This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
At issue in Timothy Leary is a claim that he was a philosopher, with several editors insisting he was not. One source was already cited and I have added 6 more. [1] FreeKnowledgeCreator and Skyerise object, arguing that this is impermissable WP:OR. [2], [3], [4]. Further discussion may be found on the article talk page, especially at Talk:Timothy Leary#Protected edit request on 1 April 2016. Guidance is requested. Msnicki ( talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Summary, so that the people here doesn't have to read through very long discussions. The sources under debate are:
Leary explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs
Leary not only used and distributed the drug, he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion and the revelation of personal truth through "dropping acid."
And the question then is:
-- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure how anyone could conclude philosopher wasn't his main occupation. Never mind that we even have the news report [5] that he testified that this was his occupation. From Timothy Leary bibliography and from examination of his citations on Google scholar [6], it's clear that around 1964, he abandoned what appears to have been a successful academic career as a psychologist, judging by the 2817 citations received by his 1958 paper, Interpersonal diagnosis of personality.. From then on, his entire life work for the next 36 years appears to have been focused solely on his philosophy, which numerous sources describe as "think for yourself and question authority" and advocating LSD for "mind expansion and revelation of personal truth".
At this point, permit me digression on citation counts in academia. This is a huge deal for those on tenure track, c.f., [7]. It's how academics judge impact. In engineering, where I teach, it takes a PhD and about 1000 citations to earn tenure. That's the number you'll see in my earlier citation and it appears to match what I observe. A top paper in engineering is one that gets over 1000 citations on its own. But in faculty meetings, I hear all the time from colleagues in other (slower changing) departments that even a few hundred citations is remarkable.
That appeared to be true as I somewhat randomly (H/L/M?) spot-checked a few full professors of philosophy (whom I assume we can all accept as full-time philosophers, whatever that means) at Harvard, [8], [9], [10], UC Santa Barbara, [11], [12], [13] and University of Washington, [14], [15], [16] this morning. Skipping over the obvious false hits for same-named people in obviously different fields, what you'll notice is that only a few of them appear to hit 1000 citations total even by full professorship, never mind just for tenure as associates and that it's a rare paper that got over 100. The highest I happened to find this morning was Korsgaard's amazing 2246 [17] and Wylie's 559 [18].
So that's the background, now here is a table of citation counts for Leary's top publications in philosophy also taken from Google scholar. [19]
Publication | Citations |
---|---|
The psychedelic experience | 295 |
The politics of ecstacy | 211 |
Chaos and cyber culture | 139 |
The religious experence: Its production and interpretation | 83 |
High priest | 77 |
The Cyber-punk: The individual as reality pilot | 56 |
Design for dying | 31 |
The interpersonal, interactive, interdimensional interface | 42 |
Turn on, tune in, drop out | 33 |
The psychedelic reader | 32 |
Religious implications of consciousness expanding drugs | 31 |
The politics of conscienousness expansion | 15 |
Psychedelic Prayers: And other Meditations | 14 |
Foucaut and the Art of Ethics | 258 |
Your Brain is God | 13 |
The politics, ethics and meaning of marijuana | 11 |
Start your own religion | 12 |
Total | 1353 |
It looks to me like Leary was a philosopher no matter how you slice it. Numerous WP:RS call him that. He testified that was his occupation. He spent his entire life from about 1964 on writing thousands of pages on his philosophy, which sources have no trouble describing in specific terms. He's reported to have had trouble generating income [20] and what he did generate appears to have come from writing and speaking about his philosophy. His publications on philosophy had significant impact as most academics might measure it by citation count. Were it not for the fact that his philosophy included taking LSD, he compiled a publication record that might have earned him tenure in the philosophy department almost anywhere in the country.
I just don't know how anyone argues he wasn't a philosopher except by vague hand-waving claims that amount to little more than, "I know one when I see one and he's not it." We should be able to do better than that. Our objective here should be verifiability, not truth. I understand that some of you believe that, in truth, he wasn't really a philosopher. But what we can verify is that he was. Msnicki ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Will this edit [21] satisfy the last of any concerns? Msnicki ( talk) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
OpenFuture, I absolutely stand by my position that Msnicki is guilty of original research in using the sources by Isralowitz and Donaldson to claim that Leary was a philosopher. The whole point of WP:NOR is that you do not use sources to try to show things that the sources do not directly, unambiguously, or uncontroversially state, and neither Isralowitz nor Donaldson states that Leary was a philosopher. Msnicki is simply using her personal assumptions and beliefs about what a philosopher is to try to deny that she is engaged in original research; she should not be encouraged in this. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"? Yes, because there is no agreed upon definition of "philosopher" according to which it means that someone "explored cultural and philosophical implications" of LSD or anything else. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"". Again, yes because founding a "sort of philosophy", whatever that means, and it may mean anything or nothing, is also not a recognized definition of "philosopher." FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::That claim is both false, and original research. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 06:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)I must have misunderstood or replied in the wrong location. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
(outside opinion) There are certain academics (and editors here on Wikipedia) that strongly desire to downplay the contributions of philosophers that they dislike, disagree with, or that work outside of stale academia to become pop culture figures. They will engage in this sort of attack on the use of "philosopher" not for the betterment of the encyclopedia, but to give themselves some misguided sense of value.
The reality is that journals and other sources of academic citations don't typically call anyone by the common name for their occupations. Someone doing a journal article about the Great Depression is highly unlikely to describe one of his sources as "economist John Jenkins" in plain text within the body of their article. Rather, the author will cite the person, source, and date for whatever past work he's referring to in the journal, and discuss their ideas in context. Likewise, these kinds of sources aren't ever likely to call Leary a "philosopher"... but context matters. When someone is writing about philosophy and they cite Leary mentioning his philosophy, they are confirming that Leary has produced ideas with tangible philosophical value - which is certainly part of the definition of a philosopher. Its not OR to equate philosophy with philosopher, its really just different word forms, not a vast gulf of meaning. Clearly, Leary has worked in philosophy and been cited as such. That makes him a philosopher. --
Netoholic
@ 12:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The Timothy Leary article still includes a category identifying Leary as a "philosopher of mind". In the absence of a reliable source calling Leary a "philosopher of mind", the category seems to be unacceptable original research. Discussion on the article's talk page is ongoing. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It's deja vu all over again. Just when you thought the question of whether Timothy Leary was a philosopher was settled, we have the same question being raised at Aldous Huxley. Previous discussion is at Talk:Aldous Huxley#Doubts about whether Huxley was a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator, User:Johnuniq and 2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b have been edit warring over whether Huxley was a philosopher and whether he should be described as such in the infobox. Initially, FKC indicated he only wanted a source, [23], not that he had any particular reason to doubt Huxley was a philosopher and seemed to agree that a {{cn}} tag would suffice until someone had time to do the research. [24], [25] Four days later, FKC removed the claim and the tag insisting the claim was simply wrong. [26]
This morning, I finally got time to do the research. It wasn't hard to find four WP:RS all describing Huxley as a philosopher. [27] FKC and JU have both reverted, [28] and [29], insisting these citations are insufficient, that this really wasn't Huxley's occupation. It seems to me that both FKC and JU misunderstand what it means to be an intellectual. Both seem focused on how the individuals monetize their work, [30], which I believe misses the point that an intellectual is occupied by his thoughts, not by how they put bread on the table. A philosopher is an intellectual whose thoughts are occupied by questions of philosophy, e.g., and sometimes literally, the meaning of life. Sources clearly indicate that Huxley was occupied his entire life with with developing his philosophy, they clearly identify the unique aspects of his philosophy and they report that other important philosophers took his ideas seriously. This sure sounds like a philosopher to me. Msnicki ( talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Russell wrote, "Much of what is set forth in the following chapters is not properly to be called “philosophy,” though the matters concerned were included in philosophy so long as no satisfactory science of them existed.... [The book] can hardly claim, except where it steps outside its province, to be actually dealing with a part of philosophy."
Why do you misrepresent my comment "Indeed there is a philosophy of mysticism, just as there are philosophies of science, religion" as ""philosophy of religion" is not philosophy?" Do you understand the difference between religion and the philosophy of religion.
TFD ( talk) 06:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I need an opinion about a stub page I'm trying to get back up Draft:Anthony Rodriguez (pianist). The admin that deleted said the modification was okay and needed a second opinion. Can anyone please help and see if this Article is OR?? Thanks a million! StrongWik ( talk) 03:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a dispute about WP:SYNTH (and WP:NPOV) as it applies to lists, and specifically an article consisting of a table. The point of disagreement is whether the table should be based on a single RS which all editors agree to use, or on all relevant RSs, which differ in their selection of rows (events) in the table. Below are the two latest comments in the exchange, which seem to summarize the two positions well enough (sariya refers to a type of event listed in the table):
Just in case, here's a link to the (long) discussion. Thanks in advance. Eperoton ( talk) 02:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?
Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. [1] [2] [3] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. [4] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. [3] [5] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. [6] [1] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; [7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; [8] [9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. [10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." [2] [11] [12] [13] Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. [14]
References
|
---|
References
|
Issues with original research have been raised in discussion. Participation from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research is respectfully requested. Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Article is about theories that Buddhism influenced early Christianity (by way of Alexander the Great's conquests in Asia, then into Judaism through the Septuagint, and then into Christianity. A revision in dispute contains the following: It is agreed by most scholars that Buddhism was known in the pre-Christian Greek world through the campaigns of Alexander the Great (see Greco-Buddhism and Greco-Buddhist monasticism), and several prominent early Christian fathers ( Clement of Alexandria and St. Jerome) were certainly aware of the Buddha, even mentioning him in their works. [1] [2] In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests. [3] [4] Is this synthesis? Particularly concerning the mention of the Septuagint "being written in Koine Greek" (!) but perhaps the entire paragraph as well? Geogene ( talk) 03:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The language of the Septuagint is coatracked information - it's relevance to the article not indicated by the sources. It's apparently included to suggest a conclusion, but the conclusion is not stated, so it is not synthesis. That's just splitting hairs though; it should not go in the article as-is. Rhoark ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Article History of Ford Motor Company, section Ford Pinto, contended content:
Public outcry related to the controversy and the Mother Jones article resulted in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issuing a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. This resulted in Ford issuing the largest automotive recall to date.
Events contributing to the causality of the largest auto recall in history were many, including but not limited to:
All supported by vast noteworthy reliable sources.
References
|
---|
References
|
The causality of historical events is fraught with difficulty, the motivations of organizations even more so, and best avoided in Wikipedia voice; let the facts speak. We are asked to summarize, not to over simplify, and certainly not to over-simplify in service of a minority point of view. This is pretty basic, sorry to bother, but a strident local consensus of Ford Pinto fanboyz is pursuing, in Wikipedia voice, that the whole Pinto thingy was a dust-up created by rabble-rousing by a tiny new low-circulation anti-corporate hippie magazine from San Francisco. The current article text says that:
...caused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find that the Ford Pinto had a design defect; and that
...caused Ford to recall the Pinto.
These claims, presented in Wikipedia voice, are well beyond any reasonable summarization of the consensus of reliable sources and so are original research. As represented in numerous reliable sources, and as with most attempts to characterize the causality of historical events, the actual causality is much more complex.
Comments from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research are respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments on original research in the above excerpt? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. Ford issued the largest automotive recall to date.
Assistance from colleagues with experience with original research issues is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: HughD, Why didn't you include the references in your original question? The material in both the Pinto and Ford History article was supported by peer reviewed sources. I also would note that you left Lee and Ermann left off the list of references above. Schwartz is perhaps the most significant reference with respect to the Pinto cases. Lee and Ermann are perhaps the second most significant after Schwartz. You failed to show how those references were used in the Pinto article (the Ford History article references the Pinto article). You also failed to link to the relevant talk page discussions. Here is what was said in the Pinto article... with references.
Lee and Ermann note that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." [1] The Mother Jones article included a clip out "coupon" that readers could mail to the NHTSA. [2]
References
This is clearly supported material and not OR. Springee ( talk) 00:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Why is this topic being raised here vs on the article talk pages first? This was discussed on the Pinto talk page but not discussed on the History of Ford Motor Company page. Springee ( talk) 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Two noteworthy reliable sources provide guidance to us on what a reasonable treatment of the causes of major automobile recalls, and the historic Ford Pinto recall in particular:
The process in the more serious voluntary recalls generally starts with consumer complaints and news stories, then proceeds to government investigation and testing, consumer group pressuring, resistance from the auto manufacturer, and an official finding of safety defect. The story of the Ford Motor Company's decision to recall 1.5 million of its 1971-1976 subcompact Pinto cars is illustrative.
Clinard and Yeager then excerpt the The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978):
Ford made the decision this June, but the seed of the decision was planted a year ago. it was in August 1977 that Mother Jones, a magazine published in California, printed an article titled "Pinto Madness"; it portrayed the car as particularly susceptible to fires in rear-end crashes. The article was ballyhooed at a Washington press conference by Ralph Nader and its author, Mark Dowie. A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which opened an investigation that was to last eight months. The agency first ran an engineering analysis of the Pinto, finding that the fuel tank's location and the structural parts around it permitted easy crashing or puncturing of the tank in a crash. Officials also found that the short fuel-tank filler pipe could easily pull away from the tank. There was "real potential for trouble," says Howard Dugoff, the agency's deputy administrator. "The design looked fishy." Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.
Conspicuously omitted from our article are accidents, deaths, lawsuits, consumer complaints, numerous news stories, consumer groups, the NHTSA investigation, NHTSA testing, and the pending public hearing. The point being that the current article text explicitly states in Wikipedia voice a grossly oversimplified small set of reasons for the recall. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment The above doesn't actually contradict the material in the article. Springee ( talk) 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
As further evidence of the non-neutral nature of the statement in Wikipedia voice currently in our article History of Ford Motor Company regarding the causes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finding of defect, colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the NHTSA's own reasons given for its finding.
The NHTSA suggests that the Washington press conference and the Mother Jones magazine article were among the factors contributed to initiating the investigation, not that a magazine article resulted in the finding of defect:
A formal defect investigation case was initiated on September 13, 1977, based upon allegations that the design and location of the fuel tank in the Ford Pinto make it highly susceptible to damage on rear impact at low to moderate closing speeds. On August 10, 1977, a press conference was held in Washington D.C., to announce the release of an article entitled "Pinto Madness", which was published in the September/October issue of Mother Jones magazine...Following public release of the article, the NHTSA initiated, on August 11, 1977, a preliminary evaluation of the alleged safety defect, and on September 13, a formal defect investigation case.
The NHTSA said it conducted numerous activities in the course of its investigation beyond reading the Mother Jones article, including
The NHTSA compiled reports from the US, Canada, and Ford, and summarized:
In total the NHTSA is aware of 38 cases in which rear-end collisions of Pinto vehicles have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel system leakage and/or ensuing fire. These cases have resulted in a total of 27 fatalities sustained by Pinto occupants, of which one is reported to have resulted from impact injuries. In addition, 24 occupants of these Pinto vehicles have sustained non-fatal burn injuries
The NHTSA summarized its crash testing:
...in two Pinto tests with the full size vehicle travelling at 35 miles per hour, fires resulted.
The NHTSA summarized the litigation history:
In the history of product liability actions filed against Ford and other co-defendants involving rear impact of Pintos with fuel tank damage/fuel leakage/fire occurrences, nine cases have been settled. Of these, the plaintiffs have been compensated in 8 cases, either by jury award or out of court settlements.
The NHTSA said its finding of defect was based on its investigation:
Based upon the information either developed or acquired during this investigation, the following conclusions have been reached: 1971-1976 Ford Pintos have experienced moderate speed, rear-end collisions that have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel leakage, and fire occurrences that have resulted in fatalities and non-fatal burn injuries.
Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that "public outcry" and a magazine article "resulted" in the NHTSA finding of defect is grossly pointed. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider Ford's own reasons given for its recall. Ford said the recall was unrelated to the NHTSA finding of defect.
But NHYSA, a Department of Transportation agency, informed Ford on May 8 about results of the new investigation, which concluded that Pintos had a safety defect. A public hearing was scheduled for next week, at which time internal Ford documents related to the fuel tank situation were to be made public...In a prepared statement, Ford vice President Herbet L. Misch said: "Ford informed NHTSA that it does not agree with the agency's initial determination of May 8 that an unreasonable risk of safety is involved in the design of these cars..." Misch said Ford decided to offer the modifications "so as to end public concern that has resulted from criticism of the fuel systems in these vehicles".
Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the diversity of reliable sources in giving reasons for the recall. The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978) said Ford recalled to scuttle a scheduled public hearing and to avoid adverse publicity:
A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.
Danley concurs with the Ford Motor Company, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal in citing the Ford Motor Company's agency in their choice to recall:
Ford could have refused to recall and have chosen instead to defend the Pinto's design in the formal recall hearings at NHTSA. While this tactic could easily have delayed any forced recall for months, if not for more than a year, the cost of the publicized hearings to Ford's reputation could have been substantial, even if Ford had been successful in the end. Ford agreed to "voluntarily recall" the Pinto in June 1978.
Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that the NHTSA finding "resulted" in the recall is non-neutral, oversimplified, and grossly pointed original research. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Multi-sport_event#RfC:_Can_an_acceptable_definition_be_written_for_Category:Sports_festivals? – Fayenatic L ondon 16:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see the dispute in Talk:Cutting stock problem#Example. The opposite party and their sock ignore to discuss the issue in talk page, so my request for third opinion was rejected for burocratical reasons, hence I have to bother a larger community.
My point is that per WP:V, a complicated example of a computational problem accompanied with claims difficult to verify, must be supplied with references. While small, easy to verify examples are OK - üser:Altenmann >t 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
it is believed that in this case the minimum number of patterns with this level of waste is 10, which suggests that it isn't OR (at least not from the editor who added the example). I found the problem listed as an exercise in "Case Studies in Operations Research: Applications of Optimal Decision Making" page 419. The example in the article prompted a question on stackexchange. It's also mentioned here, a Visual basic solver is discussed/demonstrated here. The problem and the figure showing the solution is included in this lecture, same for these lecture notes (did these lectures get the picture from wikipedia?), also used in the dataset of this paper. Another source listing the problem: http://www.ijiee.org/vol5/518-F0013.pdf
I want to report about user:Tnguyen4321's out-of-context use of materials from RS:
As far as I am concerned, I hereby rest my case and let other members and administrators express their opinions. I can no more dialogue with someone that insists eastern foot of in "at the foot of the Chu Pong Massif" - a verbatim quote - means east of as in "east of the Chu Pong Massif". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I had rest my case once. After me having a second thought, it is definite starting now. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Some facts about my "opponent":
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Done I have fixed the issue of OR of case #1 here and case #2 here. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 09:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Will somebody please stop this abusive OR-tagging: [43]
In comparison, the air action was much more significant than the ground action in terms
By tagging at the end of the paragraph, the editor also failed to realized the sum of each attributable components is also attributable.
This editor has no clue these are attributable facts in invoking the OR tag. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The IP has been warned re: vandalism here. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 09:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: RS that is cited in the "Belligerent info box, I found no words indicating that the US was supported by the ARVN.
It is the other way around. In the conflict, the two belligerents were the NVA (aggressor) and the ARVN (aggressee)The ARVN was supported by the US. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Is the below paragraph SYNTH? (part after the last comma in particular)
Although some scholars have claimed that the fustanella was introduced into Greece by Albanians in the 15th century, [10] [11] [12] [13] archaeological evidence shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greece as early as the 12th century, [14] predating the arrival of Albanian-speakers on Greek lands by several centuries. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Paulicelli148
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).An article undergoing a Good Article Review involves, inter alia, whether or not primary sources are over/misused. See Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/William_L._Uanna/1. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The good folks at Language Log have drawn our attention to the hypertrophied monstrosity that is California Proposition 218 (1996), which (insofar as it's readable) seems to be entirely the original work of one editor, with a complete paraphrase of the proposition's text included for good measure. Neutrality has done some sterling work on the article in the past day or two, but I think the more eyes we can get on it, the better. Tevildo ( talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
This looks like original research to me but not sure if qualifies /info/en/?search=Price_of_anarchy
I have a problem with the article about periodic comet 39P/Oterma ( /info/en/?search=39P/Oterma). The subject of that article is a comet that apparently has a very interesting and peculiar orbit that is nicely described in the article, with a detailed description of what has been done by the author. But there is no external source, so I assume the entire description is based on the author's own unpublished calculations. Is this a violation of the "no original research" rule? And if so, how can the article be saved in its current form, but satisfying the wiki rules?
Renerpho ( talk) 01:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/CarloRossi1010 seems to add made up information to multiple articles. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Talk:English people#Original research about whether giving a dictionary definition of a nation, and then stating that the English people meet this definition, constitutes original research if no source is provided apart from for the dictionary definition (which does not mention the English). Comments would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Many articles on German military men contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on war-time propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?
This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NPOV? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The contentious part:
The three sentences above, seem, at least to me clearly suggest that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies by the Greek state because they raided villages as far north as Pogoni. While this is not explicitly stated by either sources, Alexikoua that maintains "it's obvious". On the other hand, I have argued that Muslim bands can not be equated with Muslim Chams since the region was home to other Muslims as well, and that unless explicitly stated by the sources, the treatment of Muslim Chams on the eve of the first Balkan wars by the Greek army can not be correlated with the activity of Muslim bands.
Cited material
|
---|
|
There's an ongoing discussion here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 11:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Accompanying sources
|
---|
|
I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The Review of genre section seems to be a highly biased "review" of the genre from one individual, and entirely without any references. There are probably also many factual errors. -- Curiousdannii ( talk) 11:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There's an extinct ethnic group called Harla that supposedly spoke a semitic language by the vast majority of sources but it says semitic or Cushitic. The source being used to label it Cushitic has no mention of "Cushitic". [45] or [46] Looks synthesised and original research. Editor opinion needed. Kiziotherapy ( talk) 17:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women can probably be deleted as obvious WP:SYNTH. Parenthetically, it's also grossly incorrect. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 01:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources regarding original research and synthesis in the article List of best-selling albums in the United States. Piriczki ( talk) 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Email storm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This (arguably) computer-science topic seems to rely on almost entirely on examples which are referenced with non-technical sources. The "technical" section near the top consists of obviously plausible but unsourced statements. The phrase "eMaelstrom" seems to have no mainstream use. The most authoritative source for this neoligism is Urban Dictionary. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Are hypothetical examples considered original research? This is more of a general question, but the example given at License compatibility#Example provoked the question. I can see rationale for both ways, but what’s the consensus view on this? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the following considered WP:OR? I am the author of the text in question and I think I have not crossed the line into OR but I would like to explain my approach/logic to analyzing the source and get constructive feedback if I am wrong on where and why my analysis is flawed.
A performer (rap artist), Dieuson Octave, chose a stage name, Kodak Black, at the beginning of his career. In a one-on-one interview he was asked about the stage name (see "Q: Didn’t you originally get your name, Kodak Black, from Instagram?") and gave an answer. I have used that interview Q&A to explain the meaning/genesis of the name in the WP article about him.
There also was another one-on-one interview (see "Q:How’d you get the name Kodak Black?") which corroborates much of the first interview. I believe that my claim on the genesis/meaning of the stage name is support fully by the one Q&A in the 1st source and that the 2nd interview Q&A, while not so much on-point, does not refute the 1st in any way.
Octave says that "Kodak Black" is a combination of (a) his childhood nicknames and (b) a play on the words Kodak and Instagram since both are photo related.
green) I used to be called "Black" and also "Lil' Black" (nicknames). When I created my Instagram account I chose the username "Kodak Black"
‘cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures. People liked that nickname so when I started my career that is what I chose for my stage name.
(1) PREMISE: The process of paraphrasing and summarizing a source text requires textual analysis. We must understand the meaning of words in the context that they were used before we can correctly paraphrase or summarize them into an article.
(2) PREMISE: All answers in interviews must be considered-in-context to the question that prompted said answer. For example an answer such as "No flockin' in November."
is meaningless gibberish until you pair it up with the question "What is your next song called and when is it being released?"
.
(3) PREMISE: Common knowledge can exist within a paradigm of a specific context or community. For example it is common knowledge that Facebook is a social media application, however this is only true within the paradigm of internet aware people. It is therefore an appropriate source review strategy to identify what contexts exist for the source used and to then further identify any common knowledge referenced or implied in the text. However, as per WP:CK, if an edit based on some bit of common knowledge is challenged a reliable published source must be cited to support that bit of knowledge. Note that the source for the common knowledge can be separate from the source being analyzed.
Based on these premises/assertions I analyzed the Q&A and came to the following conclusions based on the text:
(4A) Octave is aware of and uses the internet.
(4B) Octave is aware of and uses Instagram.
(4C) It is common knowledge -- within the paradigm of people who are Instagram users -- that Instagram is all about pictures.
(5A) Octave was born in and lives in the United States.
(5B) It is common knowledge -- within the paradigm of people who live in the United States -- that Kodak is all about pictures.
(6A) Octave was asked an interview question about his stage name and its connection to Instagram.
(6B) Octave replied to that question he had had childhood nicknames of "Black" and "Lil' Black".
(6C) Octave replied to that question he had created an Instagram account with the user name "Kodak Black".
(6D) Octave replied to that question he chose Kodak as part of his user name "‘cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures
".
When asked about his stage name and its connection to Instagram Kodak explained that it was a combination of his childhood nicknames and a play on a word about photography since it was created for Instagram, a photo-based website.
-- Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay I am a little confused at this point. I asked about the OR for the source --> text summarization and I got responses that talked about the OR of my approach to the task. Even more confusing the responses all seem (I'm not 100% sure) to indicate my summarization is correct but my logic is wrong. I really do not understand how to use this feedback going forward.
I came here because my original edit was reverted and argued as being "interpretive" OR here. Since the editor had provided detailed logic I felt I also needed to provide detailed logic. I wanted the mental chain-of-events to be clear and thus to find out where my thought processes had gone wrong but the above comments are only making it harder to understand what I did right and what I did wrong. Sorry if I am clueless, I just want to be a better editor. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station#Cost comparison, where an editor has is disputing the removal of content which I and another editor believe is OR. Any comments would be much appreciated. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving original research and reliable sources at Talk:Aptronym#Original research and lack of sources. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
— Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus
At Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) there is the claim "There is archeological evidence for the existence of a Davidic Kingdom" which is not supported by any source. Even the source quoted in its support does not support it (it says there is evidence for David's existence, not for David's Kingdom). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
What the cited source says about David's Kingdom is this: "Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
And what "Davidic Kingdom" even means? Does it mean David's Kingdom of Kingdom of the House of David? Big difference. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know there is not a single real (solid, certain) proof of David ever having ruled over a kingdom. Anyway, nobody seems to able to name any. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Few, if any sources describe Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people, a Han Chinese subgroup, in the United States. However there are many sources that discuss this group's migration to parts of China, Southeast Asia etc, as well as Chinese immigration from these parts of the world to the United States. Is it original research to conclude that Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people are in the United States?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 01:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving WP:SYNTHESIS at Talk:Frankfurt_School#RfC:_Does_the_lede_of_the_.22Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory.22_section_follow_WP:NPOV_and_is_its_claim_supported_by_cited_sources.3F Last Contrarian ( talk) 13:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Slut-shaming#Scope. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The matter concerns whether or not we should stick to sources that use the term slut-shaming and if not doing so can be a WP:Synthesis violation. How do we judge what is on-topic or is not synthesis if sources don't use the term slut-shaming? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably could use some uninvolved folks to evaluate the discussion occurring at SSM, before things escalate into a full on ANI crap show. TimothyJosephWood 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
"Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting."That does lend itself to drawing a distinction, but sources about specific positions would have to draw that distinction, too, to include in that context. More often than not the issue of "same-sex marriage" tends to assume a single concept that one is for/against. If someone wants to get into the details of positions of particular religions, we have entire articles about that. This shouldn't do anything other than summarize what those articles (or just religious views of same-sex marriage).
Lfstevens and I are having a friendly disagreement at Talk:PPACA about whether the following passage (about health insurance statistics) is original research:
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) (Retrieval steps: Click Start MEPSNet/HC. Select 2007. Click Variable Selection. Click Demographic variables. Select Age. Click Utilization, Expenditure and SOP Variables. Click All Types of Service. Select TOTEXP07. Click Descriptive statistics. Click Minimums, maximums, sums, means and mediums. For Variable, select TOTEXP07. Select Mean. In the left of the three dropdowns, select Age. Click Show statistics.)
My concern is that we're querying a primary source database of statistics while applying our own judgment to decide on what parameters to use, e.g. which year, which variables, etc, and then drawing conclusions from the results. Choosing different parameters would yield different results. Isn't this the essence of original research? Thoughts? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The talk page for Diesel engine ( Talk:Diesel engine) contains a discussion and an RfC about the contributions of George Brayton. His Brayton engine used the Brayton cycle to do something similar to Rudolf Diesel's engine. I have some WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns about the additions being proposed. I was invited to the RfC by the RfC service and there are only a couple of editors participating in the discussion. Roches ( talk) 03:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
There ia s policy contention here, which requires external third party review to clarify a point. The guidebook writes:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
At Black Sunday, 1937, I introduced a source, and added a further source later on. The page deals with a moment in the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936-1939, when from autumn 1937 the Zionist group Irgun decided to adopt terrorist tactics, by ignoring the policy of restraint (havlagah) and killing civilians, a turning point in Zionism's history marked by that event and in its immediate aftermaths.
(A) source Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011 pp.145f
Now for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed, for the first time more or less matching the numbers of Jews murdered in the Arab pogroms and rioting of 1929 and 1936. This “innovation” soon found Arab imitators and became something of a “tradition”; during the coming decades Palestine’s (and, later, Israel’s) marketplaces, bus stations, movie theaters, and other public buildings became routine targets lending a particularly brutal flavour to the conflict.’
(B) source David Hirst, Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East, Nation Books, 2010 p.34
the Arabs may have begun the violence, but they (Zionists) imitated and, with their much improved techniques, far outdid them. All of them – not just the ‘terrorist’ undergrounds, the Irgun and the Stern Gang of future prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, but the official, mainstream, Hagana – abandoned ‘self-restraint’, if they had ever really practiced it. A policy of indiscriminate ‘reprisals’ took its place. These, wrote the official historian of the Irgun, ‘did not aim at those who had perpetrated acts of violence against Jews, and had no geographic connection with the places where they had done so. The principal consideration in the choice of target was first accessibility, and then the (maximum) number of Arabs that could be hit.’ At the climax of their anti-Arab rampage, with bombs in market-places or mosques, grenades hurled into buses or the machine gunning of trains, they killed more Palestinians, 140, in the space of three weeks than the Palestinians had killed Jews in the year and a half since the Rebellion began, an achievement over which the Irgun’s National Bulletin openly exulted.’
I wrote from these 2 sources:
(C)One practice adopted by the Irgun in particular at the time, and subsequently by the Lehi gang, according to Benny Morris, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: for the first time, grenades were thrown at, and powerful bombs were planted in, places like markets, mosques and bus stations where crowds of Arabs thronged in order to maximize the impact of indiscriminate killings. This technique formed a precedent, and was picked up soon after by Arabs. In the following decades, the method became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel. According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, a figure exceeding the total number of Jews killed in the one and a half years from the start of the Arab revolt. In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.
It is this that was denounced as WP:SYNTH. Both mention the Great Arab Revolt, both on these pages note the breaking of the 'restraint policy'; both deal with the aftermath set by this precedent. For those who see my introduction of Hirst as WP:SYNTH, the error would be that Morris mentions the specific date and incident marking the turn, whereas Hirst makes a general comment on the adoption of the terrorist tactic at that period and illustrates it with several instances that are elsewhere attested in the sources on Black Sunday already used, without challenge, on the page. I cannot see where I have joined Morris and Hirst to make a conclusion that is not in either source, which is what a WP:SYNTH specifically identifies as an abuse. Nishidani ( talk) 08:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Scoobydunk: I have made another stab at the prose. Perhaps you can take a look at it and see if all SYNTH concerns are addressed?
One practice, adopted by the Irgun in particular, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: the use of massive bombs in crowded areas, indiscriminately killing and maiming dozens of people.(cite Morris) The targets were chosen based on accessibility and so that the maximum number of Arabs could be hit.(cite Hirst) This technique was soon picked up by Arabs: in the following decades, the targeting of public buildings became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel.(cite Morris) According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, which is more than the number of Jews killed in the previous year and a half of the uprising.(cite Hirst) Morris states that the numbers of Arabs killed in these indiscriminate attacks matched the number of Jews killed by Arabs in the 1929 and 1936 uprisings.(cite Morris) In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.(cite Caplan)
The only assumption being made in the passage, as a whole, is that all sources (Morris, Hirst, Caplan) are talking about the same time period. This is easily checked from the sources, using the times and the descriptions. All the sentences in the passage are cited to single sources - no two sources are combined for any assertion.
I'll also quote the Caplan source, the part which I'm using:
In July 1938, two Irgun bombings killed 74 Arabs and wounded 129 in Haifa's main market, unleashing a cycle of reprisal attacks targeting Jewish and Arab civilians.
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The Irgun bombs of 1937-38 sowed terror in the Arab population and substantially increased its casualties.A couple of paragraphs below, he goes through the bombings in detail: first the 11 November 1937 attack, then the major attacks on 14 November (Black Sunday), then he mentions the July 6 1938 bombings, July 15 bombing, and July 25, then August 26 bombing.The July 6 and 25 bombs were both in the Haifa market, which Caplan also mentions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Which of the following phrasing is preferable:
1. Stein supports GMO labeling and a moratorium on new GMOs until they are proven safe, and would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown, as well as the pesticides used on them.
2. Stein's official platform calls for a "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe."...Stein later clarified that her moratorium proposal would apply to "new" GMOs until they are proven safe (though her official platform calling for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides" remains unchanged) and that the US should "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown.
I prefer the first, which states the position Stein says she supports. In my opinion, the second version wanders into OR by implying that Stein is misrepresenting her own platform or has revised it rather than merely clarifying it. We should not make that judgment, per "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources": "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
TFD ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see either phrasing being an OR problem, they both would be acceptable, however I prefer the first because it is more succinct. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Cross-step_waltz The history of the dance here is referenced only to primary sources (19th-early 20th century books). The whole article seems to be copied from the book co-authored by the original author of the article Link to google books This book seems to be self-published. I suppose that all the history section here is OR and should be removed or referenced as opinion of certain authors.
I'd like to hear opinion about this image before I attempt to use it. (Click image for larger view) As I explained at the image description page, this shows
LaVoy Finicum just before he was shot and killed during the
Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I am the final author of this derivative work. During the event in question, a cell phone video (with audio) was taken inside Finicum's truck, and another video (without audio) was taken by the FBI from the air. Both were turned over to the Central Oregon Major Incident Team, which was able to synchronize them.
Article by Oregon Public Broadcasting and
Full synched vid posted by OPB to YouTube.
Here's where I come in.
I downloaded the youtube vid and marked the time point when you hear the first of the three gunshots that killed Finicum. That was time 5:41. Next I stepped through the vid from 5:39 forward, frame by frame, back and forth, to locate a frame just before he was hit by the first round. There is no audio when you do this, and there is no conclusive way to determine which frame is the last before the first bullet's impact. In case you're wondering, the rectangular inset in the lower left is the other video, most of which I cropped out.
What do ya'll say? Is this by definition OR? My guess is someone is gonna say ""depends how its used" so just to get ahead of that, what if the caption said something like "LaVoy Finicum just before being shot"? Obviously we can't say "the final frame before bullet impact" because there's no way to know that.
Thanks for input. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
" Post-progressive" is a term that appears in a few books on progressive rock, sometimes in quotes or in sentences like "X could be termed post-progressive". I am not sure if it should be considered a music genre. In the books that I have access to, it is used as an adjective, while the author of the article uses it as a noun (eg. Post-progressive's beginning may be located to the year 1978). He also placed it in infoboxes in a number of articles (eg. jazz or ambient music), again as a noun. Nearly all edits I made on this topic ended in edit wars, so I decided to put this here. Chilton ( talk) 11:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to a Wikipedia article. For example, the article Computer architecture once began with the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer."
That is not true: Computer architecture is the theory. The words "computer architecture" refer to the theory, but the article is not about the words; it is about the theory.
Thus it is better to say, "Computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer."
The term 'post-progressive' is designed to distinguish a type of rock music from the persistence of a progressive rock style that directly refers to 1970s prog. The 'post' also refers to that which has come after other forms of avant-garde and popular music since the mid-1970s. ... [it] identifies progressive rock that stems from sources other than progressive rock. ... there are those who contend, though, that progressive rock is far hidden, and that post-progressive rock feeds a more explicit return to prog: in other words, a return that is not one. This trend is best exemplified by two British avant-rock acts of the 1980s and early 1990s: David Sylvian and Talk Talk.
— Hegarty, Paul; Halliwell, Martin (2011). Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock Since the 1960s. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-2332-0.
Since the 80s, we have seen the rise of both a neo-progressive movement, with young bands, many of them European, attemping to bring a more contemporary sensibility to the 'classic' idiom, and a post-progressive style following the implications of King Crimsons' Discipline album of 1981, with its introduction of elements drawn from minimalism and ethnic musics, elements new to rock.
— Bruford, Bill (2009). Bill Bruford: The Autobiography : Yes, King Crimson, Earthworks, and More. Jawbone Press. ISBN 978-1-906002-23-7.
A number of new bands have cultivated what might be termed a post-progressive style ... no comparable consensus has emerged concerning the major neo- or post-progressive rock bands of the 1980s and 1990s, following up on the implications of King Crimson's landmark Discipline LP of 1981 and introducing entirely new elements (drawn especially from minimalism and various ethnic musics) into the genre.
— Macan, Edward (1997). Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509887-7.
Musically and lyrically, "Our Little Victory" demonstrates the reasons for many rock critics never having come to terms with Rush. However, the reasons for Rush's influence on Primus and on other 1990s, alternative, progressive metal, and post-progressive bands ("musicians' musicians") certainly also hold for this song.
— Bowman, Durrell (2014). Experiencing Rush: A Listener's Companion. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-3131-3.
"post-progressive" (sub-genre of progressive rock) (as labelled from index)
He [Holm-Hudson] further states that "'post-progressive' groups such as ... Radiohead also draw upon selective aspects of vintage progressive rock, even as they actively seek to distance themselves with the genre.
— Letts, Marianne Tatom (2010). Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album: How to Disappear Completely. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00491-8.
Most of these discussions are centered around Chilton's grasp on the difference between progressive rock music and prog rock (the cited authors distinguish both terms). From what I understand, the only thing Chilton has reasonably challenged is whether "post-progressive" should be listed in the infoboxes for King Crimson, Talk Talk, and David Sylvian. This is because only one RS can be found which calls them "post-progressive" artists. (He ignores the fact that literally every other genre listed in those article's infoboxes are also referenced to only one RS.)-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Original_research CFredkin ( talk) 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Priyanka Chopra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relevant discussion at: Chopra as "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" is not supported by sources
On 14 September 2016 a user changes the original text description of Chopra at the lead from "one of the highest-paid actresses in Bollywood" to "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world", using highly enthusiastic edit-summaries indicating a particularly strong POV. The problem is, s/he did not supply a source for "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" but for "one of the highest-paid TV actresses in the world" using this list by Forbes. In fact, the actual 2016 Forbes list of the highest paid actresses in the world does not include Chopra.
Now this user is edit-warring changing Chopra's description at the lead to "one of the highest paid actresses" but using the Forbes TV actress list to support it.
His/her reply at the talkpage: Oh I forgot, TV actresses have horns on their head. LOL.
with edit-summary ROFL
indicates that s/he has no understanding of
WP:OR or
WP:V.
I find using the Forbes list for "highest-paid TV actresses" as reference to declare Chopra "one of the highest-paid actresses", which is a completely separate and different list in which Chopra is not found, to be very misleading original research since there is a clear distinction between TV actors and cinema actors and two different lists for their compensation. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The WP:OR policy states that original research which is prohibited "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". However, the rest of the language and examples all refer to cases where {{WP:OR]] is used to add material to the article. My question is, can original research be used to removed well-sourced material from reputable sources? Suppose an academic who is a recognized authority in a field publishes research in a peer-reviewed academic journal, whose main thesis is "I've researched X, and my conclusion is Y". This material is then used in an article to say that the named expert researched X, and concluded Y. Can an editor perform his own research on X, conclude that the result is actually not Y, and then use his personal research to remove the sourced material from the article on that basis? Epson Salts ( talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
<- To evaluate and comment on the actual case in question, see Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Naughty_Dr_Brawer. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Epson Salts brought this dispute here without notifying the other parties , and the "hypothetical" version does not match the actual situation. It is not a matter of researcher X concluding Y, and not a matter of an editor's opinion differing from an expert's opinion. What actually happened was that researcher X misquoted a source and Epson Salts wants to keep the misquote in the article without comment, even though everyone can see the original source and nobody at all is arguing that X quoted it correctly. Since NOR doesn't prescribe what can be omitted from articles, the question editors should ask is "Would the article be better with a misquote or without it?" and I believe all good editors would prefer the latter. Incidentally, the article in question is a BLP and the misquote shows the subject of the BLP in a negative light, so I believe the misquote is actually forbidden from the article no matter what NOR says. Everyone, except Epson Salts afaik, is happy to report X's opinion without using the misquote explicitly. Zero talk 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
In the hypothetical case, Wikipedia should not be giving much weight to primary research results in the first place, and no weight at all (even in discussion) to experiments done by an editor. In the actual case, it's not only acceptable but essential that editors use some common sense and due diligence investigating the sources being used in articles, or else we would have no idea which are reliable. A source that includes obvious factual inaccuracies can be excluded from an article, and it's totally fine for editors to look into a source's own sources to make that judgement. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Have I improperly synthesised a new conclusion here? Can 'suitable for classroom and age-appropriate' be faithfully interpreted as 'may include some sexual instructions or explicit content' in this specific circumstance? I believe its the same thing, not a new conclusion or something taken out of context, considering that the context is a review of a government funded anti-LGBTI bullying program in the national spotlight occurring as a direct response to claims by politicians that the program was overly sexualised. - Shiftchange ( talk) 15:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right noticeboard for this kind of thing, but the entire article appears to be based on the subject's website; there are no other sources cited. Parts of the article read like promotional material ("At the age of 13, Riniti started his innate ability to set and achieve long-term, personal and professional goals."), others are phrased in a non-neutral way ("On December 27, 2014 Anthony S. Riniti married the love of his life"). It looks like the article was written by Riniti himself or someone close to him. 93.128.130.50 ( talk) 10:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As seen here, here, here, here and here, Sarrena keeps adding "mosaic processing" material to the Pixelization article...without adding sources to support the content. On his or her talk page, I warned the editor about adding unsourced content. Mosaic is not the same thing as pixelization. Yet Sarrena added a source, this mosaic source, to support his or her wording of "or by arranging together small colored pieces or cells." That source doesn't even state "cells." I've brought the matter here for input. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Any solutions? I'd rather not take this to WP:ANI, but the editor doesn't listen or really discuss. Even if the editor were to discuss, I don't see that discussion with the editor will help anything. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
At issue in Timothy Leary is a claim that he was a philosopher, with several editors insisting he was not. One source was already cited and I have added 6 more. [1] FreeKnowledgeCreator and Skyerise object, arguing that this is impermissable WP:OR. [2], [3], [4]. Further discussion may be found on the article talk page, especially at Talk:Timothy Leary#Protected edit request on 1 April 2016. Guidance is requested. Msnicki ( talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Summary, so that the people here doesn't have to read through very long discussions. The sources under debate are:
Leary explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs
Leary not only used and distributed the drug, he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion and the revelation of personal truth through "dropping acid."
And the question then is:
-- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure how anyone could conclude philosopher wasn't his main occupation. Never mind that we even have the news report [5] that he testified that this was his occupation. From Timothy Leary bibliography and from examination of his citations on Google scholar [6], it's clear that around 1964, he abandoned what appears to have been a successful academic career as a psychologist, judging by the 2817 citations received by his 1958 paper, Interpersonal diagnosis of personality.. From then on, his entire life work for the next 36 years appears to have been focused solely on his philosophy, which numerous sources describe as "think for yourself and question authority" and advocating LSD for "mind expansion and revelation of personal truth".
At this point, permit me digression on citation counts in academia. This is a huge deal for those on tenure track, c.f., [7]. It's how academics judge impact. In engineering, where I teach, it takes a PhD and about 1000 citations to earn tenure. That's the number you'll see in my earlier citation and it appears to match what I observe. A top paper in engineering is one that gets over 1000 citations on its own. But in faculty meetings, I hear all the time from colleagues in other (slower changing) departments that even a few hundred citations is remarkable.
That appeared to be true as I somewhat randomly (H/L/M?) spot-checked a few full professors of philosophy (whom I assume we can all accept as full-time philosophers, whatever that means) at Harvard, [8], [9], [10], UC Santa Barbara, [11], [12], [13] and University of Washington, [14], [15], [16] this morning. Skipping over the obvious false hits for same-named people in obviously different fields, what you'll notice is that only a few of them appear to hit 1000 citations total even by full professorship, never mind just for tenure as associates and that it's a rare paper that got over 100. The highest I happened to find this morning was Korsgaard's amazing 2246 [17] and Wylie's 559 [18].
So that's the background, now here is a table of citation counts for Leary's top publications in philosophy also taken from Google scholar. [19]
Publication | Citations |
---|---|
The psychedelic experience | 295 |
The politics of ecstacy | 211 |
Chaos and cyber culture | 139 |
The religious experence: Its production and interpretation | 83 |
High priest | 77 |
The Cyber-punk: The individual as reality pilot | 56 |
Design for dying | 31 |
The interpersonal, interactive, interdimensional interface | 42 |
Turn on, tune in, drop out | 33 |
The psychedelic reader | 32 |
Religious implications of consciousness expanding drugs | 31 |
The politics of conscienousness expansion | 15 |
Psychedelic Prayers: And other Meditations | 14 |
Foucaut and the Art of Ethics | 258 |
Your Brain is God | 13 |
The politics, ethics and meaning of marijuana | 11 |
Start your own religion | 12 |
Total | 1353 |
It looks to me like Leary was a philosopher no matter how you slice it. Numerous WP:RS call him that. He testified that was his occupation. He spent his entire life from about 1964 on writing thousands of pages on his philosophy, which sources have no trouble describing in specific terms. He's reported to have had trouble generating income [20] and what he did generate appears to have come from writing and speaking about his philosophy. His publications on philosophy had significant impact as most academics might measure it by citation count. Were it not for the fact that his philosophy included taking LSD, he compiled a publication record that might have earned him tenure in the philosophy department almost anywhere in the country.
I just don't know how anyone argues he wasn't a philosopher except by vague hand-waving claims that amount to little more than, "I know one when I see one and he's not it." We should be able to do better than that. Our objective here should be verifiability, not truth. I understand that some of you believe that, in truth, he wasn't really a philosopher. But what we can verify is that he was. Msnicki ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Will this edit [21] satisfy the last of any concerns? Msnicki ( talk) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
OpenFuture, I absolutely stand by my position that Msnicki is guilty of original research in using the sources by Isralowitz and Donaldson to claim that Leary was a philosopher. The whole point of WP:NOR is that you do not use sources to try to show things that the sources do not directly, unambiguously, or uncontroversially state, and neither Isralowitz nor Donaldson states that Leary was a philosopher. Msnicki is simply using her personal assumptions and beliefs about what a philosopher is to try to deny that she is engaged in original research; she should not be encouraged in this. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"? Yes, because there is no agreed upon definition of "philosopher" according to which it means that someone "explored cultural and philosophical implications" of LSD or anything else. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"". Again, yes because founding a "sort of philosophy", whatever that means, and it may mean anything or nothing, is also not a recognized definition of "philosopher." FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::That claim is both false, and original research. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 06:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)I must have misunderstood or replied in the wrong location. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
(outside opinion) There are certain academics (and editors here on Wikipedia) that strongly desire to downplay the contributions of philosophers that they dislike, disagree with, or that work outside of stale academia to become pop culture figures. They will engage in this sort of attack on the use of "philosopher" not for the betterment of the encyclopedia, but to give themselves some misguided sense of value.
The reality is that journals and other sources of academic citations don't typically call anyone by the common name for their occupations. Someone doing a journal article about the Great Depression is highly unlikely to describe one of his sources as "economist John Jenkins" in plain text within the body of their article. Rather, the author will cite the person, source, and date for whatever past work he's referring to in the journal, and discuss their ideas in context. Likewise, these kinds of sources aren't ever likely to call Leary a "philosopher"... but context matters. When someone is writing about philosophy and they cite Leary mentioning his philosophy, they are confirming that Leary has produced ideas with tangible philosophical value - which is certainly part of the definition of a philosopher. Its not OR to equate philosophy with philosopher, its really just different word forms, not a vast gulf of meaning. Clearly, Leary has worked in philosophy and been cited as such. That makes him a philosopher. --
Netoholic
@ 12:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The Timothy Leary article still includes a category identifying Leary as a "philosopher of mind". In the absence of a reliable source calling Leary a "philosopher of mind", the category seems to be unacceptable original research. Discussion on the article's talk page is ongoing. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It's deja vu all over again. Just when you thought the question of whether Timothy Leary was a philosopher was settled, we have the same question being raised at Aldous Huxley. Previous discussion is at Talk:Aldous Huxley#Doubts about whether Huxley was a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator, User:Johnuniq and 2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b have been edit warring over whether Huxley was a philosopher and whether he should be described as such in the infobox. Initially, FKC indicated he only wanted a source, [23], not that he had any particular reason to doubt Huxley was a philosopher and seemed to agree that a {{cn}} tag would suffice until someone had time to do the research. [24], [25] Four days later, FKC removed the claim and the tag insisting the claim was simply wrong. [26]
This morning, I finally got time to do the research. It wasn't hard to find four WP:RS all describing Huxley as a philosopher. [27] FKC and JU have both reverted, [28] and [29], insisting these citations are insufficient, that this really wasn't Huxley's occupation. It seems to me that both FKC and JU misunderstand what it means to be an intellectual. Both seem focused on how the individuals monetize their work, [30], which I believe misses the point that an intellectual is occupied by his thoughts, not by how they put bread on the table. A philosopher is an intellectual whose thoughts are occupied by questions of philosophy, e.g., and sometimes literally, the meaning of life. Sources clearly indicate that Huxley was occupied his entire life with with developing his philosophy, they clearly identify the unique aspects of his philosophy and they report that other important philosophers took his ideas seriously. This sure sounds like a philosopher to me. Msnicki ( talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Russell wrote, "Much of what is set forth in the following chapters is not properly to be called “philosophy,” though the matters concerned were included in philosophy so long as no satisfactory science of them existed.... [The book] can hardly claim, except where it steps outside its province, to be actually dealing with a part of philosophy."
Why do you misrepresent my comment "Indeed there is a philosophy of mysticism, just as there are philosophies of science, religion" as ""philosophy of religion" is not philosophy?" Do you understand the difference between religion and the philosophy of religion.
TFD ( talk) 06:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I need an opinion about a stub page I'm trying to get back up Draft:Anthony Rodriguez (pianist). The admin that deleted said the modification was okay and needed a second opinion. Can anyone please help and see if this Article is OR?? Thanks a million! StrongWik ( talk) 03:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a dispute about WP:SYNTH (and WP:NPOV) as it applies to lists, and specifically an article consisting of a table. The point of disagreement is whether the table should be based on a single RS which all editors agree to use, or on all relevant RSs, which differ in their selection of rows (events) in the table. Below are the two latest comments in the exchange, which seem to summarize the two positions well enough (sariya refers to a type of event listed in the table):
Just in case, here's a link to the (long) discussion. Thanks in advance. Eperoton ( talk) 02:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?
Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. [1] [2] [3] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. [4] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. [3] [5] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. [6] [1] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; [7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; [8] [9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. [10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." [2] [11] [12] [13] Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. [14]
References
|
---|
References
|
Issues with original research have been raised in discussion. Participation from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research is respectfully requested. Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Article is about theories that Buddhism influenced early Christianity (by way of Alexander the Great's conquests in Asia, then into Judaism through the Septuagint, and then into Christianity. A revision in dispute contains the following: It is agreed by most scholars that Buddhism was known in the pre-Christian Greek world through the campaigns of Alexander the Great (see Greco-Buddhism and Greco-Buddhist monasticism), and several prominent early Christian fathers ( Clement of Alexandria and St. Jerome) were certainly aware of the Buddha, even mentioning him in their works. [1] [2] In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests. [3] [4] Is this synthesis? Particularly concerning the mention of the Septuagint "being written in Koine Greek" (!) but perhaps the entire paragraph as well? Geogene ( talk) 03:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The language of the Septuagint is coatracked information - it's relevance to the article not indicated by the sources. It's apparently included to suggest a conclusion, but the conclusion is not stated, so it is not synthesis. That's just splitting hairs though; it should not go in the article as-is. Rhoark ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Article History of Ford Motor Company, section Ford Pinto, contended content:
Public outcry related to the controversy and the Mother Jones article resulted in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issuing a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. This resulted in Ford issuing the largest automotive recall to date.
Events contributing to the causality of the largest auto recall in history were many, including but not limited to:
All supported by vast noteworthy reliable sources.
References
|
---|
References
|
The causality of historical events is fraught with difficulty, the motivations of organizations even more so, and best avoided in Wikipedia voice; let the facts speak. We are asked to summarize, not to over simplify, and certainly not to over-simplify in service of a minority point of view. This is pretty basic, sorry to bother, but a strident local consensus of Ford Pinto fanboyz is pursuing, in Wikipedia voice, that the whole Pinto thingy was a dust-up created by rabble-rousing by a tiny new low-circulation anti-corporate hippie magazine from San Francisco. The current article text says that:
...caused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find that the Ford Pinto had a design defect; and that
...caused Ford to recall the Pinto.
These claims, presented in Wikipedia voice, are well beyond any reasonable summarization of the consensus of reliable sources and so are original research. As represented in numerous reliable sources, and as with most attempts to characterize the causality of historical events, the actual causality is much more complex.
Comments from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research are respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments on original research in the above excerpt? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. Ford issued the largest automotive recall to date.
Assistance from colleagues with experience with original research issues is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: HughD, Why didn't you include the references in your original question? The material in both the Pinto and Ford History article was supported by peer reviewed sources. I also would note that you left Lee and Ermann left off the list of references above. Schwartz is perhaps the most significant reference with respect to the Pinto cases. Lee and Ermann are perhaps the second most significant after Schwartz. You failed to show how those references were used in the Pinto article (the Ford History article references the Pinto article). You also failed to link to the relevant talk page discussions. Here is what was said in the Pinto article... with references.
Lee and Ermann note that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." [1] The Mother Jones article included a clip out "coupon" that readers could mail to the NHTSA. [2]
References
This is clearly supported material and not OR. Springee ( talk) 00:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Why is this topic being raised here vs on the article talk pages first? This was discussed on the Pinto talk page but not discussed on the History of Ford Motor Company page. Springee ( talk) 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Two noteworthy reliable sources provide guidance to us on what a reasonable treatment of the causes of major automobile recalls, and the historic Ford Pinto recall in particular:
The process in the more serious voluntary recalls generally starts with consumer complaints and news stories, then proceeds to government investigation and testing, consumer group pressuring, resistance from the auto manufacturer, and an official finding of safety defect. The story of the Ford Motor Company's decision to recall 1.5 million of its 1971-1976 subcompact Pinto cars is illustrative.
Clinard and Yeager then excerpt the The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978):
Ford made the decision this June, but the seed of the decision was planted a year ago. it was in August 1977 that Mother Jones, a magazine published in California, printed an article titled "Pinto Madness"; it portrayed the car as particularly susceptible to fires in rear-end crashes. The article was ballyhooed at a Washington press conference by Ralph Nader and its author, Mark Dowie. A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which opened an investigation that was to last eight months. The agency first ran an engineering analysis of the Pinto, finding that the fuel tank's location and the structural parts around it permitted easy crashing or puncturing of the tank in a crash. Officials also found that the short fuel-tank filler pipe could easily pull away from the tank. There was "real potential for trouble," says Howard Dugoff, the agency's deputy administrator. "The design looked fishy." Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.
Conspicuously omitted from our article are accidents, deaths, lawsuits, consumer complaints, numerous news stories, consumer groups, the NHTSA investigation, NHTSA testing, and the pending public hearing. The point being that the current article text explicitly states in Wikipedia voice a grossly oversimplified small set of reasons for the recall. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment The above doesn't actually contradict the material in the article. Springee ( talk) 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
As further evidence of the non-neutral nature of the statement in Wikipedia voice currently in our article History of Ford Motor Company regarding the causes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finding of defect, colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the NHTSA's own reasons given for its finding.
The NHTSA suggests that the Washington press conference and the Mother Jones magazine article were among the factors contributed to initiating the investigation, not that a magazine article resulted in the finding of defect:
A formal defect investigation case was initiated on September 13, 1977, based upon allegations that the design and location of the fuel tank in the Ford Pinto make it highly susceptible to damage on rear impact at low to moderate closing speeds. On August 10, 1977, a press conference was held in Washington D.C., to announce the release of an article entitled "Pinto Madness", which was published in the September/October issue of Mother Jones magazine...Following public release of the article, the NHTSA initiated, on August 11, 1977, a preliminary evaluation of the alleged safety defect, and on September 13, a formal defect investigation case.
The NHTSA said it conducted numerous activities in the course of its investigation beyond reading the Mother Jones article, including
The NHTSA compiled reports from the US, Canada, and Ford, and summarized:
In total the NHTSA is aware of 38 cases in which rear-end collisions of Pinto vehicles have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel system leakage and/or ensuing fire. These cases have resulted in a total of 27 fatalities sustained by Pinto occupants, of which one is reported to have resulted from impact injuries. In addition, 24 occupants of these Pinto vehicles have sustained non-fatal burn injuries
The NHTSA summarized its crash testing:
...in two Pinto tests with the full size vehicle travelling at 35 miles per hour, fires resulted.
The NHTSA summarized the litigation history:
In the history of product liability actions filed against Ford and other co-defendants involving rear impact of Pintos with fuel tank damage/fuel leakage/fire occurrences, nine cases have been settled. Of these, the plaintiffs have been compensated in 8 cases, either by jury award or out of court settlements.
The NHTSA said its finding of defect was based on its investigation:
Based upon the information either developed or acquired during this investigation, the following conclusions have been reached: 1971-1976 Ford Pintos have experienced moderate speed, rear-end collisions that have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel leakage, and fire occurrences that have resulted in fatalities and non-fatal burn injuries.
Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that "public outcry" and a magazine article "resulted" in the NHTSA finding of defect is grossly pointed. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider Ford's own reasons given for its recall. Ford said the recall was unrelated to the NHTSA finding of defect.
But NHYSA, a Department of Transportation agency, informed Ford on May 8 about results of the new investigation, which concluded that Pintos had a safety defect. A public hearing was scheduled for next week, at which time internal Ford documents related to the fuel tank situation were to be made public...In a prepared statement, Ford vice President Herbet L. Misch said: "Ford informed NHTSA that it does not agree with the agency's initial determination of May 8 that an unreasonable risk of safety is involved in the design of these cars..." Misch said Ford decided to offer the modifications "so as to end public concern that has resulted from criticism of the fuel systems in these vehicles".
Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the diversity of reliable sources in giving reasons for the recall. The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978) said Ford recalled to scuttle a scheduled public hearing and to avoid adverse publicity:
A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.
Danley concurs with the Ford Motor Company, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal in citing the Ford Motor Company's agency in their choice to recall:
Ford could have refused to recall and have chosen instead to defend the Pinto's design in the formal recall hearings at NHTSA. While this tactic could easily have delayed any forced recall for months, if not for more than a year, the cost of the publicized hearings to Ford's reputation could have been substantial, even if Ford had been successful in the end. Ford agreed to "voluntarily recall" the Pinto in June 1978.
Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that the NHTSA finding "resulted" in the recall is non-neutral, oversimplified, and grossly pointed original research. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Multi-sport_event#RfC:_Can_an_acceptable_definition_be_written_for_Category:Sports_festivals? – Fayenatic L ondon 16:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see the dispute in Talk:Cutting stock problem#Example. The opposite party and their sock ignore to discuss the issue in talk page, so my request for third opinion was rejected for burocratical reasons, hence I have to bother a larger community.
My point is that per WP:V, a complicated example of a computational problem accompanied with claims difficult to verify, must be supplied with references. While small, easy to verify examples are OK - üser:Altenmann >t 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
it is believed that in this case the minimum number of patterns with this level of waste is 10, which suggests that it isn't OR (at least not from the editor who added the example). I found the problem listed as an exercise in "Case Studies in Operations Research: Applications of Optimal Decision Making" page 419. The example in the article prompted a question on stackexchange. It's also mentioned here, a Visual basic solver is discussed/demonstrated here. The problem and the figure showing the solution is included in this lecture, same for these lecture notes (did these lectures get the picture from wikipedia?), also used in the dataset of this paper. Another source listing the problem: http://www.ijiee.org/vol5/518-F0013.pdf
I want to report about user:Tnguyen4321's out-of-context use of materials from RS:
As far as I am concerned, I hereby rest my case and let other members and administrators express their opinions. I can no more dialogue with someone that insists eastern foot of in "at the foot of the Chu Pong Massif" - a verbatim quote - means east of as in "east of the Chu Pong Massif". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I had rest my case once. After me having a second thought, it is definite starting now. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Some facts about my "opponent":
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Done I have fixed the issue of OR of case #1 here and case #2 here. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 09:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Will somebody please stop this abusive OR-tagging: [43]
In comparison, the air action was much more significant than the ground action in terms
By tagging at the end of the paragraph, the editor also failed to realized the sum of each attributable components is also attributable.
This editor has no clue these are attributable facts in invoking the OR tag. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The IP has been warned re: vandalism here. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 09:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: RS that is cited in the "Belligerent info box, I found no words indicating that the US was supported by the ARVN.
It is the other way around. In the conflict, the two belligerents were the NVA (aggressor) and the ARVN (aggressee)The ARVN was supported by the US. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Is the below paragraph SYNTH? (part after the last comma in particular)
Although some scholars have claimed that the fustanella was introduced into Greece by Albanians in the 15th century, [10] [11] [12] [13] archaeological evidence shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greece as early as the 12th century, [14] predating the arrival of Albanian-speakers on Greek lands by several centuries. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Paulicelli148
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).An article undergoing a Good Article Review involves, inter alia, whether or not primary sources are over/misused. See Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/William_L._Uanna/1. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The good folks at Language Log have drawn our attention to the hypertrophied monstrosity that is California Proposition 218 (1996), which (insofar as it's readable) seems to be entirely the original work of one editor, with a complete paraphrase of the proposition's text included for good measure. Neutrality has done some sterling work on the article in the past day or two, but I think the more eyes we can get on it, the better. Tevildo ( talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
This looks like original research to me but not sure if qualifies /info/en/?search=Price_of_anarchy
I have a problem with the article about periodic comet 39P/Oterma ( /info/en/?search=39P/Oterma). The subject of that article is a comet that apparently has a very interesting and peculiar orbit that is nicely described in the article, with a detailed description of what has been done by the author. But there is no external source, so I assume the entire description is based on the author's own unpublished calculations. Is this a violation of the "no original research" rule? And if so, how can the article be saved in its current form, but satisfying the wiki rules?
Renerpho ( talk) 01:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/CarloRossi1010 seems to add made up information to multiple articles. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Talk:English people#Original research about whether giving a dictionary definition of a nation, and then stating that the English people meet this definition, constitutes original research if no source is provided apart from for the dictionary definition (which does not mention the English). Comments would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Many articles on German military men contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on war-time propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?
This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NPOV? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The contentious part:
The three sentences above, seem, at least to me clearly suggest that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies by the Greek state because they raided villages as far north as Pogoni. While this is not explicitly stated by either sources, Alexikoua that maintains "it's obvious". On the other hand, I have argued that Muslim bands can not be equated with Muslim Chams since the region was home to other Muslims as well, and that unless explicitly stated by the sources, the treatment of Muslim Chams on the eve of the first Balkan wars by the Greek army can not be correlated with the activity of Muslim bands.
Cited material
|
---|
|
There's an ongoing discussion here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 11:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Accompanying sources
|
---|
|
I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The Review of genre section seems to be a highly biased "review" of the genre from one individual, and entirely without any references. There are probably also many factual errors. -- Curiousdannii ( talk) 11:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There's an extinct ethnic group called Harla that supposedly spoke a semitic language by the vast majority of sources but it says semitic or Cushitic. The source being used to label it Cushitic has no mention of "Cushitic". [45] or [46] Looks synthesised and original research. Editor opinion needed. Kiziotherapy ( talk) 17:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women can probably be deleted as obvious WP:SYNTH. Parenthetically, it's also grossly incorrect. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 01:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources regarding original research and synthesis in the article List of best-selling albums in the United States. Piriczki ( talk) 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Email storm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This (arguably) computer-science topic seems to rely on almost entirely on examples which are referenced with non-technical sources. The "technical" section near the top consists of obviously plausible but unsourced statements. The phrase "eMaelstrom" seems to have no mainstream use. The most authoritative source for this neoligism is Urban Dictionary. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Are hypothetical examples considered original research? This is more of a general question, but the example given at License compatibility#Example provoked the question. I can see rationale for both ways, but what’s the consensus view on this? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the following considered WP:OR? I am the author of the text in question and I think I have not crossed the line into OR but I would like to explain my approach/logic to analyzing the source and get constructive feedback if I am wrong on where and why my analysis is flawed.
A performer (rap artist), Dieuson Octave, chose a stage name, Kodak Black, at the beginning of his career. In a one-on-one interview he was asked about the stage name (see "Q: Didn’t you originally get your name, Kodak Black, from Instagram?") and gave an answer. I have used that interview Q&A to explain the meaning/genesis of the name in the WP article about him.
There also was another one-on-one interview (see "Q:How’d you get the name Kodak Black?") which corroborates much of the first interview. I believe that my claim on the genesis/meaning of the stage name is support fully by the one Q&A in the 1st source and that the 2nd interview Q&A, while not so much on-point, does not refute the 1st in any way.
Octave says that "Kodak Black" is a combination of (a) his childhood nicknames and (b) a play on the words Kodak and Instagram since both are photo related.
green) I used to be called "Black" and also "Lil' Black" (nicknames). When I created my Instagram account I chose the username "Kodak Black"
‘cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures. People liked that nickname so when I started my career that is what I chose for my stage name.
(1) PREMISE: The process of paraphrasing and summarizing a source text requires textual analysis. We must understand the meaning of words in the context that they were used before we can correctly paraphrase or summarize them into an article.
(2) PREMISE: All answers in interviews must be considered-in-context to the question that prompted said answer. For example an answer such as "No flockin' in November."
is meaningless gibberish until you pair it up with the question "What is your next song called and when is it being released?"
.
(3) PREMISE: Common knowledge can exist within a paradigm of a specific context or community. For example it is common knowledge that Facebook is a social media application, however this is only true within the paradigm of internet aware people. It is therefore an appropriate source review strategy to identify what contexts exist for the source used and to then further identify any common knowledge referenced or implied in the text. However, as per WP:CK, if an edit based on some bit of common knowledge is challenged a reliable published source must be cited to support that bit of knowledge. Note that the source for the common knowledge can be separate from the source being analyzed.
Based on these premises/assertions I analyzed the Q&A and came to the following conclusions based on the text:
(4A) Octave is aware of and uses the internet.
(4B) Octave is aware of and uses Instagram.
(4C) It is common knowledge -- within the paradigm of people who are Instagram users -- that Instagram is all about pictures.
(5A) Octave was born in and lives in the United States.
(5B) It is common knowledge -- within the paradigm of people who live in the United States -- that Kodak is all about pictures.
(6A) Octave was asked an interview question about his stage name and its connection to Instagram.
(6B) Octave replied to that question he had had childhood nicknames of "Black" and "Lil' Black".
(6C) Octave replied to that question he had created an Instagram account with the user name "Kodak Black".
(6D) Octave replied to that question he chose Kodak as part of his user name "‘cause you know Kodak, that’s pictures
".
When asked about his stage name and its connection to Instagram Kodak explained that it was a combination of his childhood nicknames and a play on a word about photography since it was created for Instagram, a photo-based website.
-- Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay I am a little confused at this point. I asked about the OR for the source --> text summarization and I got responses that talked about the OR of my approach to the task. Even more confusing the responses all seem (I'm not 100% sure) to indicate my summarization is correct but my logic is wrong. I really do not understand how to use this feedback going forward.
I came here because my original edit was reverted and argued as being "interpretive" OR here. Since the editor had provided detailed logic I felt I also needed to provide detailed logic. I wanted the mental chain-of-events to be clear and thus to find out where my thought processes had gone wrong but the above comments are only making it harder to understand what I did right and what I did wrong. Sorry if I am clueless, I just want to be a better editor. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station#Cost comparison, where an editor has is disputing the removal of content which I and another editor believe is OR. Any comments would be much appreciated. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving original research and reliable sources at Talk:Aptronym#Original research and lack of sources. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
— Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus
At Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) there is the claim "There is archeological evidence for the existence of a Davidic Kingdom" which is not supported by any source. Even the source quoted in its support does not support it (it says there is evidence for David's existence, not for David's Kingdom). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
What the cited source says about David's Kingdom is this: "Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
And what "Davidic Kingdom" even means? Does it mean David's Kingdom of Kingdom of the House of David? Big difference. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know there is not a single real (solid, certain) proof of David ever having ruled over a kingdom. Anyway, nobody seems to able to name any. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Few, if any sources describe Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people, a Han Chinese subgroup, in the United States. However there are many sources that discuss this group's migration to parts of China, Southeast Asia etc, as well as Chinese immigration from these parts of the world to the United States. Is it original research to conclude that Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people are in the United States?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 01:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving WP:SYNTHESIS at Talk:Frankfurt_School#RfC:_Does_the_lede_of_the_.22Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory.22_section_follow_WP:NPOV_and_is_its_claim_supported_by_cited_sources.3F Last Contrarian ( talk) 13:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Slut-shaming#Scope. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The matter concerns whether or not we should stick to sources that use the term slut-shaming and if not doing so can be a WP:Synthesis violation. How do we judge what is on-topic or is not synthesis if sources don't use the term slut-shaming? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably could use some uninvolved folks to evaluate the discussion occurring at SSM, before things escalate into a full on ANI crap show. TimothyJosephWood 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
"Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting."That does lend itself to drawing a distinction, but sources about specific positions would have to draw that distinction, too, to include in that context. More often than not the issue of "same-sex marriage" tends to assume a single concept that one is for/against. If someone wants to get into the details of positions of particular religions, we have entire articles about that. This shouldn't do anything other than summarize what those articles (or just religious views of same-sex marriage).
Lfstevens and I are having a friendly disagreement at Talk:PPACA about whether the following passage (about health insurance statistics) is original research:
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) (Retrieval steps: Click Start MEPSNet/HC. Select 2007. Click Variable Selection. Click Demographic variables. Select Age. Click Utilization, Expenditure and SOP Variables. Click All Types of Service. Select TOTEXP07. Click Descriptive statistics. Click Minimums, maximums, sums, means and mediums. For Variable, select TOTEXP07. Select Mean. In the left of the three dropdowns, select Age. Click Show statistics.)
My concern is that we're querying a primary source database of statistics while applying our own judgment to decide on what parameters to use, e.g. which year, which variables, etc, and then drawing conclusions from the results. Choosing different parameters would yield different results. Isn't this the essence of original research? Thoughts? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The talk page for Diesel engine ( Talk:Diesel engine) contains a discussion and an RfC about the contributions of George Brayton. His Brayton engine used the Brayton cycle to do something similar to Rudolf Diesel's engine. I have some WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns about the additions being proposed. I was invited to the RfC by the RfC service and there are only a couple of editors participating in the discussion. Roches ( talk) 03:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
There ia s policy contention here, which requires external third party review to clarify a point. The guidebook writes:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
At Black Sunday, 1937, I introduced a source, and added a further source later on. The page deals with a moment in the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936-1939, when from autumn 1937 the Zionist group Irgun decided to adopt terrorist tactics, by ignoring the policy of restraint (havlagah) and killing civilians, a turning point in Zionism's history marked by that event and in its immediate aftermaths.
(A) source Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011 pp.145f
Now for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed, for the first time more or less matching the numbers of Jews murdered in the Arab pogroms and rioting of 1929 and 1936. This “innovation” soon found Arab imitators and became something of a “tradition”; during the coming decades Palestine’s (and, later, Israel’s) marketplaces, bus stations, movie theaters, and other public buildings became routine targets lending a particularly brutal flavour to the conflict.’
(B) source David Hirst, Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East, Nation Books, 2010 p.34
the Arabs may have begun the violence, but they (Zionists) imitated and, with their much improved techniques, far outdid them. All of them – not just the ‘terrorist’ undergrounds, the Irgun and the Stern Gang of future prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, but the official, mainstream, Hagana – abandoned ‘self-restraint’, if they had ever really practiced it. A policy of indiscriminate ‘reprisals’ took its place. These, wrote the official historian of the Irgun, ‘did not aim at those who had perpetrated acts of violence against Jews, and had no geographic connection with the places where they had done so. The principal consideration in the choice of target was first accessibility, and then the (maximum) number of Arabs that could be hit.’ At the climax of their anti-Arab rampage, with bombs in market-places or mosques, grenades hurled into buses or the machine gunning of trains, they killed more Palestinians, 140, in the space of three weeks than the Palestinians had killed Jews in the year and a half since the Rebellion began, an achievement over which the Irgun’s National Bulletin openly exulted.’
I wrote from these 2 sources:
(C)One practice adopted by the Irgun in particular at the time, and subsequently by the Lehi gang, according to Benny Morris, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: for the first time, grenades were thrown at, and powerful bombs were planted in, places like markets, mosques and bus stations where crowds of Arabs thronged in order to maximize the impact of indiscriminate killings. This technique formed a precedent, and was picked up soon after by Arabs. In the following decades, the method became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel. According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, a figure exceeding the total number of Jews killed in the one and a half years from the start of the Arab revolt. In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.
It is this that was denounced as WP:SYNTH. Both mention the Great Arab Revolt, both on these pages note the breaking of the 'restraint policy'; both deal with the aftermath set by this precedent. For those who see my introduction of Hirst as WP:SYNTH, the error would be that Morris mentions the specific date and incident marking the turn, whereas Hirst makes a general comment on the adoption of the terrorist tactic at that period and illustrates it with several instances that are elsewhere attested in the sources on Black Sunday already used, without challenge, on the page. I cannot see where I have joined Morris and Hirst to make a conclusion that is not in either source, which is what a WP:SYNTH specifically identifies as an abuse. Nishidani ( talk) 08:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Scoobydunk: I have made another stab at the prose. Perhaps you can take a look at it and see if all SYNTH concerns are addressed?
One practice, adopted by the Irgun in particular, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: the use of massive bombs in crowded areas, indiscriminately killing and maiming dozens of people.(cite Morris) The targets were chosen based on accessibility and so that the maximum number of Arabs could be hit.(cite Hirst) This technique was soon picked up by Arabs: in the following decades, the targeting of public buildings became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel.(cite Morris) According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, which is more than the number of Jews killed in the previous year and a half of the uprising.(cite Hirst) Morris states that the numbers of Arabs killed in these indiscriminate attacks matched the number of Jews killed by Arabs in the 1929 and 1936 uprisings.(cite Morris) In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.(cite Caplan)
The only assumption being made in the passage, as a whole, is that all sources (Morris, Hirst, Caplan) are talking about the same time period. This is easily checked from the sources, using the times and the descriptions. All the sentences in the passage are cited to single sources - no two sources are combined for any assertion.
I'll also quote the Caplan source, the part which I'm using:
In July 1938, two Irgun bombings killed 74 Arabs and wounded 129 in Haifa's main market, unleashing a cycle of reprisal attacks targeting Jewish and Arab civilians.
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The Irgun bombs of 1937-38 sowed terror in the Arab population and substantially increased its casualties.A couple of paragraphs below, he goes through the bombings in detail: first the 11 November 1937 attack, then the major attacks on 14 November (Black Sunday), then he mentions the July 6 1938 bombings, July 15 bombing, and July 25, then August 26 bombing.The July 6 and 25 bombs were both in the Haifa market, which Caplan also mentions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Which of the following phrasing is preferable:
1. Stein supports GMO labeling and a moratorium on new GMOs until they are proven safe, and would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown, as well as the pesticides used on them.
2. Stein's official platform calls for a "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe."...Stein later clarified that her moratorium proposal would apply to "new" GMOs until they are proven safe (though her official platform calling for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides" remains unchanged) and that the US should "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown.
I prefer the first, which states the position Stein says she supports. In my opinion, the second version wanders into OR by implying that Stein is misrepresenting her own platform or has revised it rather than merely clarifying it. We should not make that judgment, per "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources": "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
TFD ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see either phrasing being an OR problem, they both would be acceptable, however I prefer the first because it is more succinct. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Cross-step_waltz The history of the dance here is referenced only to primary sources (19th-early 20th century books). The whole article seems to be copied from the book co-authored by the original author of the article Link to google books This book seems to be self-published. I suppose that all the history section here is OR and should be removed or referenced as opinion of certain authors.
I'd like to hear opinion about this image before I attempt to use it. (Click image for larger view) As I explained at the image description page, this shows
LaVoy Finicum just before he was shot and killed during the
Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I am the final author of this derivative work. During the event in question, a cell phone video (with audio) was taken inside Finicum's truck, and another video (without audio) was taken by the FBI from the air. Both were turned over to the Central Oregon Major Incident Team, which was able to synchronize them.
Article by Oregon Public Broadcasting and
Full synched vid posted by OPB to YouTube.
Here's where I come in.
I downloaded the youtube vid and marked the time point when you hear the first of the three gunshots that killed Finicum. That was time 5:41. Next I stepped through the vid from 5:39 forward, frame by frame, back and forth, to locate a frame just before he was hit by the first round. There is no audio when you do this, and there is no conclusive way to determine which frame is the last before the first bullet's impact. In case you're wondering, the rectangular inset in the lower left is the other video, most of which I cropped out.
What do ya'll say? Is this by definition OR? My guess is someone is gonna say ""depends how its used" so just to get ahead of that, what if the caption said something like "LaVoy Finicum just before being shot"? Obviously we can't say "the final frame before bullet impact" because there's no way to know that.
Thanks for input. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
" Post-progressive" is a term that appears in a few books on progressive rock, sometimes in quotes or in sentences like "X could be termed post-progressive". I am not sure if it should be considered a music genre. In the books that I have access to, it is used as an adjective, while the author of the article uses it as a noun (eg. Post-progressive's beginning may be located to the year 1978). He also placed it in infoboxes in a number of articles (eg. jazz or ambient music), again as a noun. Nearly all edits I made on this topic ended in edit wars, so I decided to put this here. Chilton ( talk) 11:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to a Wikipedia article. For example, the article Computer architecture once began with the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer."
That is not true: Computer architecture is the theory. The words "computer architecture" refer to the theory, but the article is not about the words; it is about the theory.
Thus it is better to say, "Computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer."
The term 'post-progressive' is designed to distinguish a type of rock music from the persistence of a progressive rock style that directly refers to 1970s prog. The 'post' also refers to that which has come after other forms of avant-garde and popular music since the mid-1970s. ... [it] identifies progressive rock that stems from sources other than progressive rock. ... there are those who contend, though, that progressive rock is far hidden, and that post-progressive rock feeds a more explicit return to prog: in other words, a return that is not one. This trend is best exemplified by two British avant-rock acts of the 1980s and early 1990s: David Sylvian and Talk Talk.
— Hegarty, Paul; Halliwell, Martin (2011). Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock Since the 1960s. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-2332-0.
Since the 80s, we have seen the rise of both a neo-progressive movement, with young bands, many of them European, attemping to bring a more contemporary sensibility to the 'classic' idiom, and a post-progressive style following the implications of King Crimsons' Discipline album of 1981, with its introduction of elements drawn from minimalism and ethnic musics, elements new to rock.
— Bruford, Bill (2009). Bill Bruford: The Autobiography : Yes, King Crimson, Earthworks, and More. Jawbone Press. ISBN 978-1-906002-23-7.
A number of new bands have cultivated what might be termed a post-progressive style ... no comparable consensus has emerged concerning the major neo- or post-progressive rock bands of the 1980s and 1990s, following up on the implications of King Crimson's landmark Discipline LP of 1981 and introducing entirely new elements (drawn especially from minimalism and various ethnic musics) into the genre.
— Macan, Edward (1997). Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509887-7.
Musically and lyrically, "Our Little Victory" demonstrates the reasons for many rock critics never having come to terms with Rush. However, the reasons for Rush's influence on Primus and on other 1990s, alternative, progressive metal, and post-progressive bands ("musicians' musicians") certainly also hold for this song.
— Bowman, Durrell (2014). Experiencing Rush: A Listener's Companion. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-3131-3.
"post-progressive" (sub-genre of progressive rock) (as labelled from index)
He [Holm-Hudson] further states that "'post-progressive' groups such as ... Radiohead also draw upon selective aspects of vintage progressive rock, even as they actively seek to distance themselves with the genre.
— Letts, Marianne Tatom (2010). Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album: How to Disappear Completely. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00491-8.
Most of these discussions are centered around Chilton's grasp on the difference between progressive rock music and prog rock (the cited authors distinguish both terms). From what I understand, the only thing Chilton has reasonably challenged is whether "post-progressive" should be listed in the infoboxes for King Crimson, Talk Talk, and David Sylvian. This is because only one RS can be found which calls them "post-progressive" artists. (He ignores the fact that literally every other genre listed in those article's infoboxes are also referenced to only one RS.)-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Original_research CFredkin ( talk) 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Priyanka Chopra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relevant discussion at: Chopra as "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" is not supported by sources
On 14 September 2016 a user changes the original text description of Chopra at the lead from "one of the highest-paid actresses in Bollywood" to "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world", using highly enthusiastic edit-summaries indicating a particularly strong POV. The problem is, s/he did not supply a source for "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" but for "one of the highest-paid TV actresses in the world" using this list by Forbes. In fact, the actual 2016 Forbes list of the highest paid actresses in the world does not include Chopra.
Now this user is edit-warring changing Chopra's description at the lead to "one of the highest paid actresses" but using the Forbes TV actress list to support it.
His/her reply at the talkpage: Oh I forgot, TV actresses have horns on their head. LOL.
with edit-summary ROFL
indicates that s/he has no understanding of
WP:OR or
WP:V.
I find using the Forbes list for "highest-paid TV actresses" as reference to declare Chopra "one of the highest-paid actresses", which is a completely separate and different list in which Chopra is not found, to be very misleading original research since there is a clear distinction between TV actors and cinema actors and two different lists for their compensation. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The WP:OR policy states that original research which is prohibited "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". However, the rest of the language and examples all refer to cases where {{WP:OR]] is used to add material to the article. My question is, can original research be used to removed well-sourced material from reputable sources? Suppose an academic who is a recognized authority in a field publishes research in a peer-reviewed academic journal, whose main thesis is "I've researched X, and my conclusion is Y". This material is then used in an article to say that the named expert researched X, and concluded Y. Can an editor perform his own research on X, conclude that the result is actually not Y, and then use his personal research to remove the sourced material from the article on that basis? Epson Salts ( talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
<- To evaluate and comment on the actual case in question, see Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Naughty_Dr_Brawer. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Epson Salts brought this dispute here without notifying the other parties , and the "hypothetical" version does not match the actual situation. It is not a matter of researcher X concluding Y, and not a matter of an editor's opinion differing from an expert's opinion. What actually happened was that researcher X misquoted a source and Epson Salts wants to keep the misquote in the article without comment, even though everyone can see the original source and nobody at all is arguing that X quoted it correctly. Since NOR doesn't prescribe what can be omitted from articles, the question editors should ask is "Would the article be better with a misquote or without it?" and I believe all good editors would prefer the latter. Incidentally, the article in question is a BLP and the misquote shows the subject of the BLP in a negative light, so I believe the misquote is actually forbidden from the article no matter what NOR says. Everyone, except Epson Salts afaik, is happy to report X's opinion without using the misquote explicitly. Zero talk 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
In the hypothetical case, Wikipedia should not be giving much weight to primary research results in the first place, and no weight at all (even in discussion) to experiments done by an editor. In the actual case, it's not only acceptable but essential that editors use some common sense and due diligence investigating the sources being used in articles, or else we would have no idea which are reliable. A source that includes obvious factual inaccuracies can be excluded from an article, and it's totally fine for editors to look into a source's own sources to make that judgement. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Have I improperly synthesised a new conclusion here? Can 'suitable for classroom and age-appropriate' be faithfully interpreted as 'may include some sexual instructions or explicit content' in this specific circumstance? I believe its the same thing, not a new conclusion or something taken out of context, considering that the context is a review of a government funded anti-LGBTI bullying program in the national spotlight occurring as a direct response to claims by politicians that the program was overly sexualised. - Shiftchange ( talk) 15:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right noticeboard for this kind of thing, but the entire article appears to be based on the subject's website; there are no other sources cited. Parts of the article read like promotional material ("At the age of 13, Riniti started his innate ability to set and achieve long-term, personal and professional goals."), others are phrased in a non-neutral way ("On December 27, 2014 Anthony S. Riniti married the love of his life"). It looks like the article was written by Riniti himself or someone close to him. 93.128.130.50 ( talk) 10:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As seen here, here, here, here and here, Sarrena keeps adding "mosaic processing" material to the Pixelization article...without adding sources to support the content. On his or her talk page, I warned the editor about adding unsourced content. Mosaic is not the same thing as pixelization. Yet Sarrena added a source, this mosaic source, to support his or her wording of "or by arranging together small colored pieces or cells." That source doesn't even state "cells." I've brought the matter here for input. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Any solutions? I'd rather not take this to WP:ANI, but the editor doesn't listen or really discuss. Even if the editor were to discuss, I don't see that discussion with the editor will help anything. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)