This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Editor Sage94 ( talk · contribs) is engaging in consistent violations of the WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring policies at the Macrophilia article. The matter concerns whether or not the term macrophilia covers females who have sexual fantasies about male giants. The WP:Reliable sources restrict the term to males who have sexual fantasies about female giants (giantesses); if any of the WP:Reliable sources give space to male giants, it is minor space. See this discussion for backstory on Sage94's editing of that article: Talk:Macrophilia#Again With This. It includes Pandarsson ( talk · contribs) trying to steer Sage94 in the right direction with regard to editing that article, and recent commentary from me as well. As can be seen at other parts of that talk page, people have been trying to give the topic of male giants space in that article for years. But, of course, we must go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with due weight.
Since in the aforementioned Macrophilia talk page discussion, I have already alerted Sage94 and Pandarsson to the fact that I would be reporting this matter here and have pinged them via WP:Echo, I do not see a need to notify them of this talk page section on their talk pages as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
There is already a source on the page that asserts that Macrophilia sometimes refers to giant men. In this source, (Kenter, Peter (July 27, 2012). Driving. "Gongo crush all cars! YouTube videos cater to macrophiliacs". National Post. p. 14.), the "Gongo" in question is a male giant, and the article quote is "Some macrophiles derive particular enjoyment from seeing cars being crushed by giant men or women..." I'm sure people will consider the National Post to be a mainstream and reliable source and that they are not making up the existence of Macrophiliac-catering videos that feature giant men. I'm sure the article can reflect that it's "predominantly" or "primarily" about giant women fantasies, but it is completely undue to omit all mention of something covered in a reputable and current source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
An IP address that was engaged in edit warring and the introduction of completely unsourced Original Research to related articles, also changed all the instances of giant people to the term giantess. Multiple sources describe macrophilia as dealing with more than just women subjects, as in "The attraction to giants, especially domination by giant women", and "Attractions to giants or giant creatures" (the gender of the people who do the fantasizing has nothing to do with anything here). The lead should be reverted to some pre-November version, in my opinion, in order to match sources not to ignore them. As per the academic title Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices, The Chicago Tribune, The National Post, and others. Maybe I'll clean it up in a little bit, if I find some time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Pandarsson does not "keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer"; I, Johnuniq and Pandarsson mentioned "the gender of the fantasizer" for obvious reasons, reasons I already told you -- sexually fantasizing about giants is mostly a male thing (something males do far more than females), a heterosexual male thing to be exact. The sources hardly attribute macrophilia to women as the ones doing the fantasizing. You make it sound like, well, if heterosexual women are hardly involved, then there's enough lesbian women and gay men involved. No, by "hardly attribute macrophilia to women," we mean "all types of women." See my "15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)" post for more on that. That you may have confused me with Pandarsson (who commented in this discussion for the first time with the "00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)" comment above), if your "Why do you keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer?" line is any indicator, is further enough reason to stop discussing this matter with you. You don't seem to be listening well to what others in this discussion have told you, and you every now and then misunderstand what they (we) have stated. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty verifying the biographical information at CK Morgan. While the later-life information seems to at least be somewhat supported by the given sources, I can't find any reliable sources about the information about birth dates and the subject's early life. Google turns up sources at [6] [7] [8], but because they match the grammatical structure of the article, I suspect that all those websites (especially the second one) have simply copied Wikipedia's text.
Furthermore, editors seem to have been changing the subject's birth date willy-nilly: from 1991 to 1993 at this revision, and then to 1992 here (the latter of which I had reverted after a cursory glance, suspecting BLP vandalism, before looking more closely at the context).
I've put maintenance templates on the page, with a citation needed flag right by the birth date, but the other editors (or editor editing under multiple accounts?) has been removing them without justification. Given that these are apparently new editors unaware of Wikipedia dispute resolution tools, it is not clear to me whether posting on the article's talk page would have any effect, so I am posting the question here to try to get a third opinion with respect to how to deal with this. Thank you! Joe Schmedley T* 17:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted into Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. Could someone else take a look please? The editor doesn't seem to get it... -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
A new editor has added what appears to be promotional material to two articles, Active shooter and School shootings. The additions promote one companies [9] manner of response in a dangerous situation without any secondary support that verifies its (the company or the response) reliability. Aside from self-promotion, the articles now promote Real World actions, by our readers, that places them in harms way should they encounter an "active shooter" or "school shooting". I will notify the editor, User talk:Aalexa1041, of this discussion and I have reverted the additions at the two articles awaiting a decision. ``` Buster Seven Talk 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Andajara120000 is adding WP:SYN material to several articles. The exact text is
Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a, [1] which "is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]" [2]
Given the editor's other edits it's pretty obvious this is arguing for the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. It's not obvious why it should have been added to Egyptians and Archaeogenetics of the Near East as there is no context for it in those articles - it's much too specific. What the editor is doing is combining sources about studies of mummies with a source about the lineage of E1b1a. This is a complex subject and simply saying 'originated and expanded' is misleading, but the main issue is the WP:SYN.
Dougweller ( talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
(RI) Andajara, I will explain this to you again, and will reference this post in the future.
Here is your problem in a nutshell: you're getting a study which predicted the Haplotype of someone who lived 3000 years ago, and then stringing it to a study about haplotype distributions now. Let me state that again: "now" and "3000 years ago" are separated by..you guessed it: 3000 years. You see, that's a lot of time.
Now, you might wonder: how can two facts be facts separately but POV together? Because you're implying relationships that may or may not exist and are pushing a POV unsupported by either source this way. Got it? Here is an example: "Johann Sebastian Bach was left handed (fact #1). Studies have shown that being left-handed is associated with a higher probability of mental problems (fact #2)."
Now, the E1b1a fact alone doesn't tell you anybody's race for reasons I have explained to you before (one male ancestor 1000 years ago could have carried it, and it just remained in the DNA despite the fact that the descendent is a completely different race). A simplified way to see this? Obama carried his mother's mtDNA. It's probably European. Does that make him European? No. Now, imagine this over many, many generations and you see the problem. Now imagine the same problem, but this time, you're trying to imply a fact about someone not now, but 3000 years ago. BIG, HUGE problem. Find a paper about haplotype distributions 3000 years ago and you might have a case. As is, you're WP:SYN.
Solution? Try not to draw conclusions based on the E1b1a fact alone. You're stringing two things together to make a point and it's just wrong.
I simplified this as much as I could. Hope it still makes sense.
Cheers,
Λuα (
Operibus anteire) 04:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
(I have moved this from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Album sales figures.2FWP:SYNTH)
At the article for Taking Over, an album by the band Overkill, User:Paranoid90 keeps adding a source which he insists is adequate proof of the album having sold a certain amount of copies. Currently, his addition to the article reads:
"As of 2011, Taking Over had sold over 100,000 copies in the U.S."
However, a simple browser search reveals no mention whatsoever of Taking Over within the source provided. A very fleeting mention of album sales is made at some point by the interviewee, who is a bandmember:
"How I could have sold over 100,000 units on Atlantic records and not received one penny!"
... but in context, these 100,000 units do not explicitly correspond to Taking Over. How could it, when the album itself is not even mentioned in any shape or form? Therefore I maintain that the source is NOT reliable in confirming such a definitive statement regarding album sales figures, and that I am correct in removing it. Nonetheless, User:Paranoid90 chooses to edit war over it rather than find a more reliable source. At my talk page he has put forth some half-assed rationale about record labels and timeframes, which he somehow expects other users to "know" in advance and even to disregard the content of the source. In his words, "The readers almost never care about the source, they just read it". Surely his grasp of WP:RS is lacking, and that he is violating both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Diakonias ( talk · contribs) has created three separate articles, United Pentecostal Churches of Christ, United Covenant Churches of Christ and Pentecostal Churches of Christ, in which he attempts though various interpretations of documents, web histories, etc., to suss out a link between the three organizations. His citations include rafts of interpretations that can only be considered WP:SYNTH. My original thought was to nominate all three articles for deletion, but each individual group may well be notable in their own right and deserving of a Wikipedia article. It's just that the articles we have are not valid. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiDan61. Clearly, I didn't do very well. Oh dear. Apologies. And, thank you for your attention and for your comments. I have done further work on all three articles. Hopefully this may have addressed your comments and may moved the articles in the right direction. Happy New Year, and all that. Diakonias ( talk) 20:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC).
I need help with a user, Bladesmulti, who is editing the Pantheism and List of Pantheists articles with original research, using sources that often have limited to no support for edits. He seems convinced that Hinduism and pantheism are pretty much the same thing (they are not) and he does not accept any reverts from me. Thanks for any help anybody can bring to these articles. NaturaNaturans ( talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice, removed Lao Tzu. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
No idea about the list of Deists, but the list of pantheists include those who called themselves pantheist, or had significant influence. Our editors doubted that if someone is also noted to have been never existed, how it can be added to the list. Thus Lao Tzu were removed. Bladesmulti ( talk) 15:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This newly created page looks a lot like original work. I'm not that familiar with wp.en standards, so I didn't do anything by myself, but I thought I should raise a flag. Pythakos ( talk) 13:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this family tree here consider synthesis/original research anymore than Stephen_I_of_Hungary#Family? I need this answered. I even went out of my way to exclude the disputed fathers. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In the article Aquatic ape hypothesis it has an infographic File:Human Aquatic Adaptations.png which has a large number of conjectures from that theory in it. I have a number of different problems with it
What do people here think about infographics like this? Dmcq ( talk) 22:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In this version of the article [11], an editor makes the claim:
"Some historians believe that Jewett choose this name to honor his Chilean lover Javiera Carrera,[8] acclaimed by some countrymen as a "heroine" of the Old Republic."
I pointed out this is dubious a in historical accounts the ship was named Heroína in 1819 by Patricio Lynch, the ships owner. Jewett was not appointed Captain till 1820, so the ship was named before he became captain. Instead of accepting this, the editor responsible has edited the material back into the article but has omitted the reference to the Jewett connection to assert only that Lynch named the ship after Javiera Carrera. The article now states:
"Some historians believe that Lynch choose this name in honor to Javiera Carrera,[8] acclaimed by some countrymen as a "heroine" of the Old Republic."
The editor appears to be inserting dubious material, justifying it by selectively quoting from the same source which he acknowledges is wrong. I for one am baffled by this, I really don't understand why an editor would do this? BedsBookworm ( talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A WP:FRINGE proposal called the Aquatic ape hypothesis once contained a number of images of various items that were not at all "aquatic apes" but were being used to promote various ideas associated with the proposal. For example, the lede image right now is of a baby being held by an adult underwater and the caption is trying to make a claim that certain instinctual behaviors of newborns underwater is evidence in favor of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (never mind that human beings drown in water every day). I think that images should be directly applicable to the topic at hand; that is the images should be directly related to publications about the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. For example, pictures of the main proponents. Images that had been famously used to support the hypothesis, and so on. Other images of horse, babies, gorillas wading through ponds, and the like should be excluded on the basis of original research: namely in light of the fact that fringe promotion of ideas is a problem at Wikipedia and has been historically at this article.
Please see also WP:FTN#Aquatic ape hypothesis.
jps ( talk) 23:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There is RFC regarding nature of carvaka religion at the talkpage. Similar discussion is also there at Talk:Ājīvika. It seems that original research is involved in these pages. -- Rahul ( talk) 04:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears that almost every edit made by user 99.41.173.202 ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/99.41.173.202) are references to (or excerpts or summaries from) his own self-published book, which contains his own interpretations of poems. (Either this user is referring to his own book, or the user is interested only in adding citations and summaries from that one book.) In spirit, if not in the letter, these edits seem to be in violation of multiple policies; instead of original research, the editor cites his own interpretations (not facts) from his own book, which comes to the same thing. Could an administrator possibly look into this? Thank you.
Further detail: this user reverted an edit in which I removed a citation to his self-published book. I don't want to start an edit war, so I hope an admin might decide on what to do next. - Macspaunday ( talk) 15:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I would welcome editors looking at a sentence in the article Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia that I believe is based on original research.
The sentence in question is the following:
The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page.
This was originally sourced to a secondary source, Owens, which says something rather different:
Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.
Editors objected to my replacing the present wording with a sentence quoting the cited secondary source. Herostratus then changed the sourcing to various primary sources, namely:
The problem I see with this wording and primary sourcing is that Wikipedia has paid editors in good standing who work transparently to "manage" their clients' Wikipedia articles for them, in a way that is compliant with policy and does not violate WP:OWN. These paid editors act as talk page advocates for their clients, in a way that even Jimmy Wales welcomes. Jimmy Wales is for example quoted in Owens' article as saying,
“I am opposed to people who are paid advocates being allowed to edit in article space at all, and extremely supportive of paid advocates being given other helpful paths to assist in our work usefully and ethically."
To me, the present article wording is apt to create the impression that this sort of arrangement is forbidden. In addition, one of the primary sources cited, WP:COI, contains the following passage explicitly saying that paying someone to write an article about you in Wikipedia can be benign and unobjectionable:
The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.
Isn't the WP:COI quote in the sourcing rather selective, to an extent that it amounts to a Wikipedian's interpretation of a primary source? And not only that, but an interpretation that directly contradicts statements in the secondary source (Owens), and parts of the primary source itself? This is exactly what WP:PSTS forbids.
As far as I am aware there is no policy anywhere on the English Wikipedia that says that a company cannot pay someone to manage their Wikipedia entry for them, at least in the sense of getting a paid advocate who is more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to fight their battles here for them, rather than having one of their own employees wading into a dispute here.
I'm not sure how best to solve this. Discussions on the talk page have stalled. However, I feel certain that present status is not in line with WP:OR, and would welcome editors' comments on that aspect.
Disclosure: I am not a paid editor, never have been, never will be. I believe if paid editing is done in Wikipedia, it should be done transparently, with full disclosure, using registered paid-editor accounts that are flagged in edit histories, and with articles, too, flagged for readers if they contain such edits (as tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles currently do, without disclosure and transparency). -- Andreas JN 466 12:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Articles such as Buddhism by country or List of religious populations have been constructed through misuse of sources and original research (for example combining statistics of different religions), in order to enormously inflate the number of Buddhists in the world.
In general, can studies of spinal manipulation be used to make statements on Wikipedia about Chiropractic, even if they do not mention chiropractic? A particular instance of this question is: can PMID 24412033 be cited in the Chiropractic article's "Effectiveness" section? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have the source now ( URL; non-paywalled PDF). Alex, it does mention chiropractic; see chart on page 4 (of 17) of the PDF where it refers to manipulation is chiro a/o osteo. (I almost missed it; it didn't show up with my browser's "find" function until the page had loaded.) We can just move on, but the larger principle is worth considering for a moment. I'm not convinced by your argument that we shouldn't cite a source on SMT in the chiro article unless the source specifically mentions chiro. What if we had an article on risks of SMT, including "high-velocity" techniques where they "crack" your neck and risk causing a stroke, but it didn't mention chiro specifically. We'd want to use the article anyway, since we know chiros use that technique. And we'd also use the podiatry example. The razor cuts both ways, for benefits and risks, and it shouldn't depend simply on whether a source mentions the specific profession, but on whether the treatment that it discusses comes under the profession. Does this make sense? -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This is no complaint, and no request for arbitration. It’s a request for unbinding guidance. As an editor, I sometimes find myself in a grey zone between Routine Calculations and WP:OR. Please help me find my way. These examples are real life examples, pulled from articles I am working on.
Case 1: List of whole city populations. Can I decide that some cities are too large, and to put them in relation with other cities, can I pull a set of core districts from source A, and their populations from source B (census results), add them up and list the total as the city’s population? The result will be different from that in the census. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 2: Population again. I have the metro population of a city from Source A (census result.) Source B says 80% of the metro population lives downtown. Can I use the 80% of source B, apply them to the Source A count, to arrive at the downtown population? A downtown number was never published, otherwise it would be used. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 3: List of railroads. I want to arrive at the total of a railroad’s trackage in a given metro area. I have the railroad’s trackage per province of a country. I have from another source the list of provinces that make up a certain metro area. Can I add up the per province trackages to arrive at the metro total? The result will not clash with a published result. None was found during an intensive search. If it would have been found, it would have been used. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 4. Different list of railroads. List inclusion criteria say that rapid urban transit must be electric. It is found that in one instance, a train on a certain rapid transit network is diesel-powered. The railroad publishes the length of the total network. Can I deduct the 20 or so km diesel tracks from the several hundred km total to arrive at a for a pure electric system? The result will be 20km less than that in the source. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 5: Rapid transit. A live example for a change. Total rapid transit systems statistics by country provides "total length of rapid transit systems, total number of stations" per country. It has no references. It generates its data by adding up the data provided by List of metro systems. The latter list does not reflect "rapid transit systems," but narrower cast "metros." The data generated by Total rapid transit systems statistics by country usually don't even come close to the real stats of rapid transit systems in many countries. Is it OK to have a list without references, based on another Wikipedia page? If yes, is it OK to generate a country total, which is not in the referenced list?
If any of these are OK, what is the proper way to reference the edit?
Thank you! BsBsBs ( talk) 14:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This was very helpful. I will store Dmcq's "if you need to apply judgement, it looks like OR" into my trove of wisdom. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
Article includes original research, is mostly missing references.
I'm very concerned about an invented rule to list metros by operators that was created out of the air by a group of editors at List of metro systems, which as its name suggests, is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators. The rule goes against the purpose of that article and is basically original research, completely unreferenced and from the talk page, it appears as if it was added deliberately in an attempt to split the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is considered by by the official operators' sources and a reliable secondary source to be one system. It was added yesterday by User:BsBsBs (see the diff here), which I have strongly opposed as inventing rules out of the air is a clear breach of WP:NOR. However, editors ignored this and this is the rule that was invented: "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies." This may work to list metros in North America when there's usually only one operator, but in other regions like Asia, there are multiple operators for one system. The official operators of the system define Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal laws:
제3조(정의) Article 3 (Definition)
5. "도시철도"라 함은 도시철도법에 따라 서울메트로구간과 연락운송하는 노선(이하 "도시철도구간"이라 합니다) 및 그 부대설비, 열차 등을 통틀어 말합니다..
Translation: The metro, as constituted by the metro law, refers to the jointly operated lines with Seoul Metro (called "sections of metro" from now) and its supplementary equipments, trains and etc. collectively.
4. "연락운송"이라 함은 도시철도법 제17조에 따라 서울메트로구간과 한국철도광역전철구간, 서울도시철도구간, 인천교통공사구간, 서울시메트로9호선구간, 코레일공항철도 검암~서울역, 신분당선구간을 서로 연속하여 여객을 운송하는 것을 말합니다..
Translation: "Joint operation", as defined by metro law Article 17, refers to the continuous transport of passengers by the sections of Seoul Metro, Korail Metropolitan Subway, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~ Seoul Station and Sinbundang Line.
Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metro, Identical definition from SMRT's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit and Sinbundang Line's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, DX Line
제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.
1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~ Seoul Station, Sinbundang Line and Korail's metropolitan subway.
〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉
Source: Terms of Passenger Transport, Incheon Transit.
제2조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음과 같습니다.
Translation: The definition of the terms used in this provision is as follows.
“수도권도시철도”라 함은 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 인천교통공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 도시철도구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철구간을 말합니다. <개정 ‘13.12.13>.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metro operated by Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro Line 9 and Sinbundang Line and metropolitan subway operated by Korail. 〈Amended ‘13.12.13〉
Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Korail Airport Railroad.
I also brought this reliable secondary source to them (with system marked in bold), which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website:
Seoul subway serving the Seoul Metropolitan Area is the longest subway system in the world. The total route length of the system extended as far as 940km as of 2013. The first line of the subway was opened in 1974 and the system presently incorporates 17 lines (excluding the Uijeongbu LRT and the recently opened Yongin Ever Line). The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators.
Source: Railwaytechnology.com
Clearly, the source is defining this metro system very differently from the way it is listed on that article because of this invented rule that is pointing to a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. One of the editors has claimed that inventing a parameter for the list out of the air is fine - Is this true? I need the inputs of editors not associated with that article to assess whether this group of editors' original research that they claim "consensus" is acceptable. I would appreciate links to Wikipedia rules or policies, Thanks. Massyparcer ( talk) 20:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the complaintant has filed a DRN after his ANI in a related matter was denied. The DRN was denied with the message "Pending in another forum (NOR noticeboard). Per the instructions, DRN does not accept matters which are pending in other forums." Please close this NORN, as its pendency blocks the user from seeking other avenues. Thank you. BsBsBs ( talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#New_Myspace the very last portion of this section contains a lot of original research and dubious sources for its citations.
− The case was on NPOV noticeboard. Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have conflict of interests and OWN problems(concerned by multiple editors) are adding propaganda for Marian Dawkin or removing critisim about her. The content they added has clear violation of policies, such as injection of original research and removal of critisim from reliable sources .
For example this sentence 'Her views on animal consciousness have been criticised by evolutionary biologist, Marc Bekoff, who argues that she too readily rejects anthropomorphic research on animals.' This is not Bekoff's opinion. The editors watered downed Bekoff's criticism. This version contain proper sumary of bekoff's criticism. More OR can be found here
124.170.208.102 ( talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the no original research policy could use some clarification for the case where the subject of the article is themselves a journalist. I've seen some of these cases ( Touré, and now Chuck Philips) where you have an article that lists all the articles written by the subject like a resume, and for references they use the articles themselves. It's a subtle point, but I believe that constitutes original research. The article appears well-cited, but the citations are non-independent primary sources. What is needed to meet notability standards is a news article about the news article. My apologies if this has already been mentioned in a guideline somewhere (I looked). Fnordware ( talk) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Does the second sentence below (in bold) violate WP:SYNTH?
It is based on these quotes from sources:
Basically, the sentence is a summary of what three Russian historians say and this summary is also directly backed up by the fourth source. It should not be synthesis because it summarizes the points made by the historians (per
WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_summary).
However, is it synthesis because the statement is attributed to Russian historians? Does it imply that all Russian historians think this way?
I think that simply saying "Russian historians" does not imply that absolutely all Russian historians have this view. The last source also directly says "Russian historians". -
YMB29 (
talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This article contains a section titled " Specific references" that only cites one secondary source for the dodgiest of its claims, and lists seven books in the New Testament where Mary is "specifically referred to", providing only primary references for all of them. Mary is named in four of these books. One (the Gospel of John) mentions Jesus' mother but not by name; one (Paul's letter) simply says Jesus was "born of woman"; and one (the Apocalypse of John) doesn't mention her at all but some Roman Catholics have read her into it. I removed the Paul reference because no one could possibly interpret "Christ was born of a woman" as being a specific reference to Mary; Paul doesn't mention Mary once in any of his letters. [13] I was reverted within a matter of hours. [14] In fact, the only independent source that names Jesus' mother as Mary is Mark (virtually all scholars agree that the authors of both Matthew and Luke-Acts used Mark as a source).
I think changing "Specific references" to "New Testament references" could work, but honestly I think each point in the section should be backed up by a reliable secondary or tertiary source.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
BsBsBs ( talk) 07:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is asking the subject of an article (via email) for strictly factual information (such as (regarding actors) did he or she appear in such or such when in dispute) considered original research? If so, such seems ludicrous and I think the rule should be changed. Thanks. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 19:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like some clarification on the page for John Elliott (artist) , in reference to Terrace Garden, Rome . As a new user of Wikipedia I would like to make sure that I have not violated this rule. I wrote: "Terrace Garden, Rome, an oil painting on canvas depicting the artist's terrace at his apartment in Rome. It was painted at the request of Larz Anderson, who met his wife Isabel Weld Perkins for the first time at this location"
The two references for this information are as follows(for more detail, see the links on the actual wikipedia page)-
From James Sansum Fine and Decorative Art : Terrace Garden, Rome Circa 1880-1900 Oil on canvas, original frame H: 23 W: 19 D: 1 inches (framed) Signed with initials on lower right of recto: J.E. Inscribed on stretcher: Elliot (sic) Terrace Rome/Return to Mrs. Anderson, Weld, Jamaica Plains Provenance: Mrs. Larz Anderson (Isabel Weld Perkins), Weld, Brookline, Massachusetts
From John Elliott: The Story of an Artist
"The terrace is intimately connected with the romance of our young friend Isabel, for here she often received her admirers, and met the man for whom she was destined.... As a souvenir of the happy hours that he spent there, Larz Anderson asked Jack to make a painting of the terrace. This picture now hangs at their Weld country home."
I wonder if it is to much of an inference to link these two references as one coherent statement about the painting.
Arkabaker ( talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that a few of the facts on the treehouse attachment bolt page, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_attachment_bolt, seem to contain some origional research. Specifically those that are linked to the 2nd reference. Both can be found at the end of the paragraphs in the history section.
For the past week, a small debate -- to which I have been taking part after receiving a random invitation via the Feedback request service -- has been underway concerning the scope of Pathology and whether it is in fact a broad-concept article. Most all of the editors involved believe that in fact the article space should cover the entirety of pathology as a scientific and medical domain, whereas one contributor (whose removal of large portions of content instigated the debate - no user name, but identifiable as the only IP editor involved) contends that the page should contain only content on specific medical specialties. However, despite the importance of the subject and article in question, involvement in the RfC has been limited to some half-dozen editors, which is lower than what I feel should constitute a consensus for such an important article, and as such I'm trying to attract some additional commentary, through noticeboards and Wikiprojects that are relevance to the article and the policies being debated. I've brought the issue here specifically because I feel that the sources we have on the article clearly denote that many of the subjects which the afore-mentioned IP editor has removed are treated as part and parcel of pathology in our sources and that by removing this content to fit a narrower and arbitrary personal standard, in conflict with what our sources state, is a blatant exercise in original research. Any additional editor involvement would be of use in establishing some valid consensus on the matter. Snow ( talk) 05:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There appear to be quite a few problems with Najahid dynasty. One source in particular (Yaman its early medieval history by Henry Cassels Kay) seems to be consistently misrepresented, and it is used for most of the assertions on the page. For instance, it is indicated in the wiki-text that "Najah was not recognized as a sovereign by the tribal elements in the Yemeni highlands," and this is attributed to page 21 of Kay's book. Kay, however, doesn't mention Najah at all on that page [19]. In fact, Kay indicates the opposite a few pages earlier i.e. that Najah "was empowered to appoint as Kadi whomsoever he chose, and to administer all the affairs of the country of Yaman[...] he continued to rule over Tihama, and to exercise control over most of the people of the Highlands, and he was styled King, both in the Khutbah and in official documents, with the title of Our Lord" [20]. Another example is a section on the wiki-page titled "Legacy", where through what appears to be synthesis an attempt is made to associate the Najahids of yore with the modern Al-Akhdam low caste group. However, none of the links in question actually make this association; and indeed, the wiki-text itself at one point rather sheepishly concedes this ("it is difficult to establish some link between them and al-Akhdam (servants) or "Hujur" in southern Yemen"). These are just two of the more glaring instances of problems affecting the page. Middayexpress ( talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it either original research and/or synthesis to include the %possible sun if a meteorological agency only lists the total monthly sunshine duration and then one proceeds to use another reliable source to state the following, as an example: in London, during March, the sun shines 29% of the time? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
MasonBanks keeps adding an fact that seems to be of original research and does not have any proper source explicitly say so. The fact says this:
This was at the expense of Russell Crowe, who became the only person in history to win the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG Award and Critics Choice Award for Best Actor but lose the Oscar to another performance.
While it is true off the bat, there is no proper resource explaining the fact specifically. Even if you looks at the official websites for each of the organizations in charge of the awards (they have winners lists), they do not explicitly state the fact that Crowe lost the Oscar despite winning those precursor awards. I would like to know, and if not please contact MasonBanks and tell him to not put that fact up due to Wikipedia standards.
What constitutes basic arithmetic per Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations? I am asking the question in relation to musical artist articles and related discography articles, specifically regarding arriving at a sum of the artists' RIAA certified units. Typically in such articles the certification level for any given album is referenced by the RIAA web site. For example, the Paul McCartney discography contains this link to riaa.com as a reference for each album. As the certification levels are in fixed increments (.5 million for Gold, 1 million for Platinum, 2 million for 2xPlatinum, etc.) a sum of all album certifications can be found by adding .5 + 1 + 2 = 3.5. In the case of the Paul McCartney article, the total for 26 certified albums listed at riaa.com comes to 26.5. Would this be considered basic arithmetic or is it original research? Piriczki ( talk) 15:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: Moved the below from WP:BLPN where no response. Guess it's too minor a problem for that noticeboard, but it is annoying and would like an opinion. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 22:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that policy demands we be very careful to give proper context to any use of material about individuals. Here the question is: a Nobel Prize winner in a NY Times article does not mention an individual's name but only links to a personal blog where that person is mentioned. Editors insist we can write it as if he mentions the individual by name in a New York Times article. This has been reverted back and forth numerous times on article, and discussed a few times, but not addressed by non-involved editors when it was brought here as part of larger issue in November. Since creeping synth is a problem in many BLPs, uninvolved editors' opinions would be helpful this time.
At this diff my change of
was changed back to
Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
side comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Do I understand correctly – you both agree there is synthesis? If so, can you explain what are the A + B sources and what is the inference created by the combination which is not in the independent sources? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I would have to lean to the not synth side here. Carol's wording is more confusing, and means the same thing. Id say this falls under some textual version of WP:CALC. Steeltrap's pronoun reasoning is quite sound here. Because Krugman use a pronoun ("guy") instead of naming the person, does not in any way mean Krugman was not obvious about who he was discussing. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Separating the material would avoid the SYNTH issue a bit:
though it is quite possible that Krugman's second-hand assessment is being given excessive weight in the BLP as it is certainly an opinion piece and pretty much only usable for Krugman's personal opinion and not for him reporting that someone else had a specific opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect ( talk • contribs)
Summation: Two editors do not believe the edit is SYNTH. The rest all consider SYNTH to be a potential or real problem.
Collect (
talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (as a totally outside observer who commented here)
In the Paul McCartney article, I have been attempting to add certain details without which I believe the article can viewed as misleading. However, my changes have been reverted because they are deemed WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by another editor, apparently because I am using two references, the second of which adds detail not included in the first. The passage in question currently reads:
In 1979, Guinness World Records described McCartney as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and as the "most successful songwriter" in United Kingdom chart history.
I have suggested that the statement is misleading because it gives the impression that McCartney himself had achieved these feats when, in fact, they are actually mostly or wholly attributed to the Beatles. For my first reference I want to cite a newspaper article covering the event, "McCartney Cited For Successes". The article, like other widely published wire reports of the event, did not include complete details of the Guinness records mentioned. As an additional source, I am using the 1980 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records directly referred to in the newspaper article to provide more details of those records. According to the 1980 Guinness book, the three entries involving McCartney are:
“Most Successful Song Writer. In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney (formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings). Between 1962 and January 1, 1978, he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold 1,000,000 or more records.”
“Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.”
“Most Golden Discs. Out of the 2,390 R.I.A.A. gold-record awards made to January 1, 1979, the most have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 16 awards both on his own and with the group Wings.”
Based on these two references, I would like to change the passage to read:
In 1979, the Guinness Book of World Records recognised McCartney as the "most honored composer and performer in music", with 60 gold discs (43 with the Beatles, 17 with Wings) and, as a member of the Beatles, sales of over 100 million singles and 100 million albums through 1978, and as the "most successful song writer", he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold one million or more records between 1962 and 1978.
By citing these two sources am I employing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or is this an acceptable use of previously published sources? Piriczki ( talk) 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Entry: Thaïs (novel)
Thaïs is a novel by Anatole France.
The text reads as such:
Paphnuce, an ascetic hermit of the Egyptian desert, journeys to Alexandria to find Thais, the libertine beauty whom he knew as a youth. He seduces the Queen of Sheba, who then performs fellatio on him. Masquerading as a dandy, he is able to speak with her about eternity; surprisingly he succeeds in converting her to Christianity. Yet on their return to the desert he becomes fascinated with her former life. She enters a convent to repent of her sins......
This line is clearly a joke of the middle school variety:
He seduces the Queen of Sheba, who then performs fellatio on him.
This is clearly a joke, since the Queen of Sheba died in the 10th century B.C.E. and Paphnuce was a 4rth century member of the council of Nicaea.
Also, Paphnuce didn't get NO action in that book. In fact, just the THOUGHT of getting some action sent him off to live on top of pillars or in desert tombs. That was kind of the point.
I didn't know where else to report this 'original' idea, since I couldn't find the section "Teenagers Found This Vandalism Funny."
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.25.242 ( talk • contribs)
All right, here goes—I was advised to bring this here, but I almost didn't because I don't have time to spend on it. But the particular instance (which is not worth the time) raises the general case (which might be). Here goes:
Some organizations officially retire the expansion of an acronym, which means that from now on, their brand name, although it used to be an acronym, and still "looks like one", no longer stands for any expansion. For example, if you look at ASTM's website ( www.astm.org), it says "formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials".
Other organizations do not make any statement about officially retiring the expansion, but their brand management omits all mention of the expansion; you cannot find any mention of the expansion anywhere on their site. I believe KFC is one of these (maybe they mention it somewhere on their site ( KFC.com), but it is very hard to find if you go looking for it—last time I tried, I could not find any mentions there).
Regarding IBM SPSS, although you can find a few mentions of the expansion "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" buried within user manuals or other documentation, you can tell from clicking around their website that their brand management no longer emphasizes the expansion.
Consider if, on its SPSS article, Wikipedia said, "The software name stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS),[2] reflecting the original market, although the software is now popular in other fields as well, including the health sciences and marketing. The branding no longer emphasizes the expansion."
My question is, does that last sentence have to be removed because there is no publicly available document to cite as a reference in which IBM communications people say to each other, in so many words, "don't include the expansion, just say 'SPSS'. Focus the brand on 'SPSS', not the expansion." The sentence has been removed, and I don't care if it stays deleted forever. I'm not asking you whether you feel it's worth Wikipedia saying that sentence, or whether you yourself would feel a desire to add it. I'm just asking you whether that sentence must be deleted because it is unreferenced. In my opinion, there is no way it is not covered by Wikipedia:Common knowledge > Acceptable examples of common knowledge at "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property". I'm not saying their website is public property. I'm saying anyone, standing anywhere, can look at their website and state an observation about whether it emphasizes the expansion. Saying that writing that sentence was "disruptive" because it violates WP:VERIFY, and implying that I'm stupid for thinking it doesn't, feels like an undue appeal to authority to me. I recognize that not all mentions of authority are undue, but sometimes a spire is just a spire. Quercus solaris ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Whoniverse was a rambling unsourced mess for some time. In recent weeks certain editors(including me) have attempted to tidy it up. Unfortunately, one editor User:G S Palmer has ignored all Wikipedia Policies, and continues to push his/her version of the article.
The problems are: i)adding totally unsourced material, ii)adding material "sourced" from non-RS fansites, iii)taking material from websites that never mention anything about the article's definition, name etc. iv)using material where the term is used with a totally different meaning to act as a RS.
This dispute has already been taken to Edit Warring, Edit Disputes, reported to 2 Admins. The discussion page of the article now consists of the same "discussion" over and over, where I point out Wikipedia Policy such as WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS, and User:G S Palmer and another user called User:Mezigue say they don't care, and then keep reverting it to their OR version. I even copy and pasted sections of Wikipedia Policy on the discussion page(obviously word-for-word), and the User:G S Palmer stated that this word-for-word Policy was "[my] overly harsh interpretation". Other shave attempted to clean up this article, but it is getting harder and harder with User:G S Palmer's relentless reinsertion of unsourced, OR and SYNTHESIS material. While he/she has added links to the "References" section, most of them never mention anything to do with the article's title, definition or scope at all. And other whole sections are just his/her thoughts and beliefs. 41.135.9.230 ( talk) 11:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The description of File:Indian Aurochs B p namadicus 3.jpg seems to hint that it was created based on various other images of live cattle and an auroch skull. I guess including this in Indian aurochs is original research? -- Paddu ( talk) 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
There appear to be quite a few problems with Najahid dynasty. One source in particular (Yaman its early medieval history by Henry Cassels Kay) seems to be consistently misrepresented, and it is used for most of the assertions on the page. For instance, it is indicated in the wiki-text that "Najah was not recognized as a sovereign by the tribal elements in the Yemeni highlands," and this is attributed to page 21 of Kay's book. Kay, however, doesn't mention Najah at all on that page [28]. In fact, Kay indicates the opposite a few pages earlier i.e. that Najah "was empowered to appoint as Kadi whomsoever he chose, and to administer all the affairs of the country of Yaman[...] he continued to rule over Tihama, and to exercise control over most of the people of the Highlands, and he was styled King, both in the Khutbah and in official documents, with the title of Our Lord" [29]. Another example is a section on the wiki-page titled "Legacy", where through what appears to be synthesis an attempt is made to associate the Najahids of yore with the modern Al-Akhdam low caste group. However, none of the links in question actually make this association; and indeed, the wiki-text itself at one point rather sheepishly concedes this ("it is difficult to establish some link between them and al-Akhdam (servants) or "Hujur" in southern Yemen"). These are just two of the more glaring instances of problems affecting the page. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A few days ago, I saw that the List of programs broadcast by Boomerang contained absolutely no references, yet described a lot of detail about when this or that cartoon series was shown by the classic cartoon TV network Boomerang. I greatly reduced the information offered in the article because of the NOR problems, and I added a reference to support current programming.
I would appreciate more eyes on that page! The editors who are interested in the topic have been reverting my drastic reduction. They don't seem to see any problem with maintaining a Wikipedia article which is in violation of WP:V. Thanks in advance. Binksternet ( talk) 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
OO9o9 keeps adding [30]. The Hage case has no connection to the Bundy case but is added to confuse readers into thinking that it affects the Bundy case. The user was warned about it and persists. 174.147.113.160 ( talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek added this in what looks like an attempt to blame Russia and personally Vladimir Putin for the events in the eastern Ukraine.
Is it original research? -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 19:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about the article " Gun politics in the United States". In this edit, another editor added the following bolded italicized material to a section titled "Security against tyranny":
A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny,[1] but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that 60 percent of Americans gun owners own them for personal safety or protection and only 5 percent own them for Second Amendment reasons.[2]
[1] 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny, Rasmussen Reports (January 18, 2013).
[2]Swift, Art (October 28, 2013). "Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today: Second Amendment rights, job with police or military are lower on list". gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
I explained at the article talk page that, unlike the Rasmussen reference, the Gallup reference does not say anything about "tyranny" and is therefore very ambiguous about it. Nonetheless, the other editor wants to use this Gallup result to rebut or balance the Rasmussen result. I explained that it's WP:OR to use the Gallup result in that way, since the Gallup reference says nothing about "tyranny" and is thus ambiguous about it. (I am fine with including the Gallup reference elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, and am also fine with including poll results rebutting the Rasmussen result if such a poll result can be found.)
Morever, the bold, italicized material is written is such a way as to deny that the "protection" refers to protection against tyranny, which again seems like WP:OR to me.
I've never been to this Noticeboard before (as I recall), and I hope this question will not be found burdensome. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Editor Sage94 ( talk · contribs) is engaging in consistent violations of the WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring policies at the Macrophilia article. The matter concerns whether or not the term macrophilia covers females who have sexual fantasies about male giants. The WP:Reliable sources restrict the term to males who have sexual fantasies about female giants (giantesses); if any of the WP:Reliable sources give space to male giants, it is minor space. See this discussion for backstory on Sage94's editing of that article: Talk:Macrophilia#Again With This. It includes Pandarsson ( talk · contribs) trying to steer Sage94 in the right direction with regard to editing that article, and recent commentary from me as well. As can be seen at other parts of that talk page, people have been trying to give the topic of male giants space in that article for years. But, of course, we must go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with due weight.
Since in the aforementioned Macrophilia talk page discussion, I have already alerted Sage94 and Pandarsson to the fact that I would be reporting this matter here and have pinged them via WP:Echo, I do not see a need to notify them of this talk page section on their talk pages as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
There is already a source on the page that asserts that Macrophilia sometimes refers to giant men. In this source, (Kenter, Peter (July 27, 2012). Driving. "Gongo crush all cars! YouTube videos cater to macrophiliacs". National Post. p. 14.), the "Gongo" in question is a male giant, and the article quote is "Some macrophiles derive particular enjoyment from seeing cars being crushed by giant men or women..." I'm sure people will consider the National Post to be a mainstream and reliable source and that they are not making up the existence of Macrophiliac-catering videos that feature giant men. I'm sure the article can reflect that it's "predominantly" or "primarily" about giant women fantasies, but it is completely undue to omit all mention of something covered in a reputable and current source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
An IP address that was engaged in edit warring and the introduction of completely unsourced Original Research to related articles, also changed all the instances of giant people to the term giantess. Multiple sources describe macrophilia as dealing with more than just women subjects, as in "The attraction to giants, especially domination by giant women", and "Attractions to giants or giant creatures" (the gender of the people who do the fantasizing has nothing to do with anything here). The lead should be reverted to some pre-November version, in my opinion, in order to match sources not to ignore them. As per the academic title Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices, The Chicago Tribune, The National Post, and others. Maybe I'll clean it up in a little bit, if I find some time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Pandarsson does not "keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer"; I, Johnuniq and Pandarsson mentioned "the gender of the fantasizer" for obvious reasons, reasons I already told you -- sexually fantasizing about giants is mostly a male thing (something males do far more than females), a heterosexual male thing to be exact. The sources hardly attribute macrophilia to women as the ones doing the fantasizing. You make it sound like, well, if heterosexual women are hardly involved, then there's enough lesbian women and gay men involved. No, by "hardly attribute macrophilia to women," we mean "all types of women." See my "15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)" post for more on that. That you may have confused me with Pandarsson (who commented in this discussion for the first time with the "00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)" comment above), if your "Why do you keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer?" line is any indicator, is further enough reason to stop discussing this matter with you. You don't seem to be listening well to what others in this discussion have told you, and you every now and then misunderstand what they (we) have stated. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty verifying the biographical information at CK Morgan. While the later-life information seems to at least be somewhat supported by the given sources, I can't find any reliable sources about the information about birth dates and the subject's early life. Google turns up sources at [6] [7] [8], but because they match the grammatical structure of the article, I suspect that all those websites (especially the second one) have simply copied Wikipedia's text.
Furthermore, editors seem to have been changing the subject's birth date willy-nilly: from 1991 to 1993 at this revision, and then to 1992 here (the latter of which I had reverted after a cursory glance, suspecting BLP vandalism, before looking more closely at the context).
I've put maintenance templates on the page, with a citation needed flag right by the birth date, but the other editors (or editor editing under multiple accounts?) has been removing them without justification. Given that these are apparently new editors unaware of Wikipedia dispute resolution tools, it is not clear to me whether posting on the article's talk page would have any effect, so I am posting the question here to try to get a third opinion with respect to how to deal with this. Thank you! Joe Schmedley T* 17:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted into Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. Could someone else take a look please? The editor doesn't seem to get it... -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
A new editor has added what appears to be promotional material to two articles, Active shooter and School shootings. The additions promote one companies [9] manner of response in a dangerous situation without any secondary support that verifies its (the company or the response) reliability. Aside from self-promotion, the articles now promote Real World actions, by our readers, that places them in harms way should they encounter an "active shooter" or "school shooting". I will notify the editor, User talk:Aalexa1041, of this discussion and I have reverted the additions at the two articles awaiting a decision. ``` Buster Seven Talk 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Andajara120000 is adding WP:SYN material to several articles. The exact text is
Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a, [1] which "is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]" [2]
Given the editor's other edits it's pretty obvious this is arguing for the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. It's not obvious why it should have been added to Egyptians and Archaeogenetics of the Near East as there is no context for it in those articles - it's much too specific. What the editor is doing is combining sources about studies of mummies with a source about the lineage of E1b1a. This is a complex subject and simply saying 'originated and expanded' is misleading, but the main issue is the WP:SYN.
Dougweller ( talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
(RI) Andajara, I will explain this to you again, and will reference this post in the future.
Here is your problem in a nutshell: you're getting a study which predicted the Haplotype of someone who lived 3000 years ago, and then stringing it to a study about haplotype distributions now. Let me state that again: "now" and "3000 years ago" are separated by..you guessed it: 3000 years. You see, that's a lot of time.
Now, you might wonder: how can two facts be facts separately but POV together? Because you're implying relationships that may or may not exist and are pushing a POV unsupported by either source this way. Got it? Here is an example: "Johann Sebastian Bach was left handed (fact #1). Studies have shown that being left-handed is associated with a higher probability of mental problems (fact #2)."
Now, the E1b1a fact alone doesn't tell you anybody's race for reasons I have explained to you before (one male ancestor 1000 years ago could have carried it, and it just remained in the DNA despite the fact that the descendent is a completely different race). A simplified way to see this? Obama carried his mother's mtDNA. It's probably European. Does that make him European? No. Now, imagine this over many, many generations and you see the problem. Now imagine the same problem, but this time, you're trying to imply a fact about someone not now, but 3000 years ago. BIG, HUGE problem. Find a paper about haplotype distributions 3000 years ago and you might have a case. As is, you're WP:SYN.
Solution? Try not to draw conclusions based on the E1b1a fact alone. You're stringing two things together to make a point and it's just wrong.
I simplified this as much as I could. Hope it still makes sense.
Cheers,
Λuα (
Operibus anteire) 04:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
(I have moved this from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Album sales figures.2FWP:SYNTH)
At the article for Taking Over, an album by the band Overkill, User:Paranoid90 keeps adding a source which he insists is adequate proof of the album having sold a certain amount of copies. Currently, his addition to the article reads:
"As of 2011, Taking Over had sold over 100,000 copies in the U.S."
However, a simple browser search reveals no mention whatsoever of Taking Over within the source provided. A very fleeting mention of album sales is made at some point by the interviewee, who is a bandmember:
"How I could have sold over 100,000 units on Atlantic records and not received one penny!"
... but in context, these 100,000 units do not explicitly correspond to Taking Over. How could it, when the album itself is not even mentioned in any shape or form? Therefore I maintain that the source is NOT reliable in confirming such a definitive statement regarding album sales figures, and that I am correct in removing it. Nonetheless, User:Paranoid90 chooses to edit war over it rather than find a more reliable source. At my talk page he has put forth some half-assed rationale about record labels and timeframes, which he somehow expects other users to "know" in advance and even to disregard the content of the source. In his words, "The readers almost never care about the source, they just read it". Surely his grasp of WP:RS is lacking, and that he is violating both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Diakonias ( talk · contribs) has created three separate articles, United Pentecostal Churches of Christ, United Covenant Churches of Christ and Pentecostal Churches of Christ, in which he attempts though various interpretations of documents, web histories, etc., to suss out a link between the three organizations. His citations include rafts of interpretations that can only be considered WP:SYNTH. My original thought was to nominate all three articles for deletion, but each individual group may well be notable in their own right and deserving of a Wikipedia article. It's just that the articles we have are not valid. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiDan61. Clearly, I didn't do very well. Oh dear. Apologies. And, thank you for your attention and for your comments. I have done further work on all three articles. Hopefully this may have addressed your comments and may moved the articles in the right direction. Happy New Year, and all that. Diakonias ( talk) 20:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC).
I need help with a user, Bladesmulti, who is editing the Pantheism and List of Pantheists articles with original research, using sources that often have limited to no support for edits. He seems convinced that Hinduism and pantheism are pretty much the same thing (they are not) and he does not accept any reverts from me. Thanks for any help anybody can bring to these articles. NaturaNaturans ( talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice, removed Lao Tzu. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
No idea about the list of Deists, but the list of pantheists include those who called themselves pantheist, or had significant influence. Our editors doubted that if someone is also noted to have been never existed, how it can be added to the list. Thus Lao Tzu were removed. Bladesmulti ( talk) 15:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This newly created page looks a lot like original work. I'm not that familiar with wp.en standards, so I didn't do anything by myself, but I thought I should raise a flag. Pythakos ( talk) 13:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this family tree here consider synthesis/original research anymore than Stephen_I_of_Hungary#Family? I need this answered. I even went out of my way to exclude the disputed fathers. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In the article Aquatic ape hypothesis it has an infographic File:Human Aquatic Adaptations.png which has a large number of conjectures from that theory in it. I have a number of different problems with it
What do people here think about infographics like this? Dmcq ( talk) 22:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In this version of the article [11], an editor makes the claim:
"Some historians believe that Jewett choose this name to honor his Chilean lover Javiera Carrera,[8] acclaimed by some countrymen as a "heroine" of the Old Republic."
I pointed out this is dubious a in historical accounts the ship was named Heroína in 1819 by Patricio Lynch, the ships owner. Jewett was not appointed Captain till 1820, so the ship was named before he became captain. Instead of accepting this, the editor responsible has edited the material back into the article but has omitted the reference to the Jewett connection to assert only that Lynch named the ship after Javiera Carrera. The article now states:
"Some historians believe that Lynch choose this name in honor to Javiera Carrera,[8] acclaimed by some countrymen as a "heroine" of the Old Republic."
The editor appears to be inserting dubious material, justifying it by selectively quoting from the same source which he acknowledges is wrong. I for one am baffled by this, I really don't understand why an editor would do this? BedsBookworm ( talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A WP:FRINGE proposal called the Aquatic ape hypothesis once contained a number of images of various items that were not at all "aquatic apes" but were being used to promote various ideas associated with the proposal. For example, the lede image right now is of a baby being held by an adult underwater and the caption is trying to make a claim that certain instinctual behaviors of newborns underwater is evidence in favor of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (never mind that human beings drown in water every day). I think that images should be directly applicable to the topic at hand; that is the images should be directly related to publications about the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. For example, pictures of the main proponents. Images that had been famously used to support the hypothesis, and so on. Other images of horse, babies, gorillas wading through ponds, and the like should be excluded on the basis of original research: namely in light of the fact that fringe promotion of ideas is a problem at Wikipedia and has been historically at this article.
Please see also WP:FTN#Aquatic ape hypothesis.
jps ( talk) 23:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There is RFC regarding nature of carvaka religion at the talkpage. Similar discussion is also there at Talk:Ājīvika. It seems that original research is involved in these pages. -- Rahul ( talk) 04:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears that almost every edit made by user 99.41.173.202 ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/99.41.173.202) are references to (or excerpts or summaries from) his own self-published book, which contains his own interpretations of poems. (Either this user is referring to his own book, or the user is interested only in adding citations and summaries from that one book.) In spirit, if not in the letter, these edits seem to be in violation of multiple policies; instead of original research, the editor cites his own interpretations (not facts) from his own book, which comes to the same thing. Could an administrator possibly look into this? Thank you.
Further detail: this user reverted an edit in which I removed a citation to his self-published book. I don't want to start an edit war, so I hope an admin might decide on what to do next. - Macspaunday ( talk) 15:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I would welcome editors looking at a sentence in the article Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia that I believe is based on original research.
The sentence in question is the following:
The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page.
This was originally sourced to a secondary source, Owens, which says something rather different:
Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.
Editors objected to my replacing the present wording with a sentence quoting the cited secondary source. Herostratus then changed the sourcing to various primary sources, namely:
The problem I see with this wording and primary sourcing is that Wikipedia has paid editors in good standing who work transparently to "manage" their clients' Wikipedia articles for them, in a way that is compliant with policy and does not violate WP:OWN. These paid editors act as talk page advocates for their clients, in a way that even Jimmy Wales welcomes. Jimmy Wales is for example quoted in Owens' article as saying,
“I am opposed to people who are paid advocates being allowed to edit in article space at all, and extremely supportive of paid advocates being given other helpful paths to assist in our work usefully and ethically."
To me, the present article wording is apt to create the impression that this sort of arrangement is forbidden. In addition, one of the primary sources cited, WP:COI, contains the following passage explicitly saying that paying someone to write an article about you in Wikipedia can be benign and unobjectionable:
The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.
Isn't the WP:COI quote in the sourcing rather selective, to an extent that it amounts to a Wikipedian's interpretation of a primary source? And not only that, but an interpretation that directly contradicts statements in the secondary source (Owens), and parts of the primary source itself? This is exactly what WP:PSTS forbids.
As far as I am aware there is no policy anywhere on the English Wikipedia that says that a company cannot pay someone to manage their Wikipedia entry for them, at least in the sense of getting a paid advocate who is more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to fight their battles here for them, rather than having one of their own employees wading into a dispute here.
I'm not sure how best to solve this. Discussions on the talk page have stalled. However, I feel certain that present status is not in line with WP:OR, and would welcome editors' comments on that aspect.
Disclosure: I am not a paid editor, never have been, never will be. I believe if paid editing is done in Wikipedia, it should be done transparently, with full disclosure, using registered paid-editor accounts that are flagged in edit histories, and with articles, too, flagged for readers if they contain such edits (as tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles currently do, without disclosure and transparency). -- Andreas JN 466 12:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Articles such as Buddhism by country or List of religious populations have been constructed through misuse of sources and original research (for example combining statistics of different religions), in order to enormously inflate the number of Buddhists in the world.
In general, can studies of spinal manipulation be used to make statements on Wikipedia about Chiropractic, even if they do not mention chiropractic? A particular instance of this question is: can PMID 24412033 be cited in the Chiropractic article's "Effectiveness" section? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have the source now ( URL; non-paywalled PDF). Alex, it does mention chiropractic; see chart on page 4 (of 17) of the PDF where it refers to manipulation is chiro a/o osteo. (I almost missed it; it didn't show up with my browser's "find" function until the page had loaded.) We can just move on, but the larger principle is worth considering for a moment. I'm not convinced by your argument that we shouldn't cite a source on SMT in the chiro article unless the source specifically mentions chiro. What if we had an article on risks of SMT, including "high-velocity" techniques where they "crack" your neck and risk causing a stroke, but it didn't mention chiro specifically. We'd want to use the article anyway, since we know chiros use that technique. And we'd also use the podiatry example. The razor cuts both ways, for benefits and risks, and it shouldn't depend simply on whether a source mentions the specific profession, but on whether the treatment that it discusses comes under the profession. Does this make sense? -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This is no complaint, and no request for arbitration. It’s a request for unbinding guidance. As an editor, I sometimes find myself in a grey zone between Routine Calculations and WP:OR. Please help me find my way. These examples are real life examples, pulled from articles I am working on.
Case 1: List of whole city populations. Can I decide that some cities are too large, and to put them in relation with other cities, can I pull a set of core districts from source A, and their populations from source B (census results), add them up and list the total as the city’s population? The result will be different from that in the census. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 2: Population again. I have the metro population of a city from Source A (census result.) Source B says 80% of the metro population lives downtown. Can I use the 80% of source B, apply them to the Source A count, to arrive at the downtown population? A downtown number was never published, otherwise it would be used. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 3: List of railroads. I want to arrive at the total of a railroad’s trackage in a given metro area. I have the railroad’s trackage per province of a country. I have from another source the list of provinces that make up a certain metro area. Can I add up the per province trackages to arrive at the metro total? The result will not clash with a published result. None was found during an intensive search. If it would have been found, it would have been used. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 4. Different list of railroads. List inclusion criteria say that rapid urban transit must be electric. It is found that in one instance, a train on a certain rapid transit network is diesel-powered. The railroad publishes the length of the total network. Can I deduct the 20 or so km diesel tracks from the several hundred km total to arrive at a for a pure electric system? The result will be 20km less than that in the source. Routine calculation, or OR?
Case 5: Rapid transit. A live example for a change. Total rapid transit systems statistics by country provides "total length of rapid transit systems, total number of stations" per country. It has no references. It generates its data by adding up the data provided by List of metro systems. The latter list does not reflect "rapid transit systems," but narrower cast "metros." The data generated by Total rapid transit systems statistics by country usually don't even come close to the real stats of rapid transit systems in many countries. Is it OK to have a list without references, based on another Wikipedia page? If yes, is it OK to generate a country total, which is not in the referenced list?
If any of these are OK, what is the proper way to reference the edit?
Thank you! BsBsBs ( talk) 14:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This was very helpful. I will store Dmcq's "if you need to apply judgement, it looks like OR" into my trove of wisdom. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
Article includes original research, is mostly missing references.
I'm very concerned about an invented rule to list metros by operators that was created out of the air by a group of editors at List of metro systems, which as its name suggests, is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators. The rule goes against the purpose of that article and is basically original research, completely unreferenced and from the talk page, it appears as if it was added deliberately in an attempt to split the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is considered by by the official operators' sources and a reliable secondary source to be one system. It was added yesterday by User:BsBsBs (see the diff here), which I have strongly opposed as inventing rules out of the air is a clear breach of WP:NOR. However, editors ignored this and this is the rule that was invented: "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies." This may work to list metros in North America when there's usually only one operator, but in other regions like Asia, there are multiple operators for one system. The official operators of the system define Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal laws:
제3조(정의) Article 3 (Definition)
5. "도시철도"라 함은 도시철도법에 따라 서울메트로구간과 연락운송하는 노선(이하 "도시철도구간"이라 합니다) 및 그 부대설비, 열차 등을 통틀어 말합니다..
Translation: The metro, as constituted by the metro law, refers to the jointly operated lines with Seoul Metro (called "sections of metro" from now) and its supplementary equipments, trains and etc. collectively.
4. "연락운송"이라 함은 도시철도법 제17조에 따라 서울메트로구간과 한국철도광역전철구간, 서울도시철도구간, 인천교통공사구간, 서울시메트로9호선구간, 코레일공항철도 검암~서울역, 신분당선구간을 서로 연속하여 여객을 운송하는 것을 말합니다..
Translation: "Joint operation", as defined by metro law Article 17, refers to the continuous transport of passengers by the sections of Seoul Metro, Korail Metropolitan Subway, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~ Seoul Station and Sinbundang Line.
Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metro, Identical definition from SMRT's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit and Sinbundang Line's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, DX Line
제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.
1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~ Seoul Station, Sinbundang Line and Korail's metropolitan subway.
〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉
Source: Terms of Passenger Transport, Incheon Transit.
제2조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음과 같습니다.
Translation: The definition of the terms used in this provision is as follows.
“수도권도시철도”라 함은 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 인천교통공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 도시철도구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철구간을 말합니다. <개정 ‘13.12.13>.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metro operated by Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro Line 9 and Sinbundang Line and metropolitan subway operated by Korail. 〈Amended ‘13.12.13〉
Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Korail Airport Railroad.
I also brought this reliable secondary source to them (with system marked in bold), which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website:
Seoul subway serving the Seoul Metropolitan Area is the longest subway system in the world. The total route length of the system extended as far as 940km as of 2013. The first line of the subway was opened in 1974 and the system presently incorporates 17 lines (excluding the Uijeongbu LRT and the recently opened Yongin Ever Line). The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators.
Source: Railwaytechnology.com
Clearly, the source is defining this metro system very differently from the way it is listed on that article because of this invented rule that is pointing to a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. One of the editors has claimed that inventing a parameter for the list out of the air is fine - Is this true? I need the inputs of editors not associated with that article to assess whether this group of editors' original research that they claim "consensus" is acceptable. I would appreciate links to Wikipedia rules or policies, Thanks. Massyparcer ( talk) 20:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the complaintant has filed a DRN after his ANI in a related matter was denied. The DRN was denied with the message "Pending in another forum (NOR noticeboard). Per the instructions, DRN does not accept matters which are pending in other forums." Please close this NORN, as its pendency blocks the user from seeking other avenues. Thank you. BsBsBs ( talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#New_Myspace the very last portion of this section contains a lot of original research and dubious sources for its citations.
− The case was on NPOV noticeboard. Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have conflict of interests and OWN problems(concerned by multiple editors) are adding propaganda for Marian Dawkin or removing critisim about her. The content they added has clear violation of policies, such as injection of original research and removal of critisim from reliable sources .
For example this sentence 'Her views on animal consciousness have been criticised by evolutionary biologist, Marc Bekoff, who argues that she too readily rejects anthropomorphic research on animals.' This is not Bekoff's opinion. The editors watered downed Bekoff's criticism. This version contain proper sumary of bekoff's criticism. More OR can be found here
124.170.208.102 ( talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the no original research policy could use some clarification for the case where the subject of the article is themselves a journalist. I've seen some of these cases ( Touré, and now Chuck Philips) where you have an article that lists all the articles written by the subject like a resume, and for references they use the articles themselves. It's a subtle point, but I believe that constitutes original research. The article appears well-cited, but the citations are non-independent primary sources. What is needed to meet notability standards is a news article about the news article. My apologies if this has already been mentioned in a guideline somewhere (I looked). Fnordware ( talk) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Does the second sentence below (in bold) violate WP:SYNTH?
It is based on these quotes from sources:
Basically, the sentence is a summary of what three Russian historians say and this summary is also directly backed up by the fourth source. It should not be synthesis because it summarizes the points made by the historians (per
WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_summary).
However, is it synthesis because the statement is attributed to Russian historians? Does it imply that all Russian historians think this way?
I think that simply saying "Russian historians" does not imply that absolutely all Russian historians have this view. The last source also directly says "Russian historians". -
YMB29 (
talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This article contains a section titled " Specific references" that only cites one secondary source for the dodgiest of its claims, and lists seven books in the New Testament where Mary is "specifically referred to", providing only primary references for all of them. Mary is named in four of these books. One (the Gospel of John) mentions Jesus' mother but not by name; one (Paul's letter) simply says Jesus was "born of woman"; and one (the Apocalypse of John) doesn't mention her at all but some Roman Catholics have read her into it. I removed the Paul reference because no one could possibly interpret "Christ was born of a woman" as being a specific reference to Mary; Paul doesn't mention Mary once in any of his letters. [13] I was reverted within a matter of hours. [14] In fact, the only independent source that names Jesus' mother as Mary is Mark (virtually all scholars agree that the authors of both Matthew and Luke-Acts used Mark as a source).
I think changing "Specific references" to "New Testament references" could work, but honestly I think each point in the section should be backed up by a reliable secondary or tertiary source.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
BsBsBs ( talk) 07:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is asking the subject of an article (via email) for strictly factual information (such as (regarding actors) did he or she appear in such or such when in dispute) considered original research? If so, such seems ludicrous and I think the rule should be changed. Thanks. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 19:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like some clarification on the page for John Elliott (artist) , in reference to Terrace Garden, Rome . As a new user of Wikipedia I would like to make sure that I have not violated this rule. I wrote: "Terrace Garden, Rome, an oil painting on canvas depicting the artist's terrace at his apartment in Rome. It was painted at the request of Larz Anderson, who met his wife Isabel Weld Perkins for the first time at this location"
The two references for this information are as follows(for more detail, see the links on the actual wikipedia page)-
From James Sansum Fine and Decorative Art : Terrace Garden, Rome Circa 1880-1900 Oil on canvas, original frame H: 23 W: 19 D: 1 inches (framed) Signed with initials on lower right of recto: J.E. Inscribed on stretcher: Elliot (sic) Terrace Rome/Return to Mrs. Anderson, Weld, Jamaica Plains Provenance: Mrs. Larz Anderson (Isabel Weld Perkins), Weld, Brookline, Massachusetts
From John Elliott: The Story of an Artist
"The terrace is intimately connected with the romance of our young friend Isabel, for here she often received her admirers, and met the man for whom she was destined.... As a souvenir of the happy hours that he spent there, Larz Anderson asked Jack to make a painting of the terrace. This picture now hangs at their Weld country home."
I wonder if it is to much of an inference to link these two references as one coherent statement about the painting.
Arkabaker ( talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that a few of the facts on the treehouse attachment bolt page, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_attachment_bolt, seem to contain some origional research. Specifically those that are linked to the 2nd reference. Both can be found at the end of the paragraphs in the history section.
For the past week, a small debate -- to which I have been taking part after receiving a random invitation via the Feedback request service -- has been underway concerning the scope of Pathology and whether it is in fact a broad-concept article. Most all of the editors involved believe that in fact the article space should cover the entirety of pathology as a scientific and medical domain, whereas one contributor (whose removal of large portions of content instigated the debate - no user name, but identifiable as the only IP editor involved) contends that the page should contain only content on specific medical specialties. However, despite the importance of the subject and article in question, involvement in the RfC has been limited to some half-dozen editors, which is lower than what I feel should constitute a consensus for such an important article, and as such I'm trying to attract some additional commentary, through noticeboards and Wikiprojects that are relevance to the article and the policies being debated. I've brought the issue here specifically because I feel that the sources we have on the article clearly denote that many of the subjects which the afore-mentioned IP editor has removed are treated as part and parcel of pathology in our sources and that by removing this content to fit a narrower and arbitrary personal standard, in conflict with what our sources state, is a blatant exercise in original research. Any additional editor involvement would be of use in establishing some valid consensus on the matter. Snow ( talk) 05:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There appear to be quite a few problems with Najahid dynasty. One source in particular (Yaman its early medieval history by Henry Cassels Kay) seems to be consistently misrepresented, and it is used for most of the assertions on the page. For instance, it is indicated in the wiki-text that "Najah was not recognized as a sovereign by the tribal elements in the Yemeni highlands," and this is attributed to page 21 of Kay's book. Kay, however, doesn't mention Najah at all on that page [19]. In fact, Kay indicates the opposite a few pages earlier i.e. that Najah "was empowered to appoint as Kadi whomsoever he chose, and to administer all the affairs of the country of Yaman[...] he continued to rule over Tihama, and to exercise control over most of the people of the Highlands, and he was styled King, both in the Khutbah and in official documents, with the title of Our Lord" [20]. Another example is a section on the wiki-page titled "Legacy", where through what appears to be synthesis an attempt is made to associate the Najahids of yore with the modern Al-Akhdam low caste group. However, none of the links in question actually make this association; and indeed, the wiki-text itself at one point rather sheepishly concedes this ("it is difficult to establish some link between them and al-Akhdam (servants) or "Hujur" in southern Yemen"). These are just two of the more glaring instances of problems affecting the page. Middayexpress ( talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it either original research and/or synthesis to include the %possible sun if a meteorological agency only lists the total monthly sunshine duration and then one proceeds to use another reliable source to state the following, as an example: in London, during March, the sun shines 29% of the time? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
MasonBanks keeps adding an fact that seems to be of original research and does not have any proper source explicitly say so. The fact says this:
This was at the expense of Russell Crowe, who became the only person in history to win the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG Award and Critics Choice Award for Best Actor but lose the Oscar to another performance.
While it is true off the bat, there is no proper resource explaining the fact specifically. Even if you looks at the official websites for each of the organizations in charge of the awards (they have winners lists), they do not explicitly state the fact that Crowe lost the Oscar despite winning those precursor awards. I would like to know, and if not please contact MasonBanks and tell him to not put that fact up due to Wikipedia standards.
What constitutes basic arithmetic per Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations? I am asking the question in relation to musical artist articles and related discography articles, specifically regarding arriving at a sum of the artists' RIAA certified units. Typically in such articles the certification level for any given album is referenced by the RIAA web site. For example, the Paul McCartney discography contains this link to riaa.com as a reference for each album. As the certification levels are in fixed increments (.5 million for Gold, 1 million for Platinum, 2 million for 2xPlatinum, etc.) a sum of all album certifications can be found by adding .5 + 1 + 2 = 3.5. In the case of the Paul McCartney article, the total for 26 certified albums listed at riaa.com comes to 26.5. Would this be considered basic arithmetic or is it original research? Piriczki ( talk) 15:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: Moved the below from WP:BLPN where no response. Guess it's too minor a problem for that noticeboard, but it is annoying and would like an opinion. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 22:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that policy demands we be very careful to give proper context to any use of material about individuals. Here the question is: a Nobel Prize winner in a NY Times article does not mention an individual's name but only links to a personal blog where that person is mentioned. Editors insist we can write it as if he mentions the individual by name in a New York Times article. This has been reverted back and forth numerous times on article, and discussed a few times, but not addressed by non-involved editors when it was brought here as part of larger issue in November. Since creeping synth is a problem in many BLPs, uninvolved editors' opinions would be helpful this time.
At this diff my change of
was changed back to
Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
side comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Do I understand correctly – you both agree there is synthesis? If so, can you explain what are the A + B sources and what is the inference created by the combination which is not in the independent sources? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I would have to lean to the not synth side here. Carol's wording is more confusing, and means the same thing. Id say this falls under some textual version of WP:CALC. Steeltrap's pronoun reasoning is quite sound here. Because Krugman use a pronoun ("guy") instead of naming the person, does not in any way mean Krugman was not obvious about who he was discussing. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Separating the material would avoid the SYNTH issue a bit:
though it is quite possible that Krugman's second-hand assessment is being given excessive weight in the BLP as it is certainly an opinion piece and pretty much only usable for Krugman's personal opinion and not for him reporting that someone else had a specific opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect ( talk • contribs)
Summation: Two editors do not believe the edit is SYNTH. The rest all consider SYNTH to be a potential or real problem.
Collect (
talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (as a totally outside observer who commented here)
In the Paul McCartney article, I have been attempting to add certain details without which I believe the article can viewed as misleading. However, my changes have been reverted because they are deemed WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by another editor, apparently because I am using two references, the second of which adds detail not included in the first. The passage in question currently reads:
In 1979, Guinness World Records described McCartney as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and as the "most successful songwriter" in United Kingdom chart history.
I have suggested that the statement is misleading because it gives the impression that McCartney himself had achieved these feats when, in fact, they are actually mostly or wholly attributed to the Beatles. For my first reference I want to cite a newspaper article covering the event, "McCartney Cited For Successes". The article, like other widely published wire reports of the event, did not include complete details of the Guinness records mentioned. As an additional source, I am using the 1980 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records directly referred to in the newspaper article to provide more details of those records. According to the 1980 Guinness book, the three entries involving McCartney are:
“Most Successful Song Writer. In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney (formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings). Between 1962 and January 1, 1978, he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold 1,000,000 or more records.”
“Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.”
“Most Golden Discs. Out of the 2,390 R.I.A.A. gold-record awards made to January 1, 1979, the most have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 16 awards both on his own and with the group Wings.”
Based on these two references, I would like to change the passage to read:
In 1979, the Guinness Book of World Records recognised McCartney as the "most honored composer and performer in music", with 60 gold discs (43 with the Beatles, 17 with Wings) and, as a member of the Beatles, sales of over 100 million singles and 100 million albums through 1978, and as the "most successful song writer", he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold one million or more records between 1962 and 1978.
By citing these two sources am I employing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or is this an acceptable use of previously published sources? Piriczki ( talk) 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Entry: Thaïs (novel)
Thaïs is a novel by Anatole France.
The text reads as such:
Paphnuce, an ascetic hermit of the Egyptian desert, journeys to Alexandria to find Thais, the libertine beauty whom he knew as a youth. He seduces the Queen of Sheba, who then performs fellatio on him. Masquerading as a dandy, he is able to speak with her about eternity; surprisingly he succeeds in converting her to Christianity. Yet on their return to the desert he becomes fascinated with her former life. She enters a convent to repent of her sins......
This line is clearly a joke of the middle school variety:
He seduces the Queen of Sheba, who then performs fellatio on him.
This is clearly a joke, since the Queen of Sheba died in the 10th century B.C.E. and Paphnuce was a 4rth century member of the council of Nicaea.
Also, Paphnuce didn't get NO action in that book. In fact, just the THOUGHT of getting some action sent him off to live on top of pillars or in desert tombs. That was kind of the point.
I didn't know where else to report this 'original' idea, since I couldn't find the section "Teenagers Found This Vandalism Funny."
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.25.242 ( talk • contribs)
All right, here goes—I was advised to bring this here, but I almost didn't because I don't have time to spend on it. But the particular instance (which is not worth the time) raises the general case (which might be). Here goes:
Some organizations officially retire the expansion of an acronym, which means that from now on, their brand name, although it used to be an acronym, and still "looks like one", no longer stands for any expansion. For example, if you look at ASTM's website ( www.astm.org), it says "formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials".
Other organizations do not make any statement about officially retiring the expansion, but their brand management omits all mention of the expansion; you cannot find any mention of the expansion anywhere on their site. I believe KFC is one of these (maybe they mention it somewhere on their site ( KFC.com), but it is very hard to find if you go looking for it—last time I tried, I could not find any mentions there).
Regarding IBM SPSS, although you can find a few mentions of the expansion "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" buried within user manuals or other documentation, you can tell from clicking around their website that their brand management no longer emphasizes the expansion.
Consider if, on its SPSS article, Wikipedia said, "The software name stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS),[2] reflecting the original market, although the software is now popular in other fields as well, including the health sciences and marketing. The branding no longer emphasizes the expansion."
My question is, does that last sentence have to be removed because there is no publicly available document to cite as a reference in which IBM communications people say to each other, in so many words, "don't include the expansion, just say 'SPSS'. Focus the brand on 'SPSS', not the expansion." The sentence has been removed, and I don't care if it stays deleted forever. I'm not asking you whether you feel it's worth Wikipedia saying that sentence, or whether you yourself would feel a desire to add it. I'm just asking you whether that sentence must be deleted because it is unreferenced. In my opinion, there is no way it is not covered by Wikipedia:Common knowledge > Acceptable examples of common knowledge at "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property". I'm not saying their website is public property. I'm saying anyone, standing anywhere, can look at their website and state an observation about whether it emphasizes the expansion. Saying that writing that sentence was "disruptive" because it violates WP:VERIFY, and implying that I'm stupid for thinking it doesn't, feels like an undue appeal to authority to me. I recognize that not all mentions of authority are undue, but sometimes a spire is just a spire. Quercus solaris ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Whoniverse was a rambling unsourced mess for some time. In recent weeks certain editors(including me) have attempted to tidy it up. Unfortunately, one editor User:G S Palmer has ignored all Wikipedia Policies, and continues to push his/her version of the article.
The problems are: i)adding totally unsourced material, ii)adding material "sourced" from non-RS fansites, iii)taking material from websites that never mention anything about the article's definition, name etc. iv)using material where the term is used with a totally different meaning to act as a RS.
This dispute has already been taken to Edit Warring, Edit Disputes, reported to 2 Admins. The discussion page of the article now consists of the same "discussion" over and over, where I point out Wikipedia Policy such as WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS, and User:G S Palmer and another user called User:Mezigue say they don't care, and then keep reverting it to their OR version. I even copy and pasted sections of Wikipedia Policy on the discussion page(obviously word-for-word), and the User:G S Palmer stated that this word-for-word Policy was "[my] overly harsh interpretation". Other shave attempted to clean up this article, but it is getting harder and harder with User:G S Palmer's relentless reinsertion of unsourced, OR and SYNTHESIS material. While he/she has added links to the "References" section, most of them never mention anything to do with the article's title, definition or scope at all. And other whole sections are just his/her thoughts and beliefs. 41.135.9.230 ( talk) 11:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The description of File:Indian Aurochs B p namadicus 3.jpg seems to hint that it was created based on various other images of live cattle and an auroch skull. I guess including this in Indian aurochs is original research? -- Paddu ( talk) 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
There appear to be quite a few problems with Najahid dynasty. One source in particular (Yaman its early medieval history by Henry Cassels Kay) seems to be consistently misrepresented, and it is used for most of the assertions on the page. For instance, it is indicated in the wiki-text that "Najah was not recognized as a sovereign by the tribal elements in the Yemeni highlands," and this is attributed to page 21 of Kay's book. Kay, however, doesn't mention Najah at all on that page [28]. In fact, Kay indicates the opposite a few pages earlier i.e. that Najah "was empowered to appoint as Kadi whomsoever he chose, and to administer all the affairs of the country of Yaman[...] he continued to rule over Tihama, and to exercise control over most of the people of the Highlands, and he was styled King, both in the Khutbah and in official documents, with the title of Our Lord" [29]. Another example is a section on the wiki-page titled "Legacy", where through what appears to be synthesis an attempt is made to associate the Najahids of yore with the modern Al-Akhdam low caste group. However, none of the links in question actually make this association; and indeed, the wiki-text itself at one point rather sheepishly concedes this ("it is difficult to establish some link between them and al-Akhdam (servants) or "Hujur" in southern Yemen"). These are just two of the more glaring instances of problems affecting the page. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A few days ago, I saw that the List of programs broadcast by Boomerang contained absolutely no references, yet described a lot of detail about when this or that cartoon series was shown by the classic cartoon TV network Boomerang. I greatly reduced the information offered in the article because of the NOR problems, and I added a reference to support current programming.
I would appreciate more eyes on that page! The editors who are interested in the topic have been reverting my drastic reduction. They don't seem to see any problem with maintaining a Wikipedia article which is in violation of WP:V. Thanks in advance. Binksternet ( talk) 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
OO9o9 keeps adding [30]. The Hage case has no connection to the Bundy case but is added to confuse readers into thinking that it affects the Bundy case. The user was warned about it and persists. 174.147.113.160 ( talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek added this in what looks like an attempt to blame Russia and personally Vladimir Putin for the events in the eastern Ukraine.
Is it original research? -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 19:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about the article " Gun politics in the United States". In this edit, another editor added the following bolded italicized material to a section titled "Security against tyranny":
A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny,[1] but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that 60 percent of Americans gun owners own them for personal safety or protection and only 5 percent own them for Second Amendment reasons.[2]
[1] 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny, Rasmussen Reports (January 18, 2013).
[2]Swift, Art (October 28, 2013). "Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today: Second Amendment rights, job with police or military are lower on list". gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
I explained at the article talk page that, unlike the Rasmussen reference, the Gallup reference does not say anything about "tyranny" and is therefore very ambiguous about it. Nonetheless, the other editor wants to use this Gallup result to rebut or balance the Rasmussen result. I explained that it's WP:OR to use the Gallup result in that way, since the Gallup reference says nothing about "tyranny" and is thus ambiguous about it. (I am fine with including the Gallup reference elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, and am also fine with including poll results rebutting the Rasmussen result if such a poll result can be found.)
Morever, the bold, italicized material is written is such a way as to deny that the "protection" refers to protection against tyranny, which again seems like WP:OR to me.
I've never been to this Noticeboard before (as I recall), and I hope this question will not be found burdensome. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)