issue.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 23:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The comparable aircraft list in many aircraft articles is purely OR and never sourced.
For example: Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle
It's an aircraft that has never been built, has no orders and people just list out whatever cool aircraft they feel like.
My proposal is to toss out the Comparable aircraft section entirely and let the comparisons be done inline in statements driven by sources. Hcobb ( talk) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies".
European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141.
ISBN
9780195143614. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
states among other things
by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.
The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We can close this here since it's been covered @ WP:RSN.-- Termer ( talk) 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Unite Against Fascism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See [ [22]
An editor is attempting to insert their own commentary regarding a primary source, complete with all sorts of other POV commentary. Thank you. 81.151.158.156 ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to notify people here of a discussion I've started here, regarding the criteria ( WP:OI) for determining when it is/isn't appropriate to use free, self-published images (i.e. original, user-created images that are not published in reliable sources) in articles. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph was recently added to the bio of Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, Somalia's new Prime Minister; it was posted under the heading "Corruption":
On May 24, 2011 the Associated Press reported that more than $70 million that was given to the Somali government by Arab nations for the purpose of fighting piracy, terrorism, and hunger had gone missing. It is unclear where the funds are now, but Finance Minister Hussein Halane indicated that the Prime Minister two separate $ 5 million payments from the UAE on behalf of the government but only $5 million was deposited into the Central Bank. It's still unclear where the other $5 million has gone. [1]
I believe the paragraph is an example of original research and a WP:BLP violation since the Associated Press article [23] that it is supposedly sourced to does not directly and explicitly indicate anywhere that the Premier is accused of having personally pocketed the 'missing' funds (it is also the only news article that covers this story; all the other instances are republications of the AP article; c.f. [24]). It just indicates that that donor money is unaccounted for. In fact, on page 2 of the article, the aforementioned Finance Minister Halane is quoted describing how he believes the unaccounted for funds were spent:
"not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited"
Likewise, here's what the article states with regard to what the government indicated as to how it spends the donor money:
"The government says it uses the money to win over citizens like Ahmed by providing services and security."
Given the above, I believe that the edit is rather libelous since it insinuates that the Premier is guilty of something serious (theft) which the article's quoted government sources themselves clearly do not indicate. And per WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Please advise. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
References
Hy there. I need some good advice because I'm faced with a strange problem.
We have a whole original German text:
Then we have a historian
Mahmood Mamdani who in a book quotes the two following sentences:
It seems to be based upon the following translation:
A helpful user found another translation made by the same translator:
It was made very clear that Mamdani's quote and conclusions have to remain unchanged. I agreed with that. However I also wish to include JBG's second translation (making no personal comparison between the translation and Mamdani's quote and/or his conclusions) in the article (in a different section).
A concern of OR was expressed. Now I need to know if the inclusion of the second translation is allowed, or should the article only use one of the two translations? If so, why, which one, how do we decide between the two, and who decides? Flamarande ( talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be based upon the following translation
So you have no confirmation that this is correct, and that claim is only your personal suspicion?
I know that this translation is used by several sources not only Mamdani, so it also valid, and certainly not his own idea.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, he uses the exact same words (it might be a weird coincedence) Other books use the same translation. Look, you have been campaigning for this on three places as far as I know? Care to explain what makes this so much important?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a universal answer to the question. In a short article, with a sharp contrast between two translations, the contrast might unavoidably convey a point not supported by the sources. Normally, though, I don't see any problem with using two translations in different sections, assuming there's a good reason for each. What was the text that was added (or the gist of the statements that were to be added) to Herero and Namaqua Genocide, and what section were they to be added to? -- Dan Wylie-Sears 2 ( talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like original research made by the author. Sources that mention the subject don't appear to be from academically respected publications (one is the author's own youtube video, another the author's own website, another is some alternate energy website. (The 4th (ref# 2) doesn't appear to mention the subject.)) Also the only editor of the article appears to be the creator of the term. Here's a link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Displacement_Space_Drive -June 1, 2011
An effort is being made to bring the Falkland Islands article to WP:GA standard. In describing the geography of the islands, I made a few references to information that was gleaned from maps rather than from text. Some fellow-editors suggested that in so doing, I was engaging in WP:OR, but they suggested that a wider opinion be sought.
The first of my comments was that the northern part of the Falklands Sound (which separates the two main islands) had clear water but that the southern part contained numerous islands. (See map alongside this posting)
The second of my comments was that there were a number of channels in between the islands in the southern part of the sound that were deeper than the basin in the northern part of the sound. I gleaned this information from the relevant Admiralty charts. This again is hardly original work as I am sure that both the British and the Argentine naval officers made the same observations during the Falklands War.
Jimmy Wales voiced his agreement [ here] with the text "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonethless [sic] synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research". Opposed to this, the article WP:OR states "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented".
May I suggest that the crucial wording in Jimmy Wales' observation is, "non-standard". In the case in question, there can be no question that Admiralty Charts are reliable, published sources. One of the principal uses of Admiralty charts is to identify land and sea masses and the depths of water availalbe, especially to mariners. I used totally standard techniques to interpret the maps - the sort of techniques that would be taught at school and would also be taught (in much greater detail) to aspiring navigators. The material concerned therefore directly supports the claims. Anybody who has access to the maps and who is familiar reading maps can of course verify the claims that I have made.
I believe therefore that the editors who suggested that I was engaging in WP:OR were being over-cautious in trying to prevent me from jeopardiasing the GA bid that we will be making. I, on the other hand, believe that I was using a perfectly reason and natural resource in the manner that it was designed to be used. What is the opinion of others? Martinvl ( talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Since I haven't posted here, let my detail my concerns. All geographic references are based on the topographic map in this section.
The edit said that the southern part of the sound contains numerous islands, while the northern sound is clear. So far as I can see, this is accurate only if one puts the ends of the sound at the enclosing headlands near Port San Carlos, and at roughly Great Island. From what I have seen (and I haven't seen the source), this is a legitimate definition but not the only legitimate definition. One could equally use a line from Cape Dolphin to Pebble Island to mark the northern end of the sound, and a line from Cape Meredith to George Island to mark the southern end - a far wider area. In this case, the area around the Tyssen Islands is close to the geographic centre of the sound, not in the south of it. The southern end of the sound is thus clear of islands.
It seems to me that this edit relies on this interpretation to make its point, but I have not seen evidence that this interpretation is backed up by a source. I am also concerned, as reading information from maps has been considered OR in the past, that it might be a good idea to avoid relying on them, and that textual sources would be better. Pfainuk talk 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
To build on what Camelbinky said, there are literally thousands of articles on highways in the United States alone, and their main references are to maps for the route description. To date, almost 40 of these articles have passed through WP:FAC and been promoted as Featured Articles using maps to back basic descriptions of a highway's route. The key here is whether a non-specialist can look at the map and interpret the plain facts being asserted in writing. Most maps are secondary sources; the primary source material is aerial photography, surveyors' field notes, GIS data, etc. Creating a map involves significant editorial control (what features to include? exclude? what data to show? what gets labeled and how?) and so your basic map is a secondary source. Care has to be taken though not to overstate what the map tells us: it can give us the location of something, but it can't tell us why that feature is there. Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have raise an RfC WT:No original research#RfC: Are maps in general secondary sources? on this question since I can see the problem affects a number of featured articles. Dmcq ( talk) 16:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
At Jacobite Succession Nocrowx ( talk · contribs) has replaced text he'd added earlier that I'd removed as OR. I'd posted to his talk page and he says he is just summing up a widely known fact and "applying it to the bit about Moncreiffe's theory". He says " And I have had this problem in the past-editors and administrators seeming not to really read the text but only notice that there is no citation; No citation is required because I am not adding new information just summing up what is widely known fact ". The text he added says "Another interesting question raised by Moncreiffe's theory is that had the act of settlement not been passed, then George III would probably not have been born in Britain and so the House of Hanover as well as the House of Savoy would have had to be bypassed on Cardinal York's death" [35]. I can't source it and he isn't saying he can, just that he thinks it isn't OR. I believe it is. Dougweller ( talk) 17:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous editor or editors are edit warring on the Eastern Orthodox Church article.
Their arguments to justify their behavior is that an un-familiar source validated for them that the article should be modified to express their opinion. They have began an extensive argument to try an change the article on the article talkpage. Talk:Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Orthodox_CATHOLIC_Church.3F.21.3F However they have not provided valid sources for the point of view that they wish the article to contain and or reflect. LoveMonkey ( talk) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
USANA Health Sciences ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dealing with some undue weight issues with this article, and I proposed adding (what I thought was) a rather benign factual statement about a certification this company has on its main product line:
"The tablets that make up the Essentials product are certified by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program to be regularly tested for substances considered prohibited in sport and that the products have been manufactured to high quality standards."
The WP:RS for this statement is the certification program itself:
"Informed Choice tested products-USANA". Retrieved 28 April 2011.
"About Informed Choice". Retrieved 28 April 2011.
One of the editors on this page feels this is WP:SYNTH because one URL of this source explains what the certification is, and the other URL shows the list of products certified in a table.
You can see the discussion on the talk page here: Talk:USANA Health Sciences#Informed-Choice
I would appreciate any feedback - thank you!
Leef5
TALK |
CONTRIBS 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has been up far too long it is a biography written by the subject's mother or something. Contains all these references to camps and games that no one but the author could really know about. [Dante Anderson] 50.80.150.100 ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Imagine you are an editor working on a List of ancient architectural records and you want to determine the largest Greco-Roman canal from modern scholarship. You find that no classicists explicitly calls the Ancient Suez Canal the largest canal in antiquity. Yet this must be almost certainly the case because in the texts and (unsorted) lists they have published this canal features as the largest by far, just not expressis verbis referred to this way. Is it WP:SYN to list the Ancient Suez Canal as the largest ancient canal or not? Note that this is not an isolated examples, but an almost common occurrence in the List of ancient architectural records, main author of which I am. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Over several weeks we have been patiently revising the criticism section of the NLP article on the talk page. After a lot of discussion the material was posted with the title "Scientific Criticism". One editor is refusing to accept that title on the grounds that several of the articles referenced describe NLP as a pseudo-science which is not (he asserts) a scientific term. He therefore argues that to use Scientific Criticism as a title is original research unless a reference can be found that says pseudo-science is a scientific term. It has been countered the language used in scientific articles is the language of science and this is the title used for creation science. I have debated taking this to ANI as a behaviour issue, but decided its better to keep the temperature down and deal with things issue by issue. So the question is very simply:
If the term pseudo-science is used in articles from scientific journals as a criticism is it original research to use the title "Scientific Criticism"? -- Snowded TALK 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I had previously requested a third opinion, which the other party had decided to completely ignore, with a rationale that brings me here.
In question is the use of the word "cholo" to describe a certain type of role that an actor has played multiple times. The source is an interview [40] in which the interviewer uses the term "Mexican thug" (which is the term I believe should be used in the article), and the interviewee describes it " the leader of a gang again" and "—all these thug characters". But neither uses the term "cholo". The other editor keeps reverting to a linked and piped "cholo" [41] because "the article is about a US actor who played the same role several times, which matches the cholo subculture right down to body language, intonation and accent (which Diaz fakes for the character's sake). Therefore, the US usage fits as we are talking about several US films that depict US culture." and he is refusing to listen that that is original research and that we should use the common English phrase "Mexican thug" rather than having to pipe to a term that has multiple meanings, the major usage of which is an ethnic slur. Active Banana (bananaphone 03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename.2C redirect.2C and merge content that may be of interest to editors here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
USANA Health Sciences#Sponsorships ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I started a new OR noticeboard discussion section in particular about the Sponsorships section of this article since the prior OR noticeboard on Informed Choice appears to be concluded.
Talk discussion here between myself and 2 other editors: Talk:USANA Health Sciences#Sponsorships
The current article text is in its own section "Sponsorships", with the following two sentences:
USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations. In 2006, USANA signed a co-sponsorship agreement with the Sony Ericsson WTA tour.
I proposed expanding the text since the organizations listed by the Usana's website are notable. Even though WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed for non-controversial information, I also cited the organization itself where they listed Usana as a sponsor. The following text was proposed:
USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations and individuals. Notable organizations include:
- Sony Ericsson WTA Tour
- US Speedskating
- TeamBiathlon Canada
- Tuzos del Pachuca Soccer Club
- Speed Skating Canada
- Cross Country Canada
- Women's Ski Jumping USA
- Great Britain Short Track Speed Skating Team
The citations are viewable on the talk page link (If there is a way to keep refs within 1 section of a talk page, I would be happy to edit the refs back in here rather than point to the talk page).
Arguments against expanding the text are summarized by one of the editors here:
Argument diff
I would appreciate any further commentary so we can move the stalled consensus along. Thank you for your time. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Vmenkov has put together a list of
sources showing that a term "Tsardom of Russia"/"Russian Tsardom" is simply a generic phrase referring to "tsarism" in general or Russian monarchy in general. At the time when historians and sources discussing the name of the state during the era pr
WP:RS refer to Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy.
Yet there's an editor who puts together
1.|a google search for "Russia"
[45]|
The problem is "Tsardom of Russia" with its about only 184 results on google books like shown by Vmenkov are:
At the time when for example "Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy" returns 1,930 / 1,360 results on google books, the sources that speak about the name of the state during the era in question in Russian history indeed.
Any comments anybody? and please outside input only. It is very clear that some involved editors simply prefer to use "Tsardom of Russia" for whatever reason. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The idea of novel biochemistry is old stuff in science fiction and in some essays. Thus, the topic and the article on Hypothetical types of biochemistry are not necessarily ill-conceived. But large parts of the article are simply essays. For example, Hypothetical types of biochemistry#Nitrogen and phosphorus biochemistry is basically a discussion of some chemical facts, implying that somehow these chemical phenomena are or could be the basis of life. Well, this kind of discussion could go on for ever. I could imagine that xyz reaction could be used for replication, etc. So restated factoids and novel views may or might not be valid, but Wikipedia main space is not the place for editors to discuss ideas. This article contains a lot of this kind of essaying.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Within the article mentioned in the subject heading there is currently mention that Beau Brummell helped to popularize in the 18th C. a style of gentlemanly dress involving snug-tight breeches at the area of the genitalia. It it has been suggested that such sourced scholarship is original research within the context of an article about [the exact phrase(?)] visible penis line--if not the general subject matter of the visible outline of penises in clothing (I'm a little confused as to the objection, actually). Thoughts?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops! It's at crotch bulge: "Some scholars believe that the tight-crotched, pale trousers of the eighteenth century, such as those introduced by the era's (and subsequent eras') formative arbiter of men's fashion George Brummell, were designed to copy the style of dress in classical statuary and so can be thought of as aligned with the Classical Revival in architecture" (with the reference pointing to the biography, Beau Brummell, page 121, where the quote can be found, "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George Brummell, accented the crotch").-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a section in the article Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories dealing with FOIA requests. None of the sources provided link the information to conspiracy theories, so I (and several other editors) have removed it as WP:SYNTH, but it keeps getting restored by Erroneuz. I'd like some people more experienced with NOR/SYNTH than I am to take a look at it and provide some input. Kevin ( talk) 05:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A user is creating various articles about Chinese books (see [50], [51], [52] for instance). However these books have never been published in English language so he gives his own translation of the title. Translation is a form of interpretation, especially when translating from Chinese to English, so I get the feeling this is original research. For instance, he translated "神拳" as "Divine Boxing" which is an acceptable translation, but it could also be, more literally, "The Fist of God" or the "Divine Fist", etc. Also it doesn't feel right that we become the only one source where the book is titled that way. What do you think? Laurent ( talk) 06:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Editor is engaged in highly ideological battles to preserve/maintain the reputation of Jefferson. In this example (by no means the only one), he distorted the facts, adding material not supported by the cited text. In fact, he went so far as to claim the opposite of the text:
Nowhere does Finkelman say that; Gwhillickers made it up. This makes TJ's behaviour towards slaves look better than it really was. This is part of a systematic effort by this editor to present a whitewashed version of history. Why is Gwhillickers allowed to invent history, distort the facts and get away with it time and time again? This is not the first time on the OR or fringe theory board. I have warned this editor many times about this exact problem. I request an investigation. Ebanony ( talk) 10:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion at the talk page about whether reporting our original observation that a source omits something is or is not OR. See Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Partridge_revisited Gacurr ( talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
So we have two answers:
So what answer is correct for (no) original research with a dictionary? Gacurr ( talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There has been a discussion [54] regarding a proposal for additional text concerning the TM-Sidhi program and its effect on the country of Mozambique as expressed by its President Joaquim Chissano. Below is the text currently in the article:
One editor feels that the article should include other significant points of view on the country's politics and drought even if the sources do not mention the article topic. Other editors feel that this violates WP:OR which says: “Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."
What is the opinion of the community on this issue? Thanking you in advance for your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
SUMMARY: It appears that two involved editors (Keithbob and Uncreated)plus one uninvolved editor (Dmcq) feel the proposed text and sources cited in this thread violate WP:OR and only one involved editor (Will Beback) feels otherwise. Thank you to all who participated in the discussion. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Some IP's are editing Ottoman Algeria related articles by Nationalistic/OR editing, by replacing all the information related to the Ottoman vilayet of Algiers with OR information stating that it was an independent kingdom : [59] [60] [61]. Can an admin make an "autoconfirmed" protection on these articles or intervene by any way?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Omar-Toons (
talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is about an ancient building which the Bible says to have been in Jerusalem before the 6th century BCE. As the article says, the Bible is the only direct evidence for the existence of the building. Naturally there are arguments between archaeologists over whether the Bible story is plausible, and that would be a fair topic for the article. My complaint is that user Xtraeme wants to add a paragraph based on a National Geographic article that does not mention Solomon's Temple at all. It concerns, for example, a copper mine distant from Jerusalem that has been dated to the same period as the Biblical account of the temple. My view is that this is Original Research unless the source makes the connection to the temple, which it doesn't. The paragraph in question and some discussion is at Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2#Relevance of paragraph. Zero talk 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Xtraeme (
talk) 16:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Listening very careful I hear that "ergo", and that's the problem--you are the one linking the temple to the copper mines, not the source. That's OR. And I think it's appropriate to say that Solomon is known for more than just the temple. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Ergo the implication here - no, there is no such implication. Perhaps it was for making gifts to give to his many concubines, or the queen of Sheba. I fail to see how this is even relevant to the article. All Finkelstein is used for is the suggestion that the design followed Phoenician models. How does the mine challenge that in any way? How is it relevant at all? Paul B ( talk) 21:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No, stop being dishonest. This discussion was initiated because you restored a paragraph which had been raised on the article talk page. The content of that paragraph as a whole was at issue. This is the NOR board. I did not remocve the entire section. That is false and you know it. You have now behaved in an outrageous fashion by reverting my entirely legitimate edit as "vandalism". That is totally unacceptable. There is no discussion of Finkelstein's theory of the size of Jerusalem in the Solomon's Temple article. The only theory of his mentioned is that the temple design was based on Phoenician models. This is the fifth time I have pointed this out and you have evaded the point once more, after changing your argument entirely during this discussion without acknowledging the fact. I would welcome your raising my edit anywehere you want to. There is no point in having a paragraph debating a theory that has not even been expressed in the article. I wonder if you have even read the article under discussion. Paul B ( talk) 19:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The article on Leuren K Moret is substantially inaccurate. My attempts to correct this have fallen into the "No Original Research" rule. I posted copy of a letter I received in response to a California Public Records Act request to the Internet Archive. This letter proves the actual job and duration of employment that Moret had at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and is an "original source document". It should carry more weight that Moret stating that she worked at Livermore for two years and in some variants that she was a "nuclear scientist"
http://www.archive.org/details/LeurenKMoret-RealJobAtLawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratory Leuren K Moret often asserts that she was a "nuclear scientist" at two DOE National Laboratories. This letter, obtained from the University of California operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under the California Public Records Act shows that Moret was not a "scientist" and worked very briefly at the Laboratory. Moret was a Senior Scientific Technologist in the Center for Applied Scientific Computing for less than a year from 1989 to 1990. Moret also claims to have been trained in radiation detection by Manhattan Project Scientist Marion Fulk. Fulk's employment from 1964 to 1984, a normal 20 year career, as a Chemist at the Laboratory is also addressed in this letter. Moret never worked with Fulk either since Fulk retired in 1984, five years before Moret began work at the Lab. (I have since learned that Fulk worked at the University of Chicago in some capacity from 1945-1947; this may have had some connection to the Manhattan Project, but it is still very unlikely that newly graduated Mr Fulk was a "Manhattan Project Scientist")
The article begins with calling Moret a "Geoscientist". Moret has a BS in Geology and no known work experience as a Geologist in any capacity. She has no peer reviewed published papers in Geology. She has co-authorship of three papers derived from the doctoral research of two other graduate students who now are past Departmental Chairs at major universities. One of them advised that he gave Moret the co-authorship because she operated the differential scanning calorimeter that contributed essential data for his research and he advised that this role as a "technician" was repeated for the other doctoral candidate's research.
I am concerned because Moret is using Wikipedia to advance her false claims that the University of Alaska HAARP Research Facility is being used as a tectonic weapon to cause earthquakes such as the ones in Haiti, Chile and Japan. Moret uses her "verified by Wikipedia" to be a Geoscientist to make this and other claims. She has never performed any scientific research into the causes of earthquakes and knows nothing about radio frequency radiation.
I first ran afoul of Moret when I noted that she was to speak as a whistleblower at a Berkeley bookstore in the summer of 2005. I sent them an e-mail questioning Moret's being a whistleblower since she is not and her speaking there. Moret claimed in e-mails that I had been thrown out of the bookstore. I never was there. I was with my wife and daughter at a grief therapy session more than ten miles away. That is my first first-hand experience with Moret's failure to tell the truth. Anyone who carefully examines her voluminous internet articles, YouTube videos, internet radio interviews, etc. will also quickly conclude that Moret is a pseudoscientist charlatan con artist. Wikipedia should not advance the cause of such a person.
I welcome contact with all. I now have copies of all three of the co-author papers, e-mails and documents I obtained from the Berkeley City Clerk pertaining to Moret's service as one the nine members of the Community Environmental Advisory Commission and her removal for failure to attend sufficient meetings and other correspondence.
Roger Rhotel1 ( talk) 09:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am arguing on the talk page that sources need to actually discuss the subject of an article, but am being ignored by the IP originally inserting the material. I don't want to hit 3RR and a mysterious IP has suddenly shown up to avoid the original editor hitting 3RR [64]. The subject of the article is a 19th century document claimed to be a translation of a Native American document but almost undoubtedly a hoax. I hsve no reason to think that " Gerald Vizenor wrote in 1994 that "Native American Indian literatures have been overburdened with critical interpretations based on structuralism and other social science theories that value incoherent foundational representations of tribal experiences." isn't an accurate quote from The Ruins of Representation. Shadow Survivance and the Literature of Dominance. American Indian Quarterly. Volume 17. Winter 1993., but it's a general statement and the IP makes no effort to suggest it's discussing the Walum Olum. I've had amazing problems with this editor in the past and given his use of IP addresses (he used to editor under a named account) am not likely on my own to do much about this (there's another issue there I'm taking to RSN, the use of a writer whoses expertise seems to be the role of American Indians in the media, sports etc as a commentator on this document). Dougweller ( talk) 06:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that two editors are inserting their own private surmises into the Needle-exchange programme page and elevating these surmises over the clear and direct statements of an authoritative publication I have cited on that page. I am concerned that they are trying to sanitize for Wikipedia readers the impact of a recent review on needle exchange effectiveness which found serious errors in previous important reviews which nullifies their claim to demonstrated effectiveness.
The publication I have cited is the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction here which published a 2010 Monograph on Harm Reduction here. Chapter 5 deals with the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchanges in preventing HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C transmission via a review of reviews by Norah Palmateer and colleagues, who also published a very similar review of reviews in Addiction at the same time. The Palmateer review of reviews describes their method . . . "Selected reviews were critically appraised using a tool that considers the rigour of the methods used to identify the relevant literature, the appraisal of the primary literature, the quality of the analysis in the case of meta-analysis, and the appropriateness of the conclusions (Kelly et al., 2002; Palmateer et al., 2010). Reviews rated 1 or 2 were included as high-quality (‘core’) reviews. Reviews rated 3 were retained as ‘supplementary’, not considered to be of sufficient quality to rely on the author’s conclusions but viewed as providing complementary information on the effectiveness of the interventions.” They then state which reviews were considered ‘core’ . . . "Evidence of the effects of NSPs on HIV incidence/prevalence was considered in four core reviews (Gibson et al., 2001; Käll et al., 2007; Tilson et al., 2007; Wodak and Cooney, 2004), which included a total of 18 primary studies with HIV incidence or prevalence outcomes."
The two aforementioned editors that have prompted my concerns here then disparage the most damaging review by Käll et al by claiming that Palmateer et al considers it to be of 'poor quality'. The text, to which they have interpolated their criticisms now reads “The two 2010 Palmateer et al 'review of reviews' scrutinised previous formal reviews of needle exchange studies and after critical appraisal four reviews met the inclution criterias, where three where deemed to be of good quality (Gibson et al., 2001; Tilson et al., 2007; Wodak and Cooney, 2004) while one was of poor quality (Käll et al., 2007). ” [65] To back this claim the two editors reverting my text cite an obscure paragraph on page 127 of the Palmateer study, which says “The United Kingdom National Institute for Clinical Excellence’ review of optimal NSP service delivery (Jones et al., 2008) included a review of reviews component on HIV prevention that evaluated the four reviews considered above. Consistent with our assessment, they concluded: ‘There is evidence from two good-quality systematic reviews [Wodak and Cooney, 2004; Gibson et al., 2001] to support the effectiveness of NSPs in reducing HIV infection among IDUs. However, findings from two other systematic reviews [Tilson et al., 2007; Käll et al., 2007], including one good quality review [Tilson et al., 2007], suggest that the evidence may be less convincing.’” here.
From this they construct their view of supposed ‘poor quality’, despite Palmateer specifically saying that ‘core’ studies only have sufficient rigour. My observation is that the judgment, ‘poor quality’, is never stated by Palmateer of the Käll et al review, and that these editors have to argue from silence to make their conclusion. My belief is that arguments from silence, and creating judgments that clash with the clear words of the cited source is Original Research. Interested in other views. Minphie ( talk) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
My name is Dan Blake and I am Seamus Blake's father. I recently came across a Wikipedia entry for my son, who is a professional saxophone player. The basic information is factually correct. However, the entry had been identified as one lacking acceptable citations. Following your directions I entered a citation for the biographical information and a second citation for the reference to the Monk Competition. I hope this meets your requirements.
I also made some minor changes to the text, but did not alter any facts. Finally, I updated the discography. I'm not clear what constitutes a citation for the discography, so I listed the websites for the record companies which produced the CDs.
I am anxious to expand the entry and would appreciate any direction you can provide.
Dan Blake
At first look, this article appears to be advertisement, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. That being said, it only has two referenced sourced, neither of which mention the subject matter in any way. Should it be labeled as SPAM, NOR, or NPV?
74.93.193.189 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the latest updates to George Seldes by Rgoldfilm, one of which carries this edit note:
Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This article has a lot of possible original research. Does calling certain musical acts and genres "Popular" indicate original research?
This is opens an interesting can of worms. On the one hand, the prohibitions against POV and OR are what make Wikipedia a more reliable and balanced source of information than, say, your average blog or LiveJournal page, and I support editors who say if you want to crank up 'n' glorify your precious personal opinions on stuff like movies and music, there are plenty of other venues for it. If I didn't agree with Wikipedia's Verifiablity Über Alles, I wouldn't be here.
On the other hand, there are some types of information where it's much more difficult to try to expunge all biases than others. Anything interpretive, for instance. And not just in the realm of art criticism (where it's all glorified opinion, anyway), but in scholarly disciplines like history and literature. Academic fashions come and go; although e.g. deconstructionism/post-structuralism has been fading fast from American universities for the past decade, there's still tons of it out there (not to mention a crop of adults who went to school during its reign in the 80s-90s) which will continue to inform the sources of someone like myself who would love to write/edit articles about postwar American fiction.
But me, I agree with (one of my heroes) David Foster Wallace: I think rumors of The Death of the Author are greatly exaggerated ... And yet Barthes and Derrida are still the order of the day if I want to put something up about him or Don DeLillo or William Gaddis or my main man Thomas Pynchon. Unless I don't mind seeing my sturdy, pre-postmodern 70s sources continually "updated" with ideas currently stuffing the university stacks they happen not to teach anymore.
There are two general ways to write about movies or popular music. The much more Wikipedia-friendly way is not at all to try to be an art critic, but rather to take a cultural studies perspective and focus (like most published pop music critics) on the music's social impact. I mean, does it really matter what sorts of chord progressions, meters or song forms Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber use? Of course not; their notability doesn't at all revolve around anything verging on the precincts of the aesthetic. It's very easy to source comments on the impact and social influence of music like that. In fact, taking Wikipedia's Notability guidelines straight-no-chaser for pop music leads one to the inescapable conclusion that, with everything else being mere gusts of vaporous self-interested opinion, the most significant criterion for Wiki-worthiness is chart position.
Of course this is a straw man; not even the most rigid-minded defender of Wikipedian values would argue against Wikipedia as an invaluable source of information on obscure, commercially unviable music — provided, of course, the information is properly sourced. Ever hear of Miriodor? I didn't think so. They're a fantastic French Canadian RIO band, supported by the country's art councils, and they've taken America by storm at progfests. Their reviews on AllMusic are great. And the Wiki article's a stub — "which you can improve by adding to it." That always makes me chuckle. Really? After you've stated the basics, established their notability, listed your sources (and the article is unflagged) — what do you do for an encore? Even if I could translate the French reviews, we really aren't supposed to pad articles with extensive source quotes for copyright reasons. And why would I want to? I have an ear, a knowledge of music analysis and a whole library of similar complex progrock in my head. I could write a couple bang-on paragraphs describing the music (because with Miriodor, it does matter what sorts of time signatures and structural devices they use) and comparing it to like-minded progrock in a language that would be understood by the sorts of people who might seek out that music. But of course it wouldn't be advisable because (naturally) it would be original research. Or would it? I suppose I could try ...
I already did a little cleaning up of the Allan Holdsworth page. I tweaked some theory-speak to make it more accurate (the article itself is volumnouously sourced but no inline cites for the Composition and Style section). Original research? I suppose so. Anybody's welcome to have a look and whack it, but it was written after extensive perusal of his interviews.
I did join the Progressive Rock project to see if I can't help my fellow proggers improve the access here to obscure music. I'm not trying to be contentious and claim that it's strictly impossible to use proper sourcing for what is inevitably advocacy by enthusiasts. I'm only trying to set out the conundrums before I find myself in them ...
Snardbafulator ( talk) 08:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Judith. Indeed, brevity is not my strong suit :(. I'll try to keep this a little shorter. You're of course spot on when it comes to pop music. Fellow progheads and myself, though, have spent lifetimes listening to, collecting and advocating for types of music on the fringes of fashion for which these sorts of distinctions aren't so cut and dried. Chris Cutler, the intellectual force behind the Rock in Opposition movement, is coming out of both a tradition of Little England artisanship that your page leads me to believe you'd appreciate, and a neomarxist-informed, Adornoite wholesale rejection of the culture industry. He and his RIO confreres wouldn't accept any industry "award" and they don't make it easy for rock journalists, either.
At this point, there are secondary sources for his colleagues and he ( Fred Frith was just granted an honorary degree), but it's taken 40 years of scraping to get there. What about the up-and-coming Chris Cutlers and Fred Friths out there?
As for pegging genre, unfortunately that's a perennial problem for sorts of music much more popular than the stuff I listen to. As the saying goes, don't call a grindcore band "death metal" to their fans unless you want your lights punched out in the venue parking lot. Unfortunately, I'm not exaggerating all that much; genre vandalism is a real problem on Wikipedia. I tweaked some genre things in the Holdsworth article (detailed reasoning on the Talk page). Sometimes a paid rock critic, who has his/her own agenda, isn't exactly the best source you can look to for this stuff. You have to dig deeply into a multitude of secondary sources to find a consensus and this is much more difficult with obscure music.
Difficult; not impossible. I'm not disputing your suggestions, just outlining why so many acceptibly-sourced articles for so many musically noteworthy bands are only stubs. Objective attributes only go so far to stretch out an article.
Snardbafulator ( talk) 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm interested in adding/adding to some band articles that would otherwise have no Notability issues per se, who will be or have been duly secondary-sourced. I'd appreciate some editorial feedback before I began, so I will be as concise as I can in asking the question. Understand that I'm not interested at all in adding fancruft, peacockery or weasel-wordage. I'd like to simply describe the technical musical attributes of certain outfits whose styles aren't encapsulated by the usual genre labels. I don't consider what I'd be adding as opinion-based; something either is or it isn't in odd time signatures, is or isn't influenced by Stravinsky's conception of neoclassicism, etc. While some of it might be above the heads of the average music fan, any music student, e.g., could confirm or disconfirm it. I'd use inline cites where I could of course, but I'd have to write some of this myself because large clearinghouse-type review sources like Allmusic which would most likely serve as a secondary source for obscure rock music, don't always have reviews written with the proper degree of care.
I consider what I'd be adding more descriptive than evaluative. Is this acceptible?
Snardbafulator ( talk) 21:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Judith. I'll hold off, then, until a more definitive view pops up. As it stands, I wouldn't know how to define "obscure," "important" or "in some way."
I agree with you about jazz and classical that both sorts of pages probably need more work than the majority of pages for rock and pop. Here's an example from classical of what I'm trying to get at: In 1913, Igor Stravinsky's ballet La Sacre du Printemps caused a riot at its Paris premiere and scandalized modern music circles for years afterward. Le Sacre also makes extensive use of parallel polytonality derived from octatonic clusters. From the eagle eye's view of music history, which of these two facts about Stravinsky's ballet is more important, the social/cultural one or the musical/theoretical one?
I'd submit you can't answer a question like that. Both facts are balled up in each other.
I'm a newbie (obviously), but after reading the stuff on Wikimedia philosophy, apparently there's a diversity of opinion here on whether or not Wikipedia is, can or should be "Radio 3 or France Musiques," as it is so many other things for other people. I've personally found Wikipedia to be an enormously valuable resource for info on RIO/Zeuhl and other international jazz/rock/experimental musics. Oftentimes, it's the most convenient place I can get a track listing online.
Snardbafulator ( talk) 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In response to a Wikipedian claiming that USEPA is not an citable source of information for Wikipedia, I thought I would ask for community concensus here. The exact quote on the linked page is:
Any EPA sources about the EPA fall under WP:PRIMARY and that makes most of the proposals for Clothianidin moot.
On a couple of different discussion pages, including my talk page, I've been reminded about Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources. My response to the primary/secondary issue for citations linking to USEPA's web site is that:
I believe the vast majority of USEPA’s web content and other publications fall into the realm of secondary or tertiary source material. While USEPA does have labs that do original research, our scientists do not conduct research to support pesticide chemical registrations, and we don’t write the laws upon which we base our policies and regulatory decisions.
Unfortunately, nobody responded to my response so I was left to conclude that silence implies consent. This seemed reasonable, in particular since USEPA is widely cited in Wikipedia to support excellent, NPOV content as well as...shall we say...more tightly focused perspectives.
So, what say you? Excluding original research of the sort conducted at agency laboratories, are USEPA references (e.g. pesticide registration decisions, study review memos, web pages explaining agency decisions, etc) acceptable as a source when the Wikipedia content discusses pesticide chemicals, court decisions in which the agency is a named party, etc? Also, does the acceptability of referencing the agency's published material depend on the editor? I, for example, work for EPA and make my affiliation explicit in my username and personal page. Is there a COI if my edits refer to agency publications and/or online content? Thx -- USEPA James ( talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have taken on the editing of this page using family records available since the death of my mother Marianne Clifton (2nd wife). The substance of the page dealing with his career from 1939 will be updated when I have time to go to the National Archives [UK] and read the newly released personnel file.
konrad02 [John Konrad]
Editors created the essay for a school project (original synthesis). jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 04:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia: Why are my changes being reversed. See what happened on the Corwin Amendment. Why are my changes called disruptive, Original Research, and fringe theory? I do not speak Wikipedia-ish and cannot understand these policies. I am only trying to help. As to my changes please consider:: Say a town has an ordinance that the 700 block of main street is a one-way street from east to west already on the books. However, before it was adopted some had proposed making ALL of main street one way in the opposite direction. Eventually, IF the council passes this proposed-but-previously-unadopted ordinance, it is reasonable to conclude that the ordinance about the 700 block is repealed. No one would object to it, and no article would be published to verify it. And it would not be a fringe theory. 71.139.156.8( talk) 04:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to add the following sentence to the article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.
The Obama voters were 30% of the population 18 years or older. [1]
Is the number of Obama voters divided by the number of people 18 years or older original research? The reference which is not visible is U.S. Census, Resident Population by Sex and Age: 1980 to 2009.
Id447 ( talk) 22:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it to be swept under the carpet £Billions of pounds lost by: all places of learning, schools, universities, hospitals, care homes, residential homes, meeting halls, charities, military camps, camping sites, holiday caravan parks, prisons, penal institutions, royal palaces. Whether failure of procurement or lack of publication of legislation their entitlement benefit to be swiped away. Wrong and misleading advice over many years prevented proper application for free disposal entitlement presentation to local authorities. Statutory regulations provided re-characterisation of waste arising on premises from commercial type organisations most of charitable nature or amenity benefit having entitlement to "household" waste classification. Household waste has the disposal charge paid under national council taxation in advance each year. Desperate to change legislation government are seeking to remove these benefits by handing their legislation power over to local councils the intention to jettison some from the list. The difficulty arising most listed under Schedule 2 are of charitable nature and benefit to the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hihen ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The above page has tables which an editor compiled in order to explain the findings of this somewhat controversial school of thought. Referencing is not detailed enough to trace which point comes from which author. Are any of them OK to include, or are they OR/SYNTH? Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Can someone explain: "Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making great advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed anything significant to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E.[ref name="History of Science"] "History of Science"[/ref] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking."
The comment made on the talk page, which was then erased and I had to go through history to find it was:
Your reference doesn't actually contain the claim you made in the article, and it reads more as an opinion piece than as encyclopedic content. See the policy against original research or synthesis
We are allowed to add things aren't we? If you review the history you only find 5 Latin Europeans that made significant (other than rewriting others works) contributions, while there were multiple original discoveries/advancements in science and engineering by others during this period. That is neither Original research or synthesis, any more than saying there are 5 red apples in a multitude of red and yellow apples and oranges. The statement of a simple truth is not research or synthesis, if it was then Wikipedia could be nothing other than a collection of quotes from people who have been published!
As far as the translation of the Arabic texts, this is common knowledge for anyone who has ever dealt with the sciences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 April 20
And I now better understand what is going on. You will prevent any idea you do not like to nit-picked to death, and yet those false ideas you agree with are perfectly acceptable. And I know this because you have not removed or annotated any of the items I have listed, just used the old excuse, well other people did it but I'm not going to say anything because deep down in my heart I believe them to be right.
Lets look at the quote - "However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[8][9]" You have let this be part of the article for quite some time now, and I can analyze it this way:
This same analysis can can be applied to statement after statement in Wikipedia. As a matter of fact youre analysis can be applied to any non directly quoted statement anywhere in Wikipedia. My statement of facts meets the same criteria as other statements made, and as such should be accepted if Wikipedia is an even handed organization. The rules must be followed, but they must be applied equally to all.
And my source is as reliable and probably less biased one way or the other than many of the sources quoted in this article. Their criteria may be, since they are basically Latin European, slightly biased in favor of Latin Europeans. I thought one of the criteria for Wikipedia was not "Truth" but rather accuracy in who said/did what?
After reading my original statement over again, I think I would change it to read: Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E. [1] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking.
To make it more of statement of the facts. I changed "they can not", implying that I know what they can do, to "they have not" a statement of fact. And, I realize it is impossible to sight all possible works to prove a negative, but the negative is still valid. Then anyone who knows of them quantifying this can site a source as a counter argument.
Interesting quote right below this entry space; "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 ( talk • contribs)
Then look at things like:
"Baronius's "dark age" seems to have struck historians as something they could use, for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages, with his original Latin term, "saeculum obscurum", being reserved for the period he had applied it to. But while some historians, following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records, others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians."
Really - who says "for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages" - No source.
And - "being reserved for the period he had applied it to" - Who reserved this? The author of this article?
And - "But while some historians" - Again, how would I verify this?
And - "following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records" - Who said this is so, there are no sources. Is this also original research?
And - "others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians." this statement is so full of original research and down right falsehoods it is laughable.
This is only from one paragraph in the article, imagine what can be done if the entire article is analyzed. How can anyone with any sense of fairness say that what I have put forth is not acceptable when that same person has accepted this. Fair application of the rules is not being used here, but rather a hidden agenda.
And just because you (Cuchullain) say quit or you will not be liked by "everybody" else is an answer? Who ever thinks that getting closer to the truth is best handled by the FEELINGS of the majority is either not aware of reality or not mature enough to understand that one cannot allow blatant half truths to be left standing.
Mr Mike Rosoft:
Your statement -
"apparently, you looked at a particular list of people who contributed to the development of science (with no clear criteria for inclusion), found out that it only listed five Europeans during the period of 250 CE - 1200 CE, and added it as a statement of fact to the article. I am afraid this is a textbook example of original synthesis, which is outside of scope of Wikipedia"
The wording from Wikipedia on this manner is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I have not reached or implied any conclusions. I have simply stated a set of facts. Those facts are; and they are not in any way a conclusion on my part:
1. Only about 5 Latin Europeans provided original research during this 1000yr period - Not my research, just a fact that is published.
2. None of the cited authors that I could find said anything about this dearth of advancement in the Latin European region during the Dark ages.
I did not make any conclusions as to what caused this dearth of advancement as in Wiki's example:
" A simple example of original synthesis:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."
You will notice that in the first example, an analysis of their performance is implied by the use of the word but to IMPLY that they were not doing their job, and in the second example they use the word only to imply that they had done a good job.
A true none synthesized statement would be:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
My statement makes no such analysis. I do not say anything about the dark ages themselves, only that the authors of today have not quantified the dearth of contributions. I drew no conclusions what so ever, and I did not imply any conclusions either!
And anyone who follows the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure with any fairness would just point out what they think any analysis in my statment was. Just stating - ITS ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND NOT ALLOWED is not following Wiki's procedures and is not in any sense part of dispute resolution, so I am assuming that the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of the opposing arguments are just that - wastes of time and energy. If anyone has valid arguments about possible synthesis I would be more than happy to read and consider them. Otherwise I think we should stick to Wiki's general rules - offer proof of your arguments and avoid the personal and emotional attacks.
"If you want to argue a point be concise" - Please inform the editors who have responded with the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of this. Without multiple illogical responses I could be concise, with a lot fewer words.
Concise point #1 - Several editors attack using ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals - I do not respond. Editor says - No more discussion everyone agrees and you have not said otherwise. Like I'm going to let that happen!
Point #2 - No - It was not mentioned in ANY book - that is my point! Nobody has quantified that.
Point #3 - What words imply that I think they (the authors) are wrong? [I see this as a truly possible synthesis problem.]
Point #4 - Some authors were - Dwyer, John C., Church history: twenty centuries of Catholic Christianity, (1998);Syed Ziaur Rahman, Were the “Dark Ages” Really Dark?, Grey Matter (The Co-curricular Journal of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College), Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 2003;Daileader, Philip (2001). The High Middle Ages. The Teaching Company.
ISBN
1-56585-827-1. "Catholics living during the Protestant Reformation were not going to take this assault lying down. They, too, turned to the study of the Middle Ages, going back to prove that, far from being a period of religious corruption, the Middle Ages were superior to the era of the Protestant Reformation, because the Middle Ages were free of the religious schisms and religious wars that were plaguing the 16th and 17th centuries."; etc.
In addition there are enough religious references in the article to choke the proverbial horse. The article itself seems to imply it was all Religions fault some how and someone is trying to apologize for it.
Point #2 - OR is drawing a conclusion based on 2 different sources. I did not draw any conclusions. To quote Wiki's own requirements - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion". What conclusion have I reached? None. I have simply stated that no authors have quantified that. A statement of fact, not a conclusion.
Point #3 - You missed my revision. I changed "they cannot quantify" to "they have not".
Point #4 - Because I am not willing to spend my time to quote everything about these authors, I will remove the religious from the statement and make it.
Although scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E.
[1] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking.
Beyond this, this point has nothing to do with synthases and as such I will no longer discuss it.
On a personal note Mr. Paul Barlow - the statement "but admitedly your English is rather to confusing to know exactly what you are trying to say." is just an antagonizing ad hominem attack which may well indicate you are running out of logical arguments against my statement. That is often, but not always, the route these things take when one side is loosing.
Excellent source. Will use it and then when this finished, add the science part.
References
Please intervene to settle an overlong unresolved discussion about the legitimacy, in Christianity and abortion#Early Christian thought on abortion, of using A Companion to Bioethics by Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer in support of the statement that early Christians "believed, as the Greeks did, in delayed ensoulment, or that a fetus does not have a soul until quickening, and therefore early abortion was not murder".
The source states: "Following Aristotle, various thinkers—including Thomas Aquinas—thought that only the abortion of an animated fetus constituted homicide. ... By and large, this view remained dominant until 1869". A defender of using this source has stated that it "says the view was held from Aristotle through 1869, which more than encompasses the period we're talking about. Why would we assume early Christians were exempted if the source doesn't say so?" and "to assume that their (the early Christians') view was different, in the absence of a source that says so, contravenes WP:V." The opposite view has been expressed thus: "(The source) does not state that the dominant view was shared by that minority who were Christians. It's their view, not the dominant one, that's in question. ... To assume that their view was the same, in the absence of a source that 'directly and explicitly' ( WP:OR), 'clearly and directly' ( WP:V) says so, contravenes WP:OR."
Discussion of the question is found in the last third of Talk:Christianity and abortion#"Catholic Answers" and "Facts of Life", starting at 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC). Esoglou ( talk) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
On the possible use of original research in the article. Been open for two weeks but only two users have participated. Need more participation in order that a consensus become clear. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone weigh in on the discussion at Talk:White_Latin_American#Pictures_have_got_to_go regarding the image gallery here and the WP:EGRS policy. None of the people in the image gallery are sourced as self-identifying as "White Latin Americans" so the inclusion is basically OR. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2011 over a section of the article "Contentious Ridings", listing in table form the constituencies that meet one of three criteria (e.g. slim margin of victory in the previous election) thought to make the district a swing riding. The source given in the current version of the article is "Data adapted from Elections Canada Official results". There have been edits deleting this section which were promptly reverted: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I'm not asking for enforcement; rather, I'm posting here in hopes that users experienced with the NOR policy can make useful suggestions to preserve this section of the article. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The article on the Patria case reads like original research. One section for instance, "European Union Art. 346 and Arms Trade", not only provides hypotheses for corruption allegations, but also decides for the reader how likely each hypothesis is. The Background section reads like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. 83.84.195.88 ( talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This template suggests there is such a thing as a "Kawi family" of scripts. I do not know of any publication that mentions this concept. Without reliable source, this is OR. Martijn →!?← 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Are the last two paragraphs in Peak_oil#Effects_of_rising_oil_prices original research? 206.188.60.1 ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Her speech at Gorbachov's birthday celebration imply that her family was represed by the communistic regime in SSSR and that is why they left in 1979. Therefore I think there is no doubt that she does not support but oppose communism BHillbillies ( talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a content dispute at the Irreligion article regarding the removal of referenced information from the article. A discussion has been started in this section of the talk page. Any comments there would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam Talk 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been debating with another editor at Talk:Objectivist Party#Synthesis concerns about material pulled from a primary source that pre-dates the party's existence. Decades ago, Ayn Rand made comments in a Q&A session to the effect that she did not want a political party to be created based on her ideas. Fast forward to 2008, and a small political party was founded claiming to be based on her ideas. My take is that referencing Rand's earlier comment from primary sources is original research, because there is no source that connects those comments to the specific subject of the article, which formed long after her death. The other editor doesn't see a problem. Given the low traffic of the article, there is a lack of other input, so feedback from outside editors would be appreciated. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
is used a reference to support the "Nested sustainability" diagram on a number of articles, none of which seem sourced to that reference or relevant to the article.
Specifics:
None of these texts are supported by the reference, and the relationship of the diagram to the article is also not supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article on USANA there is a quote from a Forbes article from a consultant in nutritional research, Anthony Almada, claiming that USANA's business model (ie MLM) means they do not do research on the efficacy of their products [5], ie an essentially derogatory assessment of the companies products. It's been discovered that in addition to his consulting firm Almada is also cofounder and CEO of at least three other nutritional products company, Genr8 [6], Fein Innovation, and Fierce Foods, Inc [7], ie competitors to USANA. At least one of these, GenR8 was active at the time of his quote. Forbes did not mention this potential COI. Would it violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to include the additional info on Almada in the article? Say simply adding "and cofounder and CEO of several nutritional products companies" or similar to his brief bio. It could be construed as combining material from multiple sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (ie that the "expert" is an industry competitor and this should be considered when assessing his opinion). Thoughts?-- Insider201283 ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
your rants here are off-topic for this question I've asked on this board, which is posing a relatively simple question. Take it to talk on the article please. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I drag some eyes over to Talk:Weeping Angels to comment in an RfC regarding some especially dull edit-war? Please centralise all dialogue there. Ta. ╟─ Treasury Tag► without portfolio─╢ 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is full of unsubstantiated, uncited, unverifiable claims. It is full of weasel words, and what appears to be independent research. The offending section is the subheading Cosmology. Miloserdia ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
An article filled to the brim, nay, overflowing with original research and synthesis. I made some of the easy edits--tags, rm of all-too obvious synthesis and OR, trimmed the images a bit, marked some incomprehensible grammar. This strikes me as the pet project of one editor who is responsible for all of its content, and reminds me of articles like Tahash. It has the usual traits of such labors of love: torturous grammar and verbosity, abundant use of images, etc--but more to the point, heavy reliance on primary sources and even explicitly stating that acts of synthesis and comparison (i.e., original research) are taking place. Note my edit summaries for edits where I removed or marked some egregious examples. If any of you feel an invisible spirit moving you toward improving the encyclopedia, here's just the project for you. Drmies ( talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories could use a few experienced editors to patrol it for OR and SYNTH violations. Cheers! Location ( talk) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been pretty bold in editing this. There's been a lot of attention drawn to this individual. Out of sensationalism and other factors, it has turned into a very large convoluted idea or theory of the truth. It would appear that there's very little verifiable information. I've requested citations on what needs to be removed, but if anyone would like to contribute to clarifying it so that it is factual and according to WP:BIO, it would be appreciated. Mnemnoch ( talk) 07:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:BIO#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators Mnemnoch ( talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a bit of an edit war going on over what I see as a clear case of OR, but at least one other current editor does not and keeps deleting the tag. A bit of history in that I added the tag originally back in 2009 and it was discussed in talk but got nowhere, I eventually left that section, which needs a lot of work, and later the article (and WP) for a year or so. I started editing again recently. Today another editor removed the tag so it showed up in my watch list. I checked the article, the problem was still there except worse - the only source used for the claim, a primary source website, was now non-existent. That means of course that now it can't even be investigated by new eyes to see if it is OR or not. To top it off, the claims are about living people, so WP:BLP applies however they're not particularly controversial, they are however in my opinion being used to push a particular POV. So, that's the background, here's the specifics - [12] -
Multiple high-ranking Amway leaders such as Richard DeVos and Dexter Yager are also owners and members of the board of Gospel Films, a producer of movies and books geared towards conservative Christians as well as co-owner (along with Salem Communications) of Gospel Communications. [1] dead link
The source is a now defunct organisations website. The original "OR" problem I raised is that the source didn't even mention the topic of the article, Amway. To make the statement someone had to first connect to Amway Richard DeVos (not hard, he's co-founder and mentioned in the article) and Dexter Yager (not mentioned at all in the article other than this statement) and then research those people to find this information about them and independently connect it to Amway. To me that's clearly original research, even if factual. The next problem is the apparent POV reasoning behind why it was added - to create some POV particular image of Amway. In reality it's a far more complex picture. The founders are well known conservative christians, as are some of the top leaders in the US, but the majority of Amway's revenue and sales force are in countries like China, Indonesia, and India, where christians Amway reps are in a very small minority. There are literally thousands of "top ranking" Amway reps and Amway executives. It's simply silly to go around researching each ones affiliations outside of Amway and reporting them in the article so a clear idea of "overall" culture might somehow be obtained. So, in short we have some unsourced trivial OR being used to push a POV. I didn't think it should be in the article 2 years ago, and now that the source is gone I definitely think it should be removed. Comments appreciated. -- Icerat ( talk) 01:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, while the OR problem for that particular source is now covered, it seems to me that, as it stands, there is still a clear case of WP:SYNTH in this whole section, which is an OR issue. Adding in a small number of organisational/religious affiliations of a couple of a corporate "leaders" under a section "Politics & Culture" appears to me to be a clear violation of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my bold). What purpose does independently researching these affiliation and publishing them in the article serve other than to imply that these affiliations mean something about the corporate culture? A list of directorships and/or alleged religious/political views or affiliations of all "leaders" of a multinational company of 13000 employees and 3 million independent reps is undoubtedly extensive, and if of WP standard should be in the article on those individuals, not in this section of an article on one of his companies. -- Icerat ( talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
References
Real-time contrast chart contains results of the author's research in the field of quality control. Currently discussion of the subject of the article has only been published as a technical report at Arizona State University, but is apparently slated to appear in one of the American Society for Quality's journals. This raises several questions:
It doesn't get much more "original" than speculation.
Canada has just finished the 41st election. The date for the next election has not even been set. An election is only decided AFTER all the votes are counted. Rating the parties based on how many seats they used to have is speculative at best. The point of an election is that it begins from nothing. Although Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister today, at the beginning of teh next election day, he becomes the former Prime Minister until the ballots are cast.
This page is highly prejudicial in this apparent prediction of who the next Prime Minister will be.
In doing this, Wikipedia casts aside any claim to neutrality.
Harry Blue5 has over a period of several weeks repeatedly reverted the "Later Appearances" part of Revan to remove what he describes as Original Research. Trouble is, he has deleted wholesale a whole series of assertions with varying degrees of OR-ness, and at no time has an explanatory entry been put on the discussion page. I've added something to the discussion page on this, but to summarize a little discrimination would be in order. Sdoradus ( talk) 07:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I deleted a "citation needed" tag in Tractor beam and posted the following reason on the Talk page. It seems to me that this may be a good place to raise the issue.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 23:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The comparable aircraft list in many aircraft articles is purely OR and never sourced.
For example: Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle
It's an aircraft that has never been built, has no orders and people just list out whatever cool aircraft they feel like.
My proposal is to toss out the Comparable aircraft section entirely and let the comparisons be done inline in statements driven by sources. Hcobb ( talk) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies".
European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141.
ISBN
9780195143614. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
states among other things
by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.
The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We can close this here since it's been covered @ WP:RSN.-- Termer ( talk) 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Unite Against Fascism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See [ [22]
An editor is attempting to insert their own commentary regarding a primary source, complete with all sorts of other POV commentary. Thank you. 81.151.158.156 ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to notify people here of a discussion I've started here, regarding the criteria ( WP:OI) for determining when it is/isn't appropriate to use free, self-published images (i.e. original, user-created images that are not published in reliable sources) in articles. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph was recently added to the bio of Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, Somalia's new Prime Minister; it was posted under the heading "Corruption":
On May 24, 2011 the Associated Press reported that more than $70 million that was given to the Somali government by Arab nations for the purpose of fighting piracy, terrorism, and hunger had gone missing. It is unclear where the funds are now, but Finance Minister Hussein Halane indicated that the Prime Minister two separate $ 5 million payments from the UAE on behalf of the government but only $5 million was deposited into the Central Bank. It's still unclear where the other $5 million has gone. [1]
I believe the paragraph is an example of original research and a WP:BLP violation since the Associated Press article [23] that it is supposedly sourced to does not directly and explicitly indicate anywhere that the Premier is accused of having personally pocketed the 'missing' funds (it is also the only news article that covers this story; all the other instances are republications of the AP article; c.f. [24]). It just indicates that that donor money is unaccounted for. In fact, on page 2 of the article, the aforementioned Finance Minister Halane is quoted describing how he believes the unaccounted for funds were spent:
"not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited"
Likewise, here's what the article states with regard to what the government indicated as to how it spends the donor money:
"The government says it uses the money to win over citizens like Ahmed by providing services and security."
Given the above, I believe that the edit is rather libelous since it insinuates that the Premier is guilty of something serious (theft) which the article's quoted government sources themselves clearly do not indicate. And per WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Please advise. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
References
Hy there. I need some good advice because I'm faced with a strange problem.
We have a whole original German text:
Then we have a historian
Mahmood Mamdani who in a book quotes the two following sentences:
It seems to be based upon the following translation:
A helpful user found another translation made by the same translator:
It was made very clear that Mamdani's quote and conclusions have to remain unchanged. I agreed with that. However I also wish to include JBG's second translation (making no personal comparison between the translation and Mamdani's quote and/or his conclusions) in the article (in a different section).
A concern of OR was expressed. Now I need to know if the inclusion of the second translation is allowed, or should the article only use one of the two translations? If so, why, which one, how do we decide between the two, and who decides? Flamarande ( talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be based upon the following translation
So you have no confirmation that this is correct, and that claim is only your personal suspicion?
I know that this translation is used by several sources not only Mamdani, so it also valid, and certainly not his own idea.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, he uses the exact same words (it might be a weird coincedence) Other books use the same translation. Look, you have been campaigning for this on three places as far as I know? Care to explain what makes this so much important?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a universal answer to the question. In a short article, with a sharp contrast between two translations, the contrast might unavoidably convey a point not supported by the sources. Normally, though, I don't see any problem with using two translations in different sections, assuming there's a good reason for each. What was the text that was added (or the gist of the statements that were to be added) to Herero and Namaqua Genocide, and what section were they to be added to? -- Dan Wylie-Sears 2 ( talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like original research made by the author. Sources that mention the subject don't appear to be from academically respected publications (one is the author's own youtube video, another the author's own website, another is some alternate energy website. (The 4th (ref# 2) doesn't appear to mention the subject.)) Also the only editor of the article appears to be the creator of the term. Here's a link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Displacement_Space_Drive -June 1, 2011
An effort is being made to bring the Falkland Islands article to WP:GA standard. In describing the geography of the islands, I made a few references to information that was gleaned from maps rather than from text. Some fellow-editors suggested that in so doing, I was engaging in WP:OR, but they suggested that a wider opinion be sought.
The first of my comments was that the northern part of the Falklands Sound (which separates the two main islands) had clear water but that the southern part contained numerous islands. (See map alongside this posting)
The second of my comments was that there were a number of channels in between the islands in the southern part of the sound that were deeper than the basin in the northern part of the sound. I gleaned this information from the relevant Admiralty charts. This again is hardly original work as I am sure that both the British and the Argentine naval officers made the same observations during the Falklands War.
Jimmy Wales voiced his agreement [ here] with the text "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonethless [sic] synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research". Opposed to this, the article WP:OR states "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented".
May I suggest that the crucial wording in Jimmy Wales' observation is, "non-standard". In the case in question, there can be no question that Admiralty Charts are reliable, published sources. One of the principal uses of Admiralty charts is to identify land and sea masses and the depths of water availalbe, especially to mariners. I used totally standard techniques to interpret the maps - the sort of techniques that would be taught at school and would also be taught (in much greater detail) to aspiring navigators. The material concerned therefore directly supports the claims. Anybody who has access to the maps and who is familiar reading maps can of course verify the claims that I have made.
I believe therefore that the editors who suggested that I was engaging in WP:OR were being over-cautious in trying to prevent me from jeopardiasing the GA bid that we will be making. I, on the other hand, believe that I was using a perfectly reason and natural resource in the manner that it was designed to be used. What is the opinion of others? Martinvl ( talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Since I haven't posted here, let my detail my concerns. All geographic references are based on the topographic map in this section.
The edit said that the southern part of the sound contains numerous islands, while the northern sound is clear. So far as I can see, this is accurate only if one puts the ends of the sound at the enclosing headlands near Port San Carlos, and at roughly Great Island. From what I have seen (and I haven't seen the source), this is a legitimate definition but not the only legitimate definition. One could equally use a line from Cape Dolphin to Pebble Island to mark the northern end of the sound, and a line from Cape Meredith to George Island to mark the southern end - a far wider area. In this case, the area around the Tyssen Islands is close to the geographic centre of the sound, not in the south of it. The southern end of the sound is thus clear of islands.
It seems to me that this edit relies on this interpretation to make its point, but I have not seen evidence that this interpretation is backed up by a source. I am also concerned, as reading information from maps has been considered OR in the past, that it might be a good idea to avoid relying on them, and that textual sources would be better. Pfainuk talk 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
To build on what Camelbinky said, there are literally thousands of articles on highways in the United States alone, and their main references are to maps for the route description. To date, almost 40 of these articles have passed through WP:FAC and been promoted as Featured Articles using maps to back basic descriptions of a highway's route. The key here is whether a non-specialist can look at the map and interpret the plain facts being asserted in writing. Most maps are secondary sources; the primary source material is aerial photography, surveyors' field notes, GIS data, etc. Creating a map involves significant editorial control (what features to include? exclude? what data to show? what gets labeled and how?) and so your basic map is a secondary source. Care has to be taken though not to overstate what the map tells us: it can give us the location of something, but it can't tell us why that feature is there. Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have raise an RfC WT:No original research#RfC: Are maps in general secondary sources? on this question since I can see the problem affects a number of featured articles. Dmcq ( talk) 16:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
At Jacobite Succession Nocrowx ( talk · contribs) has replaced text he'd added earlier that I'd removed as OR. I'd posted to his talk page and he says he is just summing up a widely known fact and "applying it to the bit about Moncreiffe's theory". He says " And I have had this problem in the past-editors and administrators seeming not to really read the text but only notice that there is no citation; No citation is required because I am not adding new information just summing up what is widely known fact ". The text he added says "Another interesting question raised by Moncreiffe's theory is that had the act of settlement not been passed, then George III would probably not have been born in Britain and so the House of Hanover as well as the House of Savoy would have had to be bypassed on Cardinal York's death" [35]. I can't source it and he isn't saying he can, just that he thinks it isn't OR. I believe it is. Dougweller ( talk) 17:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous editor or editors are edit warring on the Eastern Orthodox Church article.
Their arguments to justify their behavior is that an un-familiar source validated for them that the article should be modified to express their opinion. They have began an extensive argument to try an change the article on the article talkpage. Talk:Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Orthodox_CATHOLIC_Church.3F.21.3F However they have not provided valid sources for the point of view that they wish the article to contain and or reflect. LoveMonkey ( talk) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
USANA Health Sciences ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dealing with some undue weight issues with this article, and I proposed adding (what I thought was) a rather benign factual statement about a certification this company has on its main product line:
"The tablets that make up the Essentials product are certified by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program to be regularly tested for substances considered prohibited in sport and that the products have been manufactured to high quality standards."
The WP:RS for this statement is the certification program itself:
"Informed Choice tested products-USANA". Retrieved 28 April 2011.
"About Informed Choice". Retrieved 28 April 2011.
One of the editors on this page feels this is WP:SYNTH because one URL of this source explains what the certification is, and the other URL shows the list of products certified in a table.
You can see the discussion on the talk page here: Talk:USANA Health Sciences#Informed-Choice
I would appreciate any feedback - thank you!
Leef5
TALK |
CONTRIBS 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has been up far too long it is a biography written by the subject's mother or something. Contains all these references to camps and games that no one but the author could really know about. [Dante Anderson] 50.80.150.100 ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Imagine you are an editor working on a List of ancient architectural records and you want to determine the largest Greco-Roman canal from modern scholarship. You find that no classicists explicitly calls the Ancient Suez Canal the largest canal in antiquity. Yet this must be almost certainly the case because in the texts and (unsorted) lists they have published this canal features as the largest by far, just not expressis verbis referred to this way. Is it WP:SYN to list the Ancient Suez Canal as the largest ancient canal or not? Note that this is not an isolated examples, but an almost common occurrence in the List of ancient architectural records, main author of which I am. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Over several weeks we have been patiently revising the criticism section of the NLP article on the talk page. After a lot of discussion the material was posted with the title "Scientific Criticism". One editor is refusing to accept that title on the grounds that several of the articles referenced describe NLP as a pseudo-science which is not (he asserts) a scientific term. He therefore argues that to use Scientific Criticism as a title is original research unless a reference can be found that says pseudo-science is a scientific term. It has been countered the language used in scientific articles is the language of science and this is the title used for creation science. I have debated taking this to ANI as a behaviour issue, but decided its better to keep the temperature down and deal with things issue by issue. So the question is very simply:
If the term pseudo-science is used in articles from scientific journals as a criticism is it original research to use the title "Scientific Criticism"? -- Snowded TALK 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I had previously requested a third opinion, which the other party had decided to completely ignore, with a rationale that brings me here.
In question is the use of the word "cholo" to describe a certain type of role that an actor has played multiple times. The source is an interview [40] in which the interviewer uses the term "Mexican thug" (which is the term I believe should be used in the article), and the interviewee describes it " the leader of a gang again" and "—all these thug characters". But neither uses the term "cholo". The other editor keeps reverting to a linked and piped "cholo" [41] because "the article is about a US actor who played the same role several times, which matches the cholo subculture right down to body language, intonation and accent (which Diaz fakes for the character's sake). Therefore, the US usage fits as we are talking about several US films that depict US culture." and he is refusing to listen that that is original research and that we should use the common English phrase "Mexican thug" rather than having to pipe to a term that has multiple meanings, the major usage of which is an ethnic slur. Active Banana (bananaphone 03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename.2C redirect.2C and merge content that may be of interest to editors here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
USANA Health Sciences#Sponsorships ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I started a new OR noticeboard discussion section in particular about the Sponsorships section of this article since the prior OR noticeboard on Informed Choice appears to be concluded.
Talk discussion here between myself and 2 other editors: Talk:USANA Health Sciences#Sponsorships
The current article text is in its own section "Sponsorships", with the following two sentences:
USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations. In 2006, USANA signed a co-sponsorship agreement with the Sony Ericsson WTA tour.
I proposed expanding the text since the organizations listed by the Usana's website are notable. Even though WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed for non-controversial information, I also cited the organization itself where they listed Usana as a sponsor. The following text was proposed:
USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations and individuals. Notable organizations include:
- Sony Ericsson WTA Tour
- US Speedskating
- TeamBiathlon Canada
- Tuzos del Pachuca Soccer Club
- Speed Skating Canada
- Cross Country Canada
- Women's Ski Jumping USA
- Great Britain Short Track Speed Skating Team
The citations are viewable on the talk page link (If there is a way to keep refs within 1 section of a talk page, I would be happy to edit the refs back in here rather than point to the talk page).
Arguments against expanding the text are summarized by one of the editors here:
Argument diff
I would appreciate any further commentary so we can move the stalled consensus along. Thank you for your time. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Vmenkov has put together a list of
sources showing that a term "Tsardom of Russia"/"Russian Tsardom" is simply a generic phrase referring to "tsarism" in general or Russian monarchy in general. At the time when historians and sources discussing the name of the state during the era pr
WP:RS refer to Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy.
Yet there's an editor who puts together
1.|a google search for "Russia"
[45]|
The problem is "Tsardom of Russia" with its about only 184 results on google books like shown by Vmenkov are:
At the time when for example "Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy" returns 1,930 / 1,360 results on google books, the sources that speak about the name of the state during the era in question in Russian history indeed.
Any comments anybody? and please outside input only. It is very clear that some involved editors simply prefer to use "Tsardom of Russia" for whatever reason. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The idea of novel biochemistry is old stuff in science fiction and in some essays. Thus, the topic and the article on Hypothetical types of biochemistry are not necessarily ill-conceived. But large parts of the article are simply essays. For example, Hypothetical types of biochemistry#Nitrogen and phosphorus biochemistry is basically a discussion of some chemical facts, implying that somehow these chemical phenomena are or could be the basis of life. Well, this kind of discussion could go on for ever. I could imagine that xyz reaction could be used for replication, etc. So restated factoids and novel views may or might not be valid, but Wikipedia main space is not the place for editors to discuss ideas. This article contains a lot of this kind of essaying.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Within the article mentioned in the subject heading there is currently mention that Beau Brummell helped to popularize in the 18th C. a style of gentlemanly dress involving snug-tight breeches at the area of the genitalia. It it has been suggested that such sourced scholarship is original research within the context of an article about [the exact phrase(?)] visible penis line--if not the general subject matter of the visible outline of penises in clothing (I'm a little confused as to the objection, actually). Thoughts?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops! It's at crotch bulge: "Some scholars believe that the tight-crotched, pale trousers of the eighteenth century, such as those introduced by the era's (and subsequent eras') formative arbiter of men's fashion George Brummell, were designed to copy the style of dress in classical statuary and so can be thought of as aligned with the Classical Revival in architecture" (with the reference pointing to the biography, Beau Brummell, page 121, where the quote can be found, "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George Brummell, accented the crotch").-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a section in the article Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories dealing with FOIA requests. None of the sources provided link the information to conspiracy theories, so I (and several other editors) have removed it as WP:SYNTH, but it keeps getting restored by Erroneuz. I'd like some people more experienced with NOR/SYNTH than I am to take a look at it and provide some input. Kevin ( talk) 05:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A user is creating various articles about Chinese books (see [50], [51], [52] for instance). However these books have never been published in English language so he gives his own translation of the title. Translation is a form of interpretation, especially when translating from Chinese to English, so I get the feeling this is original research. For instance, he translated "神拳" as "Divine Boxing" which is an acceptable translation, but it could also be, more literally, "The Fist of God" or the "Divine Fist", etc. Also it doesn't feel right that we become the only one source where the book is titled that way. What do you think? Laurent ( talk) 06:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Editor is engaged in highly ideological battles to preserve/maintain the reputation of Jefferson. In this example (by no means the only one), he distorted the facts, adding material not supported by the cited text. In fact, he went so far as to claim the opposite of the text:
Nowhere does Finkelman say that; Gwhillickers made it up. This makes TJ's behaviour towards slaves look better than it really was. This is part of a systematic effort by this editor to present a whitewashed version of history. Why is Gwhillickers allowed to invent history, distort the facts and get away with it time and time again? This is not the first time on the OR or fringe theory board. I have warned this editor many times about this exact problem. I request an investigation. Ebanony ( talk) 10:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion at the talk page about whether reporting our original observation that a source omits something is or is not OR. See Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Partridge_revisited Gacurr ( talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
So we have two answers:
So what answer is correct for (no) original research with a dictionary? Gacurr ( talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There has been a discussion [54] regarding a proposal for additional text concerning the TM-Sidhi program and its effect on the country of Mozambique as expressed by its President Joaquim Chissano. Below is the text currently in the article:
One editor feels that the article should include other significant points of view on the country's politics and drought even if the sources do not mention the article topic. Other editors feel that this violates WP:OR which says: “Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."
What is the opinion of the community on this issue? Thanking you in advance for your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
SUMMARY: It appears that two involved editors (Keithbob and Uncreated)plus one uninvolved editor (Dmcq) feel the proposed text and sources cited in this thread violate WP:OR and only one involved editor (Will Beback) feels otherwise. Thank you to all who participated in the discussion. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Some IP's are editing Ottoman Algeria related articles by Nationalistic/OR editing, by replacing all the information related to the Ottoman vilayet of Algiers with OR information stating that it was an independent kingdom : [59] [60] [61]. Can an admin make an "autoconfirmed" protection on these articles or intervene by any way?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Omar-Toons (
talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is about an ancient building which the Bible says to have been in Jerusalem before the 6th century BCE. As the article says, the Bible is the only direct evidence for the existence of the building. Naturally there are arguments between archaeologists over whether the Bible story is plausible, and that would be a fair topic for the article. My complaint is that user Xtraeme wants to add a paragraph based on a National Geographic article that does not mention Solomon's Temple at all. It concerns, for example, a copper mine distant from Jerusalem that has been dated to the same period as the Biblical account of the temple. My view is that this is Original Research unless the source makes the connection to the temple, which it doesn't. The paragraph in question and some discussion is at Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2#Relevance of paragraph. Zero talk 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Xtraeme (
talk) 16:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Listening very careful I hear that "ergo", and that's the problem--you are the one linking the temple to the copper mines, not the source. That's OR. And I think it's appropriate to say that Solomon is known for more than just the temple. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Ergo the implication here - no, there is no such implication. Perhaps it was for making gifts to give to his many concubines, or the queen of Sheba. I fail to see how this is even relevant to the article. All Finkelstein is used for is the suggestion that the design followed Phoenician models. How does the mine challenge that in any way? How is it relevant at all? Paul B ( talk) 21:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No, stop being dishonest. This discussion was initiated because you restored a paragraph which had been raised on the article talk page. The content of that paragraph as a whole was at issue. This is the NOR board. I did not remocve the entire section. That is false and you know it. You have now behaved in an outrageous fashion by reverting my entirely legitimate edit as "vandalism". That is totally unacceptable. There is no discussion of Finkelstein's theory of the size of Jerusalem in the Solomon's Temple article. The only theory of his mentioned is that the temple design was based on Phoenician models. This is the fifth time I have pointed this out and you have evaded the point once more, after changing your argument entirely during this discussion without acknowledging the fact. I would welcome your raising my edit anywehere you want to. There is no point in having a paragraph debating a theory that has not even been expressed in the article. I wonder if you have even read the article under discussion. Paul B ( talk) 19:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The article on Leuren K Moret is substantially inaccurate. My attempts to correct this have fallen into the "No Original Research" rule. I posted copy of a letter I received in response to a California Public Records Act request to the Internet Archive. This letter proves the actual job and duration of employment that Moret had at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and is an "original source document". It should carry more weight that Moret stating that she worked at Livermore for two years and in some variants that she was a "nuclear scientist"
http://www.archive.org/details/LeurenKMoret-RealJobAtLawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratory Leuren K Moret often asserts that she was a "nuclear scientist" at two DOE National Laboratories. This letter, obtained from the University of California operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under the California Public Records Act shows that Moret was not a "scientist" and worked very briefly at the Laboratory. Moret was a Senior Scientific Technologist in the Center for Applied Scientific Computing for less than a year from 1989 to 1990. Moret also claims to have been trained in radiation detection by Manhattan Project Scientist Marion Fulk. Fulk's employment from 1964 to 1984, a normal 20 year career, as a Chemist at the Laboratory is also addressed in this letter. Moret never worked with Fulk either since Fulk retired in 1984, five years before Moret began work at the Lab. (I have since learned that Fulk worked at the University of Chicago in some capacity from 1945-1947; this may have had some connection to the Manhattan Project, but it is still very unlikely that newly graduated Mr Fulk was a "Manhattan Project Scientist")
The article begins with calling Moret a "Geoscientist". Moret has a BS in Geology and no known work experience as a Geologist in any capacity. She has no peer reviewed published papers in Geology. She has co-authorship of three papers derived from the doctoral research of two other graduate students who now are past Departmental Chairs at major universities. One of them advised that he gave Moret the co-authorship because she operated the differential scanning calorimeter that contributed essential data for his research and he advised that this role as a "technician" was repeated for the other doctoral candidate's research.
I am concerned because Moret is using Wikipedia to advance her false claims that the University of Alaska HAARP Research Facility is being used as a tectonic weapon to cause earthquakes such as the ones in Haiti, Chile and Japan. Moret uses her "verified by Wikipedia" to be a Geoscientist to make this and other claims. She has never performed any scientific research into the causes of earthquakes and knows nothing about radio frequency radiation.
I first ran afoul of Moret when I noted that she was to speak as a whistleblower at a Berkeley bookstore in the summer of 2005. I sent them an e-mail questioning Moret's being a whistleblower since she is not and her speaking there. Moret claimed in e-mails that I had been thrown out of the bookstore. I never was there. I was with my wife and daughter at a grief therapy session more than ten miles away. That is my first first-hand experience with Moret's failure to tell the truth. Anyone who carefully examines her voluminous internet articles, YouTube videos, internet radio interviews, etc. will also quickly conclude that Moret is a pseudoscientist charlatan con artist. Wikipedia should not advance the cause of such a person.
I welcome contact with all. I now have copies of all three of the co-author papers, e-mails and documents I obtained from the Berkeley City Clerk pertaining to Moret's service as one the nine members of the Community Environmental Advisory Commission and her removal for failure to attend sufficient meetings and other correspondence.
Roger Rhotel1 ( talk) 09:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am arguing on the talk page that sources need to actually discuss the subject of an article, but am being ignored by the IP originally inserting the material. I don't want to hit 3RR and a mysterious IP has suddenly shown up to avoid the original editor hitting 3RR [64]. The subject of the article is a 19th century document claimed to be a translation of a Native American document but almost undoubtedly a hoax. I hsve no reason to think that " Gerald Vizenor wrote in 1994 that "Native American Indian literatures have been overburdened with critical interpretations based on structuralism and other social science theories that value incoherent foundational representations of tribal experiences." isn't an accurate quote from The Ruins of Representation. Shadow Survivance and the Literature of Dominance. American Indian Quarterly. Volume 17. Winter 1993., but it's a general statement and the IP makes no effort to suggest it's discussing the Walum Olum. I've had amazing problems with this editor in the past and given his use of IP addresses (he used to editor under a named account) am not likely on my own to do much about this (there's another issue there I'm taking to RSN, the use of a writer whoses expertise seems to be the role of American Indians in the media, sports etc as a commentator on this document). Dougweller ( talk) 06:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that two editors are inserting their own private surmises into the Needle-exchange programme page and elevating these surmises over the clear and direct statements of an authoritative publication I have cited on that page. I am concerned that they are trying to sanitize for Wikipedia readers the impact of a recent review on needle exchange effectiveness which found serious errors in previous important reviews which nullifies their claim to demonstrated effectiveness.
The publication I have cited is the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction here which published a 2010 Monograph on Harm Reduction here. Chapter 5 deals with the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchanges in preventing HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C transmission via a review of reviews by Norah Palmateer and colleagues, who also published a very similar review of reviews in Addiction at the same time. The Palmateer review of reviews describes their method . . . "Selected reviews were critically appraised using a tool that considers the rigour of the methods used to identify the relevant literature, the appraisal of the primary literature, the quality of the analysis in the case of meta-analysis, and the appropriateness of the conclusions (Kelly et al., 2002; Palmateer et al., 2010). Reviews rated 1 or 2 were included as high-quality (‘core’) reviews. Reviews rated 3 were retained as ‘supplementary’, not considered to be of sufficient quality to rely on the author’s conclusions but viewed as providing complementary information on the effectiveness of the interventions.” They then state which reviews were considered ‘core’ . . . "Evidence of the effects of NSPs on HIV incidence/prevalence was considered in four core reviews (Gibson et al., 2001; Käll et al., 2007; Tilson et al., 2007; Wodak and Cooney, 2004), which included a total of 18 primary studies with HIV incidence or prevalence outcomes."
The two aforementioned editors that have prompted my concerns here then disparage the most damaging review by Käll et al by claiming that Palmateer et al considers it to be of 'poor quality'. The text, to which they have interpolated their criticisms now reads “The two 2010 Palmateer et al 'review of reviews' scrutinised previous formal reviews of needle exchange studies and after critical appraisal four reviews met the inclution criterias, where three where deemed to be of good quality (Gibson et al., 2001; Tilson et al., 2007; Wodak and Cooney, 2004) while one was of poor quality (Käll et al., 2007). ” [65] To back this claim the two editors reverting my text cite an obscure paragraph on page 127 of the Palmateer study, which says “The United Kingdom National Institute for Clinical Excellence’ review of optimal NSP service delivery (Jones et al., 2008) included a review of reviews component on HIV prevention that evaluated the four reviews considered above. Consistent with our assessment, they concluded: ‘There is evidence from two good-quality systematic reviews [Wodak and Cooney, 2004; Gibson et al., 2001] to support the effectiveness of NSPs in reducing HIV infection among IDUs. However, findings from two other systematic reviews [Tilson et al., 2007; Käll et al., 2007], including one good quality review [Tilson et al., 2007], suggest that the evidence may be less convincing.’” here.
From this they construct their view of supposed ‘poor quality’, despite Palmateer specifically saying that ‘core’ studies only have sufficient rigour. My observation is that the judgment, ‘poor quality’, is never stated by Palmateer of the Käll et al review, and that these editors have to argue from silence to make their conclusion. My belief is that arguments from silence, and creating judgments that clash with the clear words of the cited source is Original Research. Interested in other views. Minphie ( talk) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
My name is Dan Blake and I am Seamus Blake's father. I recently came across a Wikipedia entry for my son, who is a professional saxophone player. The basic information is factually correct. However, the entry had been identified as one lacking acceptable citations. Following your directions I entered a citation for the biographical information and a second citation for the reference to the Monk Competition. I hope this meets your requirements.
I also made some minor changes to the text, but did not alter any facts. Finally, I updated the discography. I'm not clear what constitutes a citation for the discography, so I listed the websites for the record companies which produced the CDs.
I am anxious to expand the entry and would appreciate any direction you can provide.
Dan Blake
At first look, this article appears to be advertisement, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. That being said, it only has two referenced sourced, neither of which mention the subject matter in any way. Should it be labeled as SPAM, NOR, or NPV?
74.93.193.189 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the latest updates to George Seldes by Rgoldfilm, one of which carries this edit note:
Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This article has a lot of possible original research. Does calling certain musical acts and genres "Popular" indicate original research?
This is opens an interesting can of worms. On the one hand, the prohibitions against POV and OR are what make Wikipedia a more reliable and balanced source of information than, say, your average blog or LiveJournal page, and I support editors who say if you want to crank up 'n' glorify your precious personal opinions on stuff like movies and music, there are plenty of other venues for it. If I didn't agree with Wikipedia's Verifiablity Über Alles, I wouldn't be here.
On the other hand, there are some types of information where it's much more difficult to try to expunge all biases than others. Anything interpretive, for instance. And not just in the realm of art criticism (where it's all glorified opinion, anyway), but in scholarly disciplines like history and literature. Academic fashions come and go; although e.g. deconstructionism/post-structuralism has been fading fast from American universities for the past decade, there's still tons of it out there (not to mention a crop of adults who went to school during its reign in the 80s-90s) which will continue to inform the sources of someone like myself who would love to write/edit articles about postwar American fiction.
But me, I agree with (one of my heroes) David Foster Wallace: I think rumors of The Death of the Author are greatly exaggerated ... And yet Barthes and Derrida are still the order of the day if I want to put something up about him or Don DeLillo or William Gaddis or my main man Thomas Pynchon. Unless I don't mind seeing my sturdy, pre-postmodern 70s sources continually "updated" with ideas currently stuffing the university stacks they happen not to teach anymore.
There are two general ways to write about movies or popular music. The much more Wikipedia-friendly way is not at all to try to be an art critic, but rather to take a cultural studies perspective and focus (like most published pop music critics) on the music's social impact. I mean, does it really matter what sorts of chord progressions, meters or song forms Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber use? Of course not; their notability doesn't at all revolve around anything verging on the precincts of the aesthetic. It's very easy to source comments on the impact and social influence of music like that. In fact, taking Wikipedia's Notability guidelines straight-no-chaser for pop music leads one to the inescapable conclusion that, with everything else being mere gusts of vaporous self-interested opinion, the most significant criterion for Wiki-worthiness is chart position.
Of course this is a straw man; not even the most rigid-minded defender of Wikipedian values would argue against Wikipedia as an invaluable source of information on obscure, commercially unviable music — provided, of course, the information is properly sourced. Ever hear of Miriodor? I didn't think so. They're a fantastic French Canadian RIO band, supported by the country's art councils, and they've taken America by storm at progfests. Their reviews on AllMusic are great. And the Wiki article's a stub — "which you can improve by adding to it." That always makes me chuckle. Really? After you've stated the basics, established their notability, listed your sources (and the article is unflagged) — what do you do for an encore? Even if I could translate the French reviews, we really aren't supposed to pad articles with extensive source quotes for copyright reasons. And why would I want to? I have an ear, a knowledge of music analysis and a whole library of similar complex progrock in my head. I could write a couple bang-on paragraphs describing the music (because with Miriodor, it does matter what sorts of time signatures and structural devices they use) and comparing it to like-minded progrock in a language that would be understood by the sorts of people who might seek out that music. But of course it wouldn't be advisable because (naturally) it would be original research. Or would it? I suppose I could try ...
I already did a little cleaning up of the Allan Holdsworth page. I tweaked some theory-speak to make it more accurate (the article itself is volumnouously sourced but no inline cites for the Composition and Style section). Original research? I suppose so. Anybody's welcome to have a look and whack it, but it was written after extensive perusal of his interviews.
I did join the Progressive Rock project to see if I can't help my fellow proggers improve the access here to obscure music. I'm not trying to be contentious and claim that it's strictly impossible to use proper sourcing for what is inevitably advocacy by enthusiasts. I'm only trying to set out the conundrums before I find myself in them ...
Snardbafulator ( talk) 08:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Judith. Indeed, brevity is not my strong suit :(. I'll try to keep this a little shorter. You're of course spot on when it comes to pop music. Fellow progheads and myself, though, have spent lifetimes listening to, collecting and advocating for types of music on the fringes of fashion for which these sorts of distinctions aren't so cut and dried. Chris Cutler, the intellectual force behind the Rock in Opposition movement, is coming out of both a tradition of Little England artisanship that your page leads me to believe you'd appreciate, and a neomarxist-informed, Adornoite wholesale rejection of the culture industry. He and his RIO confreres wouldn't accept any industry "award" and they don't make it easy for rock journalists, either.
At this point, there are secondary sources for his colleagues and he ( Fred Frith was just granted an honorary degree), but it's taken 40 years of scraping to get there. What about the up-and-coming Chris Cutlers and Fred Friths out there?
As for pegging genre, unfortunately that's a perennial problem for sorts of music much more popular than the stuff I listen to. As the saying goes, don't call a grindcore band "death metal" to their fans unless you want your lights punched out in the venue parking lot. Unfortunately, I'm not exaggerating all that much; genre vandalism is a real problem on Wikipedia. I tweaked some genre things in the Holdsworth article (detailed reasoning on the Talk page). Sometimes a paid rock critic, who has his/her own agenda, isn't exactly the best source you can look to for this stuff. You have to dig deeply into a multitude of secondary sources to find a consensus and this is much more difficult with obscure music.
Difficult; not impossible. I'm not disputing your suggestions, just outlining why so many acceptibly-sourced articles for so many musically noteworthy bands are only stubs. Objective attributes only go so far to stretch out an article.
Snardbafulator ( talk) 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm interested in adding/adding to some band articles that would otherwise have no Notability issues per se, who will be or have been duly secondary-sourced. I'd appreciate some editorial feedback before I began, so I will be as concise as I can in asking the question. Understand that I'm not interested at all in adding fancruft, peacockery or weasel-wordage. I'd like to simply describe the technical musical attributes of certain outfits whose styles aren't encapsulated by the usual genre labels. I don't consider what I'd be adding as opinion-based; something either is or it isn't in odd time signatures, is or isn't influenced by Stravinsky's conception of neoclassicism, etc. While some of it might be above the heads of the average music fan, any music student, e.g., could confirm or disconfirm it. I'd use inline cites where I could of course, but I'd have to write some of this myself because large clearinghouse-type review sources like Allmusic which would most likely serve as a secondary source for obscure rock music, don't always have reviews written with the proper degree of care.
I consider what I'd be adding more descriptive than evaluative. Is this acceptible?
Snardbafulator ( talk) 21:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Judith. I'll hold off, then, until a more definitive view pops up. As it stands, I wouldn't know how to define "obscure," "important" or "in some way."
I agree with you about jazz and classical that both sorts of pages probably need more work than the majority of pages for rock and pop. Here's an example from classical of what I'm trying to get at: In 1913, Igor Stravinsky's ballet La Sacre du Printemps caused a riot at its Paris premiere and scandalized modern music circles for years afterward. Le Sacre also makes extensive use of parallel polytonality derived from octatonic clusters. From the eagle eye's view of music history, which of these two facts about Stravinsky's ballet is more important, the social/cultural one or the musical/theoretical one?
I'd submit you can't answer a question like that. Both facts are balled up in each other.
I'm a newbie (obviously), but after reading the stuff on Wikimedia philosophy, apparently there's a diversity of opinion here on whether or not Wikipedia is, can or should be "Radio 3 or France Musiques," as it is so many other things for other people. I've personally found Wikipedia to be an enormously valuable resource for info on RIO/Zeuhl and other international jazz/rock/experimental musics. Oftentimes, it's the most convenient place I can get a track listing online.
Snardbafulator ( talk) 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In response to a Wikipedian claiming that USEPA is not an citable source of information for Wikipedia, I thought I would ask for community concensus here. The exact quote on the linked page is:
Any EPA sources about the EPA fall under WP:PRIMARY and that makes most of the proposals for Clothianidin moot.
On a couple of different discussion pages, including my talk page, I've been reminded about Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources. My response to the primary/secondary issue for citations linking to USEPA's web site is that:
I believe the vast majority of USEPA’s web content and other publications fall into the realm of secondary or tertiary source material. While USEPA does have labs that do original research, our scientists do not conduct research to support pesticide chemical registrations, and we don’t write the laws upon which we base our policies and regulatory decisions.
Unfortunately, nobody responded to my response so I was left to conclude that silence implies consent. This seemed reasonable, in particular since USEPA is widely cited in Wikipedia to support excellent, NPOV content as well as...shall we say...more tightly focused perspectives.
So, what say you? Excluding original research of the sort conducted at agency laboratories, are USEPA references (e.g. pesticide registration decisions, study review memos, web pages explaining agency decisions, etc) acceptable as a source when the Wikipedia content discusses pesticide chemicals, court decisions in which the agency is a named party, etc? Also, does the acceptability of referencing the agency's published material depend on the editor? I, for example, work for EPA and make my affiliation explicit in my username and personal page. Is there a COI if my edits refer to agency publications and/or online content? Thx -- USEPA James ( talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have taken on the editing of this page using family records available since the death of my mother Marianne Clifton (2nd wife). The substance of the page dealing with his career from 1939 will be updated when I have time to go to the National Archives [UK] and read the newly released personnel file.
konrad02 [John Konrad]
Editors created the essay for a school project (original synthesis). jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 04:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia: Why are my changes being reversed. See what happened on the Corwin Amendment. Why are my changes called disruptive, Original Research, and fringe theory? I do not speak Wikipedia-ish and cannot understand these policies. I am only trying to help. As to my changes please consider:: Say a town has an ordinance that the 700 block of main street is a one-way street from east to west already on the books. However, before it was adopted some had proposed making ALL of main street one way in the opposite direction. Eventually, IF the council passes this proposed-but-previously-unadopted ordinance, it is reasonable to conclude that the ordinance about the 700 block is repealed. No one would object to it, and no article would be published to verify it. And it would not be a fringe theory. 71.139.156.8( talk) 04:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to add the following sentence to the article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.
The Obama voters were 30% of the population 18 years or older. [1]
Is the number of Obama voters divided by the number of people 18 years or older original research? The reference which is not visible is U.S. Census, Resident Population by Sex and Age: 1980 to 2009.
Id447 ( talk) 22:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it to be swept under the carpet £Billions of pounds lost by: all places of learning, schools, universities, hospitals, care homes, residential homes, meeting halls, charities, military camps, camping sites, holiday caravan parks, prisons, penal institutions, royal palaces. Whether failure of procurement or lack of publication of legislation their entitlement benefit to be swiped away. Wrong and misleading advice over many years prevented proper application for free disposal entitlement presentation to local authorities. Statutory regulations provided re-characterisation of waste arising on premises from commercial type organisations most of charitable nature or amenity benefit having entitlement to "household" waste classification. Household waste has the disposal charge paid under national council taxation in advance each year. Desperate to change legislation government are seeking to remove these benefits by handing their legislation power over to local councils the intention to jettison some from the list. The difficulty arising most listed under Schedule 2 are of charitable nature and benefit to the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hihen ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The above page has tables which an editor compiled in order to explain the findings of this somewhat controversial school of thought. Referencing is not detailed enough to trace which point comes from which author. Are any of them OK to include, or are they OR/SYNTH? Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)