This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user has created a new article Nio Zen that seems mostly to be original research. It cites a lot of texts, but without precision (no page numbers) and mostly with regard to peripheral points of information, not with regard to Nio Zen. One text that is cited, Baroni's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism, does have an entry on Nio Zen, but none of it cites all that information about Pure Land Buddhism, Bodhi Darma, Shaolin monks, etc. that consume most of the article. All that smells of original research. It should be noted that the same editor has been going through Buddhism pages on Wikipedia and making additions that cite the Zenji Museum as a repository of important artworks. There is no proof of that, so I have removed them, but the Zenji Museum page (the museum, by the way, does not seem to exist in reality, since the page does not reveal its location other than a vague statement about downtown Toronto) is half about Nio Zen and its leader Zen Acharya, and seems to repeat many of the stances of the Nio Zen article (see also related pages here and here). I thus wonder whether all this original research is not also publicity for this person and his religion. I have also asked this of WikiProject Buddhism, but any help determining whether this belongs on Wikipedia or not would be appreciated. Michitaro ( talk) 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a spillover issue from WP:RSN. We at least understand our RS positions over there. However an OR issue has been raised. The RS issue is whether a quote from an unreliable source, Conservapedia, hereafter C, can be used as a primary source about itself, SELFSOURCE. This is quoting C in an article about C. For that argument, go to WP:RSN.
The OR issue is twofold.
First, is this construction, Examples include: A, B, C WP:SYNTH? I say no. WP:SYNTH says A and B, therefore C. With this construction, Examples include: A, B, C, no inference is being drawn. It could just as well be Examples include: C and B. This is just a list and each element stands on its own; no syllogism is present and no inference is being drawn. It could be An example is A.
Second, can a Wikipedia editor use a primary source independently of some secondary source? For lack of a better term, Dmcq has called this trawling. I say yes. It is almost too basic to argue. Yes, a secondary source makes the point more notable but Wikipedia:Notability is a topic issue not a source issue. You really have to ask why it is necessary to place this burden on an editor.
WP:OR says: The term original research (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. But in this case the fact, the source, is the text; it exists; it's right there. The author/text relationship is not in dispute. C said A. Forbidding this as OR would be saying that unless/until some reliable secondary source says that C said A an article can't say that C said A.
Anyways that interpretation of OR seems strange and restrictive to me. It doesn't seem to follow from the definition of OR. I'd appreciate if others can weigh in.-- Olsonist ( talk) 23:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am having a little difficulty understanding this debate... but I think the situation is as follows: A reliable source says Conservapedia is biased in a particular way (X). An editor here wishes to quote or cite an article at Conservapedia (Y) as an example of that bias. If this is what the debate is about, then I think there is an OR issue... because saying that Y actually is an example of the bias that source X is talking about is an a statement of analysis or interpretation. (Correct me if I am misunderstanding what the debate is about). Blueboar ( talk) 15:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If an item is found on a website without a secondary source pointing to it and it satisfies WP:SELFCITE but would not not normally satisfy WP:RS nor is it a straightforward top level 'about' or 'main' type link, is it okay to cite that when describing the site? How about to support an opinion in a secondary source that points to another page but not that one? Dmcq ( talk) 17:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Page: Radical Right ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right. Opposition to the Obama administration is seen as motivated by fear and racism, focusing on issues such as immigration, terrorism, same sex marriage, abortion and an African-American president. Chip Berlet has described it as "the type of right-wing populist movement seen throughout U.S. history".
What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid ([Bell, D. (Ed.). 1963. The radical right. New York: Criterion Books]; [Lipset, Seymour Martin. "The sources of the "Radical Right". In Daniel Bell (Ed.), The radical right]; [Hofstadter, Richard. "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt". In Daniel Bell (Ed.), The radical right, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, 1965).... However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities. Moreover, the comparison with previous populist movements hides more than it reveals about the political nature of the Tea Party and the current state of American politics."
Comments:
It is clear that the author is claiming that recent scholarship places the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right, as originally defined in
Daniel Bell's book The Radical Right, although he himself opposes that categorization. The fact that different writers disagree over terminology is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article "Radical Right" clearly explains the differences in the use of terminology and it is about a general topic, not a specific term.
TFD ( talk) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this grossly misrepresents the issues.
[3] shows the material TFD is trying to add. With the misleading edit summary of The source, which is fairly brief, uses term 12 times, as well as synonyms
The problem is that the only mention in the article (noting that the cite does not even give any page number etc. at all) is:
How one can claim that this is sufficient in any way to state in Wikipedia's voice that the Tea Party Movement is Radical Right is beyond me, when the author specifically says it is not "Radical Right". It is quite like using "John Doe is not a Gnarphisyt" in a source to then add in his BLP "John Doe is a Gnarphist." It is an abuse of the source utterly and completely to turn what the author states on its head - and then make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. And saying that "the author uses synonyms for radical right even though he has said it is not radical right means that we can say it is radical right" is Humpty-Dumptyism of the first water. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This may be more of a formality, but there's a critter named after Dorjee Sun which was mentioned in several publications (and in the article). However the species has not been described biologically (in the professional literature, in accordance with usual taxonomic rules), which is required to assign it a Latin name. No one disputes those facts, however there's no publication saying "it is not a legitimate name." I find myself in a rather peculiar position of asking an editor to produce a citation to demonstrate no citation exists. It is not a dispute in the sense that anyone disputes the facts, but I was curious how editors here might deal with this. Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 16:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A few years ago, I published a couple of alternatives to the current theories in sexual selection in peer-reviewed journals. I added a brief paragraph to the WP article on sexual selection describing those articles, but other editors have said it violates guidelines on originality, because at one point I used the world "original" to mean innovative, non-derivative. My understanding is that WP "originality" specifically means work that is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Please clarify for us. Thanks.-- BooksXYZ ( talk) 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this List of biggest box office bombs has been compiled through original research; the net loss required to be called a "box office bomb" is not clear, and seems to be an arbitrary cut-off defined by the editors. I see the desire for a short list of the biggest flops included in the article Box office bomb, but the "statistics" section at the end (which is based off of the Wikipedia list) appears to be purely original research. I've tried removing the BLP violations, but I suspect that the entire "statistics" section should be cut, most of the list trimmed, and the remaining short-list merged into Box office bomb. Do others agree, or have other thoughts? Mlm42 ( talk) 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no original research in this article. All information provided is based on specific references, and all films of the list are considered as box office bombs according to the box office bomb definition of the article
box office bomb. All compromises for the Net loses have also been well defined in the article. Regarding “statistics” it gets all its information from Wikipedia articles of the films found in the list and no other external sources are used. In other words the list itself is the source of this info. Therefore there is no original research either.
Clicklander (
talk) 11:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The following paragraph contains information which I believe constitutes original research on the part of the original poster of the information (not to mention it just looks trashy):
Weblog
Geekologie is updated multiple times a day with articles on gadgets, video games, consumer electronics and popular culture related to games and movies. The identity of the writer behind the weblog has never been identified, instead only referred to as "Geekologie Writer." typically referred to as "GW"[2][3] Despite this enigmatic persona, some clues have come to light about his identity. In his 10,000th post, GW links to another blog saying "Thanks to everyone who made this journey possible...one very, VERY special little lady..." embedding a link to http://cocoalikesthis.com/ in the words "special little lady".[6] That blog is written by an author who claims to "live in Hollywood, CA with j, who is the King of the Internets..." leading some to speculate that the GW name likely begins with the letter J.[7] This blog links to a twitter "following" page, where one of the 20 accounts being followed is "Jonathan Berisford". Online photos of Mr. Berisford match those previously published on geekologie.com. The LinkedIn profile for Jonathan Berisford lists Virginia Tech as "Education" (the GW has made numerous references to Virginia Tech) as well as listing the Twitter account as "geekologie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.154 ( talk • contribs)
I removed some material from Manly Palmer Hall which the editor said was the result of their own work. [5] Note that I seem to have left some similar material there, an error but only if I was right in removing what I removed. The editor who added it has asked me about my removal and I thought I should bring it here.
On my talk page, he sais "You recently removed some entries in which I quoted some materials from different editions of The Secret Teachings of All Ages, on grounds that it constituted personal research. With respect, this seemed odd because the materials I posted were largely quoted from the books themselves, and I identified each of them by Edition and Copy Number. My intentions in posting the information was to assist interested users in distinguishing features unique to two of the editions. In one case, I own a copy of the Edition from which information was quoted; and in the other case, I obtained the information (a copy of the pertinent page) directly from the Librarian of the Philosophical Research Society. In reading the rules, I understand the importance of sourcing, and in these instances the materials I posted were taken directly from, and attributed to, copies of the different Editions themselves. I'd appreciate it if you would be kind enough to reconsider the removals on the basis of the foregoing; however, I am not an expert at Wikipedia and only occasionally make specific contributions when I think the materials are of genuine interest, and I have published sources as evidence. Thank you." I'll tell him about this post. Dougweller ( talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I removed some content added to the above article which I thought was OR and probably unverifiable (diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&diff=485345536&oldid=484807424). Looking through the history, the addition of unsourced negative outlooks on white people has been a persistent problem with this article. I think it is likely the editor will come back and contest my revert, and I wanted to get people's opinion on the material in question. Here it is:
A common stereotype held by various African-American, Hispanic-American and Native American communities in U.S is that White people are generally clueless -- or, at least, don't care -- about personal hygiene. One of the most prominent stereotypes is that White people tend not to wash their hands very much, if at all. Another common stereotype is that White people do not wash or clean themselves and that even when they try to do so that they are incapable of properly doing so. A popular origin story for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves.
The stereotype of the fearful, cowardly White man and woman is also extremely prominent and held by many different minority communities in the Western World. Both White men and women are seen to be without backbone and frightened by the prospect of coming into contact with non-White person. White men are considered to have a chronic, almost obsessive fear of Black men because of their perceived sexual potency and prowess, physical strength and aggression, their ability to "steal our women" and certain bestial-like qualities. These stereotypes have a strong historical basis from racist propaganda spread during the 19th and early 20th century about Black people by racist organizations-- in particular, the Ku Klux Klan. White women are also considered to be "easy lays" (aka sexually promiscuous) and they will always go for "dark meat" over White men.
White people are also considered to be generally ignorant of the wider world and how people of other cultures and ethnicities live. A common related stereotype is that White people are not just ignorant of the wider world because of reason such as poor education and minimal exposure to other peoples but because they choose to be, usually out of a sense of fear, arrogance or racism. White people are generally considered to be "dumb" when it comes to social interaction on a level greater than their immediate circles and comfort zones (a most recent Internet meme portraying archetypcial examples of how young White women relate to friends of a minority ethnicity the world over) and that they have no real understanding of how the wider world works, especially for those who are economically and socially middle-class and above. They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various ways.
White people are considered to have a serious problem with sexual deviancy and psychopathy. Both White men and women are considered to have sexual desires and attitudes that are bizarre, fetishistic and oftentimes illegal and/or immoral. A widely held notion of this stereotype is that White men like to rape people of minority ethnicity, particularly African-American and Asian-American women. This has a historical basis in the treatment of African slaves on plantations by White slavemasters and highly racist and segregated era of the 19th and early 20th century in the United States, as well as the treatment of East Asian women overseas in Vietnam, China and Japan as well as in the U.S by White males. White males are considered to represent an alarmingly large proportions of men reported, charged and convicted of sexual crimes involving minors as well as a significant proportion of pedophiles in the U.S, Canada and the UK. Many of the most notorious and widely known cases of this kind were perpetrated and carried out by White males, such as Peter Woodcock, Wayne Garcey and Collin Hatch.
82.32.22.139 ( talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly unsourced original research and you're acting appropriately to delete it. Davidwhittle ( talk) 07:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be 90% original research. I have also raised this topic on Fringe/n since the bulk of the OR deals with a pseudo-scientific medical treatment. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Davidwhittle ( talk · contribs) has asserted that the Religious influences section of the Glenn Beck article is original research, even though (as far as I can find) the section at no point says anything the cited sources do not outright say. He says that " The bulk of the section on Religious (Influences) is comprised of pointless speculation," and continues to assert that " Opinions of others about Beck's religious leadership (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant" even though I have explained that " The section mostly consists of secondary sources instead of primary sources. Sticking mostly with what Beck says would open up the door to original research. The "pointless" speculation is (for us) unoriginal research."
Am I wrong here? The most I could see is perhaps retitling the section. All the material given appears to be supported by the sources, and does not combine sources to reach any novel conclusions. I'm inclined to believe this editor does not understand what OR and may be editing with an agenda, based on this tagbombing series of edits and this edit refering to the LDS Church as "The Church." Ian.thomson ( talk) 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Page: Radical Right ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Article section:' Radical Right#Tea Party
In a recent paper, Richard Courser begins, "What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid (Bell 1963; Lipset 1955; Hofstadter 1955, 1965)". [7] He identifies the sources in brackets as Daniel Bell's 1963 book. The radical right, two 1955 articles by Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter included in that book and Hofstadter's 1965 collection of essays which includes his 1955 article. Much of the paper is devoted to discussing these writings.
Is it synthesis to conclude that Courser is referring to the writing by Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter when he says "past scholarly work"?
TFD ( talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(od) Of all things, TFD [12] accuses me of not responding! (However you have not addressed the question at the noticeboard) BTW, my UT page is not a place for him to cluter up with an issue he raised. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 10:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
At Jebusite this edit [13] says "While not directly mentioning the Jebusites genetic research has noted that Palestinians (specifically Palestinian Muslim Arabs) largely descend from converted Christians and Jews who have lived in the area since what the researchers state as prehistoric times (which would include in Canaanite times)." I'd reverted something similar earlier and asked the editor not to replace it but to go here if they thought this wasn't original research, but they chose to replace it again. Struggling a bit with this editor. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see George Washington and religion for a POV/OR dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar ( talk) 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.
The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according to the original research guideline but that does not discredit my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.
iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.
Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuMaNuMa ( talk • contribs)
Hi, just set out to become a new page patroller and have already encountered plenty of thorny questions, this article was created by copy pasting another cartoon article, not a problem, I just updated the no refs tag, but I think that the writer is literally watching the cartoon and writing the action step-by-step. This is a 7 minute short and there are paragraphs and paragraphs of plot, with a lot of wierd stuff thrown in about Greta Garbo and mustachioed fish. I don't know if this qualifies as OR, could someone take a look, maybe prune it down and have a quiet word with the enthusiastic editor? Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Growing up as an American in the '70's, I was more than dimly aware of the popularity of the Bee Gees. I love 'em! I read the liner notes of the albums, but as a "thick" American with no exposure to international news outlets, I always thought that Maurice Gibb's name was pronounced "More-eece" (deferring to the French in regards to pronunciation). But it's pronounced as "Morris" in reality, and always has been. How do I introduce the correct pronunciation into the article when I can't find anything that is printed that actually makes this distinction? I would feel "weird" just putting a phonetic translation without something to reference it to, but I would also hate to see anyone else make the same mistake I always have. Any suggestions besides IAR? Doc talk 10:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
YouTube is actually the only source that I've seen that backs up the correct pronunciation (especially when it comes to interviews with the brothers), but we've got to be careful about copyright with that site. This seems to be the official channel, and I'll look for a clip there. Good call with the YouTube! Cheers :> Doc talk 10:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to include a great deal of original research. I'm also skeptical of whether it satisfies WP:SCH since none of the links provided suggest any enduring notability or even a trivial mention in secondary sources. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a general question about OR and primary sources, which has not yet been applied to an article. If this isn't a good place to ask, please let me know where would be better. Here is the situation. Facts about an event in the past (1955) have been written in several secondary sources, (Published reference books, magazine articles) although they all relate a first person account, and nothing recent (past 1972) has been published. There has never been a published claim that these facts are not true. Now, certain WP editors claim that the facts presented in these sources are not true and that the person who authored these accounts is lying. There is no actual proof of this however.
In the mean time, I have tracked down the original person who was interviewed for these secondary sources, and have a chance to interview them myself, to confirm the facts from the secondary sources. Because this interview would be used only to establish that this person did indeed do what they claimed in the secondary source, with no interpretation, is this type of this allowed? Is it OR to confirm what the secondary sources say? The interview, which I plan to record would be a primary source, so could it be used for just establishing if the event did or did not happen? There is no reason to think that the person is or was lying, but is this an acceptable means to calm doubting editors? (Whose qualms seem to be mostly based on personal bias, but regardless, it would be nice to know.) Because the event was witnessed by only 2 people in the world, it seems to me that this is an acceptable thing. Please let me know what others think. pschemp | talk 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I also need to add that the person I can interview is not the person who is the source the original articles. The two were traveling together, the event happened and the 1st is the source of the published information. The second, whom I will speak with was a witness, but not the source of the first person articles or interviews. pschemp | talk 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask others to comment on adding an unsourced category to several biographies when not supported by anything in the article's text.
Specifically, User:GreatOrangePumpkin has been adding Category:Russian monarchists to such articles as Dmitri Mendeleev and others. Here is what's going on:
(edit summary: unsourced)
(edit summary: see http://books.google.de/books?id=GHDlXwAACAAJ&dq=Mendeleev+monarchist&hl=de&sa=X&ei=lF-MT4D8GI_htQbL08zrCw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA for example)
(edit summary: rv, that's a paper copy of Wikipedia articles (really - see the description in your link))
(edit summary: it was just an example. Please search on Gbooks for beginners)
(edit summary: rv, it's your job to provide a source for a claim you make -- WP:BURDEN)
(edit summary: Undid revision 488061537 by Zloyvolsheb (talk) please use google, thanks.)
The only Google Books result describing Dmitri Mendeleev as a "monarchist" is just a paper copy of Wikipedia (see search results). It seems the burden of proving a claim falls on the person making it, so that "Google it" is not a proper answer ( WP:BURDEN). If GOP is so sure that the source exists, why can't he add it to the article?
I do not want to fruitlessly edit war over this, and would appreciate if someone could aid in the process of dispute resolution. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a dilemma in that I have original research, so much in fact that I wrote a book covering the material.( see "The Content of Their Character" Trafford Publishing 2009) I must admit that I have this book as an item to promote and this is not generally acceptable for Wikipedia, but there is no other way for this original research material to be presented systematically. Beside that there is no one else to present it accurately. The controversial Underground Railroad Quilt code is a thorny subject for historians. A bit of notoriety developed in 1999 when authors Raymond Dobard and Jaqueline Tobin wrote a book about the subject "Hidden in Plain View". This started a vehement response from established academics who considered their work amateurish and woefully undocumented.
That sets the stage for my dilemma, as I try to present valid arguments in favor of a code with the field having been marred some what by what these authors have instigated. I have material that has no association with that book but nonetheless reveals quite a bit of the documented history of a family of fugitive slaves that lived beyond the Civil war era to settle in a predominantly Black village in Ohio. They created a quilt in 1877 which has been erroneously labeled a "crazy quilt" which was a popular fad at the time. I have consulted numerous textile experts and historians while writing this book. There is a point of departure of this quilt from the norm of crazy quilts that can be readily defined. The book demonstrates the coding method that is present on this quilt and reveals a very systematic method of construction. The code can only be held in relation to the Underground Railroad by consideration of the fact that the makers of the quilt where documented in 1861 as fugitive slaves and if anyone would have knowledge of such an Underground Railroad code, it would be these folks. Having been made long after the Civil war and slavery, the quilt served not as a slave device but possibly served some communal function to Blacks attempting to survive in the Reconstruction era. More research is needed to establish this function. I have produced a brief video on the subject here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSnGimgonAQ The provenance of the quilt been established. It still exists in fine condition and is available for museum display. The code is there for those who wish to investigate the phenomenon.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.206.195 ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 April 2012
An editor wants to include in the Eurabia article a sentence stating that use of the word "Eurabia" increased as a result of Anders Behring Breivik using it in his manifesto. He wants to cite Google Trends as proof/source. I've argued that that is original research. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this sort of thing original research?
[24]
Source A talks about the making of a film, mentioning some locations. It has mention of a road that appeared in the film.
Source B is Google maps which can show locations. It has no mention of any film.
These two sources were used to say that the road is used in the film. "It is not
WP:OR to cross reference a filming location (the exterior of the garage and restaurant in this case) with its address on Google Maps to derive that the filming location is on Main Street, which also happens to be RM 187"
[25]
The opposing veiw tagged both sources (originally just source A) with
failed verification as neither stated what was claimed and called the section original research. "That sort of cross referencing is
original synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.""
[26]
Is it okay to expect readers to do their own research to verify what is written?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 08:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! I'm back with another data question. Simply this time, would it be OR to include the table below in the article Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom?
RANK (1-5) | AVERAGE | UNIVERSITY | RANK (6-10) | AVERAGE | UNIVERSITY | RANK (11-15) | AVERAGE | UNIVERSITY |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.3 | University of Cambridge | 6 | 6.3 | University College London | =10 | 10.8 | University of Lancaster |
2 | 2.0 | University of Oxford | 7 | 7.0 | University of Warwick | 12 | 13.3 | University of York |
3 | 3.3 | London School of Economics | 8 | 8.0 | Imperial College London | 13 | 13.5 | Loughborough University |
=4 | 5.5 | Durham University | 9 | 10.3 | University of Bath | 14 | 14.8 | University of Bristol |
=4 | 5.5 | University of St Andrews | =10 | 10.8 | University of Exeter | 15 | 16.3 | University of Sussex |
As you can see in the article, there are four different University ranking tables. All the table above does is take the average of the four rankings for each university and sort them by that average. The maths is very easy to check, you could look up, for example, to find that the University of Bath was ranked 10th, 14th, 5th and 12th in the four tables, (10+14+5+12)/4=10.3 to 1 decimal place. Any other issues I could imagine coming up: the top 15 is not an entirely arbitrary number, I was originally going to do the top 10 but as you can see there was a draw for 10th place. Doing 15 also keeps the three-column format of the rest of the tables. Doing many more would begin to bring in problems with universities being on only 3 of the 4 tables. The format for draws follows the same in the article, the universities are ordered in alphabetical order.
Anyway, I would like to think this falls under WP:CALC, but I just wanted to be sure. Full disclosure: I have actually reverted someone adding this table in the past, however they didn't give any evidence of the calculations as I did and they also didn't show the draws properly. I've been meaning to get back to this for some time, so here it is.-- 23230 talk 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
An editor has added a number of political parties to Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations without any sources, or by providing a link to their websites. When I removed these entries he restored them with the notation "Added all parties. General message: based on my research, all the parties I added are social liberal partes, or at least mostly. Please stop deleting my entries." [27]
When I set up a discussion thread, complaining about sourcing and also that at least some of the entries were not social liberal parties, he replied, "The articles on the parties I’ve added, together with the weblinks I’ve provided, provide evidence that the parties I’ve added are socially liberal." [28] However, as the article history shows, the editor has removed some of the parties he added, as he revises his opinion.
This appears to me to be a clear case of original research. Could other editors please comment.
TFD ( talk) 03:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ken Livingstone's article discusses that he worked for a TV channel called Press TV. This is mentioned in
this BBC source, which I also used as a source to state, "The network is pro-Palestinian, anti-sanctions against Iran, and critical of Western foreign policy." Is it OR or SYN to include this description in the article.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork 18:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Craptastic amount of wp:synthesis in the academia section. Given that the material was unsourced at one point [29], you can guess how well the sources added actually support any of that, let alone the material as a whole. (Yes, I used to have an account here, but gave up in disgust. But this article is a record even by BSopedia standards.)
In the Benaiah article, an editor has concluded from this reference that the name can also mean "Son of Yahweh". Is that original synthesis? St Anselm ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I would hold that the reading from the first source is synthesis, but the proposition itself might well be defended from other sources. The first good one I found affirms "son of the Lord" (i.e., LORD), and IMHO it is not synthesis to gloss that source as "son of Yahweh"; two or three sources on this point should be sufficient to carry "son of Yahweh" as one valid gloss of Benaiah. JJB 22:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem is really in the lack of vowels in Hebrew and the fact that "Ben" and "Bena" (added vowel) are quite likly related (one could easily see a "son" as being something "one has built" and vice versa). See [30] which is where the source discusses this. Collect ( talk) 12:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
In the article I'm currently working on ([NGO Monitor]), the organisation in question reports that one of their major donors is the Jewish Agency For Israel (JAFI). Pretty much every major news organisation I can find describes JAFI as a 'quasi-governmental body' (NYT, BBC, Guardian, JPost etc). The simple version of the question is: can I say that JAFI is 'widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body' in describing them as one of NGOM's donors? The statement is obviously true but do I need to have a source that specifically calls JAFI a quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding?
Now for the more complex version: NGOM state on their website that they receive no financial support from any government. However, their biggest donor is JAFI, who are widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation. Can I put the information that their largest donor is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body next to their own claim that they receive no governmental support?
Now, one more possible complication: there is actually one source that does describe JAFI as a quasi-governmental body in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding. This may or may not be considered a reliable source (online blog-based magazine run by established professional journalists with the article being written by an established journalist, although the site is own as a collective by the writers so arguably self-published ...) but how secure does a source have to be for a statement that is in any case true?
The way I see it is that the statement is factually true but might (?) be considered OR/SYNTH if no source directly links NGOM's funding with JAFI's status (although connecting the two points doesn't lead to a distinct third point as a conclusion). However, I would have thought that once that connection has been made it can no longer be claimed that the statement is OR/SYNTH and that the formal reliability of the source shouldn't matter too much because all it is being drawn on is for a statement that is indisputably true, whether or not one might have questions about its reliability when it comes to questionable facts. But I'm no policy wonk and would like to hear what others have to say. Thanks. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 09:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe this article has many problems with original research, particularly WP:SYNTH. I'd like to focus on two paragraphs in Christ_myth_theory#Meaning_of_the_whole_term:
Sources that try to actually define the entire term "Christ Myth theory" and "Jesus Myth Theory" only add to the confusion. The 1988 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines Christ Myth Theory thus: "(the) view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes, and its basis is sought in the parallels, actual or legendary, to the Gospel records concerning Jesus", and then presents Lucian, G. A. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and P Graham as examples of this concept.[29] Lucian, however, never said that Jesus did not exist as a flesh and blood man, but rather mocked the story of Jesus and the belief of Christians;[30] Wells has stated, even in his pre-Jesus Legend works, that Paul's Jesus was mythical in the legendary sense of the word (ie historical myth);[31] and Russell and Graham both "left open the question of whether there was such a figure as Jesus of Nazareth as the Gospels portray Him."[29] Furthermore both Greek and Norse myth stories have a huge range of theories regarding their origins including distortions of actual historical events[32][33] As late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods"[34] and these three with Mithras are the cults Bromiley says that Jesus' death and resurrection story suggests to some minds as being a variant of. As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way.
This passage is based on an editor's opinion that the definition of the Christ myth theory is ambiguous and problematic. The first sentence is pure opinion—there is no secondary sources that states that the definition of the term is confused. Then the passage quotes the entry on "Jesus Christ" from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and analyses the quote, with a bunch of citations. None of these citations comment on the entry in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and none of them says that the definition in the encyclopedia is unclear. This is, then, a use of published sources to advance an editor's own position—a clear instance of WP:SYNTH.
There are some other problems as well. Even though the text attributes the definition to Bromiley, he is probably not the author of the entry in question, he was the editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia. And despite what is claimed, there is no reason to think that the definition of Christ myth theory is unclear, either in the quoted entry or in any other secondary source. But the main policy issue is that an editor is trying to put his own opinion into this Wikipedia article through WP:SYNTH. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article has extensive problems, but I was hoping that posting here would result in a discussion focused on one specific problem. What do people think of the passage I posted above? Is it ok to have Wikipedia say things like "As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way" without that opinion appearing in any secondary source? This looks like obvious original research to me; what do others think? Jobberone indicates that there's synthesis in the article, but doesn't address my question specifically.
And Dmcq, the "Jesus was a purely spiritual being" idea is part of the Christ myth theory. Maybe some context would help—in the 19th century, people started applying historical method to the Gospels and other early Christian writings to try to figure out what the actual history was behind our stories about Jesus. In general, scholars found that the sources give us information about a human being who lived in the early part of the 1st century CE and whose preaching led to the formation of Christianity, even though they disagreed vehemently about many details of Jesus' life. The Christ myth theory grew out of this attempt to find the real history behind the Gospels. It says that you can't use these sources to find out about the life of a human being because there was no historical Jesus at the root of it all. Christ-myth theorists' explanations of the real origins of Christianity differ, but an explanation common to many mythicists is that Christianity developed from a Jewish sect that worshipped a savior-god called Joshua (the same name as Jesus—Joshua is a more direct transliteration whereas Jesus is filtered through Greek). This Joshua was not initially thought of as a human being, but as a purely spiritual being, essentially a god, but over time he was given human characteristics, so that eventually the Gospels portray him as a human being (though a special kind of human being). So the idea that Jesus was originally understood as a purely spiritual being is an alternative account of Christianity's origins that arises from the initial step of saying that there was no historical Jesus at Christianity's beginnings. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears to me from the discussion above that other editors share my concerns about original research in this article. However, the editor responsible for the problematic text is removing the {{ synthesis}} tag from the article: [31] [32]. Can anyone suggest a course of action? --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The article tries to address the problems User:Ludwigs2, User:Vesal, User:Peregrine_Fisher, User:Blueboar, User:jbolden1517, User:^^James^^, User:SlimVirgin, User:Crum375, User:Wdford had with the old version. In fact, Paul B and Bill the Cat 7 both agreed that the idea of the Gospel Jesus as a composite character "may legitimately fall under the umbrella of "Christ Myth Theory" though they never answered the question of would that include a 1st century teacher who was NOT crucified being in the mix.
Nevermind Anthony's relevant questions of 24 April 2010 were ignored:
"If the Christ myth theory means "Jesus did not exist", what does that mean?
This article has had numerous attempts at getting a consensus regarding its definition and all have been failures.
Then you have the many times this has come up: [ [34]]
SlimVirgin set what the guidelines should be for the article:
1) It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ.
2) It should make clear whether it's a term used mainly by proponents or opponents. It should explain the history of the theory and the naming of the theory.
3) It should outline the different ways in which a person might be such a theorist (soft, hard), sourced to secondary sources to avoid OR.
So far I have been the only one to try and apply those guidelines.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 09:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In case this wasn't clear - in my opinion the entire first half of the lede of the article is OR, "Sources that try to ... equally reliable references" is clearly OR, and "It is unhelpful that breaking this spectrum down into categories tends to be dependent on the author in question" is OR. More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ." This statement may well be true, but it is OR to place it in the article outside of a context of writers of theories about the non existence of christ. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 03:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Several things here
@Elen of the Roads, I suggest reading WP:NOTOR which clearly states "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation." No actual explanation was provided just that the authors that do break down the spectrum have their own takes on where the breakdowns are. For what it is worth I have remove or edited the problematic passages you pointed out above.
Furthermore changing the title to Non-existence of historical Jesus theories is no help as it doesn't address Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's two ways that Jesus could be historical:
1) Jesus actually existed as human being rather than being a totally fictional creation like King Lear or Dr. Who
or
2) the Gospel accounts give a reasonable account of historical events, rather than being unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur.
Marshall warns "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."
A) Volney, Frazer, Remsburg, Robertson, Mead, Ellegård, and Wells, all accepted the possibility of a historical Jesus being involved in the myth but have been put into some form of the Christ Myth theory category. Per Marshall this deep sixes them denying option 1 (Jesus was a flesh and blood man) leaving us to say they are denying option 2 (the Gospels are reasonable accurate as historical documents).
B) non historical doesn't really tells us anything. Shakespeare's Richard III is non historical in in terms of appearance and possibly actions as well but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real Richard III he was based on. Conversely as explained by Remsburg and others King Arthur Pendragon and Robin Hood Earl of Huntington are non historical mythical versions of possibly historical people.
In fact, as again noted in the article Archibald Robertson stated in 1946 "(John M.) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one man having contributed something to the Gospel story." and that "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded".
Ok, by this criteria a first century Jesus who was born in Cana c12 BCE, never set foot in Nazareth, preached a few words of now lost wisdom in Galilee, and got himself run over by a chariot at the age of 50 would fit the bill as he didn't teach "as reported in the Gospels" and certainly wasn't "put to death in the circumstances there recorded".
@Paul B: As Remsburg noted in 1909 "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."
Even Drews admitted "If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with, this can naturally not be opposed; but we know nothing of this Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow."
As I said back in 16:05, 22 January 2008 "Well to be fair the academic evidence on both sides is a mess. Most of it boils down to statements in popular books rather than peer reviewed journals resulting in a he said-she said situation. A related problem is the kind of excluded middle that seems to exist in the debate boiling down to either the Jesus of the Bible existed or he didn't. The problem with that is Jesus could be like King Arthur or Robin Hood who in part can linked to a historical people (Riothamus and Sire Johannes d'Eyvile respectively) but so much has been added in that the King Arthur or Robin Hood we know are composite characters with very little (if anything) left of the original historical people."
Even after some three years of pointing it out several editors still haven't grasped the basic concept that "saying the story of a person is a piece of mythology is NOT the same as saying the person themselves didn't exist." As I said way back in 20 January 2009 "The stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Paul Reveres' famous ride via Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, or the umteen dime novels of various 19th century people like Jessie James, Wild Bill Hickok who undeniable existed cases in point (George W. Chilcoat and Joan M. Gasperak (1984), Young Adult Literature: The Dime Novel or How to Vitalize American Literature Classes, National Council of Teachers of English clearly state that some of the early dime novels stories were in fact using real people and real events while not claiming to be real history) (sic)." I explained these problems in detail in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_22#Bromiley and brought them up regarding Mythicist in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_41#The_Mythicist_Position.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your dodging the question present with claims of SYN and OR. Again read WP:NOTOR. If you are so sure of your position mind telling us why you are supporting suspected sockpuppets [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=487835306&oldid=487832192}}? Also the claim that this is a "modern" theory depends if the phrase "Jesus is a myth" means he was a historical myth ala King Arthur and Robin Hood or a philosophical myth (personification of an idea) The alter is certainly of modern origin but the former dates all the way back to Celsus (c180 CE)
Furthermore the Docetism connection was kicked around in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_39#Docetism and since then I found a 1990 reference that states "Some skeptics argue that Jesus was a myth. Ancient scholars named this theory "docetism," apparently because, to them, Jesus never actually came into the world as a flesh- and-blood man but only seemed to be here.." Last time I checked 1990 was considered modern.
Stop removing huge sections of the article with no discussion with claims that are not bore out by the references being used in the article. This IMHO blatant POV pushing of yours is way past tiresome. Oh for what it is worth in the interests of NPOV I have added a 2009 reference to Robert Price who states that the term "Docetism" along with other terms has suffered a fate similar to brand names like Xerox, Jello, and Kleenex and been broadened "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow" In other words Docetism can have two meanings depending on it context.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@Elen of the Roads: Ok you said "THIS article needs to be about the various theories that the Jesus dude as described in the Gospels never existed." and gave a really wild and extreme example. But this still leave those versions of the Christ Myth theory (Robertson, Welsh, post-Jesus Legend Wells) where the myth came first but a historical teach could have been later integrated into the stories. Again by WP:WEIGHT Wells' Mythical Paul Jesus + historical Q Jesus (who does some of the things related in the Gospels) = Gospel Jesus would be a Christ Myth theory. Using NPOV how do we address that?
Paul B: You didn't check the history of the Docetism article did you? " Earl Doherty and Timothy Freke have suggested docetism arose from christ mythicism" was added on 20:55, December 13, 2007 [ [38]] and was changed to " Earl Doherty and Timothy Freke have suggested docetism arose from the nonexistence hypothesis. on 05:28, August 12, 2010 [ [39]] long before I ever saw that article.
The connection between Docetism and the Christ myth theory has been in that article for two YEARS perhaps as long as FIVE years and only NOW you have a problem with it and claim that I spoiled it by making this connection?!? Just what kind of fools do you take the community for?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 04:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that as was pointed before this concept claim depends on WP:SYN where source A says X, source B says Y, source c says z and so it claimed that A says Z. Both the administrators User:SlimVirgin and User:Elen of the Roads that there is no clear and definitive Christ myth topic:
"It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ." User:SlimVirgin
"More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ."" User:Elen of the Roads
These wall of text claims are IMHO Per WP:TLDR "a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing" to ignore the actual points raised in them.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have requested that BruceGrubb be banned from editing articles related to Christianity on the Administrator's noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_topic_ban_for_User:BruceGrubb. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
A topic ban was done and the article is being rebuilt. I believe this issue can be closed. Jobberone ( talk) 04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to do an AFD for Citizen exploitation, but I thought it might be worth getting some opinions here first - the author put a lot of work into it. It does seem like a fairly clear case of WP:SYNTH to me, though. I think maybe some of the content (minus the original synthesis) could be added to the citizen journalism and Huffington Post articles, and maybe others, but I just can't find any reliable sources that use the expression "citizen exploitation" to mean "exploitation of unpaid 'citizen journalists' and bloggers", like this article does. Does anyone else think this should maybe be deleted as OR/synth? Thanks! Dawn Bard ( talk) 15:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be mostly original research. It's a list of English business jargon. More than half of the terms in this list are not linked our sourced. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
2001 QF298 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
There was a question posed at WP:RSN
here that ended up with an OR question. The article currently says "As of 2012 the object is not considered a viable dwarf planet candidate by Tancredi et al and is not mentioned in the latest update of their list". Since Tancredi previously listed this object in his list, but no longer does, is it OR to say that as of 2012 he does not consider it a candidate? The only purpose for the list is to state those bodies he considers candidates. I am not an editor of that article. It was just brought to RSN, and I commented on the original question there, which ended up with this question, which I'm not sure I know the answer to. I will post a note at RSN pointing here for anyone else interested as well. --
Despayre
tête-à-tête 01:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Is [41] ("cow-based" is a term not found in any source I found, nor was his original "cattle-based" found in any RS sources I noticed) an example of "original research"? Collect ( talk) 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor has extracted a sentence from an article by Gordon Melton in the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, which says, "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God". An editor has claimed that the sentence "shows that people thought that Maharaj Ji considered himself god". I have objected to that opinion on the grounds that it is OR. That is, it is "an analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the source", in that the Melton sentence doesn't provide any material about who or what Maharaj Ji considered himself to be. If you agree that the source does NOT provide any material that addresses what Maharaj Ji thought, please write Agree. If you don't, I'd like to hear your arguments.
AGREE. Momento ( talk) 07:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It is interesting how convoluted arguments can get on points of logic. The sentence "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God," implies "Maharaj Ji was, at one time, to be venerated as a God, but no longer." The "to be venerated" phrase is a parallel to the famous "mistakes were made" construction. There is nothing in the statement to even suggest who said that Maharaj was "to be venerated". It certainly does not imply anything about what Maharaj Ji said. It doesn't even say what Maharaj Ji's followers said. All it implies is that somebody, unnamed, said at one time that Maharaj Ji was to be venerated as a God and that somebody at a later time said otherwise. And that's as far as Wikipedia can go with this source. Surely there are other sources that are more explicit. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A reminder to User:PatW that we are here to discuss a content dispute not alleged contributor behavior, tendencies or past history. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
We have an IP hopper here who is continually either adding original research or replacing it when removed. They don't accept that sources need to discuss the Ouroboros and are adding their own interpretation. In their latest reversion [here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ouroboros&diff=prev&oldid=493957211] they have restored a section called "Judeo-Christianity" (whatever that is) - neither this section nor its sources mention the Ouroboros, but it is being kept in as the IP says "The Ouroboros is a symbol of overcome duality" which whether true or not is irrelevant in this case, as there's no mention of the Ouroboros. The IP is also adding OR at Atum, where he attacked an editor in an edit summary saying "Expelled a topic-banned user". Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Find someone who agrees with you and take turns reverting OR by this user. The more people who join in, the better. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged Ireland-Crown dependencies relations as WP:OR because it appears to me to be a form of WP:SYN. It conflates 3 sets of bilateral relationship between Ireland and other entities into one topic, without any external evidence to support the notion that the combined entity is a notable topic.
The material contained in this new article is mostly referenced, and may be incorporated elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I see no evidence so far to support a standalone article.
Please can someone else take a look? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to consist entirely of statistics (lengths of articles) from editions of an encyclopaedia. There are no sources so I can only conclude that this is mostly original research. I think there might also be a notability issue here. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
AFD by KoshVorlon. JJB 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The term corporatocracy has 21 valid references including a textbook definition and has 250+ pageviews daily. Another use didn't like the term for various reasons and redirected it to corporate plutocracy. There are no references saying the terms are interchangeable or that one term means the other. Few people use corporate plutocracy (only two usages in references). The redirect is original research.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There was a recent addition to Mill Run Playhouse which was a list of people who performed at this theater. The list looks legitimite but it's not sourced and the heading "notable performers" open things up to debate. I don't want to just delete the list, but it bugs me. Are lists in article subject to the same criteria as the rest of the article?
BTW, I had this same problem with Allstate Arena. I posted a similar question on that page's talk, but I no one responded, and the list is now endless.
Fuddle ( talk) 16:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have taken a high-resolution photo of what I believe is an Arizona gray squirrel, and I am considering donating it to the project. However, it is OR for me to determine what species of squirrel the photo depicts, and since the photo is my own there are no reliable sources that are able to back up my claim. Wikipedia:NOR#Original_images states that "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." So... can I claim that my photo depicts a particular species or not? Obviously, this happens all the time as a matter of practice but is it correct? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 17:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an RfC for the article Anti-Pakistan sentiment which appears to be covering a question of original research (can events be included in the article if no sources mention "anti-Pakistan" motivations?). Experts in the OR policy may wish to help out . Please provide any comments there, not here. -- Noleander ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could I please get some input at the above article. It was created a few days ago and was in a poor state. I removed a chunk of unencyclopaedic content that was unsourced/sourced to blogspot, but the author has continuously re-inserted it and ignored all communication attempts. I don't want to carry on reverting lest I fall foul of WP:3RR. Could someone help out please? I've also raised this at the WikiProject Islam talk page. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 08:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a large chunk of text in Battle of Ayta ash-Shab that doesn't belong to the article. All of the sources don't talk and don't mention at all this specific battle but rather on the results of the whole war.So its WP:UNDUE.Also this texts serves as WP:COATRACK to cast doubt in IDF number and present like the IDF numbers of killed Hezbollah member a bloated such argument may belong to the 2006 Lebanon War or to the Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon_War but definitively not to specific article about the war.Here the text that in question [47]-- Shrike ( talk) 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
The IDF says that between 41–70 rockets were fired from Aiyt a-Shab and its surrounding. Overall, the IDF lost seven soldiers in Aiyt a-Shab battles, and suffered 60 injuries, battling Hezbollah on the ground. It claimed to have killed 40 Hezbollah fighters.
The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth estimated that around ten local fighters were killed, in addition to an unspecified number fighters from outside the town.[19] According to the Yedioth Achronoth "Encyclopedia" of the Second Lebanon War, Lebanese sources put the number of Hezbollah fatalities during the war to 300 while Israeli sources claim that 700 were killed. This difference was, according to Yedioth Achronoth, mainly explained by the distinction made by the Lebanese between "combatant" and "civilian" members of Hezbollah.[59]
User Dilek2 has been adding a fringe theory that the Ottoman Turks are descended from Esau. [49] [50]. This editor has also posted this theory to several other pages [51] [52] and claimed the Orghuz Turks are descended from Uz (son of Aram) [53] [54] At no point has Dilek2 provided even the most unreliable of sources to support any of this. Edward321 ( talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Could we create a dynamic paraphrase Bible? The article on Second Timothy has a section titled, "Content," but it is opinions and descriptions of the text in 2nd Timothy - not the actual text/content of that Bible book. I would like to start with the KJV text and then see what editors develop. The page would have notes dealing with the Hebrew/Greek for each verse. Would these violate any guidelines? Just checking. OpusScript ( talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Moved from WP:Requests_for_comment/Request_board Coastside ( talk) 17:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone clarify on whether WP:OR is being used in the following example. The Periyar is one of the rivers flowing through the state of Kerala in India. The Mullaperiyar dam is built along the upper course of the river, about 60-65 km from the source. There are a couple of references ( 1, 2) which state that the catchment area of the Mullaperiyar dam lies entirely in Kerala. Would it constitute WP:OR to conclude from the above that the source of the Periyar lies in Kerala? - Ashinpt ( talk) 14:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Feminazi regarding whether the term is an example of reductio ad Hitlerum, and whether this should be stated in the article. Currently, no source provided in the article makes this claim explicitly. Proponents of inclusion say that it is "obvious" and "simple", while opponents claim that its inclusion would violate the policy on original research. I would appreciate it if editors familiar with the policy would provide their valuable insight.-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 19:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
NOTE: The issue of the term Feminazi being an example of "reductio at Hitlerum" is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Feminazi. To avoid duplicate threads on the same issue, I am centralizing the discussion there. Blueboar ( talk) 20:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Because many find the topic (releasing large dangerous animals in order to approximate the ecological communities of the late Pleistocene) exciting, the article had accumulated a lot of cruft about "ecological proxies", all of it beyond the original set unreferenced, and much of it clearly made up on the spot. I finally (after a two-month warning) deleted all the unreferenced stuff. An IP, user:74.130.58.198, has reinserted the deletions several times since ( [55], [56], [57]). The IP admits on my talk page that the items are "fictious" and needed to enhance creativity. I have pointed the IP to WP:NOR, but I fear an edit war, and would appreciate it if others could keep an eye on the article for a while.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Request for input on inclusion of alternative historical views regarding Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, the wife of Christopher Columbus. (on behalf of User_talk:Colon-el-Nuevo). See article talk page. Coastside ( talk) 07:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see - the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:No original research. These rules are not subordinated for consensus some users. This box violated the rules of Wikipedia. He invents the numbers taken from space, percentage counts and establishes the rights inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. User (author) makes use incomplete sources - not presenting the complete data. Template for delete. Subtropical-man ( talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Gavin Menzies#When did Taccola complete his treatise? I am arguing that a source that was written long before a book by Gavin Menzies was published cannot be used in the article to refute a book by Gavin Menzies. This also came up at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Fringe, established facts and synthesis. I'm being asked to provide A, B and C but this seems pretty simple, in a situation like this, sources need to directly address the subject, which in this case is the book. Dougweller ( talk) 10:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Our discussion evolves around this: Author Gavin Menzies claims in his 2002 fringe theory that a Chinese fleet visited Europe in 1434 and that the knowledge it brought along directly influenced the works of Renaissance artist Taccola. I added a reliable source from 1975 which states that Taccola finished his technical sketchs as early as 1433. Now Dougweller thinks that my adding is WP:SYN because Shelby (from 1975) did not address and refute Menzies directly (from 2002). However, I fail to see how this could be a synthesis. A synthesis is defined as
So a synthesis is if the disputed statement in the WP article arrives at a conclusion which is neither found in Menzies nor in Shelby. But the fact that Taccola had already completed his works in 1433 is what Shelby says, so it is found in one of the sources, and therefore it is no synthesis to reproduce what he says. To clarify the matter I asked Dougweller, now for the third time, to specify what he thinks is A, B and especially C, his supposedly synthetical conclusion. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you can say "X refutes Y" if X was written before Y. But I don't see why you can't say that "Mr A proposes theory B, which was previously disproven/challenged by Professor C in D". It really depends on the points in question and how closely they're linked. John Smith's ( talk) 17:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I edited Gavin Menzies using the text Blueboar suggested above (with a slight change). I'm not totally sure the source used is WP:RS, but I suppose that's a matter for a different board. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Does this violates WP:NOR?
Republic of Ireland have been eliminated.
On the next match day (18 June):
or
On the last match day (17 June) the teams advancing from this group (winner; runner-up) will be [1]:
If: | Portugal win | draw | Netherlands win |
Denmark win | Denmark and Portugal or Germany1 | Denmark; Germany | Denmark; Germany |
draw | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Denmark |
Germany win | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Portugal or Netherlands2 |
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Next_match_day_scenarios concerning this and people who are putting this stuff are claiming that it falls under routine calculations. As Euro 2012 is under way you can see examples at UEFA Euro 2012 Group A, UEFA Euro 2012 Group B, UEFA Euro 2012 Group C, UEFA Euro 2012 Group D.
WP:NOTOR clearly states the following:
I don't see how this is a routine calculation. Dr. Vicodine ( talk) 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_information_officer -- edits by Rrastin might be appropriate but didn't seem helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrflip ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 June 2012
Hello. After a lengthy discussion pointing out that it was nothing more than a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the article Ethereal being was redirected to non-physical entity. Its continents were found to be unsalvageable by consensus. There was also suspicion of sock puppetry among some of the editors opposing its removal (its problems were quite evident). That was thought to be the end of the sordid affair. However, recently a couple editors—at least one from that prior opposition—have taken it among themselves to continually restore that problematic article over at ethereal beings (as if a plural form solves the many issues). One user in particular has been spouting made up policy in an attempt to justify it. All the while ignoring the huge OR and synthesis issues, of course. Currently it redirects again, but it's likely that this user will simply be reverted again. More eyes could be used at Talk:Ethereal beings. :bloodofox: ( talk) 11:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Pretty obviously OR. Described as a "List of notable and controversial omissions", it seems to be the editor, who also created the now deleted List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature, is the one who decided who'd been overlooked. Dougweller ( talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Imagine that there is a book or movie with a plot or describable content. The precedent on Wikipedia is that any article on any work of fiction can have a plot summary or any work of non-fiction can have a synopsis as typically these cite the work itself as a source.
Where I can find a written policy which states that plot summaries can be either citable to the primary source or that they could be someone's original research into interpreting the content? This seems like original research, but I have never seen it listed as an exception to the rule of "no original research". Also, has anyone ever made a list of the kind of content which one may legitimately add to Wikipedia either without citations or otherwise by using the article's subject as a reliable source?
Please centralize discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:Plot-only_description_of_fictional_works#Plot_summaries_as_original_research.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "stinky ass." Rectal malodor is extensively referenced, but one of the only articles the user has contributed too; a Google search yields hardly any hits whatsoever. (Be warned; it's illustrated). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The articles Shrimp and Prawn do not appear to follow common usage, and I've started an RfC to address this. In particular, according to Wikipedia, Whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) is in fact not a shrimp. I think that's ridiculous; but my (overwhelming) evidence based on google hits has been rejected as original research. Due to the desire to restrict the scope of the "shrimp" article to a well-defined biological concept, across Wikipedia the term "shrimp" is now reserved for Caridea, which is much more restrictive than most of the world uses. Comments and help with the RfC would be welcome; thanks. 24.84.4.202 ( talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this original research? Comments are welcome at Talk:Epiousios#Original research. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The section 'Key words' here seems to be simply someone's count. Besides the fact I don't understand why the counts are here, shouldn't we have a reliable source for this? And it's not a pretty sight. Dougweller ( talk) 07:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a repeating reference to Ernie Davis being awarded the MVP of the 1961 Liberty Bowl. He did not receive this award because Dick Easterly won it that year. I am speaking on behalf of Dick Easterly. I am his wife and I have his trophy sitting in his office. Years back, I had viewed a College Statistics book that mentioned Ernie as the winner. I notified the author. Nothing was ever done to correct the mistake. Having earned the MVP that year, I feel that Dick should be given the proper recognition for the award. And, knowing Ernie Davis as my husband had known him for four years, Ernie would have gone to the same extremes as I am doing to correct the mistake. If you need to contact me, please do so by phone at (contact information removed).
There are currently discussion whatever to include the line this line [61] with proposed source [62] that does't mention Argaman in any way.Thus I and several other editors argue that this inclusion is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.I am asking for input of uninvloved editors about this issue.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 13:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor is using raw data to add text to the article here [63]. According to WP:OR the source must "explicitly" support the text. This is not the case.– Lionel ( talk) 07:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The OR on all of them is acceptable as it helps to identify where the tracks were used.
Yes someone called "Etron81" is removing it and it is very necessary for all the articles " Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack", " Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3"," Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4" and " Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials" because someone could be scouring their Doctor Who collection trying to find the pieces of music, when in fact, a non-main episode, i.e. one that it appears in, but not the one associated with it, has it in clearly enough to be heard.
Tried so just now. 86.147.124.98 ( talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I asked a question at the Doctor Who Project talk page and got a response there that this was OR that needed to be removed. After I started a dissenting opinion came in so I have stopped editing to see if consensus could be reached - I was not aware of this discussion here until just now. In my opinion there is a lot of OR here - especially notes that state "variation of", "a few notes used in", etc. that are VERY subjective and should be removed if it's an obvious reuse of a cue I would have no objection to it's inclusion. I will not edit any of these articles for OR until consensus is reached here - some of my edits have been reverted by others now. Etron81 ( talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was me, Etron, because I very strongly believe that they are completely fine. But also, not as important but I still want to point it out, I made some of the changes that you are removing myself. 86.147.124.98 ( talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC). P.S. I have just noticed that my reverts were only on Series 5 onwards. 86.147.124.98 ( talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I am opening a request for comment so that we can get more input into this issue. On these pages, should the "episodes used in" column only list what is listed in the liner notes (or other reliable sources), or can users recognise melodies and add them? My view that it should be the former, as the latter is very subjective at time, especially as motifs can be used in multiple pieces. Etron81 ( talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that even if a motif comes as part of two tracks (i.e. the musical sting at the beginning of " Westminster Bridge" and " All The Strange, Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)"), both of those tracks would be counted as being used simultaneously, but maybe with a note saying, "At the same time as ...", so that a reader will know it's a part of two songs. P.S. Do leave a comment on my talk page if that makes no sense. James Morris-Wyatt ( talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
A couple more edits removing unsourced notes have been made by another person: [64] [65] Etron81 ( talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This entire article seems to be laden with original research as to (1) what companies allow for users to purchase PCs without Windows or obtain refunds for unused Windows copies/licenses, (2) the applicable law, and (3) self-reported cases of obtaining or not obtaining a refund. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, I added a section on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research named " WP:WAF conflict with WP:NOR". Here is a shortened version my first posting.
(If you want, you can read the whole section here.)
There did not seem to be much enthusiasm for changing the policy on primary sources so the talk section morphed into a discussion about what to do with the "Elements of the show" section in TBBT. I regret to say that the other editors wore me down and eventually I agreed that we should leave "Elements of the show" essentially alone.
But, since this the venue to have such conversations, I'm wondering what you think? Should the entire section be deleted, tagged (and if so, with what?), left alone or what? And what should we do about the many, similar articles where the subject is a work of fiction? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been longterm disagreement between editors of Robin Hood (2010 film) about whether discussion of historical inaccuracies in this movie should be included in the article or not. This was subject to lengthy discussions in 2010, and has come up again recently after I removed a paragraph of original research and synthesis in this edit, which was reverted by Gautier lebon with the edit summary "Reverted change that contradicts agreement reached on talk page". Whilst the film undoubtedly includes historical inaccuracies (it is, after all, an adventure film not an historical documentary), there are no reliable sources that discuss this issue, and in my opinion the current text of the article is based on original research and synthesis. As there seems no possibility of consensus between the only two active editors of the article (myself and Gautier lebon), I am raising the issue here for input from uninvolved editors. BabelStone ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Gautier lebon clearly does not understand reliable sources policy as he proposes using as source unreliable sources (at 06:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)). MSN may not be reliable for the historical critique of contemporary pop-culture's use of history. The Guardian's film reviewer may only be minimally reliable—it depends on the specific claims. But Gautier lebon's conduct, including deceit from apparent ignorance of policy (despite policy being clearly explained) is concerning. I would encourage Gautier lebon to read WP:HISTRS and consider whether newspaper film reviewers, even from "broadsheets" such as the Guardian, meet the standards required. Anonymous blogs with Gautier lebon themselves admits are unreliable are not appropriate sources to base claims upon—this is what the reliable sources system exists to prevent. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Gautier lebon, please note that selectively notifying editors who you think may be favourable to your side of the argument, as you did here and here, with the non-neutral words "You may recall that you had commented favorably on the need for a section on historical inaccuraties in the article on Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. One of the editors opposed to that section has reactivated the discussion and is determined to delete the section ...", is contrary to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines (see WP:Votestacking). Please ensure that any future notifications to other editors are in line with the guidelines given at WP:CANVAS. Also, I am not determined to remove the section on historical inaccuracies, only remove those parts that are contrary to Wikipedia principles, as clearly indicated by my recent edits, which you again reverted to your preferred version. BabelStone ( talk) 11:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Outdent. I haven't seen any replies to my 30 July postings, but I don't suppose that silence implies consent, so I don't suppose that there is agreement to restore the material deleted by Babelstone. Nevertheless, I wonder whether a compromise solution would be acceptable, namely to add at the end of the Critical Reception section something like "For an accurate account of the events during King John's life, see John of England".-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 07:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A user has created a new article Nio Zen that seems mostly to be original research. It cites a lot of texts, but without precision (no page numbers) and mostly with regard to peripheral points of information, not with regard to Nio Zen. One text that is cited, Baroni's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism, does have an entry on Nio Zen, but none of it cites all that information about Pure Land Buddhism, Bodhi Darma, Shaolin monks, etc. that consume most of the article. All that smells of original research. It should be noted that the same editor has been going through Buddhism pages on Wikipedia and making additions that cite the Zenji Museum as a repository of important artworks. There is no proof of that, so I have removed them, but the Zenji Museum page (the museum, by the way, does not seem to exist in reality, since the page does not reveal its location other than a vague statement about downtown Toronto) is half about Nio Zen and its leader Zen Acharya, and seems to repeat many of the stances of the Nio Zen article (see also related pages here and here). I thus wonder whether all this original research is not also publicity for this person and his religion. I have also asked this of WikiProject Buddhism, but any help determining whether this belongs on Wikipedia or not would be appreciated. Michitaro ( talk) 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a spillover issue from WP:RSN. We at least understand our RS positions over there. However an OR issue has been raised. The RS issue is whether a quote from an unreliable source, Conservapedia, hereafter C, can be used as a primary source about itself, SELFSOURCE. This is quoting C in an article about C. For that argument, go to WP:RSN.
The OR issue is twofold.
First, is this construction, Examples include: A, B, C WP:SYNTH? I say no. WP:SYNTH says A and B, therefore C. With this construction, Examples include: A, B, C, no inference is being drawn. It could just as well be Examples include: C and B. This is just a list and each element stands on its own; no syllogism is present and no inference is being drawn. It could be An example is A.
Second, can a Wikipedia editor use a primary source independently of some secondary source? For lack of a better term, Dmcq has called this trawling. I say yes. It is almost too basic to argue. Yes, a secondary source makes the point more notable but Wikipedia:Notability is a topic issue not a source issue. You really have to ask why it is necessary to place this burden on an editor.
WP:OR says: The term original research (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. But in this case the fact, the source, is the text; it exists; it's right there. The author/text relationship is not in dispute. C said A. Forbidding this as OR would be saying that unless/until some reliable secondary source says that C said A an article can't say that C said A.
Anyways that interpretation of OR seems strange and restrictive to me. It doesn't seem to follow from the definition of OR. I'd appreciate if others can weigh in.-- Olsonist ( talk) 23:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am having a little difficulty understanding this debate... but I think the situation is as follows: A reliable source says Conservapedia is biased in a particular way (X). An editor here wishes to quote or cite an article at Conservapedia (Y) as an example of that bias. If this is what the debate is about, then I think there is an OR issue... because saying that Y actually is an example of the bias that source X is talking about is an a statement of analysis or interpretation. (Correct me if I am misunderstanding what the debate is about). Blueboar ( talk) 15:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If an item is found on a website without a secondary source pointing to it and it satisfies WP:SELFCITE but would not not normally satisfy WP:RS nor is it a straightforward top level 'about' or 'main' type link, is it okay to cite that when describing the site? How about to support an opinion in a secondary source that points to another page but not that one? Dmcq ( talk) 17:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Page: Radical Right ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right. Opposition to the Obama administration is seen as motivated by fear and racism, focusing on issues such as immigration, terrorism, same sex marriage, abortion and an African-American president. Chip Berlet has described it as "the type of right-wing populist movement seen throughout U.S. history".
What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid ([Bell, D. (Ed.). 1963. The radical right. New York: Criterion Books]; [Lipset, Seymour Martin. "The sources of the "Radical Right". In Daniel Bell (Ed.), The radical right]; [Hofstadter, Richard. "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt". In Daniel Bell (Ed.), The radical right, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, 1965).... However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities. Moreover, the comparison with previous populist movements hides more than it reveals about the political nature of the Tea Party and the current state of American politics."
Comments:
It is clear that the author is claiming that recent scholarship places the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right, as originally defined in
Daniel Bell's book The Radical Right, although he himself opposes that categorization. The fact that different writers disagree over terminology is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article "Radical Right" clearly explains the differences in the use of terminology and it is about a general topic, not a specific term.
TFD ( talk) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this grossly misrepresents the issues.
[3] shows the material TFD is trying to add. With the misleading edit summary of The source, which is fairly brief, uses term 12 times, as well as synonyms
The problem is that the only mention in the article (noting that the cite does not even give any page number etc. at all) is:
How one can claim that this is sufficient in any way to state in Wikipedia's voice that the Tea Party Movement is Radical Right is beyond me, when the author specifically says it is not "Radical Right". It is quite like using "John Doe is not a Gnarphisyt" in a source to then add in his BLP "John Doe is a Gnarphist." It is an abuse of the source utterly and completely to turn what the author states on its head - and then make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. And saying that "the author uses synonyms for radical right even though he has said it is not radical right means that we can say it is radical right" is Humpty-Dumptyism of the first water. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This may be more of a formality, but there's a critter named after Dorjee Sun which was mentioned in several publications (and in the article). However the species has not been described biologically (in the professional literature, in accordance with usual taxonomic rules), which is required to assign it a Latin name. No one disputes those facts, however there's no publication saying "it is not a legitimate name." I find myself in a rather peculiar position of asking an editor to produce a citation to demonstrate no citation exists. It is not a dispute in the sense that anyone disputes the facts, but I was curious how editors here might deal with this. Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 16:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A few years ago, I published a couple of alternatives to the current theories in sexual selection in peer-reviewed journals. I added a brief paragraph to the WP article on sexual selection describing those articles, but other editors have said it violates guidelines on originality, because at one point I used the world "original" to mean innovative, non-derivative. My understanding is that WP "originality" specifically means work that is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Please clarify for us. Thanks.-- BooksXYZ ( talk) 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this List of biggest box office bombs has been compiled through original research; the net loss required to be called a "box office bomb" is not clear, and seems to be an arbitrary cut-off defined by the editors. I see the desire for a short list of the biggest flops included in the article Box office bomb, but the "statistics" section at the end (which is based off of the Wikipedia list) appears to be purely original research. I've tried removing the BLP violations, but I suspect that the entire "statistics" section should be cut, most of the list trimmed, and the remaining short-list merged into Box office bomb. Do others agree, or have other thoughts? Mlm42 ( talk) 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no original research in this article. All information provided is based on specific references, and all films of the list are considered as box office bombs according to the box office bomb definition of the article
box office bomb. All compromises for the Net loses have also been well defined in the article. Regarding “statistics” it gets all its information from Wikipedia articles of the films found in the list and no other external sources are used. In other words the list itself is the source of this info. Therefore there is no original research either.
Clicklander (
talk) 11:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The following paragraph contains information which I believe constitutes original research on the part of the original poster of the information (not to mention it just looks trashy):
Weblog
Geekologie is updated multiple times a day with articles on gadgets, video games, consumer electronics and popular culture related to games and movies. The identity of the writer behind the weblog has never been identified, instead only referred to as "Geekologie Writer." typically referred to as "GW"[2][3] Despite this enigmatic persona, some clues have come to light about his identity. In his 10,000th post, GW links to another blog saying "Thanks to everyone who made this journey possible...one very, VERY special little lady..." embedding a link to http://cocoalikesthis.com/ in the words "special little lady".[6] That blog is written by an author who claims to "live in Hollywood, CA with j, who is the King of the Internets..." leading some to speculate that the GW name likely begins with the letter J.[7] This blog links to a twitter "following" page, where one of the 20 accounts being followed is "Jonathan Berisford". Online photos of Mr. Berisford match those previously published on geekologie.com. The LinkedIn profile for Jonathan Berisford lists Virginia Tech as "Education" (the GW has made numerous references to Virginia Tech) as well as listing the Twitter account as "geekologie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.154 ( talk • contribs)
I removed some material from Manly Palmer Hall which the editor said was the result of their own work. [5] Note that I seem to have left some similar material there, an error but only if I was right in removing what I removed. The editor who added it has asked me about my removal and I thought I should bring it here.
On my talk page, he sais "You recently removed some entries in which I quoted some materials from different editions of The Secret Teachings of All Ages, on grounds that it constituted personal research. With respect, this seemed odd because the materials I posted were largely quoted from the books themselves, and I identified each of them by Edition and Copy Number. My intentions in posting the information was to assist interested users in distinguishing features unique to two of the editions. In one case, I own a copy of the Edition from which information was quoted; and in the other case, I obtained the information (a copy of the pertinent page) directly from the Librarian of the Philosophical Research Society. In reading the rules, I understand the importance of sourcing, and in these instances the materials I posted were taken directly from, and attributed to, copies of the different Editions themselves. I'd appreciate it if you would be kind enough to reconsider the removals on the basis of the foregoing; however, I am not an expert at Wikipedia and only occasionally make specific contributions when I think the materials are of genuine interest, and I have published sources as evidence. Thank you." I'll tell him about this post. Dougweller ( talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I removed some content added to the above article which I thought was OR and probably unverifiable (diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&diff=485345536&oldid=484807424). Looking through the history, the addition of unsourced negative outlooks on white people has been a persistent problem with this article. I think it is likely the editor will come back and contest my revert, and I wanted to get people's opinion on the material in question. Here it is:
A common stereotype held by various African-American, Hispanic-American and Native American communities in U.S is that White people are generally clueless -- or, at least, don't care -- about personal hygiene. One of the most prominent stereotypes is that White people tend not to wash their hands very much, if at all. Another common stereotype is that White people do not wash or clean themselves and that even when they try to do so that they are incapable of properly doing so. A popular origin story for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves.
The stereotype of the fearful, cowardly White man and woman is also extremely prominent and held by many different minority communities in the Western World. Both White men and women are seen to be without backbone and frightened by the prospect of coming into contact with non-White person. White men are considered to have a chronic, almost obsessive fear of Black men because of their perceived sexual potency and prowess, physical strength and aggression, their ability to "steal our women" and certain bestial-like qualities. These stereotypes have a strong historical basis from racist propaganda spread during the 19th and early 20th century about Black people by racist organizations-- in particular, the Ku Klux Klan. White women are also considered to be "easy lays" (aka sexually promiscuous) and they will always go for "dark meat" over White men.
White people are also considered to be generally ignorant of the wider world and how people of other cultures and ethnicities live. A common related stereotype is that White people are not just ignorant of the wider world because of reason such as poor education and minimal exposure to other peoples but because they choose to be, usually out of a sense of fear, arrogance or racism. White people are generally considered to be "dumb" when it comes to social interaction on a level greater than their immediate circles and comfort zones (a most recent Internet meme portraying archetypcial examples of how young White women relate to friends of a minority ethnicity the world over) and that they have no real understanding of how the wider world works, especially for those who are economically and socially middle-class and above. They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various ways.
White people are considered to have a serious problem with sexual deviancy and psychopathy. Both White men and women are considered to have sexual desires and attitudes that are bizarre, fetishistic and oftentimes illegal and/or immoral. A widely held notion of this stereotype is that White men like to rape people of minority ethnicity, particularly African-American and Asian-American women. This has a historical basis in the treatment of African slaves on plantations by White slavemasters and highly racist and segregated era of the 19th and early 20th century in the United States, as well as the treatment of East Asian women overseas in Vietnam, China and Japan as well as in the U.S by White males. White males are considered to represent an alarmingly large proportions of men reported, charged and convicted of sexual crimes involving minors as well as a significant proportion of pedophiles in the U.S, Canada and the UK. Many of the most notorious and widely known cases of this kind were perpetrated and carried out by White males, such as Peter Woodcock, Wayne Garcey and Collin Hatch.
82.32.22.139 ( talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly unsourced original research and you're acting appropriately to delete it. Davidwhittle ( talk) 07:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be 90% original research. I have also raised this topic on Fringe/n since the bulk of the OR deals with a pseudo-scientific medical treatment. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Davidwhittle ( talk · contribs) has asserted that the Religious influences section of the Glenn Beck article is original research, even though (as far as I can find) the section at no point says anything the cited sources do not outright say. He says that " The bulk of the section on Religious (Influences) is comprised of pointless speculation," and continues to assert that " Opinions of others about Beck's religious leadership (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant" even though I have explained that " The section mostly consists of secondary sources instead of primary sources. Sticking mostly with what Beck says would open up the door to original research. The "pointless" speculation is (for us) unoriginal research."
Am I wrong here? The most I could see is perhaps retitling the section. All the material given appears to be supported by the sources, and does not combine sources to reach any novel conclusions. I'm inclined to believe this editor does not understand what OR and may be editing with an agenda, based on this tagbombing series of edits and this edit refering to the LDS Church as "The Church." Ian.thomson ( talk) 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Page: Radical Right ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Article section:' Radical Right#Tea Party
In a recent paper, Richard Courser begins, "What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid (Bell 1963; Lipset 1955; Hofstadter 1955, 1965)". [7] He identifies the sources in brackets as Daniel Bell's 1963 book. The radical right, two 1955 articles by Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter included in that book and Hofstadter's 1965 collection of essays which includes his 1955 article. Much of the paper is devoted to discussing these writings.
Is it synthesis to conclude that Courser is referring to the writing by Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter when he says "past scholarly work"?
TFD ( talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(od) Of all things, TFD [12] accuses me of not responding! (However you have not addressed the question at the noticeboard) BTW, my UT page is not a place for him to cluter up with an issue he raised. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 10:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
At Jebusite this edit [13] says "While not directly mentioning the Jebusites genetic research has noted that Palestinians (specifically Palestinian Muslim Arabs) largely descend from converted Christians and Jews who have lived in the area since what the researchers state as prehistoric times (which would include in Canaanite times)." I'd reverted something similar earlier and asked the editor not to replace it but to go here if they thought this wasn't original research, but they chose to replace it again. Struggling a bit with this editor. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see George Washington and religion for a POV/OR dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar ( talk) 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.
The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according to the original research guideline but that does not discredit my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.
iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.
Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuMaNuMa ( talk • contribs)
Hi, just set out to become a new page patroller and have already encountered plenty of thorny questions, this article was created by copy pasting another cartoon article, not a problem, I just updated the no refs tag, but I think that the writer is literally watching the cartoon and writing the action step-by-step. This is a 7 minute short and there are paragraphs and paragraphs of plot, with a lot of wierd stuff thrown in about Greta Garbo and mustachioed fish. I don't know if this qualifies as OR, could someone take a look, maybe prune it down and have a quiet word with the enthusiastic editor? Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Growing up as an American in the '70's, I was more than dimly aware of the popularity of the Bee Gees. I love 'em! I read the liner notes of the albums, but as a "thick" American with no exposure to international news outlets, I always thought that Maurice Gibb's name was pronounced "More-eece" (deferring to the French in regards to pronunciation). But it's pronounced as "Morris" in reality, and always has been. How do I introduce the correct pronunciation into the article when I can't find anything that is printed that actually makes this distinction? I would feel "weird" just putting a phonetic translation without something to reference it to, but I would also hate to see anyone else make the same mistake I always have. Any suggestions besides IAR? Doc talk 10:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
YouTube is actually the only source that I've seen that backs up the correct pronunciation (especially when it comes to interviews with the brothers), but we've got to be careful about copyright with that site. This seems to be the official channel, and I'll look for a clip there. Good call with the YouTube! Cheers :> Doc talk 10:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to include a great deal of original research. I'm also skeptical of whether it satisfies WP:SCH since none of the links provided suggest any enduring notability or even a trivial mention in secondary sources. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a general question about OR and primary sources, which has not yet been applied to an article. If this isn't a good place to ask, please let me know where would be better. Here is the situation. Facts about an event in the past (1955) have been written in several secondary sources, (Published reference books, magazine articles) although they all relate a first person account, and nothing recent (past 1972) has been published. There has never been a published claim that these facts are not true. Now, certain WP editors claim that the facts presented in these sources are not true and that the person who authored these accounts is lying. There is no actual proof of this however.
In the mean time, I have tracked down the original person who was interviewed for these secondary sources, and have a chance to interview them myself, to confirm the facts from the secondary sources. Because this interview would be used only to establish that this person did indeed do what they claimed in the secondary source, with no interpretation, is this type of this allowed? Is it OR to confirm what the secondary sources say? The interview, which I plan to record would be a primary source, so could it be used for just establishing if the event did or did not happen? There is no reason to think that the person is or was lying, but is this an acceptable means to calm doubting editors? (Whose qualms seem to be mostly based on personal bias, but regardless, it would be nice to know.) Because the event was witnessed by only 2 people in the world, it seems to me that this is an acceptable thing. Please let me know what others think. pschemp | talk 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I also need to add that the person I can interview is not the person who is the source the original articles. The two were traveling together, the event happened and the 1st is the source of the published information. The second, whom I will speak with was a witness, but not the source of the first person articles or interviews. pschemp | talk 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask others to comment on adding an unsourced category to several biographies when not supported by anything in the article's text.
Specifically, User:GreatOrangePumpkin has been adding Category:Russian monarchists to such articles as Dmitri Mendeleev and others. Here is what's going on:
(edit summary: unsourced)
(edit summary: see http://books.google.de/books?id=GHDlXwAACAAJ&dq=Mendeleev+monarchist&hl=de&sa=X&ei=lF-MT4D8GI_htQbL08zrCw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA for example)
(edit summary: rv, that's a paper copy of Wikipedia articles (really - see the description in your link))
(edit summary: it was just an example. Please search on Gbooks for beginners)
(edit summary: rv, it's your job to provide a source for a claim you make -- WP:BURDEN)
(edit summary: Undid revision 488061537 by Zloyvolsheb (talk) please use google, thanks.)
The only Google Books result describing Dmitri Mendeleev as a "monarchist" is just a paper copy of Wikipedia (see search results). It seems the burden of proving a claim falls on the person making it, so that "Google it" is not a proper answer ( WP:BURDEN). If GOP is so sure that the source exists, why can't he add it to the article?
I do not want to fruitlessly edit war over this, and would appreciate if someone could aid in the process of dispute resolution. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a dilemma in that I have original research, so much in fact that I wrote a book covering the material.( see "The Content of Their Character" Trafford Publishing 2009) I must admit that I have this book as an item to promote and this is not generally acceptable for Wikipedia, but there is no other way for this original research material to be presented systematically. Beside that there is no one else to present it accurately. The controversial Underground Railroad Quilt code is a thorny subject for historians. A bit of notoriety developed in 1999 when authors Raymond Dobard and Jaqueline Tobin wrote a book about the subject "Hidden in Plain View". This started a vehement response from established academics who considered their work amateurish and woefully undocumented.
That sets the stage for my dilemma, as I try to present valid arguments in favor of a code with the field having been marred some what by what these authors have instigated. I have material that has no association with that book but nonetheless reveals quite a bit of the documented history of a family of fugitive slaves that lived beyond the Civil war era to settle in a predominantly Black village in Ohio. They created a quilt in 1877 which has been erroneously labeled a "crazy quilt" which was a popular fad at the time. I have consulted numerous textile experts and historians while writing this book. There is a point of departure of this quilt from the norm of crazy quilts that can be readily defined. The book demonstrates the coding method that is present on this quilt and reveals a very systematic method of construction. The code can only be held in relation to the Underground Railroad by consideration of the fact that the makers of the quilt where documented in 1861 as fugitive slaves and if anyone would have knowledge of such an Underground Railroad code, it would be these folks. Having been made long after the Civil war and slavery, the quilt served not as a slave device but possibly served some communal function to Blacks attempting to survive in the Reconstruction era. More research is needed to establish this function. I have produced a brief video on the subject here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSnGimgonAQ The provenance of the quilt been established. It still exists in fine condition and is available for museum display. The code is there for those who wish to investigate the phenomenon.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.206.195 ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 April 2012
An editor wants to include in the Eurabia article a sentence stating that use of the word "Eurabia" increased as a result of Anders Behring Breivik using it in his manifesto. He wants to cite Google Trends as proof/source. I've argued that that is original research. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this sort of thing original research?
[24]
Source A talks about the making of a film, mentioning some locations. It has mention of a road that appeared in the film.
Source B is Google maps which can show locations. It has no mention of any film.
These two sources were used to say that the road is used in the film. "It is not
WP:OR to cross reference a filming location (the exterior of the garage and restaurant in this case) with its address on Google Maps to derive that the filming location is on Main Street, which also happens to be RM 187"
[25]
The opposing veiw tagged both sources (originally just source A) with
failed verification as neither stated what was claimed and called the section original research. "That sort of cross referencing is
original synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.""
[26]
Is it okay to expect readers to do their own research to verify what is written?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 08:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! I'm back with another data question. Simply this time, would it be OR to include the table below in the article Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom?
RANK (1-5) | AVERAGE | UNIVERSITY | RANK (6-10) | AVERAGE | UNIVERSITY | RANK (11-15) | AVERAGE | UNIVERSITY |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.3 | University of Cambridge | 6 | 6.3 | University College London | =10 | 10.8 | University of Lancaster |
2 | 2.0 | University of Oxford | 7 | 7.0 | University of Warwick | 12 | 13.3 | University of York |
3 | 3.3 | London School of Economics | 8 | 8.0 | Imperial College London | 13 | 13.5 | Loughborough University |
=4 | 5.5 | Durham University | 9 | 10.3 | University of Bath | 14 | 14.8 | University of Bristol |
=4 | 5.5 | University of St Andrews | =10 | 10.8 | University of Exeter | 15 | 16.3 | University of Sussex |
As you can see in the article, there are four different University ranking tables. All the table above does is take the average of the four rankings for each university and sort them by that average. The maths is very easy to check, you could look up, for example, to find that the University of Bath was ranked 10th, 14th, 5th and 12th in the four tables, (10+14+5+12)/4=10.3 to 1 decimal place. Any other issues I could imagine coming up: the top 15 is not an entirely arbitrary number, I was originally going to do the top 10 but as you can see there was a draw for 10th place. Doing 15 also keeps the three-column format of the rest of the tables. Doing many more would begin to bring in problems with universities being on only 3 of the 4 tables. The format for draws follows the same in the article, the universities are ordered in alphabetical order.
Anyway, I would like to think this falls under WP:CALC, but I just wanted to be sure. Full disclosure: I have actually reverted someone adding this table in the past, however they didn't give any evidence of the calculations as I did and they also didn't show the draws properly. I've been meaning to get back to this for some time, so here it is.-- 23230 talk 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
An editor has added a number of political parties to Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations without any sources, or by providing a link to their websites. When I removed these entries he restored them with the notation "Added all parties. General message: based on my research, all the parties I added are social liberal partes, or at least mostly. Please stop deleting my entries." [27]
When I set up a discussion thread, complaining about sourcing and also that at least some of the entries were not social liberal parties, he replied, "The articles on the parties I’ve added, together with the weblinks I’ve provided, provide evidence that the parties I’ve added are socially liberal." [28] However, as the article history shows, the editor has removed some of the parties he added, as he revises his opinion.
This appears to me to be a clear case of original research. Could other editors please comment.
TFD ( talk) 03:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ken Livingstone's article discusses that he worked for a TV channel called Press TV. This is mentioned in
this BBC source, which I also used as a source to state, "The network is pro-Palestinian, anti-sanctions against Iran, and critical of Western foreign policy." Is it OR or SYN to include this description in the article.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork 18:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Craptastic amount of wp:synthesis in the academia section. Given that the material was unsourced at one point [29], you can guess how well the sources added actually support any of that, let alone the material as a whole. (Yes, I used to have an account here, but gave up in disgust. But this article is a record even by BSopedia standards.)
In the Benaiah article, an editor has concluded from this reference that the name can also mean "Son of Yahweh". Is that original synthesis? St Anselm ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I would hold that the reading from the first source is synthesis, but the proposition itself might well be defended from other sources. The first good one I found affirms "son of the Lord" (i.e., LORD), and IMHO it is not synthesis to gloss that source as "son of Yahweh"; two or three sources on this point should be sufficient to carry "son of Yahweh" as one valid gloss of Benaiah. JJB 22:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem is really in the lack of vowels in Hebrew and the fact that "Ben" and "Bena" (added vowel) are quite likly related (one could easily see a "son" as being something "one has built" and vice versa). See [30] which is where the source discusses this. Collect ( talk) 12:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
In the article I'm currently working on ([NGO Monitor]), the organisation in question reports that one of their major donors is the Jewish Agency For Israel (JAFI). Pretty much every major news organisation I can find describes JAFI as a 'quasi-governmental body' (NYT, BBC, Guardian, JPost etc). The simple version of the question is: can I say that JAFI is 'widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body' in describing them as one of NGOM's donors? The statement is obviously true but do I need to have a source that specifically calls JAFI a quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding?
Now for the more complex version: NGOM state on their website that they receive no financial support from any government. However, their biggest donor is JAFI, who are widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation. Can I put the information that their largest donor is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body next to their own claim that they receive no governmental support?
Now, one more possible complication: there is actually one source that does describe JAFI as a quasi-governmental body in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding. This may or may not be considered a reliable source (online blog-based magazine run by established professional journalists with the article being written by an established journalist, although the site is own as a collective by the writers so arguably self-published ...) but how secure does a source have to be for a statement that is in any case true?
The way I see it is that the statement is factually true but might (?) be considered OR/SYNTH if no source directly links NGOM's funding with JAFI's status (although connecting the two points doesn't lead to a distinct third point as a conclusion). However, I would have thought that once that connection has been made it can no longer be claimed that the statement is OR/SYNTH and that the formal reliability of the source shouldn't matter too much because all it is being drawn on is for a statement that is indisputably true, whether or not one might have questions about its reliability when it comes to questionable facts. But I'm no policy wonk and would like to hear what others have to say. Thanks. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 09:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe this article has many problems with original research, particularly WP:SYNTH. I'd like to focus on two paragraphs in Christ_myth_theory#Meaning_of_the_whole_term:
Sources that try to actually define the entire term "Christ Myth theory" and "Jesus Myth Theory" only add to the confusion. The 1988 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines Christ Myth Theory thus: "(the) view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes, and its basis is sought in the parallels, actual or legendary, to the Gospel records concerning Jesus", and then presents Lucian, G. A. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and P Graham as examples of this concept.[29] Lucian, however, never said that Jesus did not exist as a flesh and blood man, but rather mocked the story of Jesus and the belief of Christians;[30] Wells has stated, even in his pre-Jesus Legend works, that Paul's Jesus was mythical in the legendary sense of the word (ie historical myth);[31] and Russell and Graham both "left open the question of whether there was such a figure as Jesus of Nazareth as the Gospels portray Him."[29] Furthermore both Greek and Norse myth stories have a huge range of theories regarding their origins including distortions of actual historical events[32][33] As late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods"[34] and these three with Mithras are the cults Bromiley says that Jesus' death and resurrection story suggests to some minds as being a variant of. As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way.
This passage is based on an editor's opinion that the definition of the Christ myth theory is ambiguous and problematic. The first sentence is pure opinion—there is no secondary sources that states that the definition of the term is confused. Then the passage quotes the entry on "Jesus Christ" from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and analyses the quote, with a bunch of citations. None of these citations comment on the entry in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and none of them says that the definition in the encyclopedia is unclear. This is, then, a use of published sources to advance an editor's own position—a clear instance of WP:SYNTH.
There are some other problems as well. Even though the text attributes the definition to Bromiley, he is probably not the author of the entry in question, he was the editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia. And despite what is claimed, there is no reason to think that the definition of Christ myth theory is unclear, either in the quoted entry or in any other secondary source. But the main policy issue is that an editor is trying to put his own opinion into this Wikipedia article through WP:SYNTH. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article has extensive problems, but I was hoping that posting here would result in a discussion focused on one specific problem. What do people think of the passage I posted above? Is it ok to have Wikipedia say things like "As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way" without that opinion appearing in any secondary source? This looks like obvious original research to me; what do others think? Jobberone indicates that there's synthesis in the article, but doesn't address my question specifically.
And Dmcq, the "Jesus was a purely spiritual being" idea is part of the Christ myth theory. Maybe some context would help—in the 19th century, people started applying historical method to the Gospels and other early Christian writings to try to figure out what the actual history was behind our stories about Jesus. In general, scholars found that the sources give us information about a human being who lived in the early part of the 1st century CE and whose preaching led to the formation of Christianity, even though they disagreed vehemently about many details of Jesus' life. The Christ myth theory grew out of this attempt to find the real history behind the Gospels. It says that you can't use these sources to find out about the life of a human being because there was no historical Jesus at the root of it all. Christ-myth theorists' explanations of the real origins of Christianity differ, but an explanation common to many mythicists is that Christianity developed from a Jewish sect that worshipped a savior-god called Joshua (the same name as Jesus—Joshua is a more direct transliteration whereas Jesus is filtered through Greek). This Joshua was not initially thought of as a human being, but as a purely spiritual being, essentially a god, but over time he was given human characteristics, so that eventually the Gospels portray him as a human being (though a special kind of human being). So the idea that Jesus was originally understood as a purely spiritual being is an alternative account of Christianity's origins that arises from the initial step of saying that there was no historical Jesus at Christianity's beginnings. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears to me from the discussion above that other editors share my concerns about original research in this article. However, the editor responsible for the problematic text is removing the {{ synthesis}} tag from the article: [31] [32]. Can anyone suggest a course of action? --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The article tries to address the problems User:Ludwigs2, User:Vesal, User:Peregrine_Fisher, User:Blueboar, User:jbolden1517, User:^^James^^, User:SlimVirgin, User:Crum375, User:Wdford had with the old version. In fact, Paul B and Bill the Cat 7 both agreed that the idea of the Gospel Jesus as a composite character "may legitimately fall under the umbrella of "Christ Myth Theory" though they never answered the question of would that include a 1st century teacher who was NOT crucified being in the mix.
Nevermind Anthony's relevant questions of 24 April 2010 were ignored:
"If the Christ myth theory means "Jesus did not exist", what does that mean?
This article has had numerous attempts at getting a consensus regarding its definition and all have been failures.
Then you have the many times this has come up: [ [34]]
SlimVirgin set what the guidelines should be for the article:
1) It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ.
2) It should make clear whether it's a term used mainly by proponents or opponents. It should explain the history of the theory and the naming of the theory.
3) It should outline the different ways in which a person might be such a theorist (soft, hard), sourced to secondary sources to avoid OR.
So far I have been the only one to try and apply those guidelines.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 09:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In case this wasn't clear - in my opinion the entire first half of the lede of the article is OR, "Sources that try to ... equally reliable references" is clearly OR, and "It is unhelpful that breaking this spectrum down into categories tends to be dependent on the author in question" is OR. More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ." This statement may well be true, but it is OR to place it in the article outside of a context of writers of theories about the non existence of christ. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 03:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Several things here
@Elen of the Roads, I suggest reading WP:NOTOR which clearly states "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation." No actual explanation was provided just that the authors that do break down the spectrum have their own takes on where the breakdowns are. For what it is worth I have remove or edited the problematic passages you pointed out above.
Furthermore changing the title to Non-existence of historical Jesus theories is no help as it doesn't address Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's two ways that Jesus could be historical:
1) Jesus actually existed as human being rather than being a totally fictional creation like King Lear or Dr. Who
or
2) the Gospel accounts give a reasonable account of historical events, rather than being unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur.
Marshall warns "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."
A) Volney, Frazer, Remsburg, Robertson, Mead, Ellegård, and Wells, all accepted the possibility of a historical Jesus being involved in the myth but have been put into some form of the Christ Myth theory category. Per Marshall this deep sixes them denying option 1 (Jesus was a flesh and blood man) leaving us to say they are denying option 2 (the Gospels are reasonable accurate as historical documents).
B) non historical doesn't really tells us anything. Shakespeare's Richard III is non historical in in terms of appearance and possibly actions as well but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real Richard III he was based on. Conversely as explained by Remsburg and others King Arthur Pendragon and Robin Hood Earl of Huntington are non historical mythical versions of possibly historical people.
In fact, as again noted in the article Archibald Robertson stated in 1946 "(John M.) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one man having contributed something to the Gospel story." and that "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded".
Ok, by this criteria a first century Jesus who was born in Cana c12 BCE, never set foot in Nazareth, preached a few words of now lost wisdom in Galilee, and got himself run over by a chariot at the age of 50 would fit the bill as he didn't teach "as reported in the Gospels" and certainly wasn't "put to death in the circumstances there recorded".
@Paul B: As Remsburg noted in 1909 "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."
Even Drews admitted "If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with, this can naturally not be opposed; but we know nothing of this Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow."
As I said back in 16:05, 22 January 2008 "Well to be fair the academic evidence on both sides is a mess. Most of it boils down to statements in popular books rather than peer reviewed journals resulting in a he said-she said situation. A related problem is the kind of excluded middle that seems to exist in the debate boiling down to either the Jesus of the Bible existed or he didn't. The problem with that is Jesus could be like King Arthur or Robin Hood who in part can linked to a historical people (Riothamus and Sire Johannes d'Eyvile respectively) but so much has been added in that the King Arthur or Robin Hood we know are composite characters with very little (if anything) left of the original historical people."
Even after some three years of pointing it out several editors still haven't grasped the basic concept that "saying the story of a person is a piece of mythology is NOT the same as saying the person themselves didn't exist." As I said way back in 20 January 2009 "The stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Paul Reveres' famous ride via Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, or the umteen dime novels of various 19th century people like Jessie James, Wild Bill Hickok who undeniable existed cases in point (George W. Chilcoat and Joan M. Gasperak (1984), Young Adult Literature: The Dime Novel or How to Vitalize American Literature Classes, National Council of Teachers of English clearly state that some of the early dime novels stories were in fact using real people and real events while not claiming to be real history) (sic)." I explained these problems in detail in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_22#Bromiley and brought them up regarding Mythicist in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_41#The_Mythicist_Position.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your dodging the question present with claims of SYN and OR. Again read WP:NOTOR. If you are so sure of your position mind telling us why you are supporting suspected sockpuppets [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=487835306&oldid=487832192}}? Also the claim that this is a "modern" theory depends if the phrase "Jesus is a myth" means he was a historical myth ala King Arthur and Robin Hood or a philosophical myth (personification of an idea) The alter is certainly of modern origin but the former dates all the way back to Celsus (c180 CE)
Furthermore the Docetism connection was kicked around in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_39#Docetism and since then I found a 1990 reference that states "Some skeptics argue that Jesus was a myth. Ancient scholars named this theory "docetism," apparently because, to them, Jesus never actually came into the world as a flesh- and-blood man but only seemed to be here.." Last time I checked 1990 was considered modern.
Stop removing huge sections of the article with no discussion with claims that are not bore out by the references being used in the article. This IMHO blatant POV pushing of yours is way past tiresome. Oh for what it is worth in the interests of NPOV I have added a 2009 reference to Robert Price who states that the term "Docetism" along with other terms has suffered a fate similar to brand names like Xerox, Jello, and Kleenex and been broadened "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow" In other words Docetism can have two meanings depending on it context.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@Elen of the Roads: Ok you said "THIS article needs to be about the various theories that the Jesus dude as described in the Gospels never existed." and gave a really wild and extreme example. But this still leave those versions of the Christ Myth theory (Robertson, Welsh, post-Jesus Legend Wells) where the myth came first but a historical teach could have been later integrated into the stories. Again by WP:WEIGHT Wells' Mythical Paul Jesus + historical Q Jesus (who does some of the things related in the Gospels) = Gospel Jesus would be a Christ Myth theory. Using NPOV how do we address that?
Paul B: You didn't check the history of the Docetism article did you? " Earl Doherty and Timothy Freke have suggested docetism arose from christ mythicism" was added on 20:55, December 13, 2007 [ [38]] and was changed to " Earl Doherty and Timothy Freke have suggested docetism arose from the nonexistence hypothesis. on 05:28, August 12, 2010 [ [39]] long before I ever saw that article.
The connection between Docetism and the Christ myth theory has been in that article for two YEARS perhaps as long as FIVE years and only NOW you have a problem with it and claim that I spoiled it by making this connection?!? Just what kind of fools do you take the community for?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 04:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that as was pointed before this concept claim depends on WP:SYN where source A says X, source B says Y, source c says z and so it claimed that A says Z. Both the administrators User:SlimVirgin and User:Elen of the Roads that there is no clear and definitive Christ myth topic:
"It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ." User:SlimVirgin
"More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ."" User:Elen of the Roads
These wall of text claims are IMHO Per WP:TLDR "a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing" to ignore the actual points raised in them.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have requested that BruceGrubb be banned from editing articles related to Christianity on the Administrator's noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_topic_ban_for_User:BruceGrubb. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
A topic ban was done and the article is being rebuilt. I believe this issue can be closed. Jobberone ( talk) 04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to do an AFD for Citizen exploitation, but I thought it might be worth getting some opinions here first - the author put a lot of work into it. It does seem like a fairly clear case of WP:SYNTH to me, though. I think maybe some of the content (minus the original synthesis) could be added to the citizen journalism and Huffington Post articles, and maybe others, but I just can't find any reliable sources that use the expression "citizen exploitation" to mean "exploitation of unpaid 'citizen journalists' and bloggers", like this article does. Does anyone else think this should maybe be deleted as OR/synth? Thanks! Dawn Bard ( talk) 15:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be mostly original research. It's a list of English business jargon. More than half of the terms in this list are not linked our sourced. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
2001 QF298 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
There was a question posed at WP:RSN
here that ended up with an OR question. The article currently says "As of 2012 the object is not considered a viable dwarf planet candidate by Tancredi et al and is not mentioned in the latest update of their list". Since Tancredi previously listed this object in his list, but no longer does, is it OR to say that as of 2012 he does not consider it a candidate? The only purpose for the list is to state those bodies he considers candidates. I am not an editor of that article. It was just brought to RSN, and I commented on the original question there, which ended up with this question, which I'm not sure I know the answer to. I will post a note at RSN pointing here for anyone else interested as well. --
Despayre
tête-à-tête 01:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Is [41] ("cow-based" is a term not found in any source I found, nor was his original "cattle-based" found in any RS sources I noticed) an example of "original research"? Collect ( talk) 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor has extracted a sentence from an article by Gordon Melton in the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, which says, "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God". An editor has claimed that the sentence "shows that people thought that Maharaj Ji considered himself god". I have objected to that opinion on the grounds that it is OR. That is, it is "an analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the source", in that the Melton sentence doesn't provide any material about who or what Maharaj Ji considered himself to be. If you agree that the source does NOT provide any material that addresses what Maharaj Ji thought, please write Agree. If you don't, I'd like to hear your arguments.
AGREE. Momento ( talk) 07:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It is interesting how convoluted arguments can get on points of logic. The sentence "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God," implies "Maharaj Ji was, at one time, to be venerated as a God, but no longer." The "to be venerated" phrase is a parallel to the famous "mistakes were made" construction. There is nothing in the statement to even suggest who said that Maharaj was "to be venerated". It certainly does not imply anything about what Maharaj Ji said. It doesn't even say what Maharaj Ji's followers said. All it implies is that somebody, unnamed, said at one time that Maharaj Ji was to be venerated as a God and that somebody at a later time said otherwise. And that's as far as Wikipedia can go with this source. Surely there are other sources that are more explicit. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A reminder to User:PatW that we are here to discuss a content dispute not alleged contributor behavior, tendencies or past history. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
We have an IP hopper here who is continually either adding original research or replacing it when removed. They don't accept that sources need to discuss the Ouroboros and are adding their own interpretation. In their latest reversion [here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ouroboros&diff=prev&oldid=493957211] they have restored a section called "Judeo-Christianity" (whatever that is) - neither this section nor its sources mention the Ouroboros, but it is being kept in as the IP says "The Ouroboros is a symbol of overcome duality" which whether true or not is irrelevant in this case, as there's no mention of the Ouroboros. The IP is also adding OR at Atum, where he attacked an editor in an edit summary saying "Expelled a topic-banned user". Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Find someone who agrees with you and take turns reverting OR by this user. The more people who join in, the better. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged Ireland-Crown dependencies relations as WP:OR because it appears to me to be a form of WP:SYN. It conflates 3 sets of bilateral relationship between Ireland and other entities into one topic, without any external evidence to support the notion that the combined entity is a notable topic.
The material contained in this new article is mostly referenced, and may be incorporated elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I see no evidence so far to support a standalone article.
Please can someone else take a look? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to consist entirely of statistics (lengths of articles) from editions of an encyclopaedia. There are no sources so I can only conclude that this is mostly original research. I think there might also be a notability issue here. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
AFD by KoshVorlon. JJB 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The term corporatocracy has 21 valid references including a textbook definition and has 250+ pageviews daily. Another use didn't like the term for various reasons and redirected it to corporate plutocracy. There are no references saying the terms are interchangeable or that one term means the other. Few people use corporate plutocracy (only two usages in references). The redirect is original research.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There was a recent addition to Mill Run Playhouse which was a list of people who performed at this theater. The list looks legitimite but it's not sourced and the heading "notable performers" open things up to debate. I don't want to just delete the list, but it bugs me. Are lists in article subject to the same criteria as the rest of the article?
BTW, I had this same problem with Allstate Arena. I posted a similar question on that page's talk, but I no one responded, and the list is now endless.
Fuddle ( talk) 16:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have taken a high-resolution photo of what I believe is an Arizona gray squirrel, and I am considering donating it to the project. However, it is OR for me to determine what species of squirrel the photo depicts, and since the photo is my own there are no reliable sources that are able to back up my claim. Wikipedia:NOR#Original_images states that "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." So... can I claim that my photo depicts a particular species or not? Obviously, this happens all the time as a matter of practice but is it correct? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 17:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an RfC for the article Anti-Pakistan sentiment which appears to be covering a question of original research (can events be included in the article if no sources mention "anti-Pakistan" motivations?). Experts in the OR policy may wish to help out . Please provide any comments there, not here. -- Noleander ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could I please get some input at the above article. It was created a few days ago and was in a poor state. I removed a chunk of unencyclopaedic content that was unsourced/sourced to blogspot, but the author has continuously re-inserted it and ignored all communication attempts. I don't want to carry on reverting lest I fall foul of WP:3RR. Could someone help out please? I've also raised this at the WikiProject Islam talk page. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 08:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a large chunk of text in Battle of Ayta ash-Shab that doesn't belong to the article. All of the sources don't talk and don't mention at all this specific battle but rather on the results of the whole war.So its WP:UNDUE.Also this texts serves as WP:COATRACK to cast doubt in IDF number and present like the IDF numbers of killed Hezbollah member a bloated such argument may belong to the 2006 Lebanon War or to the Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon_War but definitively not to specific article about the war.Here the text that in question [47]-- Shrike ( talk) 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
The IDF says that between 41–70 rockets were fired from Aiyt a-Shab and its surrounding. Overall, the IDF lost seven soldiers in Aiyt a-Shab battles, and suffered 60 injuries, battling Hezbollah on the ground. It claimed to have killed 40 Hezbollah fighters.
The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth estimated that around ten local fighters were killed, in addition to an unspecified number fighters from outside the town.[19] According to the Yedioth Achronoth "Encyclopedia" of the Second Lebanon War, Lebanese sources put the number of Hezbollah fatalities during the war to 300 while Israeli sources claim that 700 were killed. This difference was, according to Yedioth Achronoth, mainly explained by the distinction made by the Lebanese between "combatant" and "civilian" members of Hezbollah.[59]
User Dilek2 has been adding a fringe theory that the Ottoman Turks are descended from Esau. [49] [50]. This editor has also posted this theory to several other pages [51] [52] and claimed the Orghuz Turks are descended from Uz (son of Aram) [53] [54] At no point has Dilek2 provided even the most unreliable of sources to support any of this. Edward321 ( talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Could we create a dynamic paraphrase Bible? The article on Second Timothy has a section titled, "Content," but it is opinions and descriptions of the text in 2nd Timothy - not the actual text/content of that Bible book. I would like to start with the KJV text and then see what editors develop. The page would have notes dealing with the Hebrew/Greek for each verse. Would these violate any guidelines? Just checking. OpusScript ( talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Moved from WP:Requests_for_comment/Request_board Coastside ( talk) 17:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone clarify on whether WP:OR is being used in the following example. The Periyar is one of the rivers flowing through the state of Kerala in India. The Mullaperiyar dam is built along the upper course of the river, about 60-65 km from the source. There are a couple of references ( 1, 2) which state that the catchment area of the Mullaperiyar dam lies entirely in Kerala. Would it constitute WP:OR to conclude from the above that the source of the Periyar lies in Kerala? - Ashinpt ( talk) 14:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Feminazi regarding whether the term is an example of reductio ad Hitlerum, and whether this should be stated in the article. Currently, no source provided in the article makes this claim explicitly. Proponents of inclusion say that it is "obvious" and "simple", while opponents claim that its inclusion would violate the policy on original research. I would appreciate it if editors familiar with the policy would provide their valuable insight.-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 19:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
NOTE: The issue of the term Feminazi being an example of "reductio at Hitlerum" is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Feminazi. To avoid duplicate threads on the same issue, I am centralizing the discussion there. Blueboar ( talk) 20:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Because many find the topic (releasing large dangerous animals in order to approximate the ecological communities of the late Pleistocene) exciting, the article had accumulated a lot of cruft about "ecological proxies", all of it beyond the original set unreferenced, and much of it clearly made up on the spot. I finally (after a two-month warning) deleted all the unreferenced stuff. An IP, user:74.130.58.198, has reinserted the deletions several times since ( [55], [56], [57]). The IP admits on my talk page that the items are "fictious" and needed to enhance creativity. I have pointed the IP to WP:NOR, but I fear an edit war, and would appreciate it if others could keep an eye on the article for a while.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Request for input on inclusion of alternative historical views regarding Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, the wife of Christopher Columbus. (on behalf of User_talk:Colon-el-Nuevo). See article talk page. Coastside ( talk) 07:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see - the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:No original research. These rules are not subordinated for consensus some users. This box violated the rules of Wikipedia. He invents the numbers taken from space, percentage counts and establishes the rights inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. User (author) makes use incomplete sources - not presenting the complete data. Template for delete. Subtropical-man ( talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Gavin Menzies#When did Taccola complete his treatise? I am arguing that a source that was written long before a book by Gavin Menzies was published cannot be used in the article to refute a book by Gavin Menzies. This also came up at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Fringe, established facts and synthesis. I'm being asked to provide A, B and C but this seems pretty simple, in a situation like this, sources need to directly address the subject, which in this case is the book. Dougweller ( talk) 10:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Our discussion evolves around this: Author Gavin Menzies claims in his 2002 fringe theory that a Chinese fleet visited Europe in 1434 and that the knowledge it brought along directly influenced the works of Renaissance artist Taccola. I added a reliable source from 1975 which states that Taccola finished his technical sketchs as early as 1433. Now Dougweller thinks that my adding is WP:SYN because Shelby (from 1975) did not address and refute Menzies directly (from 2002). However, I fail to see how this could be a synthesis. A synthesis is defined as
So a synthesis is if the disputed statement in the WP article arrives at a conclusion which is neither found in Menzies nor in Shelby. But the fact that Taccola had already completed his works in 1433 is what Shelby says, so it is found in one of the sources, and therefore it is no synthesis to reproduce what he says. To clarify the matter I asked Dougweller, now for the third time, to specify what he thinks is A, B and especially C, his supposedly synthetical conclusion. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you can say "X refutes Y" if X was written before Y. But I don't see why you can't say that "Mr A proposes theory B, which was previously disproven/challenged by Professor C in D". It really depends on the points in question and how closely they're linked. John Smith's ( talk) 17:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I edited Gavin Menzies using the text Blueboar suggested above (with a slight change). I'm not totally sure the source used is WP:RS, but I suppose that's a matter for a different board. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Does this violates WP:NOR?
Republic of Ireland have been eliminated.
On the next match day (18 June):
or
On the last match day (17 June) the teams advancing from this group (winner; runner-up) will be [1]:
If: | Portugal win | draw | Netherlands win |
Denmark win | Denmark and Portugal or Germany1 | Denmark; Germany | Denmark; Germany |
draw | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Denmark |
Germany win | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Portugal | Germany; Portugal or Netherlands2 |
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Next_match_day_scenarios concerning this and people who are putting this stuff are claiming that it falls under routine calculations. As Euro 2012 is under way you can see examples at UEFA Euro 2012 Group A, UEFA Euro 2012 Group B, UEFA Euro 2012 Group C, UEFA Euro 2012 Group D.
WP:NOTOR clearly states the following:
I don't see how this is a routine calculation. Dr. Vicodine ( talk) 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_information_officer -- edits by Rrastin might be appropriate but didn't seem helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrflip ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 June 2012
Hello. After a lengthy discussion pointing out that it was nothing more than a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the article Ethereal being was redirected to non-physical entity. Its continents were found to be unsalvageable by consensus. There was also suspicion of sock puppetry among some of the editors opposing its removal (its problems were quite evident). That was thought to be the end of the sordid affair. However, recently a couple editors—at least one from that prior opposition—have taken it among themselves to continually restore that problematic article over at ethereal beings (as if a plural form solves the many issues). One user in particular has been spouting made up policy in an attempt to justify it. All the while ignoring the huge OR and synthesis issues, of course. Currently it redirects again, but it's likely that this user will simply be reverted again. More eyes could be used at Talk:Ethereal beings. :bloodofox: ( talk) 11:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Pretty obviously OR. Described as a "List of notable and controversial omissions", it seems to be the editor, who also created the now deleted List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature, is the one who decided who'd been overlooked. Dougweller ( talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Imagine that there is a book or movie with a plot or describable content. The precedent on Wikipedia is that any article on any work of fiction can have a plot summary or any work of non-fiction can have a synopsis as typically these cite the work itself as a source.
Where I can find a written policy which states that plot summaries can be either citable to the primary source or that they could be someone's original research into interpreting the content? This seems like original research, but I have never seen it listed as an exception to the rule of "no original research". Also, has anyone ever made a list of the kind of content which one may legitimately add to Wikipedia either without citations or otherwise by using the article's subject as a reliable source?
Please centralize discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:Plot-only_description_of_fictional_works#Plot_summaries_as_original_research.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "stinky ass." Rectal malodor is extensively referenced, but one of the only articles the user has contributed too; a Google search yields hardly any hits whatsoever. (Be warned; it's illustrated). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The articles Shrimp and Prawn do not appear to follow common usage, and I've started an RfC to address this. In particular, according to Wikipedia, Whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) is in fact not a shrimp. I think that's ridiculous; but my (overwhelming) evidence based on google hits has been rejected as original research. Due to the desire to restrict the scope of the "shrimp" article to a well-defined biological concept, across Wikipedia the term "shrimp" is now reserved for Caridea, which is much more restrictive than most of the world uses. Comments and help with the RfC would be welcome; thanks. 24.84.4.202 ( talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this original research? Comments are welcome at Talk:Epiousios#Original research. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The section 'Key words' here seems to be simply someone's count. Besides the fact I don't understand why the counts are here, shouldn't we have a reliable source for this? And it's not a pretty sight. Dougweller ( talk) 07:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a repeating reference to Ernie Davis being awarded the MVP of the 1961 Liberty Bowl. He did not receive this award because Dick Easterly won it that year. I am speaking on behalf of Dick Easterly. I am his wife and I have his trophy sitting in his office. Years back, I had viewed a College Statistics book that mentioned Ernie as the winner. I notified the author. Nothing was ever done to correct the mistake. Having earned the MVP that year, I feel that Dick should be given the proper recognition for the award. And, knowing Ernie Davis as my husband had known him for four years, Ernie would have gone to the same extremes as I am doing to correct the mistake. If you need to contact me, please do so by phone at (contact information removed).
There are currently discussion whatever to include the line this line [61] with proposed source [62] that does't mention Argaman in any way.Thus I and several other editors argue that this inclusion is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.I am asking for input of uninvloved editors about this issue.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 13:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor is using raw data to add text to the article here [63]. According to WP:OR the source must "explicitly" support the text. This is not the case.– Lionel ( talk) 07:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The OR on all of them is acceptable as it helps to identify where the tracks were used.
Yes someone called "Etron81" is removing it and it is very necessary for all the articles " Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack", " Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3"," Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4" and " Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials" because someone could be scouring their Doctor Who collection trying to find the pieces of music, when in fact, a non-main episode, i.e. one that it appears in, but not the one associated with it, has it in clearly enough to be heard.
Tried so just now. 86.147.124.98 ( talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I asked a question at the Doctor Who Project talk page and got a response there that this was OR that needed to be removed. After I started a dissenting opinion came in so I have stopped editing to see if consensus could be reached - I was not aware of this discussion here until just now. In my opinion there is a lot of OR here - especially notes that state "variation of", "a few notes used in", etc. that are VERY subjective and should be removed if it's an obvious reuse of a cue I would have no objection to it's inclusion. I will not edit any of these articles for OR until consensus is reached here - some of my edits have been reverted by others now. Etron81 ( talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was me, Etron, because I very strongly believe that they are completely fine. But also, not as important but I still want to point it out, I made some of the changes that you are removing myself. 86.147.124.98 ( talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC). P.S. I have just noticed that my reverts were only on Series 5 onwards. 86.147.124.98 ( talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I am opening a request for comment so that we can get more input into this issue. On these pages, should the "episodes used in" column only list what is listed in the liner notes (or other reliable sources), or can users recognise melodies and add them? My view that it should be the former, as the latter is very subjective at time, especially as motifs can be used in multiple pieces. Etron81 ( talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that even if a motif comes as part of two tracks (i.e. the musical sting at the beginning of " Westminster Bridge" and " All The Strange, Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)"), both of those tracks would be counted as being used simultaneously, but maybe with a note saying, "At the same time as ...", so that a reader will know it's a part of two songs. P.S. Do leave a comment on my talk page if that makes no sense. James Morris-Wyatt ( talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
A couple more edits removing unsourced notes have been made by another person: [64] [65] Etron81 ( talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This entire article seems to be laden with original research as to (1) what companies allow for users to purchase PCs without Windows or obtain refunds for unused Windows copies/licenses, (2) the applicable law, and (3) self-reported cases of obtaining or not obtaining a refund. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, I added a section on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research named " WP:WAF conflict with WP:NOR". Here is a shortened version my first posting.
(If you want, you can read the whole section here.)
There did not seem to be much enthusiasm for changing the policy on primary sources so the talk section morphed into a discussion about what to do with the "Elements of the show" section in TBBT. I regret to say that the other editors wore me down and eventually I agreed that we should leave "Elements of the show" essentially alone.
But, since this the venue to have such conversations, I'm wondering what you think? Should the entire section be deleted, tagged (and if so, with what?), left alone or what? And what should we do about the many, similar articles where the subject is a work of fiction? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been longterm disagreement between editors of Robin Hood (2010 film) about whether discussion of historical inaccuracies in this movie should be included in the article or not. This was subject to lengthy discussions in 2010, and has come up again recently after I removed a paragraph of original research and synthesis in this edit, which was reverted by Gautier lebon with the edit summary "Reverted change that contradicts agreement reached on talk page". Whilst the film undoubtedly includes historical inaccuracies (it is, after all, an adventure film not an historical documentary), there are no reliable sources that discuss this issue, and in my opinion the current text of the article is based on original research and synthesis. As there seems no possibility of consensus between the only two active editors of the article (myself and Gautier lebon), I am raising the issue here for input from uninvolved editors. BabelStone ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Gautier lebon clearly does not understand reliable sources policy as he proposes using as source unreliable sources (at 06:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)). MSN may not be reliable for the historical critique of contemporary pop-culture's use of history. The Guardian's film reviewer may only be minimally reliable—it depends on the specific claims. But Gautier lebon's conduct, including deceit from apparent ignorance of policy (despite policy being clearly explained) is concerning. I would encourage Gautier lebon to read WP:HISTRS and consider whether newspaper film reviewers, even from "broadsheets" such as the Guardian, meet the standards required. Anonymous blogs with Gautier lebon themselves admits are unreliable are not appropriate sources to base claims upon—this is what the reliable sources system exists to prevent. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Gautier lebon, please note that selectively notifying editors who you think may be favourable to your side of the argument, as you did here and here, with the non-neutral words "You may recall that you had commented favorably on the need for a section on historical inaccuraties in the article on Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. One of the editors opposed to that section has reactivated the discussion and is determined to delete the section ...", is contrary to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines (see WP:Votestacking). Please ensure that any future notifications to other editors are in line with the guidelines given at WP:CANVAS. Also, I am not determined to remove the section on historical inaccuracies, only remove those parts that are contrary to Wikipedia principles, as clearly indicated by my recent edits, which you again reverted to your preferred version. BabelStone ( talk) 11:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Outdent. I haven't seen any replies to my 30 July postings, but I don't suppose that silence implies consent, so I don't suppose that there is agreement to restore the material deleted by Babelstone. Nevertheless, I wonder whether a compromise solution would be acceptable, namely to add at the end of the Critical Reception section something like "For an accurate account of the events during King John's life, see John of England".-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 07:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)