This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
If I visit a museum and view their internal records about a collection and include that information in an article about that collection, is that OR? Assume that there are published sources to verify the existence of the collection but no detailed records about it in the public domain. I am not creating new information or advancing a particular argument in the article, I am simply recording what is already written down in the museums records which they have never got round to publishing, but is that OR and does the extra information over and above what has already been published meet the standard of verifiability? Thanks Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
OR issue at RfC here. -- Noleander ( talk) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the use of OR to argue for a position in a talk page appropriate? Can this be cited as OR or is OR only applicable to article pages?
Thanks. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You can directly post on my talk page too, if you know what I am talking about. Anyway... it's something like Person X asserted Location Y belongs to Entity Z and this claim is unverified and Person X is very insistent about it in a talk page. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Talk:Rick Perry#Rick Perry's G.P.A. regarding editors' calculating of his GPA, based on a document posted by Huffington Post purporting to be his transcript. While I am not arguing that Huffington Post is not reliable, and I am not even saying that I doubt this transcript is valid - in fact I do think it is likely valid - I am pointing out that their article accompanying the transcript says "A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University." - this does not seem to me to be a verifiable source. The editors at Talk: Rick Perry, in a sincere attempt at accuracy, have taken the grade points listed on the transcript and done their own calculation of the GPA, based on their assumptions regarding how such averages are calculated. They say that under WP:CALC, simple calculations can be made by editors and used. I think that this is not what CALC intended (as in figuring age from birthdate) - I think that our going to what appears to be a primary source, and doing our calculations based on what we think is the method that Texas A&M used for their calculations back in 1970 is OR and against policy. In addition, there is at least one secondary source that gives a GPA - I don't know how reliable it is, as I haven't looked into that - and I think that we should go with what secondary sources say, not do our own calculations. Would appreciate some feedback on that talk page on this - it is not a major point, but it is a BLP, and a widely viewed one at the moment, and I think we need to be careful and true to our policies. Thanks - I hope I have fairly outlined the disagreement. Tvoz/ talk 18:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no way in my mind it's appropriate to include someone's GPA based on a leaked transcript someone posted on huffpo. I don't think it would be a good idea in any situation like this, but it's especially inappropriate here because the primary purpose it serves in the article is too imply he's none too bright. Citing a leaked document posted on huffpo for negative information about a Republican presidential challenger is almost as bad as citing worldnetdaily to claim Obama was born in Kenya or something. Kevin ( talk) 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone produce a source telling *exactly* how to calculate his GPA from a list of grades. Even though this seems "obvious" to some editors, scales and substitutions might make this more complex than you realize, and could end up producing a false result. Your "assumption" of knowing how to calculate the grades IS original research, unless you can get the university to provide a complete calculation guide, taking into account any anomalies that might be present for his years at the college, or perhaps specific application of honors or transfer or who knows what. In short it's OR. -- Avanu ( talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph is repeatedly (five times— WP:3RR may apply if broadly interpreted) added by an IP contributor. It may be valid, indeed it may be a useful for balance, but as it stands it is an unsupported expression of the contributor's view. Suggestions, please? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 05:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing the articles for medical schools in the Caribbean over the past several weeks and there is a WP:NOR issue that has been discussed on a few talk pages, but I would like some more outside input on.
As a little background, there are about 20 "offshore" schools in the Caribbean where mostly American/Canadian students study for the first two years, and then train at US hospitals for the second two years, with the intention of applying for US/Canadian residency programs. These are different from "regional" schools in the Caribbean which train students to practice in their home countries. (I am currently working on differentiating the two in the List of medical schools in the Caribbean article.)
With the exception of 4 of these offshore schools, several individual US states restrict licensure for the other ~15 schools, the most prominent of which is California. California has an "approved" and "disapproved" foreign medical schools list, but many of the Caribbean schools aren't on either list as they haven't been reviewed by the California board (a voluntary process.)
A few states require foreign medical schools to be on the California "approved" list for graduates to obtain licensure there; other states simply require that a school not be on the California "disapproved" list. Some states have explicitly restricted specific Caribbean schools outright. In addition, Kansas for example requires foreign schools to have been in existence for 15 years for graduates to be eligible for licensure.
Now let's say School X opened in 2005, is explicitly restricted in Texas, and is neither California approved nor disapproved. That means the graduates are not eligible for licensure in Texas, California, Kansas, Alaska, Indiana, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
The problem that arises in terms of WP:NOR is that the WP article could only say "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas." The medical board laws for the other states don't explicitly say "School X is ineligible for licensure here" but instead basically say "if a school is not approved by California, it is also not approved here."
I should say that I am completely indifferent on this, and I think the counterargument that "if School X's ineligibility for licensure in California/Alaska/etc. was of interest, there would be reliable sources explicitly saying that" is a very valid argument.
But at the same time, only writing "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas" is misleading since the other ineligible states aren't mentioned.
Thoughts? SGMD1 Talk/ Contribs 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been doing a little informal mediation on Talk:Nazism after the Nazism article found its way to the dispute resolution noticeboard. There have been some issues with alleged synthesis, and I would like to hear some outside opinions on what the right course of action may be.
There are multiple points in dispute on the page, but the main one is the scope of the article itself. The term National Socialism is often used synonymously with Nazism, and there is disagreement over exactly what uses of National Socialism should be covered in the article. OpenFuture ( talk · contribs) is arguing that uses of the term before WWI are referring to the same topic as uses of the term after WWI. I think this quote from him captures his viewpoint well:
The connection between National Socialism pre and post-WWI are obvious: Before WWI it means "state socialism" and is sometimes associated with nationalists. After WWI it means a state socialism and is strongly associated with nationalists. So the "implication" that they are the same should be there because they are the same. If they are not, that must reasonably be possible to source that claim, and then there should be different articles or a disambiguation page that explains the difference, with that source.
R-41 ( talk · contribs), on the other hand, claims that some uses of the term "National Socialism" before WWI - such as by Ferdinand Lassalle, and by the National Social Union - have nothing to do with Nazism, and shouldn't be included in the article. I think this quote is descriptive of his views:
The point is that a major ideology called "National Socialism" arose under the leadership of Hitler that became so influential that the term "National Socialism" came to be expressly mean Nazism. It was and remains the dominant ideology termed "national socialism". In order to determine the evolution and creation of a specific ideology, it is necessary to work backwards from present to past to find the causation and avoid the danger of connecting correlation with it because of this important analytical fact: correlation does not imply causation. It is also necessary to bear in mind that before a popular ideology "seizes" a name and entrenches it in culture as its own, it often can refer to many disparate meanings as promoted by various people for various reasons. For instance, let's say a Marxist party in a certain country in 1900 called itself the "National Socialist Party" and adhered to a "national socialism" because it wanted the development of socialism and communism in a certain nation, it is not a Nazi movement and not related to the history of Nazism in spite of a similar name.
R-41 and The Four Deuces ( talk · contribs) have requested that OpenFuture provide a source that links pre-WWI National Socialism to post-WWI National Socialism. I also agree that the burden of evidence should be on OpenFuture; furthermore, I think that including material on pre-WWI National Socialism in the Nazism article without a source explicitly linking them implies that they are related, and falls foul of WP:SYNTHESIS. I would like some outside opinions on who needs to provide evidence to back up their claims in this situation, and on whether including pre-WWI mentions of "National Socialism" in the article could be considered a synthesis. (By the way, if any of the editors think I have misrepresented their position, please accept my apologies and clarify below.) All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I note that the German Wikipedia has a disambiguation page ( de:Nationalsozialismus (Begriffsklärung)) which distinguishes between the mid-19th century sense of a socialism which unlike Ferdinand Lassalle's is not international, and the more recent (starting late 19th century) various forms of de:nationaler Sozialismus, including de:Nationalsozialismus. The linguistic distinction between nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus is a subtle one that does not work in English. The former is socialism, modified by the adjective national. The latter is a single word. Nowadays, Nationalsozialismus is the normal term, except for the usage of neo-nazis who want to stress the 'socialist' aspect of their ideology. But nationaler Sozialismus is a much more general term than Nationalsozialismus. E.g. it is also used to refer to the National-Social Association, a liberal, socially progressive, nationalist and Christian party that cannot be said to have been national socialist in the usual sense.
In my opinion, the article national socialism should only be about Nationalsozialismus, leaving pointers to various forms of nationaler Sozialismus to national socialism (disambiguation). This is the German structure sans the article on nationaler Sozialismus, which doesn't make much sense in English because it is only about the various uses of this term. Hans Adler 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have since looked at the talk page of the article. What I missed at first is that the article is entitled "Nazism", not "National socialism". That's important because "Nazism" can only refer to Nationalsozialismus, but not to nationaler Sozialismus, as it is neither applicable to that as a technical term nor is it the literal translation. The fact that there is a redirect from National socialism to Nazism doesn't change this. The redirect exists because Nazism is the primary meaning of "national socialism".
I have found where you provided sources on the talk page. You provided the following:
As TFD said on the article talk page, the last two are too old to be really useful. There is a great deal of modern scholarship on national socialism, and it would not be appropriate to rely on works that appeared during the 2nd World War for a contentious analytic claim. So let's look at Payne.
Chapter 2 ("Radical and Authoritarian Nationalism in Late Nineteenth-Century Europe") is probably the most relevant. It discusses many movements in various countries without making sweeping claims, so it is not easily summarised. I will try to summarise what is relevant from what it says about German movements named "national socialism" or similar. The first sentence says: "A number of small groups emerged in imperial Germany and Austria that attempted to combine nationalism with semicollectivism, corporatist or statist economics, and broad social appeals to workers, though none achieved any electoral or political success for more than a fleeting moment." Payne describes several of them, without actually saying that they were socialist, but stressing their antisemitic character. The Ostara Society (with an ideology of Aryan supermen) is somewhat relevant because of its influence on Hitler. The German Workers' Party was the most successful. Payne says that the party evolved from a democratic and socialist one into one "promoting pan-German nationalism and imperialism" as well as antisemitism. It was the predecessor of the Austrian Nazi Party, which preceded the German one by two years.
As Payne's approach shows, it's well accepted that Nazism did have aspects that can be called socialist, or perhaps more precisely collectivist. Some, but not all, of the movements called "national socialism" are precursors of Nazism. I do not think that it is fair to include the early forms of actual socialism that were called national socialism to distinguish them from international socialism. At first, "national socialism" was just a juxtaposition of two words that could have various meanings based on the meanings of the individual words. It took some time for one of the meanings to become the dominant one. The claim that mid-19th century "national socialism" is a precursor of 20th century national socialism is original research if it is based only on their having the same name and maybe some old books. Both are discussed sufficiently in the modern literature, and if there were such a connection, the modern literature would say so.
My very superficial impression is that one side in this dispute may be trying to deny the socialist aspects of Nazism, and the other may be trying to paint genuine socialist movements as Nazism which lack important characteristics and are not directly historically related. Hans Adler 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Disappearance of an individual and the NOR policy - an apparent anomaly:
I am a novice Wikipedian. I recently edited an article about the Claimant to the Scottish Throne, Prince Michael of Albany as follows: "September 2011: Prince Michael of Albany seems to have disappeared in 2006 when he, allegedly, returned to Belgium. There appears to have been no sign of him since 2006. One of his former supporters, Laurence Gardner, who died in 2010, is said to have renounced the titles awarded to him by Prince Michael. See Laurence Gardner's obituary in The Independent, 19 Aug 2010." This edit was removed by a senior editor on the grounds that it contained unsourced comments. He argued that "I can't see anyway you can include it (i.e., the reference to Prince Michael's apparent disappearance - Radex09) until a reliable source comments on it." I am puzzled by this interpretation of the NOR rule. It seems literally correct, but it seems to exclude the possibility of saying that an individual appears to have 'disappeared', or even to say that nothing has been heard from him or about him in the last five years. If an individual has 'disappeared' then there may well be no accurate sources to cite, and the absence of secondary sources is itself significant. It seems contrary to common sense to be unable to state that an individual appears to have 'disappeared'. My discussion with the editor who removed my edit is at User talk:Dougweller under the heading 'Prince Michael of Albany' Radex09 ( talk) 09:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Martinvl - thanks for your points. The original article is Michel Roger Lafosse. Prince Michael of Albany takes you to the same page. I assure you that I understand the reasons why Prince Michael of Albany might have disappeared and mention them at User talk:Dougweller under the heading 'Prince Michael of Albany'. But I don't wish to discuss Prince Michael of Albany here. I am concerned with the apparent anomaly of the NOR rule which prevented me making the observation that Prince Michael of Albany / Michael Roger Lafosse has not been heard or seen in 5 years and appears to have 'disappeared'. The fact that the Claimant has gone missing is relevant to the article because it has implications for the status of his claim to the Scottish throne, but the NOR policy seems to prevent me from mentioning that he has 'disappeared'. When someone 'disappears' there may not be any secondary sources to cite, as in this case. Radex09 ( talk) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Google doesn't cover everything", which is why I said only that he appears to have disappeared. This issue reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze where the solution of the mystery depended on the dog that didn't bark in the night:
Under the NOR rule Sherlock Holmes would have been forbidden to mention the fact that the dog did not bark. Radex09 ( talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be extremely helpful to have some further input on a content dispute for the Bain & Company page. The page is now protected after repeated reverts in both directions over the dispute. The full details of the dispute are provided on the talk page , with even more extensive discussion here: Talk:Bain_&_Company#Misleading_content_related_to_so-called_Bain_India_incident.
Could someone with expertise on synthesis and original research questions please weigh in?
NJmeditor ( talk) 10:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to report article "Principality of Hungary". It exist only 2 sources which speaks about "principality of Hungary" in 9th century. Majority of sources speaks that Hungarians in that time was a semi-nomadic tribes of various ethnic origin. First source supporting the existence of "Principality of Hungary" is Hodos: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bz7aKaJNfokC&pg=PA19&dq=%22principality+of++Hungary%22&hl=en&ei=dpBeTrLUDYT_-gbj0_2QAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22principality%20of%20%20Hungary%22&f=false but he created a fictive countries: "Principality of Hungary" and "Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia" - these countries did not exist. Second is Weciorek: http://books.google.com/books?id=B5XpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22principality+of+hungary%22&dq=%22principality+of+hungary%22&hl=sk&ei=gNJ9TpqTLfPE4gSFx-CoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA but on the next page he uses the term "Slovak principality" - so this author created 2 new countries in the 9th and 10th century. Article was nominated for a deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Hungary but editors are not experts in this topic so they considered this fictive names as a reliable name for the principality. But the majority of sources says nothing about this principality. Arguments of Hungarian editors are that their rulers are called a prince in some sources but in the majority of sources they are called a tribal chieftains. Now behind the fictive therm "principality of Hungary" is hidden all history of Carpathian basin in 10th century - Hungarian rides, Hungarian tribes, Hungarian tribal alliance and union, Christianization of Hungarians. Are we going to write a new history of Hungary in the 21th century at Wikipedia? Are these source really reliable if they speaks about fictive countries? More informations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary -- Samofi ( talk) 13:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Love for you ll to walk me through this so the final product will be acceptable to Wiki's established standards.
Thanks, Eric Mathis
List of changes in Star Wars re-releases ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article consists almost entirely of unsourced statements regarding differences between releases of the various Star Wars films. Ignoring the issue as to whether such exhaustive lists are encyclopaedic at all, would it be possible for policy regarding original research be clarified in regard to this matter - does watching two different versions of a film, and noting the differences between them, fall under WP:OR policy or not? It seems to me that the films themselves are primary sources per WP:PRIMARY, and that the exhaustive listing of changes is 'research' by any reasonable definition - effectively resulting in Wikipedia being a contributor-generated secondary source. I'd like to get some feedback on this though, and would particularly welcome comments from anyone who has dealt with this type of issue before. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck is that? That article is shocking and should be stubbed. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This section is quite speculative and particular in characterizing the humor employed by Ben Stiller in various "Ben Stiller movies". The critical points for me:
If it weren't for the first one, I would easily overlook the last two. In the absence of citation, the critical focus on Ben Stiller is in need of justification here.
County surveyor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I ran into this while fixing dab links, and it's a doozy. Massive page, referenced only to primary documents, such as the Domesday Book and the Oxford English Dictionary, and with this bizarre author's statement on the talk page. Considering reverting it back to before this editor started in on it, but would would like some feedback before doing so. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 16:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Users wrote that my older report was not belonging to this topic. But Iam sure that it belongs here. I would like to report article Principality of Hungary because this article is a synthesis: [10] It broken also this rule: [11] „If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research“ - we have a extremly small minority view, from the authors whose are not experts in topic This term is not based at reliable secondary sources: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Term „Principality of Hungary“ is based only at tertiary sources and non-scholar publications. Its very rare anachronism for a Hungarian tribal alliance and it does not deserve own article. Entry of the article is classical example of synthesis:
The Principality of Hungary, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] also Hungarian Principality [7] [8] [9] or Duchy of Hungary [10] [11] (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség), was the first documented Hungarian state, [12] a tribal alliance [13] [14] [15] [16] in the Carpathian Basin, established 895 [17] [18] or 896, [12] [19] [20] following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.
The Magyars (Hungarians), a semi-nomadic group of people led by Árpád formed the Principality of Hungary at the very end of the 9th century, [3] arriving from Etelköz, their earlier principality east of the Carpathians. [21]
The principality was succeeded by the Christian kingdom of Hungary with the coronation of Stephen I in AD 1000.
In contemporary Byzantine sources, the territory of the Hungarian tribal alliance was also known as in Greek as "Western Tourkia", because of its allegiance to the the Khazar Khaganate. [22]
Council of Europe
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bartha
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[12] „the is no reson to believe that conquering hungarians considered a carpathian basin as their final home“ „after defeat at Ausburg (955) Arpad princes trying to make a independent christian state“ [13] talks about hungarian tribes and chieftains in 10th century, „1001 – creation of the state“ [14] no simple word about hungarian principality [15] in 899 Pannonia mentioned as the part of Frankish empire, talking about tribes in 10th century and „after 955 was formed a basis for future hungarian kingdom“
NOTE: 50% of sources speaks about Hungarian principality only after 955 and 50 % of sources about Hungarian history dont use the term Hungarian principality, they speaks about TRIBAL ALLIANCE in Carpathian basin ( [16] [17] [18] [19]) and kingdom in 1001.
[20] talks about tribal union in 950 – p. 102 and about principality after 955 [21] about principality of Hungary in 10th century not in 9th century [22] about principality in 948 [23] hungarian principality – started to create after 955 and creation finished in 972 [24] principality in 10th century, not in 9th century
Its a classical kind of the essay, synthesis and original research from User:Fakirbakir ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position). Firstly he created article Principality of Hungary without proper references and sources for example he used the translator as the reference. It was kind a propagandistic and patriotic ( [26]). I have found a mistakes and uncited matherial and reported this article, he started with canvassing (other hungarian users) and he repair this page – but without consensus and he used only hungarian point of view. This user was firstly trying to legitimize a term Principality of Hungary. His sources:
1) [27] We cannot verify this book and we dont know about which hungarian principality talks this book – 17th century in Transylvania or Principality of Geza in 972? Author is theologian and book is assigned for high schools.
2) [28] this book is just a outline of history and author is not expert in topic. He use the fictive names of the countries. „Principality of Hungary“ and „Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia“ – this countries are fictive and they are not useing by seriouse historians. Btw in the book is mentioned that hungarians came in the end of 9th century and than established a principality, but principality could be established after 955, there is no exact year.
3) [29] term principality of hungary is used, but in this book is also used the term slovak principality (so can we call the Principality of Nitra the Slovak principality? It can be mentioned like an alternative name but not like a name of whole article). and we dont know from this book the establishment of the principality so it could be after 955.
4) [30] this source is from 1905, its talking about principality of hungary and about slovaks. But in which period? It could be the principality of transylvania in 16th century or it could be attempts from the Slovaks to make a principality in the northern hungary in 19th century.
5) [31] it talks about hungarian principality in 10th century, so it could be after 955
The next activity of the User:Fakirbakir was to make a connection with the arrival of the Magyar nomadic tribes into Carpathian basin and establishment of principality, but his sources says nothing about establishment of the Hungarian principality:
1) [32] its only tertiary source and says that hungarian state starting with creation in 896 – can we talk in this time about principality or about tribal union, tribal alliance, tribal federation...? creation started in 896, but when the principality was a realy created? Was it created?
2) [33] same encyclopedy like above – he used a feedback to source his claims
3) [34] its book from amateur astronomer talking about hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.
4) [35] its book about Tokay vine and its only mentioned hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.
A. Term „Principality of Hungary“ is mentioned only in the tertiary sources or in non-scholar publications and it should not be the name of article according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
B. Majority of seriouse historian publications deprecating existence of Hungarian principality, Principality of Hungary, etc.
C. Term „Hungarian principality“ is used from the reign of Geza in 970.
D. Term „Hungarian principality“ in Hungarian language is very rare and it used only in one book (other books say the same sentences about this so its feedbacks): [36] and seriouse Hungarian academics use term Hungarin tribal union in 997 ( [37])
E. Calling the rulers of Hungarian tribal alliance princes in Hungarian patriotic literature does not make a principality from the seminomadic tribes. Term prince is used for a monarchs, lords, tribal chieftains sometimes.
A) Rename the article to Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpathian Basin)
B) Move the present content of the article to [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes] and delete this article
C) Rename article to „Geza´s Principality“ or „Hungarian principality“ and we can talk about history after 955 or 972 and the earlier period move to the articles [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes]
D) Create articles Hungarian tribal alliance (Etelkoz 830-895), Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpahian basin 895-972), Hungarian principality (972-1001) -- Samofi ( talk) 11:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You dont agree because its your synthesis. Find source that Principality of Hungary was called a "Western Tourkia" in Byzantine sources. Its clear syntheis, you are connecting sources about tribal alliance, duchy, magyar tribes, principality. You are connecting name prince with principality. Samo (founder of samo empire) was called rex, king. So was it kingdom? Svätopluk was called rex - king too. So great moravia was a kingdom? Nope.. "Principality of Hungary" is a frinde theory and its no place in wikipedia for such theories and original research. You really dont see, that its synthesis? Why its not a 1 source which speaks that Principality of Hungary was established in 895? Btw one from your sources says that "Principality of Hungary was established in 830 in Etelkoz". Its just a minority views.. Term principality of Hungary is not videly accepted by scholars so article should be changed or deleted. Its used by non-scholars for a variouse polities in periods from 830 to 1900.. Do you have sources that principality of Hungary, Hungarian state, Duchy of Hungary, Hungarian Tribal alliance, Western Tourkia are the same polity? So show it. About duchy of Hungary: http://books.google.com/books?id=N3rxAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&dq=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&hl=sk&ei=LaSOTu_HKM6F-wbwpaX1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA - Geza established monarchy and his son stephen inherrited the duchy in 997. Reign of Geza started about 970. So we cannost talk about duchy of hungary before 970. Old english sources (from 18th century) useing the term "Duchy of Hungary" and all say the same thing: "Thus -Henry II. erected the duchy of Hungary into a kingdom, in favour of Stephen, who before had the title of duke" but its sources from 18th century (you should use a modern neutral secondary sources) and Hungarian duchy was mentioned only with connection with Stephen so after 997. How can you connect it with 895? Its here 2 times, because first report was not done good, now its better and its belonging to the original research noticeboard. -- Samofi ( talk) 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Original research continues:
Answers:
Is it original research to include selected Quranic verses in our article on women's rights in Saudi Arabia without secondary sources demonstrating their relevance? Noloop and Aerobicfox argue that because the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia states that the Quran is the country's constitution and judges there apply the law by citing it, we may, for example, include quotes that "seem relevant" such as 4:34:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.
in a paragraph about how women require a male guardian for most public activities in Saudi Arabia, not cited to a source. I argue that we nonetheless need secondary sources applying the Quran verse to the situation in Saudi Arabia, just as we would need secondary sources applying any other general, broad-brush "constitutional" principle to a specific law or case. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux#Market_share refers to another Wikipedia article which calculates the median of market share for 2 operating systems, based on a number of sources. Firstly, I'm not sure that it is proper to reference another article this way. Secondly, I suspect that the calculation of the median constitutes synthesis. Statistics is not my field, but I'm pretty sure that median is not the way to deal with possible bias introduced through possible self-selection and biased sources.
So how to deal with this: Leave the reference? Cite the same sources with the same caveats? Choose the sources which seems least biased? Or just remove it altogether since there's no way avoid WP:OR? Useerup ( talk) 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I posted about this here before but only got one user to respond; the problem still remains.
The sentence in question is:
...according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day, [ref1][ref2] although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement [ref3] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time [ref4] and neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War. [ref5] [45]
The last part implies that the fighting is not confirmed by Finnish sources and probably did not happen.
The citations ref1 and ref2 are for sources that explicitly say that the fighting took place. However, User:Wanderer602 says that he can't find any confirmation of this in Finnish sources and adds the "although..." part that puts the information from reliable sources into doubt. (see 2nd paragraph here: [46]) Is not that original research? Since when does information from reliable sources have to be confirmed by the research of a user to be taken seriously?
As far as his sources, ref3 says that the 12th division was near the town, ref4 refers to diary entries (primary source) that supposedly say that it was quiet in the area the 12th division was covering.
To me this looks like a clear case of synthesis: 12th division near N. Beloostrov + diary entries of the 12th division saying that it was quiet = no fighting in N. Beloostrov
- YMB29 ( talk) 20:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone comment on this? -
YMB29 (
talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just been in what could be called my first edit war, in which I was (unfairly, in my opinion) accused, first of insufficient citation, then of inserting original research. On the first, I relied on no additional sources aside from what the article already cited, so I didn't feel a need to add a "ref" (nevertheless, I did subsequently include one that I thought would be comprehensive enough to cover the entire Synopsis section--both my edits and pre-existing stuff). On the second, I don't believe that I crossed the line between simply paraphrasing (acceptable) and making subjective personal inferences (unacceptable)--but "Wisdom89"--whose user-page suggests he considers himself a pre-eminent authority on the rock band Rush--disagrees and threatened to block me like a common vandal (touchy, touchy--considering he knows nothing about me personally).
Strictly speaking, ANY paraphrasing of a source--putting something "into your own words"--involves making interpretations and inferences; therefore, anything other than verbatim quotations (which I also included in my edits) could be considered "original research" by an overzealous, overprotective editor. IF I crossed the line and made personal deductions that didn't necessarily follow from the lyrical and non-lyrical text (which I DID NOT intend), THEN some of the previous editors must have done so as well--and, since their text apparently wasn't reverted, they got away with it. I simply expanded on what was already there to the extent of providing more detail. I may have been over the top by referring to the song "2112" in the beginning of the article as a mini-rock opera onto itself (that could be considered speculative), and perhaps my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences). But I stand by all of my other edits--as I relied on the exact same sources as previous editors--namely, the CD liner notes. (Should I have mentioned that in my "ref"?) In any case, any change to the overall meaning of the Synopsis section was minor and--in my personal opinion--in the direction of greater accuracy.
I understand that "common sense", in and of itself, is not sufficient rationale for inferences--as what's obvious to one can be counter-intuitive to another, depending on life experience and prejudice, but if what I added was unreasonably speculative--then the article was already that to begin with. (It's like saying that "1 person, then 2 more people, came" can't be paraphrased as "3 people came".) I'd like know more on how I might--might--appeal or arbitrate this (I've already posted my objections on his talk page and the "2112 (song)" talk page). I'm not a sorehead, but I take objection to his assuming vandalism on my part and being so quick to do a blanket revert. I've been an editor for less than 6 months, and edit disputes are an entirely new experience--although I've already created my own article on something, which required me to research not only my subject but your instructions on many things. (You could say I have a fair amount of experience in Wikipedia matters but I'm not an expert yet.) I don't want to get blacklisted for things that were innocent (in intention) even if wrong; and the web site doesn't say a lot about "taking issues upstairs" before you get blocked or banned.
- User:RobertGustafson ( talk) October 7, 2011
Whose edits did he say were good-faith? His (the reversions) or mine (which he reverted)? Is he giving me the benefit of the doubt? Also, how do I provide a detailed description on the talk page of what I think the article should say without using more text than a simple edit on the article would use? You've noticed, no doubt, that when I complain I can be a bit wordy.
Thank you. Personally, I've noticed that just about every Wikipedia article contains something that somebody could deem original research. As I said, it's a fine line between paraphrasing and speculating.
...my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences).
User:RobertGustafson's statement above is indeed WP:OR. I tend to agree with the substance of it, but it's still his personal commentary until a source can be provided for it. Since this is an article about a song, editors'll probably be relatively liberal with regards to WP:V, but User:Wisdom89 was acting within policy in reverting the additions.— Biosketch ( talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
RobertGustafson ( talk):
I have posted on the 2112 (song) talk page my "Proposed New Synopsis", along with another section talking about how I think my proposed version has less OR & synthesis, is more straightforward & less redundant, and how a case for an exception can be made regarding the meaning of "Overture" and "Grand Finale"--in that it would not make sense to explain only some of the song to Wikipedia's fans (my proposed version is careful to qualify that Rush has not officially confirmed my interpretations regarding "Overture" & "Grand Finale", yet "many fans" believe them), that my interpretations are probably widely held (I intend to look for 2ndary sources to back them up, however), and that Rush no doubt has people who'd remove anything they objected to (not that it's their responsibility). I also said that I would wait 7 days for any feedback on my talk page, the 2112 (song) talk page, and Wisdom89's talk page--and that, if I recieved no negative responses, I would paste my proposed changes into the article. I then advised anyone who objects after the fact to discuss it with me on the talk pages (in search of a compromise), and make only surgical edits to fix or remove specific problems, rather than doing blanket reverts and accusations of vandalism.
I also posted what I said on the 2112 (song) talk page to Wisdom89's talk page; he deleted my posts without responding to me. When I re-posted, he accused me of harrasment; I posted a formal apology and advised him to give me feedback on my proposals. I worry, though, that if after 7 days, I get no feedback and make my edit, he'll respond like he has in the past--revert-and-accuse. Are there some Wikipedia editors who are "control freaks" regarding article content? Is Wisdom89 somehow connected with Rush, thereby giving him a "right" to micromanage edits regarding their songs?
Natib Qadish is a modern neo-Pagan religion which may or may not be notable enough for an article. However, this article is mainly about ancient religions, coins, death masks, a black stone in Rome, etc. Am I right in thinking that most of the material should be deleted as original research? Of about 27 sources, less than a handful mention the subject of the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Update - Someone objected so it is now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination). Griswaldo ( talk) 02:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, the section on "Religious significance." This section seems to contain original research of a definite POV nature. Edit Centric talk 23:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The following Statement in the article is FALSE and libelous:
"educated in a local school run by the Christian Brothers while serving as an altar boy.[7] Brosnan has expressed contempt for his education by the Christian Brothers. "I grew up being taught by the Christian Brothers, who were dreadful, dreadful human beings. Just the whole hypocrisy. And the cruelness of their ways toward children. They were very sexually repressed. Bitter. Cowards, really. I have nothing good to say about them and will have nothing good to say about them. It was ugly. Very ugly. Dreadful. I learnt nothing from the Christian Brothers except shame."
Pierce Brosnan was not educated by the Irish Christian Brothers, nor did he attend a school run by them!
Please have that statement removed!
Student essay full of speculation and redundancies. See talk page: Talk:Artificial_Intelligence_in_Data_Mining#Nomination_for_deletion. I can, however, not go on with the nomination for deletion, since only registered users are allowed to do so.
Note that this article is part of a student course assignment: Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Artificial_Intelligence -- 178.2.61.184 ( talk) 06:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Continued unsourced additions by Mark Hayesworth [53] to a good article, without explanations or citations. Requesting assistance rather than edit-warring. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 ( talk) 16:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Section on points of interest is becoming a site of contention, beginning with an attempt to link to a business whose importance I've questioned. Link has been restored, along with much original research, no sources. Taking here rather than edit warring. 99.137.209.90 ( talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that these edits are basically original research. Starting from the top, a citation request for " there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers" was replaced by references to biblical passages, which is OR. The next paragraph, 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' again has no sources other than the Bible, which is true of the paragraph after that. The next para is also headed 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' and is again sourced to the Bible, but also has 2 references to The Good News Bible Revised Edition 1994 but with no page numbers or quotes. Following that we have another paragraph called 'Ambiguous James' entirely sourced to the Bible. And finally the section 'Tradition' has unsourced text saying " we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother." and two sources which supposedly back the statement "Robert Eisenman <ref"James brother of Jesus" Robert Eisenman</ref> and The New Advent online Catholic Encylopeida Catholic Encyclopedia: James son of Zebedee both suggest that the death of James in Acts 12:1-2 is James, son of Zebedee and not James son of Alphaeus." I can't find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I may of course have missed it) and I will ask the editor to provide a quote from each backing the claim. See also James son of Alphaeus Biblical Criticism by this editor, prodded as OR by one editor with the prod endorsed by another, who added WP:SOAP and WP:FORK as reasons for the prod. Bunofsteel ( talk · contribs) has accepted the prod but is still confused about our policy of OR. Hopefully once he understands he will become a good contributor. Dougweller ( talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that we are starting to get somewhere now. What I have been accused of by others is the synthesis argument. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Lets apply this to the first part of the Possible brother of James. Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (reliable source says A). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (reliable source says B), which has led some[who?] to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (implied conclusion C not explicitly stated by any of the sources). "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Therefore the citatation is required at this stage.
I then put in the biblical references to try to defeat this unreferenced synthesis argument. The biblical references in some ways backs up the statement which I might add that I didn't write but I agree aren't ideal. I would simply delete this whole section.
I'm unaware that if you use only the bible then that is not ok in a paragraph. You will have to find that in the rules for me. Taking passages from a the bible to alert the reader to aspects of the story is not original research because I'm not trying to interpret the story. However, the facts when laid out does challenge the reader to think more deeply about James.
Matthew is not referred to as Mattew son of Alphaeus. I wasn't quite sure what to do there as far as quoting it. I'm thinking that when I get around to it I will find everytime that Matthew is mentioned in the bible and quote that. I will fix this up in the next few days.
My good news bible also idicates which stories are paralled in other books in the bible. It does this by placing the biblical references at the top of each story so that you can read the different accounts. I'm not 100% sure how to quote this properly.
Acts 12:1-2 which I strongly believe refers to James son of Zebedee. I admit that I was being lazy with my James brother of Jesus reference but with good reason. I deleted Acts 12:1-2 and stated the reason why in the talk page but it was reinstalled with no explanation. Given that I believe that whomever wrote that in made a mistake I felt compelled to write an argument contradicting as a tempory measure until this line gets deleted. The plan is to delete my section from the tradition section once the original incorrect line has been removed. Also you will find James son of Zebedee's death here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm
Men's rights could really use some people with experience applying the original research guidelines. There are many potential OR/synth issues in the article, including some that haven't yet been discussed on the talk page yet. This talk page section is one where I would especially appreciate outside opinions, but the talk page needs more NOR-experienced contributors in general.
(Also: this article is currently under probation, the terms of which can be viewed here.) Kevin ( talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the following paragraph be added to Occupy Wall Street and summarized in its intro?
callaconvention
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).conconcon
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lessigbook
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).froomkin2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention. I do not understand why people are trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Dan Froomkin [55] and Peter M. Shane [56], both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC and on the Rachel Maddow show. (I am asking here because the only uninvolved party who responded where I first asked on RSN suggested ORN would be more appropriate.) Dualus ( talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that Lessig has nothing to do with the OWS movement, nor has he (as far as I know) commented upon it, I do have to wonder why an article on the Occupy Wall Street movement is discussing Lessig in the first place. Blueboar ( talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Simply put: No this material should not be added to the lead.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The underlined bit seems to sum-up the problem. Is anything salvageable? So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It would seem that ArtifexMayhem has a problem with the way the article is introduced. I suggest s/he take a stab at fixing the introduction so that it makes more sense, or -- even better -- ask some questions. If ArtifexMayhem doesn't feel qualified to fix it because s/he can't follow the article, that's possibly due to a lack of clarity in the article's writing, a problem with the way the article develops its argument (structure), or possibly a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.
Now: Is the material worthwhile? Hmmm. Is it worthwhile to note when historians meet with great difficulty due to censoring or obscuring of the historical record, on the part of the people who were key figures in that history? ArtifexMayhem's user page portrays him/her as a skeptic; therefore, he/she already knows the answer to that one.
Anyway, "baby seal", stand by. I'm going to be doing some editing of the article's language in the next few days. Maybe if you check back you'll find the article easier to comprehend.
Excelsior, Virago250 ( talk) 02:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Could use a second set of eyes on this one. A stubborn but good faithed editor is insistent on adding his own interpretation of this tattoo. The sources simply don't back it up, nor are they reliable, but it's all we got so far. -- œ ™ 13:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
On the talk page of Criticism of Judaism an editor has repeatedly alleged that the section of the article on kosher slaughter is original research. For the entire discussion see:
A majority of editors commenting do not agree that it is original research, and because of this I've repeatedly asked the other editor to start an RfC or a thread here to ask for outside input on the matter if he wants to try to get consensus for his POV. He has not done so, and therefore I am now doing that for him. I'd like this to be settled so that it doesn't come up again and again every week. Any comments, but particularly uninvolved comments, would be greatly appreciated. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's be careful to distinguish between the two separate issues going on here. There's one issue, which is whether or not a section on criticism of kosher slaughter belongs in an article on criticism of Judaism. Underlyingly, that's not the issue being disputed at the article. The issue being disputed at the article is whether editors can project onto FAWC a context that FAWC never itself so much as implied. The bottom-line question is Is FAWC being critical of Judaism in its criticism of kosher slaughter? The answer is that to associate FAWC with criticism of Judaism, when what they're criticizing is kosher and halal slaughter, is original research. There's nothing in what FAWC says to indicate that they have an problem with Judaism, and we can't synthesize their criticism of kosher and halal slaughter into an article on criticism of Judaism in a way that mischaracterizes them as criticizing something that in all likelihood don't have any problem with. If FAWC had criticized Judaism, it wouldn't be original research to mention them in the context of the article. But nowhere has FAWC expressed any criticism of Judaism – not the religion, not the people, not Jewish history, not Jewish philosophy. They've criticized one component of Judaism and never articulated their criticism as a criticism of Judaism. It's therefore original research to make an inferential leap from one criticism to another.
Now, is the section on kosher slaughter original research? That depends. Given that it's nowhere been established that FAWC is critical of Judaism, it's pure WP:SYNTH to mention FAWC in the section and attribute things to that organization that they never themselves took a position on. So yes, on some level at least, the section constitutes original research. Ergo, is it just "an editor" repeatedly alleging that the section on kosher slaughter is original research? No, that's again a mischaracterization of the debate taking place on the Dicussion page. There have been issues raised that continue to go unaddressed by the editors arguing for the inclusion of FAWC in the article. And the situation is made worse by the same inclusion-bent editors engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics to isolate one editor they disagree with and pommel him with nasty remarks. Add to that the fact that one of these editors just had to revert an entire section he added to the article because he failed to verify any of the sources in his addition, and there's probably a more serious problem at work here.— Biosketch ( talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Clarification - Jayjg actually argues that the entire section is original research. That is why I posted this. Biosketch's reply does not address the scope of Jay's disagreement which is, again, why I posted this. I'll respond to Biosketch as well, but contrary to what Biosketch says, there are indeed editors arguing that the entire section is OR and it isn't a "tactic" to engage those editors on their actual arguments. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
To begin with, despite Trytofish's claim that "it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record", there are actually several people who have objected to this section on OR grounds, including the editor who placed the tag on the section in the first place (and that wasn't me, I might add). Second, I'd appreciate it if editors here would not make
straw man arguments in my name - particularly if they don't have the decency to tell me about this discussion or their presentations in my name.
My consistent point has been that the sources in this section have not stated that they are criticising Judaism; on the contrary, as I've pointed out, they would likely vociferously deny this accusation - pretty much the point Biosketch makes in his comment of 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC) directly above. In fact, they are criticising
shechita, a practice observed or demanded by a small number of Jews and not considered mandatory by many Jewish religious movements. In fact, these critics are often merely insisting that animals be anesthetized before shechita is done. This is a problem with all the sources used in the section; none of them say (or even imply) they are criticising Judaism per se. When challenged, the editors who insist on using these sources bring various other statements from the sources which neither state nor imply a criticism of Judaism itself, and then say that what the sources really mean is that they are criticising Judaism, despite not actually saying so. This is, of course, Original Research.
I have no objection to criticism of shechita in the
shechita article. Nor would I have any objection to this section in the Criticism of Judaism article if the sources actually said something like "one of the problems with Judaism is that it demands shechita". Neither, however, is the case here.
Jayjg
(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Great American streetcar scandal is badly compromised by synthesis and original research, starting with the name. First of all, there are no sources that use this name. It is used by Wikipedia editors to refer to an alleged conspiracy that every reliable source presented so far agrees did not happen--that GM purposefully destroyed the streetcar system in the United States. It is true that they were found guilty of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. But that is all. The hyperbolic and fanciful title is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia to invent. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've got some concerns about the article Quotation Mark. I've just removed what I believe to be an OR claim. [64]
One editor came into the section that deals with terminal punctuation, changed all of the "American"s to "typsetters" and added the claim that the term "American style" is a misnomer "because it is also sometimes used in British and other non-American journalism and fiction writing, and is not universally used in American writing." As sources, this editor gave two style guides that require British style. However, these sources don't claim that the term "American" is a misnomer; they're just examples of American style guides that do things the British way. I removed the misnomer claim and changed all of the "typesetters" back to "American."
Background: Most American and British style guides differ on how to treat periods and commas that come next to quotation marks. The short, short version follows. American: Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "the Boss," performed "American Skin." British: Eric Clapton, nicknamed "God", performed "Cocaine". American style is also called "typesetters style," etc., but this is a lot rarer than "American."
Who's right? Is it enough to give examples or does this editor actually have to find a source that says "'American style' is a misnomer"? (The article already said/still says that American style is not used by every single American writer and style guide.) Does this have any bearing on whether the article itself should call the style "American" or "typesetters" in the body text?
Full disclosure: we're on opposite sides of the keep/replace WP:LQ issue that keeps cropping up on WT: MoS. This editor has repeatedly expressed a belief that American style causes problems (without giving evidence or citing sources) and I believe that pushing the term "typesetters" is an attempt to frame American style as old-fashioned. I believe that American style does not cause problems and should be permitted on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
If a journalist does some research on a story (that they are not involved in), and has the story published in a mainstream newspaper, and then cites the published article to support edits to the relevant Wikipedia article, is that allowed? Card Zero (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well... as long as it's not overly promotional and the source supports the statements made then that seems OK to me - got a specific link? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The details are at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Not-quite-original_research_awkwardness. I admire the journalist Svenstein for making the phone calls, and don't want the edit to be reverted. The majority of published sources seem to be parroting something spurious (to be specific, that the manuscript was "found at the end of the cold war"). Svenstein's new article in Bild doesn't say this, but it doesn't clearly say that the manuscript wasn't found at the end of the cold war, either - although that was what he discovered. So if some future editor puts "found at the end of the cold war" back in, I shouldn't argue, right? Yet I shouldn't argue with Svenstein's removal of this supposed fact, either, right? Card Zero (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
What do traffic jams, weather, a pony cart, a murder, President Bush, an electric heater, gilded breasts, a baseball field, Afghanistan, hormones, and the Lebanese Civil War have in common? They are all included in a coatrack article titled Golden Domes, which was recently put up for GA review.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize sources, but this article is more like journalism: it takes bits and pieces of information -- which are largely passing mentions in articles on related topics -- and weaves them into a 4,000-word article. There is no single source that includes this information, and as far as I know, there is no third-party source that focuses solely on the subject of the Golden Domes. My question is whether this sort of journalistic approach to writing Wikipedia articles is acceptable or original research. -- BwB ( talk) 11:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to the Golden Domes talk page, FYI - [70]. -- BwB ( talk) 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to the outside editors who contributed above. We appreciate your comments and suggestions. I have posted a comment on the Golden Domes talk page about next steps [ [71]]. -- BwB ( talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In February 2011 an editor added an unsourced claim to Vegemite. It was eventually removed in July, but he restored it in September, using a source that clearly didn't support the claim. [72] When that was removed, he resorted to a little bit of sockpuppetry, restoring the claim using his IP, but speaking of himself in the 3rd person, as if to mask his identity. [73] The link between his account and the IP was revealed in an edit in the ensuing discussion on the article's talk page. Four days after the discussion began he proposed adding an alternate claim to the article, even suggesting it did not require a citation. [74] Much later, he claimed to have made "a 3rd ammended article insertion", [75] but what he claims he proposed has not been made clear. One of the issues has been verifiability of the claim that Vegemite has a 7.5% salt content. There's no argument that it has a 3.45% sodium content, that's stated by the manufacturer, [76] but the salt content isn't actually specified anywhere. There are some sites claiming that it's 3.45% (the sodium content) while other references say it is 8%. However, the editor has resorted to his own methods of calculating the salt content. In his additions to the article and his 12 September talk page proposal he claimed 7.5%. He is currently (this is a "discussion" totalling some 8,600 words over 8 long, long weeks) arguing that it's acceptable to use a combination of sources and that it isn't WP:SYNTH. One of the sources is the manufacturer's stated sodium content, while the other is this. That page does not include a direct conversion. Instead, one has to use one of the two roughly calculated examples presented on the page, dividing 6,000 by 2,300 to arrive at 2.608:1 or dividing 5,500 by 2,150 arriving at 2.558:1, round those off to 2.6:1 and then multiply 3.45% sodium to arrive at 8.97%, and let's round that to 9%, which is not even close to the 7.5% he claimed. This seems to go completely against WP:SYNTH, but I'd like to know the thoughts of others. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
" Commodity fetishism" is a prominent term in Marxist theory. Marx is using the word "fetish" in the sense that historians of religion use it to refer to a certain kind of magical object. The most common interpretation of Marx's phrase is that it describes an atitude that people have towards money, and more generally the things one can buy with money, in a capitalist economy.
In the past year or so user:Jurriaan has rewritten the article, and reverts almost any change. I believe she is advancing a novel theory. In response to any challenge, Jurriaan adds more quotes from Marx (or Marx and Engels) and argues that this is what marx himself believed. I and one or two other editors have challenged this on the talk page, leading only to long lectures on what marx really meant.
This can be handled from a number of approaches - certainly more editors knowledgable about Marxism should add material from reliable secondary sources.
But I am hoping that people who watch this page can approach it purely from a policy perspective, having to do with the ways that we should and should not use primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A relatively new editor user: Missoulianette (< 100 edits) has on several occasions added the following to the article on Bozeman, Montana. With a student body population of 14,153 [7] and a city population of 37,280 [8] the student population of the University accounts for over 37% of the city's population [79] On each occasion these additions have been removed and an explanation provided to the editor. here’s the latest on the talk page about WP:SYN and why this bit of content violates our WP:OR policy.
This is a well meaning new editor, but I have failed in my comments on the talk page to convince the editor that this bit of content is OR. A bit of dissection is necessary here. The first number—14,153 is a valid total student population of MSU for the 2011/12 academic year. That includes resident, non-resident US and foreign students. The second number—37,280 is the valid 2010 census number for Bozeman. Doing the math, user:Missoulianette contends that 37% (or 1 in 3) of the Bozeman population is an MSU student, yet no reliable source makes that claim, nor could they. That is the basic synthesis taking place here. Simple math that is drawing a conclusion not supported by any reliable source. Although the math may be correct, the conclusion is unsupported as well as flawed. Even though the census will count students as residents while attending a university away from home, there is no reliable data that says 14,153 students (remember this number is one year removed from the census number) were counted as Bozeman residents. That would be highly unlikely because 3% of the MSU student body are foreign students and 35% are non-resident students. Without reliably sourced data, we don’t know what number of MSU students were included in the 2010 census for Bozeman. Couple that with the fact that a significant number (> 10%) of the MSU student body doesn’t actually reside in Bozeman, but in other parts of Montana. I am personally aware of graduate students that live on the Crow Reservation and commute once a week to class.
I have advised user:Missoulianette to study WP:SYN and if a reliable source can be found that says 37% of Bozeman’s population are MSU students, then it can go into the article. I am pretty confident no such source exists, but I don’t want to continue an edit war with a new editor, because I can’t make the case well enough. So it’s here for the community to weigh in on.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In another effort to explain why this is SYN I have been doing a lot searching for specific data about Bozeman's population and the MSU student body and came across this interesting statistic--There are 43 registered sex offenders in Bozeman (city-data.com). So using Missourianette's calculation and conclusion methodology, I could rightly say that there are 16 registered sex offenders in the MSU student body. (37% of 43). But that would be pure synthesis and OR because no reliable source makes that claim and there is no data that connects the 43 number with the MSU student body. It would be an outrageous claim unsuppported by any reliable source. The math is correct, but the conclusion is flawed and a gross synthesis. That's why we have our WP:OR policy, to prevent unsupported and unsupportable claims in our articles. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I like the suggestions on phrasing from SmokeyJoe and Nuujinn this is what I have been asking for all along. It sounds like my original phrasing was closer to what should be used. Thank you for your suggestions.
When it comes to students living off campus in another town you can’t look at this in an urban context. This is Montana the next closest major town is 90 miles away over mountain passes and I really don’t think anyone is commuting 180 miles a day to school. In the case of MSU off campus means somewhere in Bozeman.
Also isn’t this forum about help? Do you really think Mike Cline taking pot shots at me is helpful or hurtful? Is that Wikipedia expectable behavior?
Thank You
Missoulianette (
talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I have lived in Missoula but I went to college at MSU in Bozeman, I love Bozeman. I also added college town to the Missoula page because I think it's good thing not a bad thing. having gone to MSU not that long ago I can tell you that the nontrad population is not 1/3 of the student body, not even close. There is not that many nontrads, however that may be up a bit with the economic down turn. And most off campus students live in over priced housing in Bozeman. a lot of this can be found here http://www.montana.edu/opa/facts/quick.html
Missoulianette ( talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I must point out that Montanabw just edit the Missoula page to cover up the early comments they made please check the edit history on the Missoula page. I am sure this isn't the right place to bring this up but I see this person bully editors all the time. Can anyone please tell me where I go to deal with an editing bully? Please!
Missoulianette ( talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Cpiral, while very pleasant to interact with, has a set of original theories and conclusions about the etymology and ultimate meaning of nirvana which she/he insists on retaining in the first paragraphs of the article. When challenged, I get a vague answer about how all etymologies are dubious and theirs is as good as any. This of course fails WP:V and WP:FRINGE, as well as WP:NOR. (There's also this long sentence which another editor inappropriately described as "insane", saying that etymology was invented in the same place as the concept of nirvana and thus is somehow intertwined with it?!!??!?) -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Talk:Usage_share_of_operating_systems#rfc_2263541 and give your thoughts. There is a disagreement about whether calculating the median of usage counts from a number of sources counts as a routine calculation as per WP:CALC. Personally I think WP:CALC should be changed if this is reasonable. Dmcq ( talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The event described by the article is the burning of £1 million in banknotes in a boathouse on the Ardfin Estate, Isle of Jura in 1994. The estate (and therefore the boathouse) has now been acquired by a multi-millionaire hedge-fund trader (citation given). Is this OR?
Some confusion here, I think. The Wikipedia article on the new owner does state that he is the new owner, and provides a reliable external link for this: [1]. I did not suggest a motivation for the new owner's acquisition of the estate, neither did I refer to the wealth of the previous owner. I can see that this issue may be regarded as irrelevant, but I'm struggling see how it can be original research. Dhmellor ( talk) 09:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Dr.K. λogos πraxis 23:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Sixteen years after the burning, according to whom? improper synthesis? the Ardfin Estate, Jura, where the boathouse still stands, according to whom? improper synthesis? was acquired by Greg Coffey, a UK-based Australian hedge-fund manager. The 2011 Sunday Times Rich List shows Coffey to have a personal wealth of around £250 million. improper synthesis? [2]
Thanks Dr K - that link to WP:SYNTH is helpful, and I can now see how my edit could be read as 'synthesis of published material to advance a new position', although 'advancing a new position' was certainly not my intention. My intention was to do no more than juxtapose two unrelated but verifiable facts (the burning of the money, and the new ownership of the estate), not in order to 'advance' any 'position', but simply in order to point out that the site of one of the UK's most celebrated acts of anti-materialism is now owned by one of the most successful materialists of our time! I offer no opinion on that, although I do find it quite poetic. But I guess WP is no place for poetry! Regards Dhmellor ( talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Dr K, what is the 'conclusion' that you believe the reader is being 'coerced' into reaching? Dhmellor ( talk) 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I was not trying to make the reader see anything. At no point have I used the words 'irony' or 'ironic'. If you think it's ironic, that's you drawing your own conclusion - I am not responsible for that. Dhmellor ( talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it synthesis to make a determination, based on primary sources (credits in a television episode) that a claim made in a secondary source (a newsblog article published months before the premiere of the television show) is unreliable? Please see Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis as A developer or THE developer. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a very reliable source saying the person is the developer and not mentioning anyone else as developer and there is no source saying there are other developers, only that she spearheaded development. It does not follow from that a person spearheaded development that anyone else was a developer. One shouldn't make inferences like that. Developer here does not include everyone who does fact checking or even writes a score or the words. You'd really need source saying there was more than one developer or giving the name of another developer to counteract the reliable source giving a single developer and no other in a space where such a title is prized and carefully scrutinized. Dmcq ( talk) 14:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a mix up in understanding also in the query. Primary and secondary does not determine reliability, it determines noteworthiness. We shouldn't be using primary sources if what is in them is not made noteworthy in some way and sometimes there is a problem with personal perspective but they are not inherently less reliable than secondary sources. Dmcq ( talk) 14:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Talk:Planck's_law#statements_hopefully_more_consensual and more generally in that whole talk page and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Help_needed_at_Planck.27s_law. The basic problem seems to be the introduction of formulae which have been derived by an editor rather than from citations. The editor cites WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements for putting in new versions of a formula. I believe that guideline only covers examples, intermediary parts of derivations and illustrations, not final results which should always be verifiable. Small changes of notation for consistency are allowed but only WP:CALC covers actual new results.
In the article Planck's law#Common forms you can see a table where the last entry is dependent on angular wavenumber k (in fact a few of these entries are like this but this is a particular sore point for other reasons). No citation has been found for this 'Common form'. Is it justified to stick in things like this? Dmcq ( talk) 12:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's my 3-2-4-2 summary of the above (the four numbers in the next sentence).
Within the past 3 weeks, 2 editors at this article have invented 4 new names for constant multiples of the 2 Planck's law functions.
The 3 weeks are since October 13.
The 2 editors are
The 4 invented names are Bν̃, Bω, By, and Bk. By is a multiple of Bλ while the other three are multiples of Bν. In all four cases the coefficient of the multiple is m4 where m is tabulated below.
The 2 Planck's law functions are and (top 2 rows of left column below).
Headbomb tabulated the 2 Planck's law functions and their 4 multiples as a 3x2 table with associated multipliers m correspondingly tabulated as
Bν : | Bω : |
Bλ : | By : |
Bν̃ : | Bk : |
The second row is for wavelength λ, the top and bottom rows are for frequency ν. Multiplication of the input to Planck's law (in either form) by a multiplier m works the same for all six entries: multiply the output by m4.
Rather than simply tabulating each of these multipliers m however, the table instead gives six copies of Planck's law each multiplied by , without however clueing the reader into the fact that this is how the multiples were derived. This gives the unsuspecting reader the misleading impression that something much deeper is going on.
Regarding the four new names of the form Bx, not even one source exists.
Regarding the associated forms of Planck's law for each new name, all are obtained by multiplying one of the two standard forms by . While the forms for the two basic functions pervade the literature, the situation for sources for the other four forms is as follows.
Other Wikipedia articles have declined to source vocal climate skeptics. I'm not sure whether this is appropriate for Wikipedia, but if this article were to follow that practice it would disqualify the Kramm and Paltridge sources, both of whom are highly vocal climate skeptics. But whether it did or not, the only form sourced from a reputable physics textbook would appear to be 12 at top right, whence it would be reasonable to give that form if this were felt appropriate.
None of this material was in the article prior to October 13, the day Chjoaygame and Headbomb began adding this material to the article. A glance at the history of the article between October 13 and now will give an idea of how Headbomb in particular has dominated editing of the article. There is other original research that he's introduced, such as his attempted application of the chain rule for differentiation, which is a formula that isn't even correct (it gives very wrong results) and hence can be dealt with back at the article without having to consider it original research. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 06:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
start of quotation from Wikipedia article Wikipedia:No original research
end of quotation from Wikipedia article Wikipedia:No original research
The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.
I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [ [83]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that the chart at File:Killed on British Roads.png contravenes the WP:NOR policy on 2 counts:
I have no problem with the graph line itself, the numbers are referenced to a primary source; the problem I have is with all the added, unreferenced labels and the implied conclusion of a causal relationship. I welcome views and opinions on this please. -- de Facto ( talk). 08:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any views on this one please? We need some strongly reasoned guidance to decide how to proceed? -- de Facto ( talk). 07:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There may be an explanation that I have missed, but if there is no reliable source asserting that there is evidence that events in the chart had a causal connection with the changes in the death toll, the chart is synthesis. If someone produced a similar chart including events like the 1965 funeral of Winston Churchill, the original research would be more obvious. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Constructing chart like this in which various data, perhaps all impeccably sourced, but which come from various unrelated sources, and absent any analysis by a known authority strike me as a particularly bad idea. In particular, legislative intent seems a poor criteria for making the jump, since legislators are notoriously poor at predicting the outcome of their actions. Johnuniq is correct that you need a secondary source to establish the relationships between the various data presented in order to avoid OR. There are other factors at play--better road design, high gas prices, better cars, ratio of large to small cars, the general mood of drivers--which make this a complex issues we are not qualified to address. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:27, 14 November 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. |
If I visit a museum and view their internal records about a collection and include that information in an article about that collection, is that OR? Assume that there are published sources to verify the existence of the collection but no detailed records about it in the public domain. I am not creating new information or advancing a particular argument in the article, I am simply recording what is already written down in the museums records which they have never got round to publishing, but is that OR and does the extra information over and above what has already been published meet the standard of verifiability? Thanks Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
OR issue at RfC here. -- Noleander ( talk) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the use of OR to argue for a position in a talk page appropriate? Can this be cited as OR or is OR only applicable to article pages?
Thanks. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You can directly post on my talk page too, if you know what I am talking about. Anyway... it's something like Person X asserted Location Y belongs to Entity Z and this claim is unverified and Person X is very insistent about it in a talk page. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Talk:Rick Perry#Rick Perry's G.P.A. regarding editors' calculating of his GPA, based on a document posted by Huffington Post purporting to be his transcript. While I am not arguing that Huffington Post is not reliable, and I am not even saying that I doubt this transcript is valid - in fact I do think it is likely valid - I am pointing out that their article accompanying the transcript says "A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University." - this does not seem to me to be a verifiable source. The editors at Talk: Rick Perry, in a sincere attempt at accuracy, have taken the grade points listed on the transcript and done their own calculation of the GPA, based on their assumptions regarding how such averages are calculated. They say that under WP:CALC, simple calculations can be made by editors and used. I think that this is not what CALC intended (as in figuring age from birthdate) - I think that our going to what appears to be a primary source, and doing our calculations based on what we think is the method that Texas A&M used for their calculations back in 1970 is OR and against policy. In addition, there is at least one secondary source that gives a GPA - I don't know how reliable it is, as I haven't looked into that - and I think that we should go with what secondary sources say, not do our own calculations. Would appreciate some feedback on that talk page on this - it is not a major point, but it is a BLP, and a widely viewed one at the moment, and I think we need to be careful and true to our policies. Thanks - I hope I have fairly outlined the disagreement. Tvoz/ talk 18:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no way in my mind it's appropriate to include someone's GPA based on a leaked transcript someone posted on huffpo. I don't think it would be a good idea in any situation like this, but it's especially inappropriate here because the primary purpose it serves in the article is too imply he's none too bright. Citing a leaked document posted on huffpo for negative information about a Republican presidential challenger is almost as bad as citing worldnetdaily to claim Obama was born in Kenya or something. Kevin ( talk) 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone produce a source telling *exactly* how to calculate his GPA from a list of grades. Even though this seems "obvious" to some editors, scales and substitutions might make this more complex than you realize, and could end up producing a false result. Your "assumption" of knowing how to calculate the grades IS original research, unless you can get the university to provide a complete calculation guide, taking into account any anomalies that might be present for his years at the college, or perhaps specific application of honors or transfer or who knows what. In short it's OR. -- Avanu ( talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph is repeatedly (five times— WP:3RR may apply if broadly interpreted) added by an IP contributor. It may be valid, indeed it may be a useful for balance, but as it stands it is an unsupported expression of the contributor's view. Suggestions, please? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 05:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing the articles for medical schools in the Caribbean over the past several weeks and there is a WP:NOR issue that has been discussed on a few talk pages, but I would like some more outside input on.
As a little background, there are about 20 "offshore" schools in the Caribbean where mostly American/Canadian students study for the first two years, and then train at US hospitals for the second two years, with the intention of applying for US/Canadian residency programs. These are different from "regional" schools in the Caribbean which train students to practice in their home countries. (I am currently working on differentiating the two in the List of medical schools in the Caribbean article.)
With the exception of 4 of these offshore schools, several individual US states restrict licensure for the other ~15 schools, the most prominent of which is California. California has an "approved" and "disapproved" foreign medical schools list, but many of the Caribbean schools aren't on either list as they haven't been reviewed by the California board (a voluntary process.)
A few states require foreign medical schools to be on the California "approved" list for graduates to obtain licensure there; other states simply require that a school not be on the California "disapproved" list. Some states have explicitly restricted specific Caribbean schools outright. In addition, Kansas for example requires foreign schools to have been in existence for 15 years for graduates to be eligible for licensure.
Now let's say School X opened in 2005, is explicitly restricted in Texas, and is neither California approved nor disapproved. That means the graduates are not eligible for licensure in Texas, California, Kansas, Alaska, Indiana, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
The problem that arises in terms of WP:NOR is that the WP article could only say "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas." The medical board laws for the other states don't explicitly say "School X is ineligible for licensure here" but instead basically say "if a school is not approved by California, it is also not approved here."
I should say that I am completely indifferent on this, and I think the counterargument that "if School X's ineligibility for licensure in California/Alaska/etc. was of interest, there would be reliable sources explicitly saying that" is a very valid argument.
But at the same time, only writing "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas" is misleading since the other ineligible states aren't mentioned.
Thoughts? SGMD1 Talk/ Contribs 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been doing a little informal mediation on Talk:Nazism after the Nazism article found its way to the dispute resolution noticeboard. There have been some issues with alleged synthesis, and I would like to hear some outside opinions on what the right course of action may be.
There are multiple points in dispute on the page, but the main one is the scope of the article itself. The term National Socialism is often used synonymously with Nazism, and there is disagreement over exactly what uses of National Socialism should be covered in the article. OpenFuture ( talk · contribs) is arguing that uses of the term before WWI are referring to the same topic as uses of the term after WWI. I think this quote from him captures his viewpoint well:
The connection between National Socialism pre and post-WWI are obvious: Before WWI it means "state socialism" and is sometimes associated with nationalists. After WWI it means a state socialism and is strongly associated with nationalists. So the "implication" that they are the same should be there because they are the same. If they are not, that must reasonably be possible to source that claim, and then there should be different articles or a disambiguation page that explains the difference, with that source.
R-41 ( talk · contribs), on the other hand, claims that some uses of the term "National Socialism" before WWI - such as by Ferdinand Lassalle, and by the National Social Union - have nothing to do with Nazism, and shouldn't be included in the article. I think this quote is descriptive of his views:
The point is that a major ideology called "National Socialism" arose under the leadership of Hitler that became so influential that the term "National Socialism" came to be expressly mean Nazism. It was and remains the dominant ideology termed "national socialism". In order to determine the evolution and creation of a specific ideology, it is necessary to work backwards from present to past to find the causation and avoid the danger of connecting correlation with it because of this important analytical fact: correlation does not imply causation. It is also necessary to bear in mind that before a popular ideology "seizes" a name and entrenches it in culture as its own, it often can refer to many disparate meanings as promoted by various people for various reasons. For instance, let's say a Marxist party in a certain country in 1900 called itself the "National Socialist Party" and adhered to a "national socialism" because it wanted the development of socialism and communism in a certain nation, it is not a Nazi movement and not related to the history of Nazism in spite of a similar name.
R-41 and The Four Deuces ( talk · contribs) have requested that OpenFuture provide a source that links pre-WWI National Socialism to post-WWI National Socialism. I also agree that the burden of evidence should be on OpenFuture; furthermore, I think that including material on pre-WWI National Socialism in the Nazism article without a source explicitly linking them implies that they are related, and falls foul of WP:SYNTHESIS. I would like some outside opinions on who needs to provide evidence to back up their claims in this situation, and on whether including pre-WWI mentions of "National Socialism" in the article could be considered a synthesis. (By the way, if any of the editors think I have misrepresented their position, please accept my apologies and clarify below.) All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I note that the German Wikipedia has a disambiguation page ( de:Nationalsozialismus (Begriffsklärung)) which distinguishes between the mid-19th century sense of a socialism which unlike Ferdinand Lassalle's is not international, and the more recent (starting late 19th century) various forms of de:nationaler Sozialismus, including de:Nationalsozialismus. The linguistic distinction between nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus is a subtle one that does not work in English. The former is socialism, modified by the adjective national. The latter is a single word. Nowadays, Nationalsozialismus is the normal term, except for the usage of neo-nazis who want to stress the 'socialist' aspect of their ideology. But nationaler Sozialismus is a much more general term than Nationalsozialismus. E.g. it is also used to refer to the National-Social Association, a liberal, socially progressive, nationalist and Christian party that cannot be said to have been national socialist in the usual sense.
In my opinion, the article national socialism should only be about Nationalsozialismus, leaving pointers to various forms of nationaler Sozialismus to national socialism (disambiguation). This is the German structure sans the article on nationaler Sozialismus, which doesn't make much sense in English because it is only about the various uses of this term. Hans Adler 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have since looked at the talk page of the article. What I missed at first is that the article is entitled "Nazism", not "National socialism". That's important because "Nazism" can only refer to Nationalsozialismus, but not to nationaler Sozialismus, as it is neither applicable to that as a technical term nor is it the literal translation. The fact that there is a redirect from National socialism to Nazism doesn't change this. The redirect exists because Nazism is the primary meaning of "national socialism".
I have found where you provided sources on the talk page. You provided the following:
As TFD said on the article talk page, the last two are too old to be really useful. There is a great deal of modern scholarship on national socialism, and it would not be appropriate to rely on works that appeared during the 2nd World War for a contentious analytic claim. So let's look at Payne.
Chapter 2 ("Radical and Authoritarian Nationalism in Late Nineteenth-Century Europe") is probably the most relevant. It discusses many movements in various countries without making sweeping claims, so it is not easily summarised. I will try to summarise what is relevant from what it says about German movements named "national socialism" or similar. The first sentence says: "A number of small groups emerged in imperial Germany and Austria that attempted to combine nationalism with semicollectivism, corporatist or statist economics, and broad social appeals to workers, though none achieved any electoral or political success for more than a fleeting moment." Payne describes several of them, without actually saying that they were socialist, but stressing their antisemitic character. The Ostara Society (with an ideology of Aryan supermen) is somewhat relevant because of its influence on Hitler. The German Workers' Party was the most successful. Payne says that the party evolved from a democratic and socialist one into one "promoting pan-German nationalism and imperialism" as well as antisemitism. It was the predecessor of the Austrian Nazi Party, which preceded the German one by two years.
As Payne's approach shows, it's well accepted that Nazism did have aspects that can be called socialist, or perhaps more precisely collectivist. Some, but not all, of the movements called "national socialism" are precursors of Nazism. I do not think that it is fair to include the early forms of actual socialism that were called national socialism to distinguish them from international socialism. At first, "national socialism" was just a juxtaposition of two words that could have various meanings based on the meanings of the individual words. It took some time for one of the meanings to become the dominant one. The claim that mid-19th century "national socialism" is a precursor of 20th century national socialism is original research if it is based only on their having the same name and maybe some old books. Both are discussed sufficiently in the modern literature, and if there were such a connection, the modern literature would say so.
My very superficial impression is that one side in this dispute may be trying to deny the socialist aspects of Nazism, and the other may be trying to paint genuine socialist movements as Nazism which lack important characteristics and are not directly historically related. Hans Adler 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Disappearance of an individual and the NOR policy - an apparent anomaly:
I am a novice Wikipedian. I recently edited an article about the Claimant to the Scottish Throne, Prince Michael of Albany as follows: "September 2011: Prince Michael of Albany seems to have disappeared in 2006 when he, allegedly, returned to Belgium. There appears to have been no sign of him since 2006. One of his former supporters, Laurence Gardner, who died in 2010, is said to have renounced the titles awarded to him by Prince Michael. See Laurence Gardner's obituary in The Independent, 19 Aug 2010." This edit was removed by a senior editor on the grounds that it contained unsourced comments. He argued that "I can't see anyway you can include it (i.e., the reference to Prince Michael's apparent disappearance - Radex09) until a reliable source comments on it." I am puzzled by this interpretation of the NOR rule. It seems literally correct, but it seems to exclude the possibility of saying that an individual appears to have 'disappeared', or even to say that nothing has been heard from him or about him in the last five years. If an individual has 'disappeared' then there may well be no accurate sources to cite, and the absence of secondary sources is itself significant. It seems contrary to common sense to be unable to state that an individual appears to have 'disappeared'. My discussion with the editor who removed my edit is at User talk:Dougweller under the heading 'Prince Michael of Albany' Radex09 ( talk) 09:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Martinvl - thanks for your points. The original article is Michel Roger Lafosse. Prince Michael of Albany takes you to the same page. I assure you that I understand the reasons why Prince Michael of Albany might have disappeared and mention them at User talk:Dougweller under the heading 'Prince Michael of Albany'. But I don't wish to discuss Prince Michael of Albany here. I am concerned with the apparent anomaly of the NOR rule which prevented me making the observation that Prince Michael of Albany / Michael Roger Lafosse has not been heard or seen in 5 years and appears to have 'disappeared'. The fact that the Claimant has gone missing is relevant to the article because it has implications for the status of his claim to the Scottish throne, but the NOR policy seems to prevent me from mentioning that he has 'disappeared'. When someone 'disappears' there may not be any secondary sources to cite, as in this case. Radex09 ( talk) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Google doesn't cover everything", which is why I said only that he appears to have disappeared. This issue reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze where the solution of the mystery depended on the dog that didn't bark in the night:
Under the NOR rule Sherlock Holmes would have been forbidden to mention the fact that the dog did not bark. Radex09 ( talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be extremely helpful to have some further input on a content dispute for the Bain & Company page. The page is now protected after repeated reverts in both directions over the dispute. The full details of the dispute are provided on the talk page , with even more extensive discussion here: Talk:Bain_&_Company#Misleading_content_related_to_so-called_Bain_India_incident.
Could someone with expertise on synthesis and original research questions please weigh in?
NJmeditor ( talk) 10:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to report article "Principality of Hungary". It exist only 2 sources which speaks about "principality of Hungary" in 9th century. Majority of sources speaks that Hungarians in that time was a semi-nomadic tribes of various ethnic origin. First source supporting the existence of "Principality of Hungary" is Hodos: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bz7aKaJNfokC&pg=PA19&dq=%22principality+of++Hungary%22&hl=en&ei=dpBeTrLUDYT_-gbj0_2QAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22principality%20of%20%20Hungary%22&f=false but he created a fictive countries: "Principality of Hungary" and "Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia" - these countries did not exist. Second is Weciorek: http://books.google.com/books?id=B5XpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22principality+of+hungary%22&dq=%22principality+of+hungary%22&hl=sk&ei=gNJ9TpqTLfPE4gSFx-CoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA but on the next page he uses the term "Slovak principality" - so this author created 2 new countries in the 9th and 10th century. Article was nominated for a deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Hungary but editors are not experts in this topic so they considered this fictive names as a reliable name for the principality. But the majority of sources says nothing about this principality. Arguments of Hungarian editors are that their rulers are called a prince in some sources but in the majority of sources they are called a tribal chieftains. Now behind the fictive therm "principality of Hungary" is hidden all history of Carpathian basin in 10th century - Hungarian rides, Hungarian tribes, Hungarian tribal alliance and union, Christianization of Hungarians. Are we going to write a new history of Hungary in the 21th century at Wikipedia? Are these source really reliable if they speaks about fictive countries? More informations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary -- Samofi ( talk) 13:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Love for you ll to walk me through this so the final product will be acceptable to Wiki's established standards.
Thanks, Eric Mathis
List of changes in Star Wars re-releases ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article consists almost entirely of unsourced statements regarding differences between releases of the various Star Wars films. Ignoring the issue as to whether such exhaustive lists are encyclopaedic at all, would it be possible for policy regarding original research be clarified in regard to this matter - does watching two different versions of a film, and noting the differences between them, fall under WP:OR policy or not? It seems to me that the films themselves are primary sources per WP:PRIMARY, and that the exhaustive listing of changes is 'research' by any reasonable definition - effectively resulting in Wikipedia being a contributor-generated secondary source. I'd like to get some feedback on this though, and would particularly welcome comments from anyone who has dealt with this type of issue before. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck is that? That article is shocking and should be stubbed. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This section is quite speculative and particular in characterizing the humor employed by Ben Stiller in various "Ben Stiller movies". The critical points for me:
If it weren't for the first one, I would easily overlook the last two. In the absence of citation, the critical focus on Ben Stiller is in need of justification here.
County surveyor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I ran into this while fixing dab links, and it's a doozy. Massive page, referenced only to primary documents, such as the Domesday Book and the Oxford English Dictionary, and with this bizarre author's statement on the talk page. Considering reverting it back to before this editor started in on it, but would would like some feedback before doing so. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 16:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Users wrote that my older report was not belonging to this topic. But Iam sure that it belongs here. I would like to report article Principality of Hungary because this article is a synthesis: [10] It broken also this rule: [11] „If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research“ - we have a extremly small minority view, from the authors whose are not experts in topic This term is not based at reliable secondary sources: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Term „Principality of Hungary“ is based only at tertiary sources and non-scholar publications. Its very rare anachronism for a Hungarian tribal alliance and it does not deserve own article. Entry of the article is classical example of synthesis:
The Principality of Hungary, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] also Hungarian Principality [7] [8] [9] or Duchy of Hungary [10] [11] (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség), was the first documented Hungarian state, [12] a tribal alliance [13] [14] [15] [16] in the Carpathian Basin, established 895 [17] [18] or 896, [12] [19] [20] following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.
The Magyars (Hungarians), a semi-nomadic group of people led by Árpád formed the Principality of Hungary at the very end of the 9th century, [3] arriving from Etelköz, their earlier principality east of the Carpathians. [21]
The principality was succeeded by the Christian kingdom of Hungary with the coronation of Stephen I in AD 1000.
In contemporary Byzantine sources, the territory of the Hungarian tribal alliance was also known as in Greek as "Western Tourkia", because of its allegiance to the the Khazar Khaganate. [22]
Council of Europe
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bartha
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[12] „the is no reson to believe that conquering hungarians considered a carpathian basin as their final home“ „after defeat at Ausburg (955) Arpad princes trying to make a independent christian state“ [13] talks about hungarian tribes and chieftains in 10th century, „1001 – creation of the state“ [14] no simple word about hungarian principality [15] in 899 Pannonia mentioned as the part of Frankish empire, talking about tribes in 10th century and „after 955 was formed a basis for future hungarian kingdom“
NOTE: 50% of sources speaks about Hungarian principality only after 955 and 50 % of sources about Hungarian history dont use the term Hungarian principality, they speaks about TRIBAL ALLIANCE in Carpathian basin ( [16] [17] [18] [19]) and kingdom in 1001.
[20] talks about tribal union in 950 – p. 102 and about principality after 955 [21] about principality of Hungary in 10th century not in 9th century [22] about principality in 948 [23] hungarian principality – started to create after 955 and creation finished in 972 [24] principality in 10th century, not in 9th century
Its a classical kind of the essay, synthesis and original research from User:Fakirbakir ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position). Firstly he created article Principality of Hungary without proper references and sources for example he used the translator as the reference. It was kind a propagandistic and patriotic ( [26]). I have found a mistakes and uncited matherial and reported this article, he started with canvassing (other hungarian users) and he repair this page – but without consensus and he used only hungarian point of view. This user was firstly trying to legitimize a term Principality of Hungary. His sources:
1) [27] We cannot verify this book and we dont know about which hungarian principality talks this book – 17th century in Transylvania or Principality of Geza in 972? Author is theologian and book is assigned for high schools.
2) [28] this book is just a outline of history and author is not expert in topic. He use the fictive names of the countries. „Principality of Hungary“ and „Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia“ – this countries are fictive and they are not useing by seriouse historians. Btw in the book is mentioned that hungarians came in the end of 9th century and than established a principality, but principality could be established after 955, there is no exact year.
3) [29] term principality of hungary is used, but in this book is also used the term slovak principality (so can we call the Principality of Nitra the Slovak principality? It can be mentioned like an alternative name but not like a name of whole article). and we dont know from this book the establishment of the principality so it could be after 955.
4) [30] this source is from 1905, its talking about principality of hungary and about slovaks. But in which period? It could be the principality of transylvania in 16th century or it could be attempts from the Slovaks to make a principality in the northern hungary in 19th century.
5) [31] it talks about hungarian principality in 10th century, so it could be after 955
The next activity of the User:Fakirbakir was to make a connection with the arrival of the Magyar nomadic tribes into Carpathian basin and establishment of principality, but his sources says nothing about establishment of the Hungarian principality:
1) [32] its only tertiary source and says that hungarian state starting with creation in 896 – can we talk in this time about principality or about tribal union, tribal alliance, tribal federation...? creation started in 896, but when the principality was a realy created? Was it created?
2) [33] same encyclopedy like above – he used a feedback to source his claims
3) [34] its book from amateur astronomer talking about hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.
4) [35] its book about Tokay vine and its only mentioned hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.
A. Term „Principality of Hungary“ is mentioned only in the tertiary sources or in non-scholar publications and it should not be the name of article according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
B. Majority of seriouse historian publications deprecating existence of Hungarian principality, Principality of Hungary, etc.
C. Term „Hungarian principality“ is used from the reign of Geza in 970.
D. Term „Hungarian principality“ in Hungarian language is very rare and it used only in one book (other books say the same sentences about this so its feedbacks): [36] and seriouse Hungarian academics use term Hungarin tribal union in 997 ( [37])
E. Calling the rulers of Hungarian tribal alliance princes in Hungarian patriotic literature does not make a principality from the seminomadic tribes. Term prince is used for a monarchs, lords, tribal chieftains sometimes.
A) Rename the article to Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpathian Basin)
B) Move the present content of the article to [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes] and delete this article
C) Rename article to „Geza´s Principality“ or „Hungarian principality“ and we can talk about history after 955 or 972 and the earlier period move to the articles [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes]
D) Create articles Hungarian tribal alliance (Etelkoz 830-895), Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpahian basin 895-972), Hungarian principality (972-1001) -- Samofi ( talk) 11:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You dont agree because its your synthesis. Find source that Principality of Hungary was called a "Western Tourkia" in Byzantine sources. Its clear syntheis, you are connecting sources about tribal alliance, duchy, magyar tribes, principality. You are connecting name prince with principality. Samo (founder of samo empire) was called rex, king. So was it kingdom? Svätopluk was called rex - king too. So great moravia was a kingdom? Nope.. "Principality of Hungary" is a frinde theory and its no place in wikipedia for such theories and original research. You really dont see, that its synthesis? Why its not a 1 source which speaks that Principality of Hungary was established in 895? Btw one from your sources says that "Principality of Hungary was established in 830 in Etelkoz". Its just a minority views.. Term principality of Hungary is not videly accepted by scholars so article should be changed or deleted. Its used by non-scholars for a variouse polities in periods from 830 to 1900.. Do you have sources that principality of Hungary, Hungarian state, Duchy of Hungary, Hungarian Tribal alliance, Western Tourkia are the same polity? So show it. About duchy of Hungary: http://books.google.com/books?id=N3rxAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&dq=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&hl=sk&ei=LaSOTu_HKM6F-wbwpaX1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA - Geza established monarchy and his son stephen inherrited the duchy in 997. Reign of Geza started about 970. So we cannost talk about duchy of hungary before 970. Old english sources (from 18th century) useing the term "Duchy of Hungary" and all say the same thing: "Thus -Henry II. erected the duchy of Hungary into a kingdom, in favour of Stephen, who before had the title of duke" but its sources from 18th century (you should use a modern neutral secondary sources) and Hungarian duchy was mentioned only with connection with Stephen so after 997. How can you connect it with 895? Its here 2 times, because first report was not done good, now its better and its belonging to the original research noticeboard. -- Samofi ( talk) 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Original research continues:
Answers:
Is it original research to include selected Quranic verses in our article on women's rights in Saudi Arabia without secondary sources demonstrating their relevance? Noloop and Aerobicfox argue that because the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia states that the Quran is the country's constitution and judges there apply the law by citing it, we may, for example, include quotes that "seem relevant" such as 4:34:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.
in a paragraph about how women require a male guardian for most public activities in Saudi Arabia, not cited to a source. I argue that we nonetheless need secondary sources applying the Quran verse to the situation in Saudi Arabia, just as we would need secondary sources applying any other general, broad-brush "constitutional" principle to a specific law or case. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux#Market_share refers to another Wikipedia article which calculates the median of market share for 2 operating systems, based on a number of sources. Firstly, I'm not sure that it is proper to reference another article this way. Secondly, I suspect that the calculation of the median constitutes synthesis. Statistics is not my field, but I'm pretty sure that median is not the way to deal with possible bias introduced through possible self-selection and biased sources.
So how to deal with this: Leave the reference? Cite the same sources with the same caveats? Choose the sources which seems least biased? Or just remove it altogether since there's no way avoid WP:OR? Useerup ( talk) 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I posted about this here before but only got one user to respond; the problem still remains.
The sentence in question is:
...according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day, [ref1][ref2] although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement [ref3] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time [ref4] and neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War. [ref5] [45]
The last part implies that the fighting is not confirmed by Finnish sources and probably did not happen.
The citations ref1 and ref2 are for sources that explicitly say that the fighting took place. However, User:Wanderer602 says that he can't find any confirmation of this in Finnish sources and adds the "although..." part that puts the information from reliable sources into doubt. (see 2nd paragraph here: [46]) Is not that original research? Since when does information from reliable sources have to be confirmed by the research of a user to be taken seriously?
As far as his sources, ref3 says that the 12th division was near the town, ref4 refers to diary entries (primary source) that supposedly say that it was quiet in the area the 12th division was covering.
To me this looks like a clear case of synthesis: 12th division near N. Beloostrov + diary entries of the 12th division saying that it was quiet = no fighting in N. Beloostrov
- YMB29 ( talk) 20:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone comment on this? -
YMB29 (
talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just been in what could be called my first edit war, in which I was (unfairly, in my opinion) accused, first of insufficient citation, then of inserting original research. On the first, I relied on no additional sources aside from what the article already cited, so I didn't feel a need to add a "ref" (nevertheless, I did subsequently include one that I thought would be comprehensive enough to cover the entire Synopsis section--both my edits and pre-existing stuff). On the second, I don't believe that I crossed the line between simply paraphrasing (acceptable) and making subjective personal inferences (unacceptable)--but "Wisdom89"--whose user-page suggests he considers himself a pre-eminent authority on the rock band Rush--disagrees and threatened to block me like a common vandal (touchy, touchy--considering he knows nothing about me personally).
Strictly speaking, ANY paraphrasing of a source--putting something "into your own words"--involves making interpretations and inferences; therefore, anything other than verbatim quotations (which I also included in my edits) could be considered "original research" by an overzealous, overprotective editor. IF I crossed the line and made personal deductions that didn't necessarily follow from the lyrical and non-lyrical text (which I DID NOT intend), THEN some of the previous editors must have done so as well--and, since their text apparently wasn't reverted, they got away with it. I simply expanded on what was already there to the extent of providing more detail. I may have been over the top by referring to the song "2112" in the beginning of the article as a mini-rock opera onto itself (that could be considered speculative), and perhaps my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences). But I stand by all of my other edits--as I relied on the exact same sources as previous editors--namely, the CD liner notes. (Should I have mentioned that in my "ref"?) In any case, any change to the overall meaning of the Synopsis section was minor and--in my personal opinion--in the direction of greater accuracy.
I understand that "common sense", in and of itself, is not sufficient rationale for inferences--as what's obvious to one can be counter-intuitive to another, depending on life experience and prejudice, but if what I added was unreasonably speculative--then the article was already that to begin with. (It's like saying that "1 person, then 2 more people, came" can't be paraphrased as "3 people came".) I'd like know more on how I might--might--appeal or arbitrate this (I've already posted my objections on his talk page and the "2112 (song)" talk page). I'm not a sorehead, but I take objection to his assuming vandalism on my part and being so quick to do a blanket revert. I've been an editor for less than 6 months, and edit disputes are an entirely new experience--although I've already created my own article on something, which required me to research not only my subject but your instructions on many things. (You could say I have a fair amount of experience in Wikipedia matters but I'm not an expert yet.) I don't want to get blacklisted for things that were innocent (in intention) even if wrong; and the web site doesn't say a lot about "taking issues upstairs" before you get blocked or banned.
- User:RobertGustafson ( talk) October 7, 2011
Whose edits did he say were good-faith? His (the reversions) or mine (which he reverted)? Is he giving me the benefit of the doubt? Also, how do I provide a detailed description on the talk page of what I think the article should say without using more text than a simple edit on the article would use? You've noticed, no doubt, that when I complain I can be a bit wordy.
Thank you. Personally, I've noticed that just about every Wikipedia article contains something that somebody could deem original research. As I said, it's a fine line between paraphrasing and speculating.
...my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences).
User:RobertGustafson's statement above is indeed WP:OR. I tend to agree with the substance of it, but it's still his personal commentary until a source can be provided for it. Since this is an article about a song, editors'll probably be relatively liberal with regards to WP:V, but User:Wisdom89 was acting within policy in reverting the additions.— Biosketch ( talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
RobertGustafson ( talk):
I have posted on the 2112 (song) talk page my "Proposed New Synopsis", along with another section talking about how I think my proposed version has less OR & synthesis, is more straightforward & less redundant, and how a case for an exception can be made regarding the meaning of "Overture" and "Grand Finale"--in that it would not make sense to explain only some of the song to Wikipedia's fans (my proposed version is careful to qualify that Rush has not officially confirmed my interpretations regarding "Overture" & "Grand Finale", yet "many fans" believe them), that my interpretations are probably widely held (I intend to look for 2ndary sources to back them up, however), and that Rush no doubt has people who'd remove anything they objected to (not that it's their responsibility). I also said that I would wait 7 days for any feedback on my talk page, the 2112 (song) talk page, and Wisdom89's talk page--and that, if I recieved no negative responses, I would paste my proposed changes into the article. I then advised anyone who objects after the fact to discuss it with me on the talk pages (in search of a compromise), and make only surgical edits to fix or remove specific problems, rather than doing blanket reverts and accusations of vandalism.
I also posted what I said on the 2112 (song) talk page to Wisdom89's talk page; he deleted my posts without responding to me. When I re-posted, he accused me of harrasment; I posted a formal apology and advised him to give me feedback on my proposals. I worry, though, that if after 7 days, I get no feedback and make my edit, he'll respond like he has in the past--revert-and-accuse. Are there some Wikipedia editors who are "control freaks" regarding article content? Is Wisdom89 somehow connected with Rush, thereby giving him a "right" to micromanage edits regarding their songs?
Natib Qadish is a modern neo-Pagan religion which may or may not be notable enough for an article. However, this article is mainly about ancient religions, coins, death masks, a black stone in Rome, etc. Am I right in thinking that most of the material should be deleted as original research? Of about 27 sources, less than a handful mention the subject of the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Update - Someone objected so it is now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination). Griswaldo ( talk) 02:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, the section on "Religious significance." This section seems to contain original research of a definite POV nature. Edit Centric talk 23:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The following Statement in the article is FALSE and libelous:
"educated in a local school run by the Christian Brothers while serving as an altar boy.[7] Brosnan has expressed contempt for his education by the Christian Brothers. "I grew up being taught by the Christian Brothers, who were dreadful, dreadful human beings. Just the whole hypocrisy. And the cruelness of their ways toward children. They were very sexually repressed. Bitter. Cowards, really. I have nothing good to say about them and will have nothing good to say about them. It was ugly. Very ugly. Dreadful. I learnt nothing from the Christian Brothers except shame."
Pierce Brosnan was not educated by the Irish Christian Brothers, nor did he attend a school run by them!
Please have that statement removed!
Student essay full of speculation and redundancies. See talk page: Talk:Artificial_Intelligence_in_Data_Mining#Nomination_for_deletion. I can, however, not go on with the nomination for deletion, since only registered users are allowed to do so.
Note that this article is part of a student course assignment: Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Artificial_Intelligence -- 178.2.61.184 ( talk) 06:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Continued unsourced additions by Mark Hayesworth [53] to a good article, without explanations or citations. Requesting assistance rather than edit-warring. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 ( talk) 16:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Section on points of interest is becoming a site of contention, beginning with an attempt to link to a business whose importance I've questioned. Link has been restored, along with much original research, no sources. Taking here rather than edit warring. 99.137.209.90 ( talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that these edits are basically original research. Starting from the top, a citation request for " there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers" was replaced by references to biblical passages, which is OR. The next paragraph, 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' again has no sources other than the Bible, which is true of the paragraph after that. The next para is also headed 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' and is again sourced to the Bible, but also has 2 references to The Good News Bible Revised Edition 1994 but with no page numbers or quotes. Following that we have another paragraph called 'Ambiguous James' entirely sourced to the Bible. And finally the section 'Tradition' has unsourced text saying " we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother." and two sources which supposedly back the statement "Robert Eisenman <ref"James brother of Jesus" Robert Eisenman</ref> and The New Advent online Catholic Encylopeida Catholic Encyclopedia: James son of Zebedee both suggest that the death of James in Acts 12:1-2 is James, son of Zebedee and not James son of Alphaeus." I can't find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I may of course have missed it) and I will ask the editor to provide a quote from each backing the claim. See also James son of Alphaeus Biblical Criticism by this editor, prodded as OR by one editor with the prod endorsed by another, who added WP:SOAP and WP:FORK as reasons for the prod. Bunofsteel ( talk · contribs) has accepted the prod but is still confused about our policy of OR. Hopefully once he understands he will become a good contributor. Dougweller ( talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that we are starting to get somewhere now. What I have been accused of by others is the synthesis argument. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Lets apply this to the first part of the Possible brother of James. Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (reliable source says A). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (reliable source says B), which has led some[who?] to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (implied conclusion C not explicitly stated by any of the sources). "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Therefore the citatation is required at this stage.
I then put in the biblical references to try to defeat this unreferenced synthesis argument. The biblical references in some ways backs up the statement which I might add that I didn't write but I agree aren't ideal. I would simply delete this whole section.
I'm unaware that if you use only the bible then that is not ok in a paragraph. You will have to find that in the rules for me. Taking passages from a the bible to alert the reader to aspects of the story is not original research because I'm not trying to interpret the story. However, the facts when laid out does challenge the reader to think more deeply about James.
Matthew is not referred to as Mattew son of Alphaeus. I wasn't quite sure what to do there as far as quoting it. I'm thinking that when I get around to it I will find everytime that Matthew is mentioned in the bible and quote that. I will fix this up in the next few days.
My good news bible also idicates which stories are paralled in other books in the bible. It does this by placing the biblical references at the top of each story so that you can read the different accounts. I'm not 100% sure how to quote this properly.
Acts 12:1-2 which I strongly believe refers to James son of Zebedee. I admit that I was being lazy with my James brother of Jesus reference but with good reason. I deleted Acts 12:1-2 and stated the reason why in the talk page but it was reinstalled with no explanation. Given that I believe that whomever wrote that in made a mistake I felt compelled to write an argument contradicting as a tempory measure until this line gets deleted. The plan is to delete my section from the tradition section once the original incorrect line has been removed. Also you will find James son of Zebedee's death here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm
Men's rights could really use some people with experience applying the original research guidelines. There are many potential OR/synth issues in the article, including some that haven't yet been discussed on the talk page yet. This talk page section is one where I would especially appreciate outside opinions, but the talk page needs more NOR-experienced contributors in general.
(Also: this article is currently under probation, the terms of which can be viewed here.) Kevin ( talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the following paragraph be added to Occupy Wall Street and summarized in its intro?
callaconvention
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).conconcon
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lessigbook
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).froomkin2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention. I do not understand why people are trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Dan Froomkin [55] and Peter M. Shane [56], both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC and on the Rachel Maddow show. (I am asking here because the only uninvolved party who responded where I first asked on RSN suggested ORN would be more appropriate.) Dualus ( talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that Lessig has nothing to do with the OWS movement, nor has he (as far as I know) commented upon it, I do have to wonder why an article on the Occupy Wall Street movement is discussing Lessig in the first place. Blueboar ( talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Simply put: No this material should not be added to the lead.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The underlined bit seems to sum-up the problem. Is anything salvageable? So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It would seem that ArtifexMayhem has a problem with the way the article is introduced. I suggest s/he take a stab at fixing the introduction so that it makes more sense, or -- even better -- ask some questions. If ArtifexMayhem doesn't feel qualified to fix it because s/he can't follow the article, that's possibly due to a lack of clarity in the article's writing, a problem with the way the article develops its argument (structure), or possibly a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.
Now: Is the material worthwhile? Hmmm. Is it worthwhile to note when historians meet with great difficulty due to censoring or obscuring of the historical record, on the part of the people who were key figures in that history? ArtifexMayhem's user page portrays him/her as a skeptic; therefore, he/she already knows the answer to that one.
Anyway, "baby seal", stand by. I'm going to be doing some editing of the article's language in the next few days. Maybe if you check back you'll find the article easier to comprehend.
Excelsior, Virago250 ( talk) 02:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Could use a second set of eyes on this one. A stubborn but good faithed editor is insistent on adding his own interpretation of this tattoo. The sources simply don't back it up, nor are they reliable, but it's all we got so far. -- œ ™ 13:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
On the talk page of Criticism of Judaism an editor has repeatedly alleged that the section of the article on kosher slaughter is original research. For the entire discussion see:
A majority of editors commenting do not agree that it is original research, and because of this I've repeatedly asked the other editor to start an RfC or a thread here to ask for outside input on the matter if he wants to try to get consensus for his POV. He has not done so, and therefore I am now doing that for him. I'd like this to be settled so that it doesn't come up again and again every week. Any comments, but particularly uninvolved comments, would be greatly appreciated. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's be careful to distinguish between the two separate issues going on here. There's one issue, which is whether or not a section on criticism of kosher slaughter belongs in an article on criticism of Judaism. Underlyingly, that's not the issue being disputed at the article. The issue being disputed at the article is whether editors can project onto FAWC a context that FAWC never itself so much as implied. The bottom-line question is Is FAWC being critical of Judaism in its criticism of kosher slaughter? The answer is that to associate FAWC with criticism of Judaism, when what they're criticizing is kosher and halal slaughter, is original research. There's nothing in what FAWC says to indicate that they have an problem with Judaism, and we can't synthesize their criticism of kosher and halal slaughter into an article on criticism of Judaism in a way that mischaracterizes them as criticizing something that in all likelihood don't have any problem with. If FAWC had criticized Judaism, it wouldn't be original research to mention them in the context of the article. But nowhere has FAWC expressed any criticism of Judaism – not the religion, not the people, not Jewish history, not Jewish philosophy. They've criticized one component of Judaism and never articulated their criticism as a criticism of Judaism. It's therefore original research to make an inferential leap from one criticism to another.
Now, is the section on kosher slaughter original research? That depends. Given that it's nowhere been established that FAWC is critical of Judaism, it's pure WP:SYNTH to mention FAWC in the section and attribute things to that organization that they never themselves took a position on. So yes, on some level at least, the section constitutes original research. Ergo, is it just "an editor" repeatedly alleging that the section on kosher slaughter is original research? No, that's again a mischaracterization of the debate taking place on the Dicussion page. There have been issues raised that continue to go unaddressed by the editors arguing for the inclusion of FAWC in the article. And the situation is made worse by the same inclusion-bent editors engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics to isolate one editor they disagree with and pommel him with nasty remarks. Add to that the fact that one of these editors just had to revert an entire section he added to the article because he failed to verify any of the sources in his addition, and there's probably a more serious problem at work here.— Biosketch ( talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Clarification - Jayjg actually argues that the entire section is original research. That is why I posted this. Biosketch's reply does not address the scope of Jay's disagreement which is, again, why I posted this. I'll respond to Biosketch as well, but contrary to what Biosketch says, there are indeed editors arguing that the entire section is OR and it isn't a "tactic" to engage those editors on their actual arguments. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
To begin with, despite Trytofish's claim that "it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record", there are actually several people who have objected to this section on OR grounds, including the editor who placed the tag on the section in the first place (and that wasn't me, I might add). Second, I'd appreciate it if editors here would not make
straw man arguments in my name - particularly if they don't have the decency to tell me about this discussion or their presentations in my name.
My consistent point has been that the sources in this section have not stated that they are criticising Judaism; on the contrary, as I've pointed out, they would likely vociferously deny this accusation - pretty much the point Biosketch makes in his comment of 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC) directly above. In fact, they are criticising
shechita, a practice observed or demanded by a small number of Jews and not considered mandatory by many Jewish religious movements. In fact, these critics are often merely insisting that animals be anesthetized before shechita is done. This is a problem with all the sources used in the section; none of them say (or even imply) they are criticising Judaism per se. When challenged, the editors who insist on using these sources bring various other statements from the sources which neither state nor imply a criticism of Judaism itself, and then say that what the sources really mean is that they are criticising Judaism, despite not actually saying so. This is, of course, Original Research.
I have no objection to criticism of shechita in the
shechita article. Nor would I have any objection to this section in the Criticism of Judaism article if the sources actually said something like "one of the problems with Judaism is that it demands shechita". Neither, however, is the case here.
Jayjg
(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Great American streetcar scandal is badly compromised by synthesis and original research, starting with the name. First of all, there are no sources that use this name. It is used by Wikipedia editors to refer to an alleged conspiracy that every reliable source presented so far agrees did not happen--that GM purposefully destroyed the streetcar system in the United States. It is true that they were found guilty of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. But that is all. The hyperbolic and fanciful title is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia to invent. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've got some concerns about the article Quotation Mark. I've just removed what I believe to be an OR claim. [64]
One editor came into the section that deals with terminal punctuation, changed all of the "American"s to "typsetters" and added the claim that the term "American style" is a misnomer "because it is also sometimes used in British and other non-American journalism and fiction writing, and is not universally used in American writing." As sources, this editor gave two style guides that require British style. However, these sources don't claim that the term "American" is a misnomer; they're just examples of American style guides that do things the British way. I removed the misnomer claim and changed all of the "typesetters" back to "American."
Background: Most American and British style guides differ on how to treat periods and commas that come next to quotation marks. The short, short version follows. American: Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "the Boss," performed "American Skin." British: Eric Clapton, nicknamed "God", performed "Cocaine". American style is also called "typesetters style," etc., but this is a lot rarer than "American."
Who's right? Is it enough to give examples or does this editor actually have to find a source that says "'American style' is a misnomer"? (The article already said/still says that American style is not used by every single American writer and style guide.) Does this have any bearing on whether the article itself should call the style "American" or "typesetters" in the body text?
Full disclosure: we're on opposite sides of the keep/replace WP:LQ issue that keeps cropping up on WT: MoS. This editor has repeatedly expressed a belief that American style causes problems (without giving evidence or citing sources) and I believe that pushing the term "typesetters" is an attempt to frame American style as old-fashioned. I believe that American style does not cause problems and should be permitted on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
If a journalist does some research on a story (that they are not involved in), and has the story published in a mainstream newspaper, and then cites the published article to support edits to the relevant Wikipedia article, is that allowed? Card Zero (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well... as long as it's not overly promotional and the source supports the statements made then that seems OK to me - got a specific link? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The details are at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Not-quite-original_research_awkwardness. I admire the journalist Svenstein for making the phone calls, and don't want the edit to be reverted. The majority of published sources seem to be parroting something spurious (to be specific, that the manuscript was "found at the end of the cold war"). Svenstein's new article in Bild doesn't say this, but it doesn't clearly say that the manuscript wasn't found at the end of the cold war, either - although that was what he discovered. So if some future editor puts "found at the end of the cold war" back in, I shouldn't argue, right? Yet I shouldn't argue with Svenstein's removal of this supposed fact, either, right? Card Zero (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
What do traffic jams, weather, a pony cart, a murder, President Bush, an electric heater, gilded breasts, a baseball field, Afghanistan, hormones, and the Lebanese Civil War have in common? They are all included in a coatrack article titled Golden Domes, which was recently put up for GA review.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize sources, but this article is more like journalism: it takes bits and pieces of information -- which are largely passing mentions in articles on related topics -- and weaves them into a 4,000-word article. There is no single source that includes this information, and as far as I know, there is no third-party source that focuses solely on the subject of the Golden Domes. My question is whether this sort of journalistic approach to writing Wikipedia articles is acceptable or original research. -- BwB ( talk) 11:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to the Golden Domes talk page, FYI - [70]. -- BwB ( talk) 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to the outside editors who contributed above. We appreciate your comments and suggestions. I have posted a comment on the Golden Domes talk page about next steps [ [71]]. -- BwB ( talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In February 2011 an editor added an unsourced claim to Vegemite. It was eventually removed in July, but he restored it in September, using a source that clearly didn't support the claim. [72] When that was removed, he resorted to a little bit of sockpuppetry, restoring the claim using his IP, but speaking of himself in the 3rd person, as if to mask his identity. [73] The link between his account and the IP was revealed in an edit in the ensuing discussion on the article's talk page. Four days after the discussion began he proposed adding an alternate claim to the article, even suggesting it did not require a citation. [74] Much later, he claimed to have made "a 3rd ammended article insertion", [75] but what he claims he proposed has not been made clear. One of the issues has been verifiability of the claim that Vegemite has a 7.5% salt content. There's no argument that it has a 3.45% sodium content, that's stated by the manufacturer, [76] but the salt content isn't actually specified anywhere. There are some sites claiming that it's 3.45% (the sodium content) while other references say it is 8%. However, the editor has resorted to his own methods of calculating the salt content. In his additions to the article and his 12 September talk page proposal he claimed 7.5%. He is currently (this is a "discussion" totalling some 8,600 words over 8 long, long weeks) arguing that it's acceptable to use a combination of sources and that it isn't WP:SYNTH. One of the sources is the manufacturer's stated sodium content, while the other is this. That page does not include a direct conversion. Instead, one has to use one of the two roughly calculated examples presented on the page, dividing 6,000 by 2,300 to arrive at 2.608:1 or dividing 5,500 by 2,150 arriving at 2.558:1, round those off to 2.6:1 and then multiply 3.45% sodium to arrive at 8.97%, and let's round that to 9%, which is not even close to the 7.5% he claimed. This seems to go completely against WP:SYNTH, but I'd like to know the thoughts of others. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
" Commodity fetishism" is a prominent term in Marxist theory. Marx is using the word "fetish" in the sense that historians of religion use it to refer to a certain kind of magical object. The most common interpretation of Marx's phrase is that it describes an atitude that people have towards money, and more generally the things one can buy with money, in a capitalist economy.
In the past year or so user:Jurriaan has rewritten the article, and reverts almost any change. I believe she is advancing a novel theory. In response to any challenge, Jurriaan adds more quotes from Marx (or Marx and Engels) and argues that this is what marx himself believed. I and one or two other editors have challenged this on the talk page, leading only to long lectures on what marx really meant.
This can be handled from a number of approaches - certainly more editors knowledgable about Marxism should add material from reliable secondary sources.
But I am hoping that people who watch this page can approach it purely from a policy perspective, having to do with the ways that we should and should not use primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A relatively new editor user: Missoulianette (< 100 edits) has on several occasions added the following to the article on Bozeman, Montana. With a student body population of 14,153 [7] and a city population of 37,280 [8] the student population of the University accounts for over 37% of the city's population [79] On each occasion these additions have been removed and an explanation provided to the editor. here’s the latest on the talk page about WP:SYN and why this bit of content violates our WP:OR policy.
This is a well meaning new editor, but I have failed in my comments on the talk page to convince the editor that this bit of content is OR. A bit of dissection is necessary here. The first number—14,153 is a valid total student population of MSU for the 2011/12 academic year. That includes resident, non-resident US and foreign students. The second number—37,280 is the valid 2010 census number for Bozeman. Doing the math, user:Missoulianette contends that 37% (or 1 in 3) of the Bozeman population is an MSU student, yet no reliable source makes that claim, nor could they. That is the basic synthesis taking place here. Simple math that is drawing a conclusion not supported by any reliable source. Although the math may be correct, the conclusion is unsupported as well as flawed. Even though the census will count students as residents while attending a university away from home, there is no reliable data that says 14,153 students (remember this number is one year removed from the census number) were counted as Bozeman residents. That would be highly unlikely because 3% of the MSU student body are foreign students and 35% are non-resident students. Without reliably sourced data, we don’t know what number of MSU students were included in the 2010 census for Bozeman. Couple that with the fact that a significant number (> 10%) of the MSU student body doesn’t actually reside in Bozeman, but in other parts of Montana. I am personally aware of graduate students that live on the Crow Reservation and commute once a week to class.
I have advised user:Missoulianette to study WP:SYN and if a reliable source can be found that says 37% of Bozeman’s population are MSU students, then it can go into the article. I am pretty confident no such source exists, but I don’t want to continue an edit war with a new editor, because I can’t make the case well enough. So it’s here for the community to weigh in on.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In another effort to explain why this is SYN I have been doing a lot searching for specific data about Bozeman's population and the MSU student body and came across this interesting statistic--There are 43 registered sex offenders in Bozeman (city-data.com). So using Missourianette's calculation and conclusion methodology, I could rightly say that there are 16 registered sex offenders in the MSU student body. (37% of 43). But that would be pure synthesis and OR because no reliable source makes that claim and there is no data that connects the 43 number with the MSU student body. It would be an outrageous claim unsuppported by any reliable source. The math is correct, but the conclusion is flawed and a gross synthesis. That's why we have our WP:OR policy, to prevent unsupported and unsupportable claims in our articles. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I like the suggestions on phrasing from SmokeyJoe and Nuujinn this is what I have been asking for all along. It sounds like my original phrasing was closer to what should be used. Thank you for your suggestions.
When it comes to students living off campus in another town you can’t look at this in an urban context. This is Montana the next closest major town is 90 miles away over mountain passes and I really don’t think anyone is commuting 180 miles a day to school. In the case of MSU off campus means somewhere in Bozeman.
Also isn’t this forum about help? Do you really think Mike Cline taking pot shots at me is helpful or hurtful? Is that Wikipedia expectable behavior?
Thank You
Missoulianette (
talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I have lived in Missoula but I went to college at MSU in Bozeman, I love Bozeman. I also added college town to the Missoula page because I think it's good thing not a bad thing. having gone to MSU not that long ago I can tell you that the nontrad population is not 1/3 of the student body, not even close. There is not that many nontrads, however that may be up a bit with the economic down turn. And most off campus students live in over priced housing in Bozeman. a lot of this can be found here http://www.montana.edu/opa/facts/quick.html
Missoulianette ( talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I must point out that Montanabw just edit the Missoula page to cover up the early comments they made please check the edit history on the Missoula page. I am sure this isn't the right place to bring this up but I see this person bully editors all the time. Can anyone please tell me where I go to deal with an editing bully? Please!
Missoulianette ( talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Cpiral, while very pleasant to interact with, has a set of original theories and conclusions about the etymology and ultimate meaning of nirvana which she/he insists on retaining in the first paragraphs of the article. When challenged, I get a vague answer about how all etymologies are dubious and theirs is as good as any. This of course fails WP:V and WP:FRINGE, as well as WP:NOR. (There's also this long sentence which another editor inappropriately described as "insane", saying that etymology was invented in the same place as the concept of nirvana and thus is somehow intertwined with it?!!??!?) -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Talk:Usage_share_of_operating_systems#rfc_2263541 and give your thoughts. There is a disagreement about whether calculating the median of usage counts from a number of sources counts as a routine calculation as per WP:CALC. Personally I think WP:CALC should be changed if this is reasonable. Dmcq ( talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The event described by the article is the burning of £1 million in banknotes in a boathouse on the Ardfin Estate, Isle of Jura in 1994. The estate (and therefore the boathouse) has now been acquired by a multi-millionaire hedge-fund trader (citation given). Is this OR?
Some confusion here, I think. The Wikipedia article on the new owner does state that he is the new owner, and provides a reliable external link for this: [1]. I did not suggest a motivation for the new owner's acquisition of the estate, neither did I refer to the wealth of the previous owner. I can see that this issue may be regarded as irrelevant, but I'm struggling see how it can be original research. Dhmellor ( talk) 09:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Dr.K. λogos πraxis 23:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Sixteen years after the burning, according to whom? improper synthesis? the Ardfin Estate, Jura, where the boathouse still stands, according to whom? improper synthesis? was acquired by Greg Coffey, a UK-based Australian hedge-fund manager. The 2011 Sunday Times Rich List shows Coffey to have a personal wealth of around £250 million. improper synthesis? [2]
Thanks Dr K - that link to WP:SYNTH is helpful, and I can now see how my edit could be read as 'synthesis of published material to advance a new position', although 'advancing a new position' was certainly not my intention. My intention was to do no more than juxtapose two unrelated but verifiable facts (the burning of the money, and the new ownership of the estate), not in order to 'advance' any 'position', but simply in order to point out that the site of one of the UK's most celebrated acts of anti-materialism is now owned by one of the most successful materialists of our time! I offer no opinion on that, although I do find it quite poetic. But I guess WP is no place for poetry! Regards Dhmellor ( talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Dr K, what is the 'conclusion' that you believe the reader is being 'coerced' into reaching? Dhmellor ( talk) 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I was not trying to make the reader see anything. At no point have I used the words 'irony' or 'ironic'. If you think it's ironic, that's you drawing your own conclusion - I am not responsible for that. Dhmellor ( talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it synthesis to make a determination, based on primary sources (credits in a television episode) that a claim made in a secondary source (a newsblog article published months before the premiere of the television show) is unreliable? Please see Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis as A developer or THE developer. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a very reliable source saying the person is the developer and not mentioning anyone else as developer and there is no source saying there are other developers, only that she spearheaded development. It does not follow from that a person spearheaded development that anyone else was a developer. One shouldn't make inferences like that. Developer here does not include everyone who does fact checking or even writes a score or the words. You'd really need source saying there was more than one developer or giving the name of another developer to counteract the reliable source giving a single developer and no other in a space where such a title is prized and carefully scrutinized. Dmcq ( talk) 14:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a mix up in understanding also in the query. Primary and secondary does not determine reliability, it determines noteworthiness. We shouldn't be using primary sources if what is in them is not made noteworthy in some way and sometimes there is a problem with personal perspective but they are not inherently less reliable than secondary sources. Dmcq ( talk) 14:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Talk:Planck's_law#statements_hopefully_more_consensual and more generally in that whole talk page and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Help_needed_at_Planck.27s_law. The basic problem seems to be the introduction of formulae which have been derived by an editor rather than from citations. The editor cites WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements for putting in new versions of a formula. I believe that guideline only covers examples, intermediary parts of derivations and illustrations, not final results which should always be verifiable. Small changes of notation for consistency are allowed but only WP:CALC covers actual new results.
In the article Planck's law#Common forms you can see a table where the last entry is dependent on angular wavenumber k (in fact a few of these entries are like this but this is a particular sore point for other reasons). No citation has been found for this 'Common form'. Is it justified to stick in things like this? Dmcq ( talk) 12:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's my 3-2-4-2 summary of the above (the four numbers in the next sentence).
Within the past 3 weeks, 2 editors at this article have invented 4 new names for constant multiples of the 2 Planck's law functions.
The 3 weeks are since October 13.
The 2 editors are
The 4 invented names are Bν̃, Bω, By, and Bk. By is a multiple of Bλ while the other three are multiples of Bν. In all four cases the coefficient of the multiple is m4 where m is tabulated below.
The 2 Planck's law functions are and (top 2 rows of left column below).
Headbomb tabulated the 2 Planck's law functions and their 4 multiples as a 3x2 table with associated multipliers m correspondingly tabulated as
Bν : | Bω : |
Bλ : | By : |
Bν̃ : | Bk : |
The second row is for wavelength λ, the top and bottom rows are for frequency ν. Multiplication of the input to Planck's law (in either form) by a multiplier m works the same for all six entries: multiply the output by m4.
Rather than simply tabulating each of these multipliers m however, the table instead gives six copies of Planck's law each multiplied by , without however clueing the reader into the fact that this is how the multiples were derived. This gives the unsuspecting reader the misleading impression that something much deeper is going on.
Regarding the four new names of the form Bx, not even one source exists.
Regarding the associated forms of Planck's law for each new name, all are obtained by multiplying one of the two standard forms by . While the forms for the two basic functions pervade the literature, the situation for sources for the other four forms is as follows.
Other Wikipedia articles have declined to source vocal climate skeptics. I'm not sure whether this is appropriate for Wikipedia, but if this article were to follow that practice it would disqualify the Kramm and Paltridge sources, both of whom are highly vocal climate skeptics. But whether it did or not, the only form sourced from a reputable physics textbook would appear to be 12 at top right, whence it would be reasonable to give that form if this were felt appropriate.
None of this material was in the article prior to October 13, the day Chjoaygame and Headbomb began adding this material to the article. A glance at the history of the article between October 13 and now will give an idea of how Headbomb in particular has dominated editing of the article. There is other original research that he's introduced, such as his attempted application of the chain rule for differentiation, which is a formula that isn't even correct (it gives very wrong results) and hence can be dealt with back at the article without having to consider it original research. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 06:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
start of quotation from Wikipedia article Wikipedia:No original research
end of quotation from Wikipedia article Wikipedia:No original research
The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.
I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [ [83]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that the chart at File:Killed on British Roads.png contravenes the WP:NOR policy on 2 counts:
I have no problem with the graph line itself, the numbers are referenced to a primary source; the problem I have is with all the added, unreferenced labels and the implied conclusion of a causal relationship. I welcome views and opinions on this please. -- de Facto ( talk). 08:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any views on this one please? We need some strongly reasoned guidance to decide how to proceed? -- de Facto ( talk). 07:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There may be an explanation that I have missed, but if there is no reliable source asserting that there is evidence that events in the chart had a causal connection with the changes in the death toll, the chart is synthesis. If someone produced a similar chart including events like the 1965 funeral of Winston Churchill, the original research would be more obvious. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Constructing chart like this in which various data, perhaps all impeccably sourced, but which come from various unrelated sources, and absent any analysis by a known authority strike me as a particularly bad idea. In particular, legislative intent seems a poor criteria for making the jump, since legislators are notoriously poor at predicting the outcome of their actions. Johnuniq is correct that you need a secondary source to establish the relationships between the various data presented in order to avoid OR. There are other factors at play--better road design, high gas prices, better cars, ratio of large to small cars, the general mood of drivers--which make this a complex issues we are not qualified to address. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)