This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

It's shorthand for not replicable? That is, if a given topic has reliable sources that mention it and if it is considered notable then "No 'OR'" means to engage in the type of collection of data that would be collected by any random set of Wikipedians?

- - -

A topic I like to use to conduct a test on this definition is The Obama family. Are there reliable sources about the Obamas? Yes. Is it a notable topic for encyclopedic purposes? Yes. So then what does it mean "not to engage in 'original research'" when assembling details about the Obama family? The answer is: to assemble names and dates and other various facts that any conscientious Wikipedian would assemble, given the same reliable sources. (Whereas "original research" would be to come up with some kind of "result" from one's researches that people checking the facts can't replicate.)

- - -

Comments? ↜Just me, here, now … 04:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think replicability is a useful angle to consider, but equating non-replicability with OR might be somewhat too strong. A couple of considerations:

Some material is non-replicable, not because of any issues with the quality of its sourcing, but because of differences in individual judgement about what's relevant. Some conscientious editors writing about the Obama family might include the fact that at one stage they'd been considering getting a labradoodle; others might leave out the dog that never happened in order to give more space to things they considered more important. So if we restrict the article to things that every editor would have included in their own version, we get a very small article indeed.

If we relax that restriction to conclusions that a lot of editors could have replicated, we run into more trouble, because there are topics where it's easy for lots of people to make the same mistake independently. As an example, take the Monty Hall problem, where a lot of very bright people not only pick the wrong answer, but think that it's obviously correct. This is also a known weakness of N-version programming. -- GenericBob ( talk) 06:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting!

I'd take this consideration about "degree of detail" then to modify the replicability formula then. (Which formula would itself be an attempting to formulate the answers to, How does "OR" provide bad info?/What aspect makes "OR" retrograde?)

An aspect I'm concentrating on here is how it might help, in generalizing what constitutes "OR", to consider things that would be intrinsic to a properly encyclopedic topic? (rather than on the random acts of OR engaged in by particular Wiki-contributors: eg somebody's just up and tacks on Bobo the Pet Greyhound at " Obama family"). For example, to contribute to a topic such as "List of offensive rappers" would involve OR(/SYNTH/POV-mongering/&c) no matter what...while at a topic that is more appropriately circumscribed, such as "List of gangsta rappers," any random sampling of WPdians given the same sources should assemble the same population of names (with some give or take on the edges WRT selection and more so WRT amount of detail to be added, of course, as mentioned in the comment above). ↜Just me, here, now … 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That is, where some folks could conceivably say, "The ' Obama family' isn't a properly encyclopedic topic since it's "OR" to say that analyses of the extended Obama family is occuring in lots of 2ndary sources"! -- the answer from actual practice at Wikipedia is that we only require there to be 2ndary sources for members of the family taken individually, for the Obama family itself to be considered notable enough to merit encyclopedic coverage. ↜Just me, here, now … 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with the idea that NOR is "shorthand for not replicable"? Original research can be replicable... it remains Original research. What makes something OR is that the research was done by a Wikipedian and the first place of publication was Wikipedia. The fact that other Wikipedians can "replicate" the research does not change that. Blueboar ( talk) 13:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar...but (again, my trying to get philosophical here) any feature article was written by Wikipedians, were they not? and, by very definition, their first place of publication was on Wikipedia, as well, right? I'm truly not trying to engage in sophistry here, but rather to figure out what exactly is going on -- that is, what exactly makes the collections of data assembled by WPdians "NotOR." ↜Just me, here, now … 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

since you want to get a bit philosophical about this, let me point out that the way you're using 'replicability' here is really just a scientistic euphemism for 'consensus'. i.e. " to engage in the type of collection of data that would be collected by any random set of Wikipedians" can only mean "to include data that any random sample of Wikipedians would agree to". OR is not an issue of data collection; OR is an issue of data interpretation, and interpretation issues can only be resolved through common sense and discussion. OR is really designed to exclude 'wild' speculation - you can't exclude speculation entirely because human thought is almost always speculation beyond immediately available facts (down to looking at a cloudy sky and saying it's probably going to rain). that means this kind of discussion is always going to involve shades of gray that need to be talked out. -- Ludwigs2 13:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Ludwigs2...yes, I agree. ↜Just me, here, now … 16:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that OR means no interpretation of the data instead of how some wikipedians think OR means no saying one plus one equals two unless you have a source that explicitly says so. If you have a source with one county's population, and another source with another county's population, and for some reason it is useful in an article to state the population of the two counties together, its not OR to add the two and put it in there without a specific source that did the math for you. Unfortunately I have run across many Wikipedians who would claim that addition IS Original Research. Even a little extrapolation and interpretation of data and facts is necessary for Wikipedia articles, otherwise our articles would be a bunch of lists of facts and data tables with no prose that flowed smoothly. When Einstein first came up with Relativity he was asked by an encyclopedia to write an article on the new field for their encyclopedia. Unfortunately if Wikipedia existed back then his edits would be reverted because they were OR and he had a conflict of interest! Camelbinky ( talk) 05:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source A says John Smith has two children. Source B says Jane Smith has three children. How many children do John and Jane have?

Adding one and one is pretty simple. Gauging whether it's an appropriate way to combine two pieces of data is not always so easy, and can very easily turn into original research, because editors don't even realise that they're putting an interpretation on the data. As an example which came up recently, the Australian Census asks respondents for their ancestry, and the ABS publishes total responses for each category (e.g. 'Scottish', 'Greek', 'Australian', etc etc). It's tempting to sum categories together to form broader supercategories (e.g. combine 'Scottish', 'English', and 'Welsh' to find the total number with ancestry in the United Kingdom). But as it turns out, the data comes from a form that allows people to list more than one ancestry, so there are plenty of people who are recorded under both 'English' and 'Scottish'. Adding these categories together leads to double-counting, which distorts the results. Demographic data conceals a lot of tricks and traps - another one is that there are several different measures of 'population', each of which will give you different values (particularly a problem when working from multiple sources). And in relativity, 0.5 + 0.5 sometimes equals 0.8...

I'm not for banning mathematical manipulation altogether, but people do tend to underestimate the issues and assumptions involved in 'trivial' operations; if other editors contest work of this sort, it's not always because they're OR pedants. -- GenericBob ( talk) 07:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true, I agree that, especially in the case you are talking about, mathematical manipulation can be misused (not necessarily on purpose or for any sort of agenda someone may have, its usually in good faith and ignorance). When I wrote my example I was thinking of a media market in particular that was defined by the counties in it and no article, website, etc had a current pop. statistic for the combined counties in that media market and the market did not conform to any metro statistical area, so it was necessary to simply add the populations of the consituent counties and some editors thought that was OR (in this case, unlike the one you presented regarding ethnicity, I assume that people in general are not being double counted as being in more than one county, though I'm sure over and under and double counts do exist in the US census). A similar overreaching of the OR pedants (I typically prefer a more accurate technical term- "dipshits", but we'll use your term) is when maps are involved. I personally see nothing wrong in looking at a map and using that as a reference, especially on road and highway maps for the route section as long as interpretation does not come into play. Others claim any use of a map is OR. I think its a good thing to say Original Research is anytime two or more Wikipedians can look at the same info (map, prose, table, or addition of two numbers) and come to two or more different conclusions. With of course the caveat that if there is a strong concensus towards one view then it doesnt matter that if one or a few editors see something another way. And of course I personally believe that TRUTH TRUMPS VERIFIABLE, but I myself am in the minority on that one. Camelbinky ( talk) 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"I assume that people in general are not being double counted as being in more than one county" - FWIW (and mostly because I'm a demography pedant ;-) there are ways it could happen. I'm not familiar with the details of the US Census, but I know Australian data is released on both a "place of enumeration" and "place of usual residence" basis (i.e. where people were on Census night, vs their home address). Combining one source based on place of enumeration with another based on UR could lead to double counting and/or missing people. Whether that matters depends on context. In the example you give, I wouldn't be fussed about it; I'd have more concerns if the data was being used to make comparisons. In practice, common sense and consensus go a long way. -- GenericBob ( talk) 13:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You know, the more I listen to these arguments, the more convinced I am that 'original research' is just the wrong phrase, because it traps editors in an entirely incorrect model of behavior. The correct model to use here is the journalistic one, not the scientific one: we shouldn't be excluding original research, we should be excluding bad reporting. The '1+1=2?' issues are tricky to address as issues of science. heck, mathematicians know that 1+1=2 only under a given set of metrical preconditions, and there has been a lot of actual original research in mathematics distinguishing where it is true and where it is false. But from a journalistic perspective, the questions is a non-issue, because a good journalist uses common sense without worrying about the ontological basis for it. e.g. a good reporter will happily report that 1 male + 1 female = 2 people, but will not report that 1 male + 1 Asian = 2 people; common sense dictates the first, but not the second. and note, the first statement might be wrong (see hermaphrodite), and may get corrected in the future, but a reporter isn't obliged to worry about that - all he needs to do is report, in good faith and with common sense, as best possible.

so let's note out limitations:

1. we do not have access to the ontological truth of the world
2. we do not have the skills or tools required to verify claims on our own
3. we do not have the skills or tools required to evaluate the verification of claims that others make

what we have is common sense, and common access to reason, and the ability to discuss things. If I thought it had a snowball's chance in hell I'd suggest that we scrap the entire 'original research' concept and replace it with a journalism 101 primer. it would save us a tremendous amount of wikilawyering in countless pages. -- Ludwigs2 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes GenericBob, the problem you mentioned with the Australian census does happen in the United States, but probably less so since the US census is based only on where you are on a certain date (I forget the exact date, but its basically the same as what you said "place of people were on Census night") and is not based on "place of usual residence". Which of course average people dont always understand when filling out forms or talking to the door-to-door census workers. Two groups often overcounted are NY "snowbirds" who spend half the year in NY but live in Florida for the the other half (winter), and college students whose parents put them down as living in the house still even though they live in a dorm on a college campus sometimes all the way across the country (college students living on campus are counted as living in the community the campus is in, not at "home", since "Census night" occurs during the school year). Camelbinky ( talk) 14:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig2 you are my freakin hero. I wish you had been present for some disagreements I've had on articles with editors who DEMANDED citations for EVERYTHING regardless of commonsense or concensus and removed anything and everything not cited or cited with a reference that they did not think "reliable enough", or put in citations for info that was clearly wrong; ie- an editor decided that a hamlet (place) in a particular incorporated town had a couple of references that called the hamlet a "town" and therefore demanded that the hamlet article refer to the hamlet as a "town" even though many of us tried to explain that legally it wasnt a town but that editor demanded that the only way to remove his edit without it being "vandalism" was to have a better source that specifically said "hamlet X is not a town". Camelbinky ( talk) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

lol - geez, I better get my spandex and cape back from the dry-cleaners. -- Ludwigs2 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If we could get WP editors to the standards of a good journalist, I'd be very happy, but I worry that replacing WP:OR with a Journalism 101 primer would just put the same old problems in a different set of clothes. In a nutshell, the basic model of WP means that a large percentage of editors will be incompetent and unaware of it, and a primer on journalism will only fix some of that. (Media outlets have far more ability to encourage competence in their employees and cull the incompetent, and they still struggle; there's a reason why WP:RS deprecates using news stories for academic topics.)

I do get intensely frustrated by people using policy as a substitute for common sense (that hamlet/town story is all too familiar). IME, it's very rare that policy actually mandates that sort of bloody-mindedness, but it could afford to be more explicit in reminding people to apply common sense because 'reliable sources' can occasionally be wrong. -- GenericBob ( talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

hmm... maybe we should take wp:common and wp:nocommon, merge them, expand them, and try to get them elevated to guideline (or even policy) status. this is a complaint I hear (and make) so often that I think a well-written article on it might qualify. maybe we could even start up WikiProject Common Sense. I think I'll start revising the former, just as something to do, so if you want to help... -- Ludwigs2 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I'm going to cry, I'm so happy I've found those that agree that commonsense is something we can use in Wikipedia instead of only quoting guidelines!!! Yes, if common sense could become a guideline itself it would definitely bolster any arguments against stubborn editors who would want to apply OTHER guidelines in what I refer to as "a strict constructionist viewpoint", that the guidelines are the literal word of some Wiki-God and you can only do as they say and nothing that they dont mention is applicable to the argument. If anyone is interested on my talk page I have alot of sayings added by me and others that go along with the making fun of the idea that "verifiable trumps the truth" (feel free to add any you others or just a quote you make up yourself). Camelbinky ( talk) 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User Mattise writes "I am not making a connection. I do not think "homosexual transsexualism" is used by any professionally accepted diagnostic system. As I said, I think the WHO category above is the closest you will come for an RS, in answer to your question above." diff The WHO category refered to is ego-dystonic homosexuality. Mattise cites the ICD 10 [1] If one reads what the source actually says...

Egodystonic Sexual Orientation The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it. [2]

Do you all think making this connection based on the above source is Original research?-- Hfarmer ( talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I left out that this appears on the talk page of the article Homosexual transsexual under Talk:Homosexual_transsexual#Ego_Dystonic_homosexuality.-- Hfarmer ( talk) 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this is original research based on a few things.

1. Mattise writes "do not think "homosexual transsexualism" is used by any professionally accepted diagnostic system. As I said, I think the WHO category above is the closest you will come for an RS" The whole argument rest on what Mattise thinks not what a secondary source says.
2. According to this online medical dictionary which gives a more straight forward definition. "a psychological or psychiatric disorder in which a person experiences persistent distress associated with same-sex preference and a strong need to change the behavior or, at least, to alleviate the distress associated with the homosexuality; no longer a DSM-recognized diagnosis; now included under sexual disorder, not otherwise specified." In short a egodystonic homosexual want's to become heterosexual, not become a transsexual (i.e. a transwoman attracted to men is in her own mind at least, a straight woman. There is no dyssonace between androphilia and sense of self to a so called MTF homosexual transsexual).
3. Which leads me to the fact that transsexualism is included in the DSM right now as Gender Identity Disorder. This google book provides a secondary source [ [3]

For all of those reasons I think that what Mattisse asserts in this instance is their own original research, which is in contradiction with very acessible reliable secondary sources. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please help me at this article? I've tried several times to tell the editor that simply citing a lyrics directory and a dictionary is not a good way to go about explaining a song's content, especially in such detail, but the user just won't listen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi — An editor has deleted the following paragraph of the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, stating: "remove WP:OR and WP:SYN. Find a secondary source that says this. Don't cite primary sources." [4] (The article now contains the old paragraph again, with a {{fact}} tag, and an informal warning about edit-warring has been issued.)

Given that the sequence of the publications that are included in the paragraph is obvious from the publication dates, can this possibly be regarded as WP:OR or WP:SYN?  Cs32en  18:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You could actually use the Clarke citation for part of that content, since it says: Questions about the credibility of the received view began to be raised in late 2001. The following year Eric Hufschmid published his Painful Questions in which the controlled demolition theory is explicitly advocated. Hut 8.5 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still puzzled by the fact that this needed to be deleted when the cite that supports the sequence actually only needs to be moved to the end of the sentence, or to be included multiple times. Regards.  Cs32en  20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting together a new article. The accepted definitive source on the subject uses pseudonyms for a few of the involved people, because at the time of original publication (1966) they were still alive and there were privacy concerns, although not defamation concerns because the real names are used in public court records. In a re-published (2001) edition, the author reveals the real names behind all pseudonyms but one. I have an original newspaper article which, based on the circumstances of the legal action and identifiers in both the original article and the book (age and occupation, with no one else involved in the legal situation having both the same age and occupation and no one else remaining unidentified), includes the person's real name. Any OR problem with my using the real name in the article? Otto4711 ( talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If no reliable source has made this identification, yes... there are OR problems with you doing so. If a reliable source has made that identification then it can be included in Wikipedia. Blueboar ( talk) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For several days now a couple of editors have been trying to add the following material to the hasbara article:

In 1977, recently elected Likud Prime Minister, Menachem Begin named Shmuel Katz to become the "Adviser to the Prime Minister of Information Abroad". (The New York Times, January 6 1978, Adviser to Begin quits)

I challenged the material, asking how the editor adding it knew it was related to hasbara. His response was that it was "obvious", or "common sense", or "seems too coincidental to be OR". Another editor eventually brought a different source related Katz to hasbara; specifically that he had commented on the topic in 2001, and at that time encouraged Ariel Sharon to create a permanent department for it. They are now using this second citation as a pretext for including the first citation, and the material from it. I have pointed out to them that this is classic WP:NOR/ WP:SYNTH, but they don't appear to care. I've brought the issue here for additional viewpoints. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. The second quote can stay in the article, on its own, as it mentions Hasbara. The first does not, and it is OR to include it. NoCal100 ( talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Three weeks later...(Ed. note)

The Knesset website in English states that Katz was "Advisor to Prime Minister on Information Policy, 1977-1978" [5]. The Hebrew original is "יועץ ראש-הממשלה להסברת חוץ" [6] , which can be transcribed as "Yoetz Rosh ha-Memshala le-Hasbarat Hutz". So his official title included the word hasbara; this is a perfectly legitimate edit, and not at all original research. RolandR ( talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. That seems to resolve the issue. -- John Nagle ( talk) 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I just learned of this. Excuse me, I do not believe this resolves all questions of SYNTH concerning this episode on the page. Please give me some time to get my diffs in order. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 04:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifically in light of Roland’s “good catch” (much thanks, by the way), I am now a less-than-happy-camper. What I particularly object to is the administrator’s SYNTH synopsis that my “response was that it was "obvious", or "common sense", or "seems too coincidental to be OR"” Had I known, I would have said my response was this, which was my initial response. It included specific, technical and relevant material concerning why my edit was not OR, and also pointed to his own OR assumptions, based on RSs on the article page. It includes, by the way, “the contemporaneous, specifically quoted (but awkward) phrase, “Adviser to the Prime Minister of Information Abroad””, that “ The editor also wanted to modify the phrasing into something more grammatical, but that would have been OR, based on the reference; he considered it may have come from a verbatim Hebrew phrase, and left the RS alone.”

We are now after that ‘good catch’ fact, but frankly, even three weeks ago it showed little, if any AGF on the part of the admin-user. So, with whom is a lowly (oppositely pov’d) editor supposed to be discussing hot-topic content? As the discussion continued, and after his shouted replies, I make note of this [7], and asked some specific questions regarding OR and SYNTH. But, even though the admin had already brought his factually inaccurate, SYNTH’ed description of the situation to the OR noticeboard, he does not even have the courtesy or etiquette to reply to simple questions at the original page. Those questions, I believe, are now sitting on this table, and they deserve a reply. I will not be pushed aside, like so many others, without a fair hearing of these issues; must we accept admins, who seem to stand on gaming and one POV, rather than on WP:Five Pillars? I am tired and frustrated that the project suffers excessively from certain admins, who appear to operate under the Mushroom Method of Management. I do not believe that this is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I consider this an ‘incident’; does this stay here, or what? I am asking. Reasonably cool and civil, under the circumstances. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 06:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you want to do, and who is stopping you from doing it? The article in question has been quiet lately. We may be past this issue. The only editor who was making a big deal about this is on a Wikibreak. -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than thinking that this section is likely resolved, I haven't decided. I've known that since the good catch, and yes, it has been quiet. I now believe we are past 'that' too. I generally tend to stay at street level, and only today became aware of breaking undercurrents on the effluent level. That knowledge-base all gets flushed equally, good and bad, and by their own pen. Others survive, stay and hopefully thrive; new ones come. See you at talk. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 10:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This section relates to perceived WP:SYNTH, on this very page, documented and summarized succinctly here. It comes originally from Hasbara, best documented here. The page was subsequently renamed/moved. I have the following initial concerns:

Issue 1: Is it a violation of policy, or just a guideline etiquette-thingy, for an experienced administrator to fail to notify other editors that their week-long OR dispute has been brought to this page? The original page may fall within the general purview of Wikipedia:ARBPIA-type pages, and the editors are known, and ‘involved’.

Issue 2: Is it a violation of policy, or just another etiquette-type thingy (which one), when an administrator then severely synthesizes the opposing and unknowing editor’s reply, when he reports it for review on this page? The administrator’s original OR complaint has since been serendipitously disproven; the synth alleged here is yet to be discussed. Discussion of it is requested.

Issue 3. If the alleged synth is found to be the case. Does it thus constitute a violation of gaming by an experienced administrator? Or again, is it just some other wiki-stuff; please explain. As I understand things, this specific page is project-designed to help end the gaming, not be a hall of fame forum for it to be played.

Issue 4. Possibly elucidate on the policy/guideline-mandated balance between degrees of normative thinking and WP:OR, or the balance between the former and normative relations.

That is, at least, the way I see events and administrative decisions made. I do not consider these to be minor kerfuffle, and expect to find little catharsis; those arteries are already clogged. Regardless, I will notify relevant others shortly. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 07:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't an article... Our Policies relate to what can be included in articles, not discussion pages. That said, notifying other users when you ask a question at one of the notice boards is a polite thing to do, but it isn't required. It is perhaps a breach of edicate, but not one that rises to the level of admins needing to take action.

The purpose of this page is to raise concerns about articles that might have OR issues. Those of us who respond are people who know and care about that policy. We discuss the issue, look at the page in question, and give our opinions. If need be, we assist at the article to resolve the problem. However, we all form our own opinions and often disagree. Thus, reporting a page here is not "gameing" the system. It is the system. Blueboar ( talk) 13:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for your completed response. Please excuse my misunderstanding of policy on this page as dealing only with OR on other article pages. This is admittedly different from the use of OR to present others’ arguments for discussion on this OR discussion page, but I point out that it was basically un-discussed when it did appear, at the time. [8]. Your response indicates that using OR on this page is not a problem; I had considered that it specifically might be, given the name of the page and overall policy. Please excuse my misunderstanding of that fine point regarding NOR policy, and correct my interpretation if it is wrong. Since it is policy, I will naturally comply. I will however, remember it as a good example of how implementation of overall policy tends to be either unfathomable or uneven.

Thanks also for the relatively positive response to my first issue. I fully agree with your “reporting a page here is not "gameing" the system It is the system.” I understand that, and at no time did I say or intimate such a thought; you misunderstand. Those accusations and others, as you point out, apparently do not belong on this page. Since three Issues (2 to 4) remain however, I request assistance to suggest where those might best be discussed and resolved, within the system. If responses are provided, I will check it ‘resolved’. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 03:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been active since March 2009. Most of the discussion is at Talk:Public diplomacy (Israel). This note on the noticeboard aiming people over there is helpful, but it's probably more useful to discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and will return there after I take a cold shower. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 03:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: Returning much refreshed, as well as more aware, I consider this well Resolved. Warmest regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 05:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'd like to post to this page an interesting development over at the Internet homicide article. In the interest of pruning out some or any of the "OR" in it, User:Ludwigs2 has made a proposal to broaden and refocus its topic toward achieving this end. It's here: Talk:Internet_homicide#alternate proposal. If any readers of this noticeboard might have a spare moment to check it out and comment, we'll greatly appreciate it! ↜Just M E  here , now 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is an interview, published by a reliable source, a primary source or a self-published source (or both)? Would it be original research to use statements from such an interview, or can statements from such an interview be used in the article, following the guideline on self-published sources?   Cs32en  16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this a while back... I'll see if I can find the discussion. Blueboar ( talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, this depends very much on issues of context and how exactly the source is used. It's important to make a distinction between WP statements that are merely about primary/self-published sources, and statements that trust these sources.

Example: A journalist at a reputable newspaper gets a letter to the effect of "I shot John F. Kennedy from the grassy knoll - yrs sincerely, Joe Smith". In itself, this letter is a primary, self-published source.

Our journalist happens to be working on an article about JFK conspiracy theories. He phones Joe Smith to confirm that he really did send the letter bearing his name (and was sober at the time), makes sure he knows which end of a gun is which, and checks with contacts to find out whether Smith is a known nutcase and whether his story is contradicted by known facts. The story seems as plausible as any other JFK conspiracy theory, so he decides to include a verbatim copy of the letter as part of his article, without passing judgement on whether Smith really did kill JFK. His editor looks it over, satisfies herself that the journalist has checked his facts, and publishes the article in a reputable newspaper.

A Wikipedian reads the newspaper, and goes off to edit articles on JFK. There are two ways they could do this:

1. 1 - "Joe Smith claims to have killed John F. Kennedy." Here, our source is a newspaper article - we have the benefit of the journalist's fact-checking and the editor's professional judgement to confirm that Joe Smith really did make this claim and meant what he said (hence, it's not a primary source), but we're not taking the actual letter on trust. Secondary, non-self-published source. Passes WP:RS, although we might argue about whether one more JFK conspiracy theory is notable.

1. 2 - "Joe Smith was the real killer of John F. Kennedy." Here, we're putting our trust in claims Joe Smith made about himself. This is a self-published source, even though we found it quoted in a reputable newspaper. Fails WP:RS miserably.

IMHO, whether an interview should be treated as a 'primary source' also depends on oversight and presentation. As an extreme example, we have a verifiable recording of the US President declaring that he had just outlawed Russia and would shortly begin bombing. But the problem with primary sources is that truth taken badly out of context can be more misleading than an outright lie - it would be highly inappropriate to present that quote without clarifying that it was made as a sound check. -- GenericBob ( talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer and for the explanation of the issues involved! The following section from the article

has been replaced by:

The section of the interview that has been used for the article reads:

   Cs32en  02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also see this passage from the same interview:

But if you will read through these testimonies, you will have no doubt whatsoever that dozens of people - credible people - reported very strong powerful multiple explosions in the buildings, so there's no doubt about that. And then, when you add that to the other 15 features that can only be explained in light of the hypothesis that powerful explosives were used...

I think it's quite reasonable to represent this interview as "Griffin claims eyewitness reports support his theory that explosives were used" - I wouldn't call that OR/SYNTH. Griffin is certainly engaging in original research and synthesis, but we are reporting that as a claim. This is something we do all the time, because a claim can be significant even when it's not established to be true. (Indeed, it can be significant even when it's been thoroughly debunked - take Wakefield's MMR/autism allegations, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)

What I would suggest is removing the second 'source' altogether (the link to the emergency responder transcripts). The question our sources need to answer here is not "does Griffin's theory make sense?" but "what is Griffin's theory?", and these responder transcripts don't provide an answer to that question. The CBC interview does. Representing the responder transcripts as a source might confuse other editors as to the intent of this passage. -- GenericBob ( talk) 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the NYT reference is superfluos and potentially misleading with regard to the claim that the article itself makes. A previous version of the text (not edited by me)

Controlled demolition conspiracy theory proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices. ^[1]

has been deleted on April 30 [9] and has been replaced [10] with

<!-- Need to add here info with citation to a reliable source that witnesses claimed to have heard explosions.-->

on May 3.   Cs32en  03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors are discussing the insertion (or re-insertion) of a reference to Michael Moore in the featured article The Age of Reason. The Age of Reason is a book written by Thomas Paine, a 19th-century free-thinking writer who espoused liberal political views and was highly critical and contemptuous of the Christian establishment of his day. The disputed passage in the proposal is emboldened below.

Paine's text is still published today, one of the few eighteenth-century religious texts to be widely available,[96] and his style has continued to influence writers and critics. For example, the American filmmaker and writer Michael Moore's polemical style has been compared to Paine's and he has been called "the new Tom Paine" by the left.[Porton, Stuckey, Andersen] The book's message still resonates as well, evidenced by British atheist and author of God is Not Great Christopher Hitchens's statement that "if the rights of man are to be upheld in a dark time, we shall require an age of reason". His 2006 book on the Rights of Man ends with the claim that "in a time . . . when both rights and reason are under several kinds of open and covert attack, the life and writing of Thomas Paine will always be part of the arsenal on which we shall need to depend."[97]

Short version:

WP:SYN says: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

The SYN steps in this case are:

• A: Paine wrote The Age of Reason.
• B: Three sources that don't mention The Age of Reason compare Moore to Paine.
• C: Moore's style is like Paine's style in The Age of Reason (assertion not found in any source; no source connects Moore to The Age of Reason).

Is it appropriate to add C to this Featured Article?

TLDR version:

There has already been an RfC on the question of including a reference to Moore, and four previously uninvolved editors have given their opinion that such a mention is inappropriate, against one in favour. The problem is that not one of the sources editors wish to cite to justify inclusion of this sentence mentions The Age of Reason, or the style in which it is written. They merely draw a generalised parallel between Paine and Moore as free-thinkers.

As per WP:SYN, it is not up to editors to establish a connection between Moore's literary style and The Age of Reason if no source connects Moore's literary style with this book. Yet editors are still trying to reword the Moore reference in the hope that it will pass muster in this FA.

It should be noted that The Age of Reason is really a book against the Christian religious establishment of its day. Michael Moore is not particularly anti-religious. He identifies as a Christian, and as a Catholic. Paine most certainly did not. So any points of similarity between Moore and Paine don't lie in the way they write about religion, but in their liberal political views. And Moore is not even mentioned as a writer in Paine's tradition, or someone whose style is similar to Paine's, in the article on Thomas Paine.

The mention of Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate in The Age of Reason, because Hitchens has specifically referenced the book in his own writing, and expresses fairly similar views on organised religion, views which he himself feels are in Paine's tradition. Jayen 466 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One small correction: Jayen466 says above that The Age of Reason is a book against the Christian religious establishment of its day. It isn't primarily that at all. It's a critique of the Bible. Failure to make this distinction adequately is one of the faults in the current article, but it doesn't affect the validity of Jayen466's point here. If anything it strengthens it, since Moore has certainly never criticised the Bible, while Hitchens in God is Not Great has done so in similar terms to Paine. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another small correction: Paine is an 18th-century writer. Awadewit ( talk) 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Moore was influenced by Paine's style and that is what the sources say. The article's "Reception and legacy" section explains that the most important legacy of Paine's book has been its style. None of the people listed as inheritors of Paine's legacy agree with Paine's viewpoints 100% - that is not the point. The point is that the style, the book's most unique feature, is what influenced later writers. The FA version of this article passed with this information and the new version is even more specific. Awadewit ( talk) 23:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is not one source that says that the style of The Age of Reason influenced Moore. Jayen 466 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What the article says and what the the sources say are exactly the same: Paine's general style influenced Moore's general style. As you are only opposing the Moore material, but none of the other people listed in the "Reception and legacy" for whom this argument is made, I have to wonder what precisely your motivations are here. You are apparently not opposed to the principle of this kind of citation (as you are not opposing its use in other parts of the article). You are only opposing its use when it comes to Moore. Awadewit ( talk) 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've got more material sourced to references that don't even mention the topic of the article, then they should go where the Moore reference has gone. It is worth noting that this farce has gone on for at least 1.5 years: [11]. And just for your reference, I like Moore, but he has no business being in this article. Jayen 466 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I will reiterate: the sources support the sentence in the article, therefore this is not an OR issue. Here is one example:

• Mary Stuckey's book review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11: How One Film Divided a Nation. By Robert Brent Toplin in The Journal of American History (93.4) - Toplin connects Moore's polemical style to Paine's

If you want to remove the material from the article, please continue to discuss it at the RFC rather than forum shopping. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources mentions The Age of Reason, do they? If sources say that Paine's general style influenced Moore, then this belongs in the general article on Paine (as several others have pointed out already). It does not belong in the article on The Age of Reason. No? (And to me the RfC looked like uninvolved editors commenting endorsed the removal ...) Jayen 466 00:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This fact fits into the Reception and legacy section, as I've explained, along with other writers who were influenced by Paine's style, which is extremely notable and is what makes his works so controversial and influential. The editors at the RfC were working on a compromise wording, which you have brought here rather than continue to discuss there. Again, it seems that you are disputing whether or not this should be in the article, not that the sources say "Paine's style influenced Moore's style". If the article accurately reflects the sources, there is no OR and we should continue this discussion at the RFC, not here. Awadewit ( talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN says

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

.

Your sources do not even mention the topic of the article, let alone presenting this argument in direct connection with it. This is why they fail WP:SYN, and WP:SYN is a part of WP:OR, and this is why this is an OR issue. Jayen 466 00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is from the WP:OR lede:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Emphases in the original. The topic of the article is The Age of Reason and your sources do not refer to it and do not directly relate what they say to The Age of Reason. Jayen 466 00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sources are directly related to the article - the sources discuss Paine and his style. Paine and his style are major topics of the article. Second and even more importantly, the sources directly support what is in the article. Awadewit ( talk) 01:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is the sentence in question: [Paine's] style has continued to influence writers and critics. For example, the American filmmaker and writer Michael Moore's polemical style has been compared to Paine's and he has been called "the new Tom Paine" by the left." The sources say the same thing. Here are three examples of the sources we have been discussing:

• In Mark Andersen's book All the Power, he places Michael Moore in the tradition of Paine, writing "Our contemporary left would do well to reclaim such stubborn determination. It lives on in figures like filmmaker Michael Moore...."
• Mary Stuckey's book review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11: How One Film Divided a Nation. By Robert Brent Toplin in The Journal of American History (93.4) - Toplin connects Moore's polemical style to Paine's
• Porton, Richard. " Weapon of mass instruction Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11." Cineaste (22 September 2004) - explains how the left refers to Moore as the "new Tom Paine"

Since the sentence follows the sources and we are not claiming anything beyond what they say (see above sentence), there is no OR. Awadewit ( talk) 00:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on this already so, take it there. There is no reason to forumshop, and forumhop. Keep discussion in one place. Syn ergy 00:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that 5 uninvolved editors have said at the RfC that the inclusion of the reference is inappropriate. And still a new version is being drafted. This has gone on for years, with the reference reinserted again and again after editors removed it. WP:OR is policy, and so is WP:SYN. But by all means, let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Jayen 466 01:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexologist and professor of psychology J. Michael Bailey does research related to transsexuality. One of his peer-reviewed papers on transwomen leads with the following plain statement (taken from the abstract):

Currently the predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men's bodies.
— J. Michael Bailey, Kiira Triea. "What many transgender activists don't want you to know: and why you should know it anyway." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Autumn 2007 v50 i4 p521(14). PMID  17951886

An editor with a long history of tendentious editing (several failed informal mediations, two RfC/Us, two failed formal mediations, one rejected arbcom case...) has apparently decided that this is merely a statement of opinion, and that the predominant cultural understanding of this expert's field could be anything in the world. Consequently, he wants this presented in the style of "The president of the Flat Earth Society says..." instead of simply stating this fact -- a fact that is, as far as I can tell, uncontested by anyone except the editor in question; apparently his personal research (sample size of n=1) is a better way to determine what most Western people think of transwomen.

This is but one of today's problems at feminine essence theory of transsexuality; you'll find it at Talk:Feminine_essence_theory_of_transsexuality#Style. Others from today involve yet another discussion about what an author might have meant by contrasting "literally" with "figuratively", and how to figure out what a pronoun stands for. (Yes: this is from a middle-aged native English speaker.) Would someone else please take over? Almost everything on that 156K talk page is an effort to stop his misdirected efforts at "improving" the article.

I gave up on good faith during the last failed round of formal mediation and the RfC/U that ended it, but at this moment, remaining even barely civil is a strain, so I'm signing off for the night. If you want to help in the longer term, I can get copies of most of the relevant sources to you; please leave a note on the article's talk page. In the short term, common sense and a basic grasp of English grammar are likely to be more than sufficient. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bailey has not been without controversy, so it seems entirely appropriate to attribute the statement to him: " J. Michael Bailey has written that ...". There is no shame involved in that at all, and no slur on the writer's name; on the contrary, he is being mentioned as a significant commentator. Statements that might reasonably be contested by others are routinely attributed in Wikipedia. Jayen 466 20:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement cannot reasonably be contested, and there are many people to whom this widely recognized claim could be attributed (at least three sources that make this claim are already cited for other information in the article). The idea that a transwoman is "a woman trapped in a man's body" is what everyone has heard. It seems silly -- or beyond silly -- to say that it's "just" Bailey's opinion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Anthony Woods (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we have external opinions here? A SPA editor wants to add breakdown of the costing of Woods' discharge from the US Army, using found sources that don't mention Woods and aren't cited in any third-party accounts of said discharge. Looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were to say that "Here with Me" was REO Speedwagon's last top 20 single on The Billboard Hot 100 according to this source [12], am I violating WP:OR? Based on the chart, it's clearly their last top 20 single, but it doesn't specifically say that. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"As of (date) the (list) shows no later single in the top 20"? RSs for negative statements are hard to find, but giving a date certain should assuage others? Collect ( talk) 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the image currently illustrating Susan Boyle a violation of our original research policy? See discussion at talk page: [13] Dlabtot ( talk) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In short... no. See: WP:NOR#Original images Blueboar ( talk) 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which talks only about photographs. We have no written policy on this issue, so pretending otherwise is counter-productive. J Milburn ( talk) 17:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

UM... are we looking at the same policy section? The one I am reading contains the following (bolding mine for emphysis): "Photographs, drawings and other images created by Wikipedia editors thus fill a needed role. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."

Hope that helps. Blueboar ( talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My latest post on the article talk page will hopefully help to explain what I mean by that. J Milburn ( talk) 19:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a violation. If we had a freely-licensed photograph of higher quality, we could use that. But if we do not have a free photograph, a free illustration is better than nothing, and does not violate the NOR policy. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 19:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you would support the use of this image over a free photograph of low quality? J Milburn ( talk) 19:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on how bad the photograph is, so I qualified my statement. Some photographs are unrecognizable. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User-created images of this kind are a catch-22. If they only used a copyrighted work as a reference, they are likely derivative works and so a non-free use rationale is needed for the original work in addition to a license for the derivative. If they are completely original, then how do we verify that they accurately illustrate what they purport to? A non-notable artist's personal interpretation or expression of what someone looks like is of no encyclopedic value, so these are only worth using if they are accurate illustrations. So how do we evaluate that? Postdlf ( talk) 20:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(A note, so we don't get sidetracked... the Boyle painting in question was discussed at WP:COPY, and the overwhelming consensus was that there was no copyvio.)

Could you provide a link to that discussion? I'm having trouble finding it. Postdlf ( talk) 21:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I am in error... the discussion I was thinking of was not at WT:COPY ... it was at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Susan_Boyle.jpg... which I would agree is a bit different, and less definitive. Sorry. Blueboar ( talk) 21:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That Commons deletion discussion is still ongoing. And unfortunately, most of the participants there so far don't seem to understand what a derivative work is. Postdlf ( talk) 21:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said... less definitive.  :>) Blueboar ( talk) 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User-created portraits pose a very different problem than user-created images generally, because not everyone is capable of drawing a faithful portrait of a real individual, and unless the artist is notable, the portrait is only useful to the extent it is an accurate depiction of the real life subject. The exception to user-created images in WP:OR is not an invitation to invent facts, so any information the image purports to communicate must be verifiable. So at a minimum, we should always insist on references for a user-created portrait—on what did the creator base his depiction? Did he have a private sitting with the subject? Did he see the subject in public from a distance? Or did he somehow adapt it from one or more copyrighted sources, such as photographs or videos? This will help establish whether it is a copyvio, but will also help establish whether it is accurate. Is this something we can trust to individual article editors to determine? Or do we need a broader policy either forbidding such images across the board, or providing criteria for their usage? Postdlf ( talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if a user-created portrait "invented facts"... (which to me means it showed the person in a deliberately false setting ... such as showing Boyle standing next to Hitler, or wearing a clown costume) then there is an argument that it violates NOR. In the case of the Boyle portate in question, I don't think any of that applies. As for the rest... these are not issues that relate to the NOR policy. Blueboar ( talk) 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Would Hitler be wearing the clown costume, or Boyle? But seriously, folks... Outside of such fantasy contexts, the simple question of how Boyle looks—the shape of her eyes and chin, the style of her hair—those are facts. Unless the image does not purport to represent a real person, we need to know how the portraitist determined those facts of the subject's appearance, and we need to be able to judge their accuracy. Postdlf ( talk) 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that this is what George V looked like? Can we determine how the painter determined the "facts of the subject's appearance"? No. The artist might have painted it from life, or he might have based it on some photographs (but do you really think the King sat for hours while the artist painted from life?). The only difference is that the artist was not a Wikipedia user. How do we judge the accuracy? Simple... compare the painting to other images of the subject. As long as a reasonable person could agree that the image looks like the subject, then I don't think it matters to this policy what the artist based the dawing on. It might matter to other policies and guidelines (such as WP:COPY), but not this one. Blueboar ( talk) 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not just people; how do we know this picture really is what a human lung looks like? How do we know that this photo really is an polyphemus moth, and not some other species that's been mis-identified? Questions that are relevant to user-created images:

• Does the artist have motivation to distort their image? For a map of (say) Israel/Palestinian border areas, that might be an issue. Susan Boyle, not so much.

• Is it reasonable to believe that the artist knows what their subject looks like? For unphotographed historical figures, that might be questionable (especially in periods where painters aimed more for flattery than accurate depiction). For Susan Boyle, there's plenty of reference material around.

• Are there other people around who know what the subject looks like and can pull the artist up if they get it wrong? Let's be honest: if the image didn't look a lot like Susan Boyle, plenty of people would have said so by now.

I have a lot of sympathy for arguing on principle, but unless we want to codify image-recognition AI as part of WP:V, there comes a point at which we have to be pragmatic and say "yes, it looks like what it's supposed to be". -- GenericBob ( talk) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should this not be subject to WP:AGF? I could "borrow" a photograph that a friend of mine took at some event some years ago, scan and upload it to Commons, and claim {{ PD-SELF}}; she is unlikely to see it here or elsewhere, and nobody is the wiser. However, I've falsified the licence; until anyone actually complains, we should assume that the uploader is acting in good faith, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to original artworks either. Rodhull andemu 00:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We generally assume good faith by default, but as I interpret it WP:OR is more about whether we're assuming skill on the creator's part, and I think this is a lot of the objection here. If we were talking about a diagram of complicated machinery, it would be very important to get the details right, because people are likely to look at the image with the specific goal of puzzling out those details. In this case, though, it's much less of an issue. The point of the image is to allow recognition; for all I know the artist might have the shape of Boyle's eyes and chin slightly wrong, but it's still more than good enough to recognise her. I'd go as far as to say that sometimes a drawing can be better than a photograph, because drawing offers more leeway to emphasise the features that are important for recognition. -- GenericBob ( talk) 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This map [14] is clearly original research -- see the talk page. (I also doubt that the creator drew the map, so there may be a copyvio issue here also, but that's not my point right now). Is this acceptable? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it... the policy that applies is WP:NOR#Original images. Having read the talk page, it seems that the creator did indeed draw the map. Blueboar ( talk) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy says "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed.". A text section describing where Roman roads were without any citations could be removed, how is this different? How can I verify that the road information is accurate? Dougweller ( talk) 05:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We have maps on all modern US Interstate and other highways, made by editors. Same with town and county maps. No difference between a map of a Roman antiquity highway and a modern American Interstate highway. I am sure there are plenty of published maps on Roman highways you can compare it to, search history books and the internet, if you are legitimately interested in challenging this. There is a difference between not being ABLE to verify something,thereby making it unverifiable and legitimately can be removed; and simply not WANTING to take the time to verify it yourself. To many editors challenge something and say something isnt verifiable, but they havent taken the time to research it, they want to but the burden on the editor who placed the information there in the first place to show verification. That's backward. If someone is challenging something then THEY need to go and prove it is wrong/right, they are the ones challenging it. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Camelbinky, according to WP:V, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", as it should be. -- hippo43 ( talk) 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again you go around quoting instead of using common sense. Here are more relevant quotes from your precious policies and guidelines that actually incorporate common sense into editing. Wikipedia:Editing policy: "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't. Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot."

from the same WP:V page you quoted "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."

Irregardless to whatever the editor that decided to put that sentence you quoted in feels, it is simply common sense and GOOD MANNERS to simply do some research ON YOUR OWN before going around messing with the hardwork of another editor. I will not be discussing this, or anything, with you again, I am a regular contributor to this and another forum, which you have not been, and yet you have followed me here (as you have to other articles) to start arguments. I will now take this and the other forum off my watchlist and any other place you approach me. I will not feed into your need to start arguments. Camelbinky ( talk) 04:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy statement that really applies to this is from WP:NOR#Original images: "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." This map does not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments (it reflects reliable historical sources), so it is not considered original research. Blueboar ( talk) 04:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

" Irregardless" is not a word. Or, at least, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Any input welcome here. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Should the following be removed? -- Drogonov ( talk) 16:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical problems

In May's version there is an error causes the computer to reboot when starting games that use gameguard as an anti-cheating device, unless Defence+ is turned off. This problem has been solved if the game hosts updated gameguard and have the Comodo Firewall updated to the June version at least. ^[1] The problem reappears for Vista users in the February version.

References

1. ^ Comodo Forum thread "Gameguard + Comodo = Computer reboot ", begun April 23, 2008.

ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEAS?:-)

Users keep on adding content to this US Politician's article, and reverting my reverts that is claiming original research and wp:blp guidelines. My concern is that this user describes a speech by the politician as being "criticized due to her surprisingly poor use of grammar, and dramatic mispronunciation of several words including "congratulate," as well as the names of Percy Harvin and Coach Urban Meyer." User includes a link to a video of this speech but there is still no reliable source to back up the content.

Do not want to violate the three-revert rule here.

Thank You -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 17:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. This commentary on the video is definitely OR if it hasn't been made previously in a reliable source, and I doubt even the notability - only 344 GHits connecting Corinne Brown and the Florida Gators, and the comments on the grammar made only a handful of blogs [15]. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 12:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The main article for "Swine Flu" is a synthesis of hundreds of articles approximately 140 (some up-to-date, and some not from official and unofficial sources), and puts forth the Wikipedia-generated conclusion that there are 909 925 world-wide cases of "Swine Flu", which disagrees with published figures by the World Health Organization. Flipper9 ( talk) 18:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: this editor has (nearly) single-handed argued this point for days on the relevant talk pages and repeatedly refused to acknowledge that any other view but his is relevant. Apparently, he is now "forum shopping" for support, as this issue has more than throughly been handled by involved editors already multiple times. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to substantiate forum shopping- for an editor to escalate a dispute to a noticeboard when he or she believes the local consensus is not in line with a community-wide consensus is in fact the right step from a dispute resolution perspective. For what it's worth, I do agree that there is or was a NOR or NPOV issue at least at {{ 2009 US swine flu outbreak table}}, where previously the editors there were using a novel method for determining relative severity for organizing the table. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 19:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies then. I felt the consensus was quite clear (both local and global) and that the editor in question was merely being difficult. (His position is that we should ignore what are normally considered reliable sources and instead report only the current WHO numbers.) However, if asking for more input in this fashion is considered acceptable, then I have no gripes against him/her doing so. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP Defense: I have made ONE request to have others look at the discussion board based on my belief that the article was violating NOR. I have not forum shopped anywhere(WP:FORUMSHOP), but have only tried to discuss and come to a consensus on the discussion page and then came here ONCE to have additional eyes on the issue. I have been the subject of many personal attacks on the discussion page in question. Flipper9 ( talk) 20:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note I already apologized for incorrectly using the term. That said, please accept my apologies for the error. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the dispute, Flipper9 has shown concern that while the individual numbers in the tables are sourced, the summations are not, and are in fact directly in conflict with sourced summations. I think this is a big problem, but not necessarily from a WP:SYN perspective. More from a WP:RECENTISM and WP:DEADLINE perspective- while it's pretty likely the reason for the disparity is that the news agencies are faster than the WHO, one needs to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place for such up-to-the-minute coverage, Wikinews is. From an accessibility perspective, it's a big problem too; there are 51 references for the world table, and 52 for the US table. The articles themselves have over 170 refs each.

It's pretty clear this is a problem, though I'm still not convinced it's a NOR/SYN problem. I do, however, believe there's a WP:V problem (namely, WP:SPS). Look at the reference for the US in {{ 2009 swine flu outbreak table}}; it's basically just 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States, which is a blatant violation of SPS (see specifically the section on Wikipedia and its mirrors). Why is this done? Because the people at {{ 2009 swine flu outbreak table}} cannot source the totals used at {{ 2009 US swine flu outbreak table}} without referencing every single one of the 51 references currently in that table. Is this a WP:SYN issue, or is it a WP:RS issue? —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 00:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of citations (in the global table; the figures are cited elsewhere) violates WP:V. To satisfy this requirement, I think the subtables need to be included in the main table somehow; perhaps in a footnote, or in a group of hidden rows. But that's probably beyond this scope of this forum.

I'm not convinced that inconsistencies between our table and the available summations mean that we're presenting original research. Anytime you have data being reported by both small jurisdictions and by larger organisations that collate these reports, you will find time lags and other inconsistencies creeping in. (The SF Chronicle put out an interesting piece on this: Why swine flu numbers differ, May 1, 2009.) It can be as simple as the summaries always being out of date, or it can be more complex. That doesn't mean we shouldn't present anything but the broadest available summary (the WHO numbers, in this case). If we're aware of a problem (typically out-of-date data), and this can be corrected based on a reliable source, I think we should do so. I don't see why we should reproduce inaccuracies when they can be corrected. I also don't see a simple total of such corrected figures as improper synthesis. Editors do need to be alert for more complex problems, though. -- Avenue ( talk) 10:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the issue is that Wikipedia generates it's own, independent world-wide total (and total for the USA for that matter, in another related sub-page/template of the main epidemic flu article) that adds even more confusing and conflicting numbers to the world-wide audience following the outbreak. What Wikipedia is doing is calculating a summation of 140+ references, that I would suggest is not verifiable by anyone. You could start reading all 140 references to verify (which no regular reader is going to do), and the table or references would change during that time. You'd have to trust that the last editor to the table was careful in the summation of sub-pages (referenced by the main table), and that every referenced work was interpreted correctly. A single-sourced world-wide total seems to be the logical source of information, rather than a wikipedia editor generated total number. This is exactly why, I'd submit, WP:OR exists. Flipper9 ( talk) 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with your concerns. This is a fast-moving topic; I've updated the total before and found that someone has changed the table in the few minutes this has taken. I agree that verifying every figure before any of them are changed is probably not feasible at present. But I'd hope that the person calculating a total can place some trust in earlier editors, and isn't required to check every figure's provenance beforehand. I certainly don't agree that this sort of verification needs to be something that a "regular reader" would do. I have previously checked subtotals before updating the main total; perhaps adding a comment instructing editors to do this would be useful. -- Avenue ( talk) 23:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Flipper9, does your concern about OR apply equally to the totals given in the U.S. subpage? Here there are no subtotals or references to sources given only on a separate page, so this is a simpler case and might be easier to reach agreement on. -- Avenue ( talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Self-referencing is another issue, that I don't think is a "huge" problem, other than there is a second level of trust that the editors of the other article are keeping tabs on the references and numbers. Some editors have said that the main table only has approx 50 sources, when if you add all of the sub-table references together it's almost 3x that many. The issue is that, in the spirit of verifiability, no reasonable or hyper-vigilant editor could possibly verify the sheer huge number of references that change minute-to-minute or hour-to-hour. Also, the out-of-sequence, need to trust the sources used by our sources are accurate (and with 140+ sources, the error multiplies), and the temporal-nature of the data in question. If it were a simple addition of say 50 states "confirmed cases", then I could see where that would not violate WP:NOR if we were getting consistent updates. But we are also throwing in suspected/unconfirmed information (infections and deaths) that is incomplete and out of date, even if the referenced article was published today. Some articles referenced don't even list their sources, so we are unable to know even basic information about where they got their data, and how new or old it is. If the data was stable, this wouldn't be so much a problem. Things are changing so fast, and so many resources makes it nigh on impossible to be accurate. In the end will it matter? The table will most certainly be replaced a year from now as the information is published by epidemiologists, so the point may just be academic. Hence, this table is just a news article, and the real encyclopedic article will be written sometime later. Flipper9 ( talk) 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We are down to one subtable now (for the U.S.), and less than 100 references in total. So things have improved somewhat. I agree with you about the suspected cases, and I've been arguing that we should remove them on the template's talk page. We haven't reached consensus on that point yet, but it seems that most people agree this is just a matter of time.-- Avenue ( talk) 09:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this goes well beyond simple and obvious mathematics. It's OR. Blueboar ( talk) 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR allows "routine calculations" (provided editors agree), but I can't see where it requires they are "simple and obvious". Am I missing something? I can see they need to be simple enough to garner agreement, but I am concerned about any requirement that calculations be obvious, because the numeracy of our editors varies widely. -- Avenue ( talk) 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I used the "wrong" phrase. Sorry. I tend to focus more on the intent behind our policies and guidelines and less on the "exact langage"... to use the "correct" language: pulling so much data from so many disperate sources goes well beyond the intent of the "routine calculations" exemption, even though adding is normally a "routine" calcualtion. Does that clarify why I think this is OR? Blueboar ( talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That does, thanks. But sorry, I'm going to ask you for more clarification. When you say that pulling data from so many disparate sources is inappropriate, do you mean you mainly have concerns about the use of items from the news media as sources, or would you have the same concern if all the figures were sourced to the relevant government agencies (e.g. for the states in the US)? -- Avenue ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

While that would be an improvement, No it would not resolve my concerns. The problem is with the sythesis of sources, not the reliability of the individual parts that make it up. The problem is that Wikipedia is compliling data taken from multiple sources. We need a reliable source to compile it. Blueboar ( talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You indicated above that the problem was because information from "so many" sources was being combined. My next question is whether you object to the total number of suspected cases given in our article on swine flu in Canada. This is the sum of five figures, from five different sources. Is this too many? If not, where would you draw the line? -- Avenue ( talk) 02:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is OR as well. Again, the problem isn't the individual sources, it's the fact that Wikipedia is the one combining them to form a total. Wikipedia is thus the first place of publication for that total. Blueboar ( talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you right, you're saying we shouldn't ever combine data from separate sources to produce a new total. For example, in the table here, our attempt to correct the table by adding one ship that was missing from the main source cited, based on a different source, and calculating a new total, would be improper original research in your view. Is that right? -- Avenue ( talk) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that example is definitely boarderline, but falls just on the OK side of the line... the reason why I would say it is OK is that I see a difference between amending a pre-existing total that has been given by a single reliable source, and creating a total that is unique to Wikipedia by combining multiple disperate sources, none of which give a total. That said, in the case of the SM U66, the best solution would be to give the total from the main source, and then add a foot note to account for the ship listed by the second source. That keeps the numbers in sync with what the various sources say, and lets the reader know that there is some disagreement between sources as to the total numbers. Blueboar ( talk) 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can use the sources, if it isn't a case of the reliability of the sources then I don't see why, according to OR, we can't add them up? Adding is definitely a routine calculation. If we can have the sources at all then we should be able to add the total to them. -- Hdstubbs ( talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding is routine... but in this case there is more than just adding going on ... part of the issue is deciding which numbers to add... choosing which sources we should use to compile the total. There are many reliable sources to choose from (media reports, State health agencies, etc.), and they don't all agree as to the sub-totals. Thus, the total we give is affected by which sources we choose to use. Our total result can be skewed one way or the other by that decision. I consider that to be crossing the line from simply adding uncontested numbers to interjecting our own opinions and thinking. Blueboar ( talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the time-dependent numbers they report, I wouldn't expect many of the sources to agree. The WHO updates every 12 hours, the CDC exactly once a day at 11 am EDT; almost all state pages use timestamped online news releases or pages, and most of the media uses timestamped articles. Given, choosing one news article over another is potentially prejudicial, but is choosing a more up-to-date country health division website count over the WHO number really prejudicial, when the WHO doesn't actually perform the testing? Several editors, such as myself, work regularly towards the goal of replacing news sources with official counts from the governments or departments that do the actual testing. Is that skewing the numbers? CB.. .(ö) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... yes actually, it is a form of skewing the numbers. What we should be doing is informing our readers that different sources have reported different numbers... and tell them which sources are reporting what. Blueboar ( talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of whether to prefer official sources over the news media seems quite separate from what we've focussed on here. (It just involves the usual editorial judgement that is required whenever we have multiple sources for the same information.) The main issue under discussion is whether to present totals (and subtotals) based on summing figures from various sources; this applies regardless of whether they are "official" (e.g. from state authorities in the US) or not.

Blueboar, I like your point about telling our readers who has reported what. One way of doing this would be to present the WHO figures alongside the best available numbers, e.g. as two adjacent columns. The main problem with this approach is that the US currently accounts for more than half the global discrepancy, but including the US total for the variously sourced state figures would be considered original research, and the alternative of showing both figures for each state (with CDC figures instead of WHO) would probably overload most readers with more detail than they want. I don't see a good solution to this yet. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered presenting the material in text form, and not as a chart? This would give you more flexibility to compare and contrast what different sources say. Another alternative might be to leave it as a chart, but not add everything up (since the major Sythesis seems to lie in the act of creating a total, if you don't create a total, that concern vanishes.) Blueboar ( talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - it's worth trying, at least. There has been some discussion of replacing the suspected cases subtable with a textual version, but your idea is new. Thanks for the advice. -- Avenue ( talk) 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just found this discussion here. Note that the template template:2009 swine flu outbreak table has now been nominated for deletion (discussion is here). There have been developments. Barnaby dawson ( talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of this article relies on primary sources and presents them as if it is the truth. The concluding section shows that there is a considerable body of secondary sources debating various aspects of this topic, yet those sources are ignored for most of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont see how this article is NPOV. If you are going to have an article about how SAUL of Tarsus related to and saw his religion of birth then he should be referred to by his given birth name, not a latter Christian/Greek translation, and mentioning him by the title of saint at least once in the article, a title he did not hold during his life (obviously) is skewing this article to "An early Christian leader's view of Judaism as a Christian leader", which is not what is implied by the title of "Paul of Tarsus and Judaism", which should mean the article needs to be both ways, how did Jews of the time and Jews still today (since the title is not specific to time period) view Saul, ie-as an apostate and self-hating Jew. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. There's a lively debate going on in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Guidelines - Possible conflict with WP:NOR, in which a user contends that the use of cropped images of box art for video games (where we use the common portion of the box art shown on multiple releases of a game, but crop out the logos for a specific console) constitutes original research. Many of us in the project disagree, but now it's turning into a discussion about official policy, so I felt it might be good to ask this question here. Thanks. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume based on the lack of response that this is not an important issue, and thus I'll stop watching this noticeboard. If there is a reply, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's that this isn't an important issue... it's that we are already discussing it at: WT:NOR#Cropped images = Original Research?. So there is no need to repeat the discussion here. Blueboar ( talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In trying to establish the notability of a creative artist based on work in museums, would refs like this, this, and this constitute OR? Also, if no one minds, I'll repeat what I asked here: would these be considered primary sources, and if so, do they contribute towards notability?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Using a source is not Original research... OR focusses on what you say in the article (for example, if you draw a conclusion about the artist or the work of art that is not specifically stated in the source, that would be OR). As to whether the sources are primary... that depends on the cateloge. For art, the primary sources is really the work of art itself... however, I would say that a picture of the artwork or a simple discription of it that appears in a cateloge should be considered primary as well (as it is essentially nothing more than the artwork itself represented in photographic or text form). If the source contains more than that... if, for example, it contains a review or analysis of the work or the artist, then it would be secondary. I would agree that mearly appearing in a catelogue is not enough to establish notability, but to some degree that depends on which museum catelogue we are talking about, and whether it contains detailed analysis of the artwork and artist. The key to notability is that the subject has been discussed in some detail by a reliable source that is independant of the subject. I don't think mearly being listed in a catelogue is enough. But that is a question for WP:NOTE and not for WP:OR. Blueboar ( talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing a GA assessment for TNA X Division Championship. There is a section on the belt that the author has written based on information put into the TNA belt designer's website over time. I'm not sure it's, first, verifiable, and second, since it is based on the author's observations of the belt and its design changes, if it qualifies as original research. Advice please? -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To help this out a bit, I'm the author of said article. The Belt design section is actually based on the images in the article. Just to make sure that is clear. The images with-in the article are from Dave Millican Belts.com. Dave Millican is co-designer and creator of the said championship. He also runs a business in which he creates championships for a number of pro wrestling promotions and for other sports organizations, such as the UFC. He will also create championships with the exact design as one used by a company for a civilian to own. I believe he has been doing this for around 20 years. The website is where he gets his orders placed and allows customers to see images of his creations. Another user from WikiProject Professional wrestling named JakeDHS07 sent an e-mail to Dave Millican requesting permission to use images from his website since multiple championship articles did not have images of said championship. He agreed and allowed all his images on his website to be used under attribution. JakeDHS07 created a screenshot of this e-mail conversation and uploaded on here, where it is located at File:Proof of authorization.jpg. Now that is clear. Websites do not create articles on championship's designs. The pro wrestling project only has one championship GA and it is World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) (WHC). When it passed, it used footnotes just like the TNA X Division Championship article does. After time, and alot of ip edits and user edits, the WHC no longer goes by that format just for everyone to know. Now I feel the section is covered, since it could be chalked up to common sense. There are four images of the championship (two per design) in the article (you could say five, but the Ultimate X image has the championship at an angle where it is hard to see). You can make your own representation of the design, but I don't go too much into detail. Just enough that it isn't unbelievable. Just thought to give my two cents on the situation which may help the understanding of the problem.-- Will C 08:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, will, for clarifying. so if someone here could offer us an opinion on this, we'd appreciate it.  :) -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like OR to me, as it is based on the editor's observations of the belts and there is no discussion of the belt designs by reliable sources. -- hippo43 ( talk) 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the claims aren't really widely unbelievable. I state that the belt has a giant red letter X in the center, which you can obviously see is true. Why would I need a source for something like that? It is really common sense to me.-- Will C 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but reporting your own observation like this is original research. Also, if no one makes the observation in a reliable source, maybe it's not really notable. -- hippo43 ( talk) 02:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the design of the belt isn't notable. Okay it is OR, but with the images which could be considered sources, adding on the ability to see the design clearly, you could take this as good faith.-- Will C 02:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)-- Will C 02:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will, its not OR because it is verifiable by looking at the photo. It is the same as looking at a map and giving the map description, which has been covered in previous discussions at this noticeboard with an overwhelming consensus on reading a map being OK for route description. Not everything needs to be mentioned outright in a source. Example- a photo of Italianate architecture can be labelled as such in its caption without an outside source specifically saying "this building is in Italianate style". No original research is being done because its not an individual's INTERPRETATION or OPINION, it is simply stating of what is there, which is OK. I would like to see Blueboar's opinion on this, as he has dealt with what I believe are similar issues. Camelbinky ( talk) 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to get more opinions. On the Italianate architecture example, of course it's an editor's opinion or interpretation - if another editor questioned the photo, saying "that's not Italianate architecture", then a source describing the building as such would be needed. In this case, there are two photos supplied - whether the article is enhanced by Will's description of them is debatable. The accompanying text goes into detail about when the designs were introduced which is not supported by sources. Moreover, there is no way of knowing if these photos are actually the belts in question. As another example, if someone added a photo of Donald Duck, and wrote in the accompanying paragraph "Donald has a pointy nose and small ears", this would be OR, without a reliable source stating as much. For me, if these observations on the belts have not been published elsewhere, it is unpublished thought, therefore OR. -- hippo43 ( talk) 04:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Two photos? There are four. I have sources stating when the designs were introduced. Even a video from TNA Wrestling that introduces the current design and awards it to the then-champion.-- Will C 04:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I forgot to reply to this statement: Moreover, there is no way of knowing if these photos are actually the belts in question. Nothing against you dude or girl. I don't know you and you don't know me, but that statement was just asinine. Also to introduce myself, my name is Will as you can see by my sig. The page which the pictures come from on Millican's website states TNA X Division Championship. The video which is used to source the current design shows the championship and states TNA X Division Championship. The TNA Year One extra reference has the actual match to crown the first X Champion included on it, that is one reason it is placed in the article. The pictures of the belt even say the title of the belt on the center plate. So, to me that question is like pointing to a picture of Hitler and saying "How do we know that is Hitler?"-- Will C 04:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, I do believe you have done a great job putting forth the facts and stating your point of view, with which I agree with. Your last post clearly sets forth that it is not OR to state when and what the belts look like. To bolster your view you perhaps may want to contact Dave Millican again, and ask him for any written descriptions, such as any written out proposals for designs that he sent to designers etc. There would be some that would be against such primary sources, but in this instance I believe it would be beneficial to link to such primary sources showing his thought processes and why he chose the design characteristics he chose. Plus it would end discussion in this noticeboard since that is not a topic for this forum, discussion if there was one would shift to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where again I believe you would be vindicated due to previous discussions Ive seen. Camelbinky ( talk) 06:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with asking for blue prints of the designs to be publishes is I'm unsure who owns them. With companies belts, Millican could design them or the company could. So he could only hold the rights to creation and not to designs, though that is speculation on the case. That would start a big mess and I would hate to have to bother someone I don't know for such a trivial thing when I know the man must be busy. I'll think about that though.-- Will C 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Asinine, really? As asinine as including a long paragraph on the design of a wrestling championship belt which isn't discussed in a single third-party source? The photos come from a site selling replica belts - how do we know these photos are of the actual belts? They are primary sources which have not been reliably published, so are not much use for anything.

Aside from the descriptions of unpublished photos, which I believe are not admissible, the following statements, as far as I can tell, are not supported by sources -

• "The X Division Championship has had two designs during its existence."
• "The first design was used from June 2002 to May 2007."
• "The second design was introduced in May 2007 after the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) ended their five-year partnership with TNA, which allowed the NWA to regain control over the NWA World Heavyweight and World Tag Team Championships that TNA had controlled since June 2002."
• "The new and current design of the championship was introduced on the May 16, 2007 edition of TNA's online podcast TNA Today." A belt was introduced, but was it a new design and is it the current design?

The revver.com source [16] does not discuss the belt designs at all. The Youtube source [17] shows a belt being presented, but doesn't discuss the design, or previous belts.

Moreover, there is also an obvious NPOV dimension to consider - if these designs are not discussed in any reliable third-party sources, they should not be included, in line with WP:UNDUE. -- hippo43 ( talk) 10:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"The photos come from a site selling replica belts - how do we know these photos are of the actual belts? They are primary sources which have not been reliably published, so are not much use for anything." First, click on this link: TNA Legends Championship. In that article is a source to TNA's website that introduces the Legends Championship. The pictures used are the exact same ones used on Millican's website. I believe there is a link as well to Millican's website and credit to him as well. On Millican's website, the link to all of TNA's championships states the TNA ??? Championship, showing that the title is the actual title. He has also been credited by TNA as the creator of all of their titles. All of their now used championships have been created in the last two years. Again your statement is questionable in itself. If someone takes a picture of one of the Olsen twins, and saying it is Ashely. How do you know it isn't Mary Kate? You don't unless you are in love with them. I'm friends with twins: Dakota and Shalen. When they graduated this year, I went and thought I was talking to Dakota when I was talking to Shalen. Unless it is said, you can't tell. So you can think you have the Mona Lisa, and say it is the Mona Lisa, but how do you know it is the Mona Lisa. The second statement, I can't understand. I'm guessing your asking how do we know Millcan is reliable? What is the point? Even if the pictures are of replicas, it is still the same design. There are multiple other photos of the champions with the belt on here. The belt looks the same as the ones in this article. Here are a few championship images: File:Petey Williams in London Sep 2008.jpg, File:Petey Williams Bloomington 062408.jpg, File:Daniels y AJ en Destination X.jpg, File:Shiek Abdul Bashir Chicago IL 121208.jpg, File:Shelly2009.JPG, File:Shelley2009.JPG, and File:Shellyxdivision2009.JPG which are all from TNA events so they are the actual championship. Plus one which is in the article not from Millcan: File:NWATNAFirstXTitle.jpg. "The X Division Championship has had two designs during its existence." Common sense. How do you know that you are real? You just know. If in the 7 year existence all images of the said championship have not changed between 2002 and 2007, then that is one. Through all of the programs TNA have had and done, the design has not changed between 2002 and 2007, then that is one. If TNA debuted a new shiny X Division Title because they said in another video that they would in May 2007, that is two. "The first design was used from June 2002 to May 2007." Took care of with previous statements. "The second design was introduced in May 2007 after the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) ended their five-year partnership with TNA, which allowed the NWA to regain control over the NWA World Heavyweight and World Tag Team Championships that TNA had controlled since June 2002." Is covered with the NWA source. That source is covering the breaking up between TNA and the NWA. Not the design. "The new and current design of the championship was introduced on the May 16, 2007 edition of TNA's online podcast TNA Today. A belt was introduced, but was it a new design and is it the current design?" The sentence says new and current. The NWA and TNA broke up on May 13, 2007. Read the TNA World Heavyweight Championship for more information. Hell even its reign list. This statement is covered by the Youtube video, which is published directly by TNA Wrestling. They even include it on their website. That video is the May 16, 2007 edition of TNA's online podcast which they've done since 2006 called TNA Today which they continue to do. They take pride that it is the most viewed online show. That ref isn't about the design per-say. It is about the new belt, which is really a new design when a new belt is made. "Moreover, there is also an obvious NPOV dimension to consider - if these designs are not discussed in any reliable third-party sources, they should not be included, in line with WP:UNDUE." I state it isn't talked about, but I can't be sure. I don't go looking around sites because I can't tell what is reliable. So I don't search in things I don't know. Stuff I know I look in. So there could be some site out there that talks about it. I could search, but then we would have to move this to the reliable source noticeboard to determine that it is reliable when I find a source. I say chark this up to good faith and covered by common sense. You can see that my statements are true if you have eyes, and if you don't have eyes, then why are you on wikipedia trying to read a article you can't see and a better question is how the hell did you even get the computer on, get on the internet, on wikipedia, find the X title, and even know about the belt design section? Now I'm just having fun. I'm enjoying this conversation dude and I look forward to your reply.-- Will C 12:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about your statements being true, or common sense, it's about them being verifiable in reliable, independent sources. As far as I can see, they aren't. Please don't ask me to read other Wikipedia articles or look for links elsewhere - if you have reliable sources to back this up, can you supply them?

If the belt has had 2 designs since 2007, we need a source which says so. The fact that you say you know, or have worked it out, is original research. If the same design was used between 2002 and 2007, we need a reliable source which says so - your own observations are original research. The NWA source does not cover the belt at all. The Youtube/TNA source also does not mention the belt designs or explain which belts were used when.

From WP:NOR - "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia" - if the images you are describing are published in a reliable source, can you supply a reference or a link? I'm not an expert on Wikipedia image rights, but I don't know if these photos from Millican are allowed if they are not freely released under a license. Also, Millican's site is not a reliable source, as it is a personal website. In terms of the photos being accurate or not, I have no idea if the photos you linked to in your reply above show the same belt designs - it's impossible to make out the details you have written about in the article.

Let me rephrase my last statement - these designs are not discussed in any reliable third-party sources, so they should not be included, in line with WP:UNDUE. -- hippo43 ( talk) 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The links are for your to understand the breaking up between the NWA and TNA. Plus being reliably sourced means being true. If that wasn't in question we wouldn't be having this discussion. I can supply images at the moment which should be enough, seeing as another championship has already passed GA because of it without this problem. I'm looking, but the are few sites that are reliable and whatever I come up with will be questioned and said unreliable without even looking at the site seeing as the creator of the championship has been questioned and he says he is creator of it on his site on the link of the championship pictures in the files templates. Obama is a male. We need a source for that? The moon is big. We need one there as well? Common sense. That isn't a wild claim. You see two images and think good faith. If I was saying the championship has had two designs which have thought to be some of the greatest in history. Yeah a source would be needed. But to say it has had two designs, isn't a big deal. A design being used? What? I need a source the same belt was used for years. I'll just source every single event they've had then, because it was used at each one. Again, the NWA source does not cover the belt. It covers the relationship between TNA and the NWA. I've said that multiple times. Can you read? The Youtube source shows the debut of the championship, nothing more is it used for. Not belt design, just the showing of the design. I'm not using it to say, hey it has an X on it, I'm saying hey there is the debut of the belt. For debuting of the design. Is that OR as well that I see it debut? Can I use it because I observed it? It seems everything is OR. Which photos are you asking to be published in a paper? The links above are from civilians. The photos from Millican are up in the air. No reason for them to be published in a paper and IDK if they have been. Millcan took the images and as creator released them under attribution and maybe even Public Domain, not sure at this moment I don't know licenses very well. Again, Millican's site is not personnel. He works with other's. That is their business site. It is technically Pro Wrestling belt Shop at Home. You don't know if they aren't, but I do. It is called Good faith. I don't know if an image of a 1799 gun is actually a 1799 gun, but if someone who took it tells me it is, I'll believe them. Impossiable? Their is one up there of the belt close up right in front of you of the first design by a civillian and another of the current also by a civillian taken at a live event in October. If you can't make out what I said on that belt, then your eyes must be terriable, because I used alot of those photos as well when I wrote the design section and not just Millican's. Millcan's are mainly used to give a clear showing of the belt.-- Will C 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what you have written, but this - "I need a source the same belt was used for years. I'll just source every single event they've had then, because it was used at each one" suggests you don't understand the idea of Original Research at all. You need to supply credible, third-party, secondary sources for the statements you make, and you haven't done so yet. -- hippo43 ( talk) 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is sourced if you can't see and the Best of the X Division Vol 1 covers it being used for years. You just don't understand wrestling. You are asking for sources for stuff that need no source. Claims only need refs if they are unbelievable on their own. A belt being used for five years is not a big claim. When there was nothing in those five years that would even represent the belt having to be changed so common sense once a new design is introduced shows the same design was used for years. Think man!-- Will C 15:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You just don't understand Wikipedia. Of course it needs sources. If you can't supply sources for this stuff, then it has no place in an encyclopedia. Claims need sources if they are challenged - I have challenged the whole section, and you haven't been able to supply any good sources yet. -- hippo43 ( talk) 15:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need sources for common sense. I've placed the section back in with two sources. Not into belt design description. But what is needed. So, really this section is no longer needed. Plus I don't care if I understand wikipedia. People who read all the policies and involve themselves in all the discussions on noticeboards are people who have no lives. Certainly ones who challenge photos.-- Will C 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing over an article about professional wrestling belt designs and you're telling other people to get a life?? -- hippo43 ( talk) 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are asking for a source if something is new when the title of the video says "New X Title Revealed!" Durrrrrrr-- Will C 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion on intent may help resolve this. I was involved in the initial drafting of the Original Images section of this policy... the understanding at that time was that images (including photographs) should not be considered "sources" on their own... that images are "illustrations" of information discussed in the text. In order to discuss things in the text, we need to cite reliable (written) sources. Once that is done, then we can illustrate what we talk about by including an image of it. I hope this explanation clarifies things. Blueboar ( talk) 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that may help in time.-- Will C 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor recently added diff this statement to the article:

Shortly after GM soy products were introduced into Britain, soy allergies were seen to increase by 50%. Skin prick tests indicated some people were reacting to GM soy but not to GM free soy. ^[1]

I expanded this, and corrected the statement about skin tests, and the section now reads:

Worldwide, reports of allergies to all kinds of foods, particularly nuts, fish and shellfish, seem to be increasing, but it is not known if this reflects a genuine change in the risk of allergy, or an increased awareness of food allergies by the public. ^[2] A review published in 2008 stated that less than 1% of the population are allergic to soy. ^[3] In a set of skin prick tests performed in 2005, one person reacted to GM soy but not to GM free soy. ^[4]

Although I've now corrected the editor's misrepresentation of the source on skin prick testing and the text is now at least accurate, is this section still original research? Only the final article (the 2005 article by Yum) mentions GM food, and does not link this to rising food allergy rates. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it needs a notable source that alleges a link between GM food and the increase in allergies. Otherwise we might as well mention that the rise in allergies is correlated with sunspots, Harry Potter sales, and the success of the Miami Dolphins. -- GenericBob ( talk) 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten the section and removed the study on soybeans. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is primary sourcing OK for Alexa traffic rankings? Please see

• Talk:Comparison of wiki farms#Primary sources for Alexa traffic rank column

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is part of the chart below to illustrate what the Alexa sources are referencing, and how it is currently done. See this version of the article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=295788703

I believe these are the relevant guidelines:

• WP:V#Sources refers to
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources - It further refers to the more detailed info at the WP:NOR policy page:
• Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (also known as WP:PRIMARY).

Tthere are many Wikipedia pages with Alexa traffic rankings. See the results of this search of Wikipedia articles. There is also an infobox with Alexa rank as one of the parameters: Template:Infobox Website. That infobox is on many pages. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Website. They all use primary sourcing for the Alexa rank they show.

My question is whether this primary sourcing is OK for Alexa traffic ranks? I believe it is. I am not asking about whether the Alexa ranks are appropriate for this article. That is another issue, and not covered by this noticeboard. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to deal with an apparent bid to introduce OR into Cyrus cylinder. There have been claims by various people that the Cyrus cylinder was "the world's first declaration of human rights." According to a 1999 book by Professor Josef Wiesehöfer, this claim can be traced back to a work published by the late Shah of Iran in 1967 that has since been taken up by various Iranian nationalists. An (apparently Iranian) editor, Nepaheshgar ( talk · contribs), disagrees; he has found a snippet on Google Books from the Christian Science Journal of 1911 which makes a similar argument (see [18]). On this basis, Nepaheshgar argues that the CSJ snippet should be included as, presumably, a refutation of Wiesehöfer's book. This seems to me to be rather obvious original research; it appears to be intended to make an argument - i.e. "Wiesehöfer is wrong" - that is not stated by the source (which was published 40 years before Wiesehöfer was even born!). I'd be interested to know what other editors think. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim is simple. Wiesehofer claims that "charter of human rights" characterization was first done by Pahlavids: "It was first put forward in a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran, by the then Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ". There is a book that shows in 1911 [19], the Cyrus Cylinder was seen as ideals of modern human rights. After I pointed out this 1911 source, some user deleted the crucial part: "It was first put forward in a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran, by the then Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ". I do not care if the Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights or not (clearly an anachronism actually), but what I do care about is that before 1967, there is a 1911 source that charaterizes it as ""All of their people I gather and restore their dwelling places". This statement would seem to indicate a fixed national policy, and strenghten the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle". " I do not care if the 1911 source is correct or not in terms of the actual nature of the cylinder, but from the viewpoint of "as a charter of human right", the source should be included in the body of the text as an early 1911 charaterization of the Cyrus Cylinder. This indirectly contradicts Wiesehofer's claim that such characterizations of the Cylinder: "It was first put forward in a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran". So I have no problem with stating what Wiesehofer says, but I also want to include this 1911 source for its chronological important. Obviously the source provides a counterexample to Wiesehofer's statement, but that is not my fault that it does so. I do also like to point out again that a user out of no where came and deleted the crucial word "first" [20] used by Wiesehofer in order so that this apparent contradiction with the 1911 does not cause a problem. I am open to suggestion on this from any netural not involved user. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're attempting to use a fragment from a 1911 newspaper, the Christian Science Journal, to refute an analysis published in 1999 in an academic essay, "Kyros, der Schah und 2500 Jahre Menschenrechte. Historische Mythenbildung zur Zeit der Pahlavi-Dynastie", in: Conermann, Stephan (Hg.): Mythen, Geschichte(n), Identitäten. Der Kampf um die Vergangenheit (EB-Verlag, Schenefeld/Hamburg 1999. ISBN  3-930826-52-6). The problem with this is that you're trying to use a source to support an unpublished argument. Clearly the CSJ article does not itself argue against a essay published 88 years later (how could it?). If you want to argue that Wiesehofer's interpretation was wrong, you need a source that makes that argument. You can't do your own research and then publish your personal conclusions on Wikipedia. It's entirely your personal argument that "the source provides a counterexample to Wiesehofer's statement". That may or may not be true, but without a source citing the CSJ article as a counterexample or refutation, you can't make that argument. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying refute anything. I am just for mentioning this 1911 source as an early characterization for that section explicitly. If it contradicts Wiesehofer or it does not, that is not important. The issue is if this 1911 can be inserted in that section, since it is an early characterization of the Cyrus Cylinder in relationship to concepts of human rights. Thanks.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words, I am not going to say it provides a counter-example (which would be OR), but rather mention the source for that section since it is not even a primary source, but a secondary source (although out-dated). I do not like using out-dated sources, but this is an example of a secondary source which characterizes the cylinder as a human rights concept. So I do not see why it can't be included? -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nepaheshgar, I agree that this is an example of original research. The snippet you found says, "This statement would seem to indicate a fixed national policy, and strengthens the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom." It is (a) not clear that this is the same thing as declaring it the first declaration of human rights (though it might be), and (b) not clear that the author, Mary Baker Eddy of the First Church of Christ, is qualified to analyse the material (though she might be), and finally (c) not clear that what is written above wasn't contradicted in the next sentence (though you may have seen more than the snippet; if you have, strike (c)). This is what we mean by OR: where an editor introduces an unclear source in order to advance a certain position.

Any claim you make in a Wikipedia article should have been published already by a reliable source, and it should be clear that what the Wikipedia article says is what the source said too. It should also be a reliable secondary source (as opposed to a primary source, or an unqualified secondary one) if someone challenges the material, or if it's the kind of material that someone is likely to challenge.

What you really need in this situation is a qualified scholarly source who says something like, "The Cyrus cylinder was the world's first declaration of human rights," or "Professor Josef Wiesehöfer has argued that this claim can be traced back to a work published by the late Shah of Iran in 1967, but he is wrong, and here's why ..." SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am not saying Wiesehofer is wrong or etc. I am just for stating this secondary source in the article. Because it fits in that section. If this secondary source shows Wiesehofer is wrong, then that is not my fault, but no where I am going to say "Wiesehofer" is wrong. But the 1911 secondary source is verifiable and has been published by a secondary source. We can just say, CSJ in 1911 states about the cylinder: "...". Thats it. I am not making any points on any other statement in that section or intrepreting this 1911 secondary source or anything. The significance of course is chronology but I am not adding any statement of my own to any part of the section.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 01:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective (i.e. ignorance of this topic ;-) it seems to me that we're going to a lot of trouble to make a controversy from two sources (MBE's 1911 comments and the Shah's book) that seem to largely agree with one another in their characterisation of the cylinder. Subject to one caveat, I'd be inclined to write it something like this:

Mary Baker Eddy, writing in 1911, described the cylinder as strengthening "the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom". The Cyrus cylinder has been called "the world's first declaration of human rights" by some scholars,[45], a position that was strongly advocated by the pre-1979 Iranian regime[46]; Wiesehöfer credits the first appearance of this characterisation to a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran, by the then Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who made Cyrus the Great a key figure in government ideology..."

Readers can then make up their own minds whether MBE is expressing the same idea as later Iranian sources, or merely a similar idea that doesn't contradict Wiesehöfer's statement. If this article was named Shah of Iran (historian), it might be important to get into the question of whether his characterisation was original, but it's not.

The caveat is that all I've been able to see of the MBE quote is a short snippet on Google Books that isn't enough for me to be certain of its context, so somebody would need to check the full version of the article to confirm that the quote is representative.

(I have some doubts about MBE's credentials as a historian, but then I can say the same for the Shah; it seems that this section is as much about the use of this particular interpretation for political ends as it is about the accuracy of that interpretation, so the relevance of both MBE and the Shah lies in the fact that they were influential figures with a wide readership, not in their credibility.) -- GenericBob ( talk) 02:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your suggestion. The whole book is here and you can judge the context [21](see pg 283)-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Mary Baker Eddy isn't a good source for the description of an ancient artifact/text. So I have strong reservations about using her in the article at all. That aside, time's arrow only points in one direction, so a source written in 1911 cannot refute a source written in 1999. Nepaheshgar's argument is original research, and should not be included in the article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(I should add that I posted here after a request by ChrisO on my talk page; but since I have participated in the discussion at Talk:Cyrus cylinder before, and it's still on my watchlist, I was planning to participate in this discussion anyway...) --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is the Shah of Iran a good source either. In actuality, the whole section "seen as a human rights charter" has some anachronism. But the section touches upon popular depiction. I really believe that we should let non-involved users make a comment.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Note I reiterate that I agree with the suggestion of GenericBob above. Unlike other users here, he seems to be none involved and does not have off-line wiki friendships with anyone involved in the discussion. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Shah would not be a good source, but a scholar writing about what the Shah said (which is what Wiesehöfer does) is a fine source. As for your note about "off-line wiki friendships", you are making an assumption of bad faith; please retract it. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is Mary Baker Eddy which you have mentioned? You say: "Mary baker Eddy isn't a good source"? Actually, the source is not Mary baker Eddy. It is Richard P. Verral and the article is titled "Cyrus King of Persia. He is a scholar from 1911. And the section is not about ancient history, but characterization of the Cylinder as doing something with "Human rights". [22](see pg 283). All I am suggesting is that the article states R. P. Verral in the article "Cyrus King of Persia"(reference) in 1911 states: "Blahblah..."(one sentence). Thats it. There is no OR, Synthesis, or etc. But it fits in the section "As a human rights charters" and even if the author is incorrect, there is no reason to suppress his statement. I apologize for any comments that seem bad faith, but we should allows non-involved people to comment and resolve this. Thank you. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 03:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think an independent editor GenericBob has proposed the right solution and I am read to follow that formula. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 04:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. SlimVirgin was the first one to talk about Mary Baker Eddy, and GenericBob did also. So are you sure he's proposed the right solution? In any case, we don't care whether someone is "independent" for the purposes of coming to a decision; we care about Wikipedia policy, including whether there is consensus. (By the way, do you think that SlimVirgin is not "independent"?)

As for your proposed text, it is clear that you want it included in the article as an implicit refutation of Wiesehöfer. I think that's a bad idea. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a great deal of respect for SlimVirgin, and her opinion. But ChrisO left a message on SlimVirgin's talkpage [23],which I have no objection, since she wasn't involved in that article. But he also left a similar message on 3 involved editors, who have taken his side on this article, asking them to comment. I think it's better to allow comments from editors who were were not involved in the article. [24] [25] [26] I rather have people that were not left such messages and actually were not involved in the article. As you said though, it is important to follow policy, not what we think is a good or bad idea (I personally think it is good idea simply because there is no reason to suppress something). The issue is not about ancient history (which Wiesehofer knows more about). The issue is about "Characterization of Human rights Charters". I am not saying "it refutes Wiesehofer" or adding any of my own words. I am just quoting a historian from 1911 who sees concepts of human rights in the cylinder. It is very valid for that section because that section is not about history itself (to make the source obsolete), but rather about viewpoint on the Cylinder and its relation to human rights. There is no Wikipedia policy disallowing me to quote the source, as long as I do not add any of my own words or intrepretation. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I think you've misunderstood me there. I am not suggesting that the 1911 Christian Science Monitor quote should be presented as a refutation of anything Wiesehöfer said on the topic (and I think presenting it in chronological order, before Wiesehöfer, helps prevent that interpretation). There are three different ways we can approach this section:

(1) "What does the cylinder actually say on the subject of human rights?" In this light, the Shah is not a RS and probably shouldn't be quoted; we should be looking for interpretations by qualified academics, and probably favouring the more recent ones.

(2) "How have modern-day readers interpreted the cylinder, as regards human rights?" In this light, the CSM quote has a similar (but not necessarily identical) meaning to the Shah's interpretation; whether either of them is a correct interpretation is irrelevant to their notability. (This is why we have articles about historical propaganda - it's not important because it's true, it's important because people believed it was true.) The Shah's is certainly the more important of the two, but I think a fair argument could still be made for the CSM as a notable publication. (Footnote - based on the Google Books info I'd assumed that MBE herself was the author of the CSM article, but that may just have been the general editorial credit for CSM.)

(3) "Who was the first person to identify the cylinder as a statement about human rights?" In this light, the only relevant source is Wiesehöfer. The CSM quote might look like a counter-example, but there's wiggle room on interpretation, so presenting it as such would definitely be OR.

If we focus on #3, the CSM reference doesn't belong in the article. But IMHO, #3 is trivia, whereas #1 and #2 are both important issues that merit coverage. IMHO, the CSM quote merits inclusion, not as a contradiction of Wiesehöfer, but simply as a notable comment relevant to the topic of that section.

Possibly the difference in reading is because I haven't been involved in the editing until now - if the CSM cite was originally offered as a rebuttal to Wiesehöfer, I can see why editors who'd been involved in rejecting that content would be concerned about this issue. But I don't think it has to be presented in that fashion. -- GenericBob ( talk) 04:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the points. Simply quote CSM but without any wiggle room for intrepretation. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are a few misunderstandings here which I'll try to correct. I urge our uninvolved contributors here to look at Cyrus cylinder#As a charter of human rights to get some idea of the context of this discussion. Briefly, the prevailing view among academics is that interpreting the cylinder as a "charter of human rights" is wrong, but it's an interpretation that was advanced by the Shah's old regime and by Iranian nationalists since then. Wiesehofer states that this view originated with the Shah's regime in a 1967 book published under the Shah's name, and was subsequently heavily promoted by the Shah in connection with the 1971 celebrations of the 2,500th year of the Iranian monarchy. To address the three points raised by GenericBob:

(1) Our article doesn't quote the Shah at any point and certainly doesn't represent him as an expert. The Shah is only invoked through Wiesehofer's description of how his regime used the Cyrus cylinder as an instrument of propaganda.

(2) I don't think the CSJ snippet does address the question of "human rights". It speaks of sacred rights - i.e. rights bestowed by divine authority - not human rights. The CSJ piece doesn't mention "human rights" at all - it's purely Nepaheshgar's personal interpretation that it does. The CSJ piece also does not describe the cylinder itself as a "human rights charter", so it does not address the argument put forward by the Shah. Note that it says: "Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle." In other words, it is describing Cyrus's purported views, not the text of the cylinder. Nepaheshgar is reading into the CSJ piece something that simply isn't there.

(3) This does appear to be the key point. Nepaheshgar has for a long time objected to the (well-documented) view that the "human rights charter" interpretation is a product of the Shah's propaganda efforts. He is rather transparently trying to refute this by finding a source that he claims made this interpretation before the Shah. Except that it doesn't, as I've pointed out at (2).

Finally, I'd like to point out that we know absolutely nothing about who wrote the CSJ article. I've not found any other information about "Richard P. Verral" - assuming it's the name of a real person and not a pen name. He is mentioned again briefly in a 1947 edition of the Christian Science Sentinel, apparently as a speaker at some event. [27] He appears to have no published books or academic works. The CSJ piece in question does not appear to have been cited by any other sources. Do we have any reason to suppose that he is in any way a significant viewpoint? Quite apart from the problem with original research, I think it would be undue weight to use a 98-year-old source by an essentially unknown author which does not appear to have been picked up by any other sources. There's no indication that Verrel's viewpoint is in any way representative of or has influenced any wider body of opinion about the meaning of the Cyrus cylinder. -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to respond (note I am not pursuing the matter): 1) On point (2), the CSJ is talking about human-rights related concepts "individual freedom", "human justice". It does not need to mention human rights in particular, because these are components of Human rights. Also the author is talking about the cylinder because he quotes a portion of the cylinder first, and then in the next sentence he talks about "Cyrus's purported view". So obviously if someone quotes the cylinder, and then writes "Cyrus's puported view", he is taking Cyrus's purported view based upon the cylinder. On point (3), the only matter was simply to quote it without any intrepretation. But I have emailed Wiesehofer himself and I am sure he will get back to me. Afterwards, he will be the final authority to see if it contradicts him or not. Of course I will not edit the article (I have CC'ed two admins on that email), but simply we will see who is correct on this matter.

Thanks to GenericBob for providing an unbiased viewpoint. I am going to let it go right now for the best (there seems to be politics behind the issue rather than purely editorial pursuit and there is no reason to escalate it) but we can see a non-convanssed user gave exactly what would be the right viewpoint. Other users simply wanted to suppress information they did not like although this was the general charectirazation of the cylinder way before the Shah of Iran or even Pahlavids took power. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 14:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Superb; more assumptions of bad faith. I would appreciate it, Nepaheshgar, if you would stop accusing me and other editors of being motivated by politics. There are sound editorial reasons why the CSJ article should not be used on Cyrus cylinder, and ChrisO has explained some of them at length. Instead of engaging with what ChrisO, SlimVirgin, and I have said, you choose to ignore it and chalk it up to politics and canvassing. What is this but the definition of tendentious editing? --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You and ChrisO did not even read the article and got the author's name wrong. Or see point (2) above from ChrisO. ""In other words, it is describing Cyrus's purported views, not the text of the cylinder."". The author is decribing the text of the cylinder and then the next line he is making comments about "Sacred rights" and "individual freedom". It is obvious he is taking Cyrus's purported viewpoint based on the text of the cylinder, because the sentence beforehand is a quote from the cylinder itself! Nevertheless as I said, I am not going to pursue this issue. However, I have emailed Wiesehofer on this issue and will post in fringe board noticeboard, just to set the record straight on who started the trend. I am not going to edit that article anymore due to simple politics (admins and canvassing) surrounding the article. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Some advice please? I don't want to bite a newcomer but I was very unsure what to do about Uganda, Acholi and today's contributions from 64.252.184.216. It may violate some policy, possibly this one, but I am not (indeed very far from) a policy expert. I was somewhat alarmed by the pasting-in of what might appear to be entire essays (check the page histories and watch the sizes) and it certainly doesn't to me read like an encyclopaedic contribution, but then what do I know? Advice please? Cheers DBaK ( talk) 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) PS I've pointed out to the editor that this question is here. DBaK.

any offers please? DBaK ( talk) 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

update - some of 64.252.184.216's contributions may also be (perhaps accidental) copyvios, though I suppose it's possible some were originally their own text or they have permissions ... I still don't think they are largely encyclopaedic anyway. DBaK ( talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Haiduc ( talk · contribs)

This editor's attempts to add OR material to the article include the use of his own original translation of a primary source to substantiate his claim. He appears to me to be an single issue editor who is actively engaged in agenda pushing. The discussion can be found here. In the subsequent RFC discussion he seems to have adopted a defensive posture, rejecting all comments that do not agree with his own. Could someone here lend a fresh pair of eyes to this very frustrating process? Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• WLRoss ( talk · contribs)

As discussed here this editor appears to be trying to add OR to this article by falsifying sources and citing them to support statements they do not make. Could I have some uninvolved eyes look over this editors' contributions? There seems to be an ongoing pattern of problematic edits. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that problems with this editor's contributions are also being discussed at the RS noticeboard. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Two problems from dozens of edits over several years does not normally equate to an "ongoing pattern of problematic edits". I had no problem with his previous rewrite so I have no idea why he even took it to the noticeboard after it was resolved. Indeed the article talk page shows I ask for checking and rewrites if needed. This complaint I already answered on the talk page so it can be seen no OR or falsification was involved unless it was inadvertant due to my rewriting to avoid plagiarism. It might be possible that this complaint being presented here instead of using the talk page is due to a pro GM bias. Tim Vickers deletes controversy detail while increasing pro GM detail. Although I don't revert the eccessively detailed pro GM edits unless they are outright false I do keep adding back some of the controversy detail so that a reader can tell that there actually is a controversy which has not been very apparent of late so perhaps this annoys some. Wayne ( talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the thread above Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Genetically_modified_food_controversies, to refresh your memory on the last time I had to discuss your edits on this noticeboard. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been concerned about User:WLRoss's editing of 9/11 articles. I am (or was) an involved editor there, so take my views with a grain of salt. Check them yourself. (Tim invited me to comment here.) Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Are the problems there of a similar type? If so an editor RfC might be called for. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the arbitration case, I find it offensive to bring up my 911 editing to support a claim in another topic. Jehochman reported me and I was topic banned for removing a {{fact}} tag without replacing it with a reference. The only other action ever taken against me in almost three years of editing for any reason was a single block for 3RR which was an error on my part as I did not, at that time, know 3RR also applied to reverting three different edits (ie:I thought the 3 reverts had to be of the same edit). As almost all my 911 edits are still in the relevant articles I stand on my record. Wayne ( talk) 11:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If I'd stumbled across this article a week ago, I'd have just about stubbed it based on BLP issues alone, given the complete lack of sourcing on key points -- it's mostly a summary of the program based on an individual viewer's take on it -- the equivalent of a long plot summary in a TV or movie article. Its almost entirely OR, and I think it should be radically abridged, down to what is clearly reliably sourced, but it's sensitive enough right now that I don't quite want to go ahead without checking for objections. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Summary section, the documentary itself is a reliable source for its own plot summary. A similar situation arose on the WP:RSN. Here's the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Some editors argue that Taiwan is part of China based on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. However, the resolution only states that the seat of China has been transfered to the PRC, but doesn't say anything about Taiwan. Essentially, the resolution doesn't state what is meant by "China", and whether Taiwan is or isn't part of it. I would think that assuming anything about Taiwan based on this resolution is WP:OR, what do you think? Laurent ( talk) 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope this does not look too much like WP:forum shopping, but a discussion elsewhere has raised a point of principle, namely, is WP:OR allowed in framing category definitions or should categories always be based on well-established concepts? The examples I have in mind are those for national/lingustic/cultural groups of surnames. There used to be a [[Category:English surnames]], [[Category:Hungarian surnames]] and so on. The names and underlying concepts were supported by books and papers such as P. H. Reaney. A Dictionary of English Surnames. Oxford University Press. Now, however, we have [[Category:English-language surnames]], [[Category:Czech-language surnames]] etc, but there seems to no literature referring to these concepts by these names. Is this contrary to the spirit, perhaps also to the letter of WP:NOR? SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, NOR is only for articles. We can organize categories however we want, especially when there is a CFD on the subject. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 13:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that to be our policy, how does this fit in with the slogan no reference, no category, which appears repeatedly in the review discussion, since if the topic of the category is based on WP:OR, how can there be reliable references to it? SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a different issue. We can make up any category name we want, but people can reasonably ask for a reference that an article belongs in the category once the category has been defined. It seems perfectly possible to me to show that a particular surname is used in French even if "French-language surnames" is not itself in the literature. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your remark "It seems perfectly possible to me ..." exactly sums up the problem, since it's precisely the sort of WP:OR that pervaded the discussion. To show that it isn't so simple, first of all you say "used in French" when perhaps you might mean "used in France", or "used by French-speaking people" or "used by people of ultimately French ancestry in the male line"? Then we have to consider surnames originating in Brittany, or in French-speaking Belgium ... SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the issue with surnames is more difficult than Category:Systems of formal logic. But this isn't a general NOR issue, just a particularly difficult topic to categorize. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have given up the argument. When you say "NOR is only for articles" and "this isn't a general NOR issue" I think you're wrong. I'm not sure whether there is any stated wikipedia policy that covers this, but in my view there should be, and it should stipulate that any category should be defined in terms which exist in WP:RS. So in this case, the category should be "French surnames", since that is the term used in reliable sources, and it should be interpreted in the way those sources do. Do you know of any wikipedia policy that contradicts that? Is there any statement that exempts categories from the general wikipedia principles? SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 21:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case there was a recent CFD and then deletion review, both of which contradict your argument. So apparently other people agree with me that there is no general principle such as NOR that forces the categories to be named the way you propose. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm discussing the general principle as much the particular case I've used as an example, important though the latter is. I was unaware of the CFD when it took place, and this argument was not presented there. Even so, opinions there were very divided. I remain of the firm view that it was closed wrongly. The deletion review has just concluded with "no consensus", which was the right close in the circumstances. So "other people", namely about half the people who have considered the matter, agree with the outcome in that particular case. However, it has not been posed as a WP:OR question, so it is a very weak precedent for the general issue. WP:OR itself says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." where the word "material" is not qualified so as to restrict it to articles. The general issue needs clarifying, which is why I have raised it here. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from WP:NPOV tutorial#Categorization that NPOV is assumed to apply to categories as a matter of course. Your attempt to exempt categories from other WP principles seems to be baseless. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You asked if NOR applies to the naming of categories, hoping to undo a recent CFD. I replied that no, it does not, and you are looking at a particularly difficult case. Your replies are becoming more tendentious over time, and the particular CFD you asked about was handled by deletion review, so I will bow out now. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 12:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way. I've given up on the surname category business; the damage is done now. I remain interested in the general point of policy, and I'm disappointed that while you've repeatedly stated that NOR does not apply to categories, you've given me no reason to suppose that that is a good idea, or that it is allowed by other WP policy statements. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 12:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is "will air alongside Samurai Sentai Shinkenger in TV Asahi's Super Hero Time programming block" in the Kamen Rider Double article original research? I think it is original research and Ryulong thinks its not original research. ( see me talk page) What do you think is it original research or not? Powergate92 Talk 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

God damn it, Powergate.

Okay, let me give some background here for this ridiculous dispute that Powergate92 won't drop because I undid his addition of a {{ fact}} tag to that particular sentence in an article I recently wrote.

• Kamen Rider Double, an upcoming Japanese TV series, has a known airdate and broadcast timeslot.
• Currently, Samurai Sentai Shinkenger, another TV series, is in the timeslot before it.
• The timeslot that Double will be in is currently occupied by yet another TV series, Kamen Rider Decade.
• Shinkenger and Decade make up an hour of programming called Super Hero Time, a programming block that has been around since 2003.
• Seeing as there are no reliable sources out there to state that either Shinkenger will be cancelled or the "Super Hero Time" programming block will be dissolved come the series premiere of Double, I feel that it is not original research to state that "[Kamen Rider Double] will air alongside Samurai Sentai Shinkenger in TV Asahi's Super Hero Time programming block."

Is this too complex to comprehend, or is Powergate92 just being too strict with sourcing and other policies?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that says Kamen Rider Double will be part of Super Hero Time programming block so that is original research as WP:No original research says "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research" and you don't know if the block will still be on by then. Powergate92 Talk 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that states otherwise, either. And I already have your input on this. Wait for someone else to say something.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea we had a no original research noticeboard. What a trip down the rabbit hole this is. Regardless, my only comment on this is that it's usually pretty easy to find sources for even the most basic or trivial info. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean you need to have inline citations for every common sense statement. There's a balance somewhere. And usually refs attached to other sentences "cover" for sentences that don't have any inline cites. If that makes any sense. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: {{ Future television}} articles should be very carefully sourced. I think one could both argue that it is OR and that it isn't, so we have a draw. The litmus test for inclusion here begins with whether it is important to describe the programming block. I'm not terribly convinced of the need to include it, but neither am I admittedly knowledgeable about the topic. If there is a clear pattern from past series, showing that the programming block is consistent and not subject to change, the one could argue for inclusion. But the problem of adding unsourced speculation to any type of upcoming/future topic artice is something to be concerned about. Then again, if one can accurately make this observation from a published report or listing, it would seal the deal. If no such link or reference exists, the material does border on OR, as we can't be sure of this information without some way to verify it. Viriditas ( talk) 13:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I contend whether he is/is not, as a topic of controversy, must be explicitly quoted from published sources, which sources contradict; therefore, for WPaedians to advance either side via their own argumentation is original research. (The article talkpage where this is being discussed is here: Talk:Jimmy Wales#Semantics of 'founder' wrt Sanger.) Any input? ↜Just M E here , now 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The lede at " Jimmy Wales" sez, "Wales has been historically cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, asserting that he was the sole founder of the encyclopedia." This makes Wikipedia proffer the opinion that Wales was a co-founder; eg it would be equally POV to say Wales has been historically cited as a founder, despite this statement's technically being true as well. Is there some way for Wikipedia to express the facts in a way that reflects disinterest in either belief/determination?

{crickets}

I know it's the freakin 4th[intheUS]o'July but the lack of immediate response to my Q makes me guess the existing "fait accompli of the majority" of ed.s hereabouts is gonna let WP's declarations of Jimbo as co-founder (despite OR/ NPOV) to stand.*
_____
*a good bio -- just more skewed than appropriate under BLP, IMO ↜Just M E here , now 16:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Larry Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia. Please see all the material collected and documented at the page "My role in Wikipedia (larrysanger.org)" -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Seth. Excellent primary sources (and a lot of links further down on Larry's list are 2ndary sources)? However, are there also 2ndary sources that contradict those? as, we must aspire to the best balance possible among these competing, reasonable viewpoints, of course. (Quote from Sanger's memoir wrt his help founding Wikipedia: "Neutrality, we agreed, required that articles should not represent any one point of view on controversial subjects, but instead fairly represent all sides." [28]) ↜Just M E here , now 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This topic really doesnt belong in the original research noticeboard, its more of a policy question I believe. Either Jimbo is or isnt the only founder; either he is or isnt A co-founder. It really doesnt matter what secondary sources that dont know the history of Wikipedia have to say. Either something IS true or it isnt. A hundred sources saying something that is false are still false and not to be put in Wikipedia. Yes, a TRUE statement NOT verified in a reliable source can not be put in Wikipedia either, but we dont put false statements in just because they are published. Oh, and Justmeherenow- it is the 4th of July EVERYWHERE, not just in the US, look at a calendar, July 4th falls on everyone's calendar. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you mean except, say, where the Julian calendar is used, of course. ↜Just M E here , now 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is, this is in the realm of semantics -- and the "facts" are not all that cut and dried.

By way of example, Wikipedia says that Henry Ford is credited with the development of the Model-T and of Fordism and is the founder of Ford Motor Company. However, co-credit for these developments at the Ford Motor Company belongs to a pricipal driving force behind Ford's moving assembly line Clarence Avery, Ford's early production executive Peter E. Martin, his patternmaker/foundry engineer/mechanical engineer/industrial engineer/production manager/executive Charles E. Sorensen, and his initial empolyee/co-designer of the Model-T C. Harold Wills -- and, incidentally, Ford's enterprise was funded mostly by the Dodge brothers; and, previously, Ford had been encouraged in working on automobiles by Thomas Edison while he worked for the Edison Illuminating Company. (As for this Edison company, I'd have to surf Wikipedia to find out who were its co-founders.) So, was Ford the founder/&c or a co-founder/&c?

Larry Sanger himself argues (quote): I believe "founder" is used in two closely-related ways, depending on whether the thing founded is either a business enterprise, on the one hand, or a community project, movement, etc., on the other hand. In a business context, frequently, the founders of an enterprise are its original funders or sponsors. In a community context, however, the founders are those who had the most personal influence in getting a community started. So, for example, we might say the French government was a "founder" of the United States in the business sense, while Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were among the community founders. (end quote).

↜Just M E here , now 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, IMO Sanger's reasoning above works against him, since Wikipedia is defined as a singular enterprise -- whereas Wikipedia/Citizenpedia(?sp)/&c taken altogether represent per se a movement. ↜Just M E here , now 06:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Julian Calendar is NOT used by any nation-state, only by specific groups for religious and/or private use. Is not official anywhere. Even non-Western states use Gregorian calendar, so except for the issue of the International Date Line, IT IS JULY 4th EVERYWHERE. If you are going to wikilink a term, you may want to take time to actually read the article you are directing people to. Camelbinky ( talk) 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How dare you denigrate the Berber peoples' sense of nationhood! (I/e, Camelbinky, I hope your tone has been as tongue-in-cheek as mine.... ) I supose you want people to believe Cincozd'Mayo is everywhere on the same day, too.

However, if you're actually being serious, then I'll point out to you that if you parse my original statement, "I know it's the freakin 4th[intheUS]o'July," you will see I did not say it was NOT the 4th of July anywhere else than in the US. I ONLY said that it WAS the 4th of July in the US, without mentioning anyplace else. In context, if it's the 4th of July and it's the USA, folks are eating hotdogs/watermelon/&c.

After a hard day's work, I sit down at a bar. (Why are these set pieces always in a bar, I wonder?)

"Gimme an English malt," I say, gesturing to a placard.

Bartender gives me an OE800.

A voice is heard from down the bar. It's man in a tweed jacket. "I'll have you know, sir, that brew is made in Milwaukee."

After mulling the bubbles in my beer for 3 7/8 seconds, I raise it to the man in a mock toast, "Ah, Wisconsin. Land of 800 lakes!" (with what I believe, at least, to be a wry smile -- )

"You reveal yourself a fool. The Land of aTen Thousand Lakes is Minnesota," says the man.

I scratch my head...unsure of what the game is this gentleman and I are playing.

↜Just M E here , now 03:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I need help. I'm author and have in my book a new word. In that matter it is extremely important to me to be able to be the first person motioning the word on the net. And what could be better the most known lexicon.

I have been in contact with the guys at the Swedish Wikipedia but I do not get a real explanation on my question.

I have read the policy about "No original research" but I can't find the information I seek. My question is. How established doses a word need to be before I can publish it on Wikipedia? Is it good enough to publish the word in my book and on some specific webpage’s? I use the word in all my courses, seminaries and similar.

Kind regards /Freddie

I'm afraid you have made it plain that you must abandon this quest here. The policy WP:NOR means that we do not publish novelty; we record facts only when they have been established elsewhere. Furthemore the policy WP:COI means that you are the wrong person to be doing this; you must leave it to others to decide when, if ever, to mention your word on wikipedia. You might find it helpful to read WP:NOT to clarify the situation. Best of luck. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 09:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the quick answer. So if I understand you correct, there is no strict criteria’s to decide if a word is established or not, it's up to reviewer? How do you guys investigate if a word is established?

/Freddie

The quick answer to that is WP:RS. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In the George Trenholm biography, an editor inserted his fringe theory that the fictitious character Rhett Butler in the novel Gone with the Wind is modeled after George Trenholm.

I tagged, challenged and removed the fringe theory almost one year ago. There are simply no reliable sources on this subject, other than the self-published book by the creator of this theory. Just recently, another editor believed the theory should be included in the biography, and inserted:

It is claimed that novelist Margaret Mitchell patterned her fictional character, Rhett Butler, on the life of Trenholm

The references given are:

• The publisher of the fringe theory
• Confederate Charleston by Robert N. Rosen…page 151..”There are those who believe that Margaret Mitchell based her fictional hero, Rhett Butler, on Trenholm”
• Ashley Hall, SC by Iieana Strauch…page 10…”Trenholm was a man of charm and is rumored to be the man after whom Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind as modeled”

This has lead to an edit war, as the references given are not solid enough to be included in an historical figure biography. The references are repeating hearsay/rumors and do not go into explanation on the matter. The 3O who is trying to assist is on the fence, but cited WP:UNDO and the claim/rumor should be dropped if no WP:RS could be cited.

Discussion here: Talk:George_Trenholm

What say thee? Jim ( talk) 11:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Could somebody please take a look at the thread Talk:Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism#Article_lead, particularly the discussion about the following proposed wording for the article lead;

Attempts have been made to link the argument with advocacy of Intelligent Design and it has been claimed that the argument is an attack on evolutionary theory itself. Whilst certain ID supporters have appealed to EAAN in support of their own anti-naturalistic claims, Plantinga has responded by asserting that the EAAN does not serve an anti-evolutionary purpose.

And advise whether it constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH?

I commented on the above that;

I've offered a synthesis of what seem to me four quite easily demonstrated facts; (1) that certain ID theorists have "adopted" EAAN; (2) that Plantinga is sympathetic to ID; (3) that Plantinga denies that EAAN is an anti-evolutionary argument; (4) that Plantinga acknowledges that a theist may rationally believe in forms of evolution guided by God (re Biola lecture) - Which of 1-4 are you objecting to, and on which basis? And if your claim is that EAAN is an argument against evolution ("while X"), then what's your WP:RS?

To which the response;

I've offered a synthesis of what seem to me four quite easily demonstrated facts - please see WP:SYNTH. Taking "four quite easily demonstrated facts", and connecting them in a novel fashion, is against policy. So we can't do it here. No matter how many false attacks you sling my way, synthesis isn't allowed, whether SoP's initial stuff, or your new phrasing.

To which my response;

If I can close with only one procedural/policy observation: WP:SYNTH is specifically aimed at preventing editors from drawing conclusions on the basis of synthesis, not on preventing multi-point sentences. Using the term "synthesis" was poor form on my part, but I meant only that I had "put together" four points (1), (2), (3), (4). I did not draw a conclusion ("therefore (5)") and the WP:SYNTH objection is therefore misplaced.

This was rejected as an explanation, but I'm unable to see that I have violated WP:SYNTH as I although I carelessly made reference to a "synthesis" of four facts, I drew no conclusions. Any advice appreciated.

Thanks, -- Muzhogg ( talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I read through this report and the entire discussion, and I'm afraid the problems are far greater than just OR. Viriditas ( talk) 10:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Boy do we need help in List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions and List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions. This content problem also affects doubles, mixed doubles, boy and girls websites on tennis slams. Background is that prior to the 1925 French Championships the tournament was not open to international play. The tournament actually started in 1891 but you had to belong to a French Tennis club to participate. The other 3 slams (US Open, Wimbledon and Australian Open) did not have this restriction though one person editing will argue that the other 3 slams' rules were a bit sketchy in the first few years. Every book, encyclopedia or magazine at your local bookstore or library will list all champions of all years of the French Championships... 1891 onwards, as they should since the person who won in 1895 did win the French title. No argument there.

The content problem is in listing slam wins for the above mentioned events. If you go to your local bookstore or library and look at almanacs, encyclopedias, espn sports guides, etc... and they list slam winners in tennis history you will not see any of them list the pre-1925 French winners as "slam" winners. They all say that because it was not an international event (i.e. open to all players) it is not counted. I have cited them in my edits and I will head to the library in the next few days to get more sources. The charts on the pages calculate the players slam wins so it is important we keep accurate numbers so that we can have item like most slam wins ever, most slam win in a row, most slam victories on one surface, etc. I feel those pre-1925 French winners should not be in the charts because the multitude of sources don't back up that they should. It seems like original research to contradict published information. Even if one or two guides can be shown to say otherwise the vast majority would say don't include those players.

But I am in an impasse with one editor that I have a history with and I really don't want to keep reverting his edits... but I don't want the article to suffer with inaccurate info. I need to clarify one other item. I had thought an agreement long ago might be a possible road to compromise but it has not worked. The original framers of the article (before my time) had listed the pre-1925 winners grayed out with no numbers to show they existed but that they weren't counted. We left it at that status quo but as time has worn on new editors saw the names and keep adding them to the numbering and other charts on a regular basis. I seem to be the only one who keeps fixing these things. The other editor never fixes any of these inaccuracies. To be fair neither does anyone else usually. This situation is getting tiresome and I want this to be a good accurate article. We all have other beefs of chart order, colors, etc... but those are visual things they may need standard mediation. This pre-1925 thing is a major content item and I really don't know what to do about it without daily reverts. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated or if this is the wrong place to post kindly tell me what is my best alternative. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That post is full of inaccuracies, just one of which is that Fyunck is not supported by any other editor and several other editors, including myself, are in opposition. This is purely a content disagreement and has nothing to do with original research. But should anyone be interested in reading about this disagreement, refer to the discussion page for List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions. Also note Fyunck's use of a confirmed sockpuppet named FreepRipper to abuse this discussion, sometimes even involving Fyunck having a dialogue with the sockpuppet. Refer also to the permanent block that resulted. Chidel ( talk) 20:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow to be honest I had no idea that someone hates like this. My post has no inaccuracies and this is not a simple content disagreement. I have no idea where the support lies but for the most part there are only a couple people really involved. What I do care about is making the articles as accurate as possible and not character assassination. Chidel has only been a poster here since June or he would realize that. I always assumed good faith with him and that we just disagreed on certain things but maybe there is more to it than that. I hope not as he/she is new around here (at least in name). Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this edit be reverted? Three (links to abstracts of) patents are being cited to support the statement "[The company was founded by] David T. Hon, a former laser physicist". 58.8.209.249 ( talk) 09:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am party to an ongoing dispute here. Following advice found at WP:DR, I am seeking opinions about some questions raised.

1) The section in the article being discussed includes a citation to a published paper. After asking several times, no editor admits to actually having read this paper. The question is: Does a citation need to be "verified" or is simply being "verifiable" enough?

2) Another question is the neutrality. I see that WP:UNDUE requires that neutrality match the proportion of prominence of opinions found in the published reliable sources. (As opposed to the proportion of personal opinions of the editors which may be instead based on original research or on dubious sourcing.) To verify that the proportion matches the published reliable sources it seems there needs to be discussion of what reliable sources are being considered. The other editors in this dispute claim they have no obligation to disclose which sourcing they use to form an opinion about the proper neutrality balance.

Excerpts from the talk page discussion:

"Editors may choose to contribute based on whatever knowledge they have on the subject and should not be obligated to share the source of their knowledge." [29]

"...nobody has any obligation to answer any of your questions" [30]

"Editors ... are not required to disclose the source of their knowledge here on the discussion page." [31]

For editor neutrality judgments: Is there an obligation to disclose how their sourcing is reliable or how can we confirm that the sourcing being used is not the original research of the editor? SaltyBoatr ( talk) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr believes that his reading of the Second Amendment, which is contrary to that of the Supreme Court, should be given "top billing" (read here). Therefore, take SaltyBoatr's claim with a grain of salt. SMP0328. ( talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lately been avoiding the article talk page in question, due to exasperation. SaltyBoatr says above that he has repeatedly asked whether anyone has read a cited reference. This has happened regarding other references as well. It's very obvious that the references would not have been inserted if no one had read them. The reference in question was discussed at the end of May, here, and SaltyBoatr was involved in that discussion. So of course, the reference was read. Instead of quizzing other editors about what they have read or not read, it would be much more useful for SaltyBoatr to make suggestions about how to track the cited sources more closely, or to explain why the cited sources are allegedly being misused. Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Salty... You're asking at the wrong place... your questions do not relate to the concept of No Original Research... they are questions for other policy pages... ask about verifiability at WT:V and Undue at WT:NPOV. Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 21:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem here with WP:MULTI. Not only is SaltyBoatr conducting these discussions in multiple venues, but is also failing to provide any notification at the article talk page. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Salty is asking related but seperate questions at the talk pages of the appropriate policy pages, per my suggestion. As for notification... there is no requirement that you notify people when you ask a question at these boards... sure it is polite to do so, but it isn't a requirement. In this case, there is no harm... since you seem to have found the discussion very quickly. Blueboar ( talk) 23:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll go ahead and provide the notifications myself, at the article talk page. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea. Blueboar ( talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Some text temporarily removed for technical reasons. Will fix in a minute. Hans Adler 20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Would someone care to express an opinion here as to whether presenting plot items from the film itself (using the film itself as a source, per WP:FILM), and other reliable sources about real-life events, constitutes invalid synthesis? Rodhull andemu 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If all you are doing is stating: "the film depicts X occuring <cite to film>, while RS says X did not occur <cite to reliable source>" then I think you are OK. Blueboar ( talk) 01:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or use two distinct sentences, which avoids any potential claim of synthesis. "The film shows x. Rs says Y" without any connective tissue for the sentences. Collect ( talk) 01:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How is that any different than —

That is clearly Synthesis, just as clearly as —

Differences between film and novel
Edward has red hair in the novel. Edward has blond hair in the film. Also, Maggie appears to be 43 years of age in the novel. In the film Maggie is 37 years old.

All you're doing is leaving our comparative conjunctions to make it appear the WP editor is not making the connection or comparison. 173.72.140.146 ( talk) 14:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Edward has red hair in the novel. Edward has blond hair in the film." is a clumsy construction, and I hope no editor here would write such a barbarism. However, both facts are verifiable within policy, by reference to the novel and film themselves. No conclusion is suggested by us to supplant that of the reader, and that is the mischief addressed by WP:SYN; does not the example cited there make this difference clear? Rodhull andemu 14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

::Exactly... If we were to say something like: "In the film, Edward has blond hair, but this is inaccurate because in reality he had red hair" we would an OR violation (as we would be stating a conclusion... ie that the film is inaccurate). Mearly pointing out the fact that the film and some other source differ is fine. Blueboar ( talk) 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. Putting two facts together without drawing a conclusion may still violate WP:NOR, specifically this part of the Reliable sources section.

Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research.

In the "red hair"/"blonde hair" example, the question is whether these statements are used to advance the position that hair color differs between the film and reality. If they weren't being used to advance that position, then what is their purpose in being mentioned in the article? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia. Not saying that trivia is a good thing. Just saying that it could be considered trivia. Blueboar ( talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to hand it to you, I didn't think of that point! Now let's see what we can do about it. Consider the following editing scenario.

1. An editor deletes the "red hair" and "blonde hair" statements saying that they are advancing the position that the hair color in the film is different than the hair color in reality.
2. The other editor restores them saying that they are not advancing that position and are trivia.
3. Then another editor deletes them saying that if they are trivia and they don't advance the position that there is a difference between the film and real hair color, then they aren't relevant to the article which is about the differences between the film and reality.

In any case, there is cause to delete the hair color statements. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the point here... I don't think it is OR to include statements as to the differences between a fictional movie and the non-fictional source that the movie is based upon (this is going to be true of any fictional work that is based upon reality). So long as all we are doing is saying "the movie depicts X while the book says Y", we are not synthisizing. We are mearly comparing and contrasting sources. We do this with sources all the time in our articles. However, I would agree that petty details like "so and so had brown hair in the movie, but was a blond in real life" is little more than trivia. But something like (just to make something up): "The movie depicts one of the tunnels being discovered by the Germans. This is not mentioned in any of the historical accounts" would be more than trivia and might be worth mentioning. Blueboar ( talk) 21:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO this is linked to the notability of the subject. If we make statements like "the movie depicts X while the book says Y", but this point is not made in a secondary source, we are surely engaging in OR, and creating a topic ('Factual accuracy of The Great Escape') which does not exist in the sources. If we say "the movie depicts one of the tunnels being discovered by the Germans. This is not mentioned in any of the historical accounts," but this discrepancy is not covered by any of the reliable sources, surely that is a clear case of OR? -- hippo43 ( talk) 22:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, how is this different than comparing any two sources that differ? Say two historical accounts disagree. NPOV says to mention what both say. By your argument we are setting up a synthetic argument as to the factual accuracy of at least one of the sources.

But let's accept your reasoning for a second.... even if we do create the argument as to the factual accuracy of the movie, we have to remember that the movie is a work of fiction... and we do not expect factual accuracy from works of fiction. It is not at all a novel argument to say that it is not factually accurate. Thus it is not OR. Blueboar ( talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's different because it's not two sources with differing opinions on the same fact. It's one source that has a fact about what is in the film, and another source that has a fact about reality. And neither source is connecting the film fact with the reality fact. The editor has connected these facts even though the editor hasn't made a conclusion about whether the film fact is contradicted by the reality fact. The editor has made the conclusion that the film fact and reality fact are connected by putting them side by side. Just making the connection seems to be OR if the connection doesn't appear in a source. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As the film is fictional, it's not a reliable source on the historical events, so isn't covered by NPOV in the way you describe. It's only a reliable source for the fictional 'events' shown in the film. If we do not expect works of fiction to be factually accurate (and I agree that we don't), why does this article even exist? Essentially the article should be titled "Examples of factual inaccuracy within The Great Escape" - to me, hardly worthy of an article of its own. In any case, these factual inaccuracies would need to be reported by secondary sources to be included in this article, otherwise they would be OR, no?

By the same token, we don't have an article titled Factual accuracy of Bridget Jones' Diary. (I didn't check, but I really hope we don't.) If that article existed, and made claims like "In the film, Bridget takes the number 24 bus to Oxford Street, while the real number 24 bus only goes as far as Hyde Park corner", we would expect such a discrepancy to be pointed out by a reliable source, otherwise it would be dismissed as OR. -- hippo43 ( talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just now realized that this is a seperate article and not a section of The Great Escape (film). I can see this being merged. Blueboar ( talk) 02:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at this discussion here and see if you can re-argue the case for merge/deletion more effectively than was done before. Nice job in developing a salient argument. Also, the most recently active editors on the article have concluded the same. 71.171.109.2 ( talk) 12:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally an article about differences between a film and another work or event would be contained within the article, unless there's so much info that it's too large. But those differences still need proper sourcing. The first thing that came to mind is The Natural. The most obvious difference in the book vs. the film is the 180 degree difference in the way they end. Pointing that out could be argued to be OR, except that it's verifiable by the reader/viewer. And furthermore, it's discussed in the DVD special, so there's no need for OR. But when comparing a real-life event with a film, if something is asserted to be different, the question might arise, "How do you know?" If it requires a lengthy discussion about "the film says this while this historical book says that", then that's OR. But if the answer is, "So-and-so film critic pointed it out here", then that erases the OR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to the very nature of the media a film is NEVER going to be completely historically accurate. Most 1950s and 60s WWII films are notorious for playing fast and loose with history for dramatic effect. The Great Escape has to be taking with the same degree of skepticism as The Man Who Never Was, The Bridge over the River Kwai, Longest Day, or Battle of the Bulge. Events were altered, left out, or even made up for dramatic effect.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 15:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:USS Texas (BB-35) there is an ongoing (civil) dispute between IronShip and a few other editors over alleged inaccurate information in the article USS Texas (BB-35). IronShip has produced what should be reliable sources for his information in the form of deck logs, cruise books, and other official medium from the battleship which he believes will allow the incorrect material to be corrected since the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth. Unfortunately though, we have hit a snag: the material is not available online or in a readily accessible print format. To resolve this problem a proposal has been raised to have the material added to the talk page in the form of images, which should resolve the information dispute by providing the sources for the claims, but we are unsure of the extent of the OR policies on wikipedia as it applies to this strategy. Can we do this, or will we have to come up with a different plan of action? TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

References for Wikipedia do not have to be online. In fact its my opinion TOO MANY references are from online sources and not enough editors are going to these nifty places called "libraries" and "archives" where REAL sources can be found in things called "books". You can cite your info just as we cite obscure books and journals, local small-time newspapers, etc that arent online and arent readily accessible even at libraries. There's a difference between verifiable and "readily accessible", sometimes verifying something means doing some legwork and effort, if something is true it shouldnt be held back just because it might be hard for someone to verify it. Some may disagree because they believe verifiable means instantly verifiable, but I respond with one of my favorite qoutes:

"Three minutes thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time." A.E. Housman Camelbinky ( talk) 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky is correct, sources do not need to be online, or even easily obtainable... however, I will quibble and point out that they do have to be published (ie disseminated to the public). Have the deck logs, cruse books, and other official medium under discussion been published? Blueboar ( talk) 14:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point Blueboar, I did not catch that these things are basically "internal documents" of the US Navy. There is the issue that all these things might have the OPPORTUNITY to be "published" as in disseminated to the public, since they I must assume, fall under the provisions of a Freedom of Informartion Request, therefore if they havent been published they might be asked for on an individual basis IF these are things that the government has at least copies of in its possession and subject to a FOIR and not unique artifacts that are privately owned. Camelbinky ( talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The documents in question have been published since they are available to all who visit USS Texas, the catch is that they appear to be available only to that limited audience. Multiple attempts by myself, MBK004, and The Ed17 to develope information outside of the standard only DANFS text have met with frustration, we can find no other reliable sources, and IronShip's insistence of inaccurate information in the article leaves us with little choice other than to allow him to upload the documents as sources for the article. As for the assumption that these are online: they are not, but if the images were uploaded to Wikipedia they would henceforth be available online, hence the question as it pertains to OR: can we upload images of published information unavailable by other means to Wikipedia as images and then cite the information in the images? TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, if somebody's willing to go to that much trouble to improve the accuracy of a WP article and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the uploads, good luck to 'em. I can appreciate why people might be twitchy about this; there are articles whose nature or edit history mean we have to be on the watch for sneaky vandalism. (As an example, Peter Foster has a history of bogus cites to inaccessible 'sources' that either don't support the cited claims, or don't even exist - it's reached the point where I have no qualms about deleting any source that I can't check with a single click from the Wikipedia article.)

But in this case, AFAICT, the claims are unremarkable, they don't seem to support any particular agenda, and there's nothing in IronShip's edit history to cast doubt on his bona fides. I doubt anybody would object if he were to upload a photograph of a battleship, showing relevant detail, and claim it was the Texas, unless they had some specific reason to believe it wasn't so. If he uploads photographs of documents about the Texas, a similar standard should apply. -- GenericBob ( talk) 07:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree uploading the documents is no different than uploading a photo that is taken of the battleship. But I would say that TomStar81, unless you or someone else REALLY want to download the info, you dont need to and I wouldnt waste my time. The information IS VERIFIABLE, anyone can go to the USS Texas and see the documents, so it is verifiable. As I said before, just because someone has to get off their butt from the computer go someplace and see something that is available to the public (ie- museum, library, historic site, etc) does not make it any less verifiable than clicking on a link, contrary to popular belief not every piece of knowledge in the world is available online, and unfortunately most of the "info" on the internet is a bunch of crap anyways and shouldnt be trusted. A library or museum has a much stricter policy of inclusion of "facts" than the internet. Camelbinky ( talk) 07:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as realistically verifiable. How many readers could actually afford the money to go check that? Dougweller ( talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to spend any money... find a Wikipedian who lives near the Ship and ask them to check it. Things do not need to be verifiable by a specific person, they just need to be verifiable by someone. No, where the source material is located is not a factor in reliability. My point was availability. First, are these documents "published" ie made available to the general public. Can anyone who does go to the place where the documents are located gain access the documents, or are there any restrictions on who can access the documents? If the policy is that anyone may view them, then I think we have to consider them "published" primary documents. Blueboar ( talk) 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the primary sources that I cite (log book, cruise reports, war diary, action reports) are available to anyone (viewing or purchase) from the National Archives and Records Administration. This is where I obtained most of my copies. No FOIA is required. IronShip ( talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that National Archives and Records Administration itself is accessible online even if everything it holds isn't available online. The internet is a great tool but like any tool you need to know its limitations. Contrary to what Camelbinky thinks libraries and museums are as subject to Sturgeon's Law as the internet is. Even well funded university libraries and city museums that should have the best signal to noise ratio will still have a fair amount of crap that will vary with their respective charters. The Library of Congress, the library of last resort in the US, may not have every book ever published in the US but its charter has produced a signal to noise ratio nearly as bad as the internet's even though it is run by the US government. When you get to poorly funded libraries or neglected museums the signal to noise ratio can take a real nosedive and you can wind up with a crap fest nearing that of the Internet.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 14:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In The Spanish Prisoner, I am encountering some difficulty in convincing a user that something is both WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN. Of course, I could be wrong. I came here to find out if I was.

In the film, a character is rendered unconscious by a fast-acting tranquilizer. The aforementioned user seems to feel that this plot point is too hard to believe, and that no tranquilizer is that fast acting. To that end, they have been pushing that opinion ( 1), adding lotsa material on tranquilizer guns 2). When I pointed out in article discussion for the nth time that such was synthesis, the user then added a "for further information", putting them at their 3RR for the second time in two days.

The user is likely not a native speaker (evidenced by the use of the word "tranquilliser"), and seems to have an extraordinarily thin skin. I'd like some input, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it is certainly WP:UNDUE and you can add also the US Marshals part too in the WP:UNDUE camp. Most film's plots are inconsistent and full of these errors. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to list them all unless they are culturally significant and of course mentioned by multiple secondary sources.-- LexCorp ( talk) 11:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree... who cares if a tranquilizer in a work of fiction acts quicker than one in real life... one of the definitions of fiction is that it isn't real life. Blueboar ( talk) 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears as if the number of folk weighing in rang home the point. Thanks for the input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is original research unless secondary sources have commented upon it (in which case it could go in the Reception section). JN 466 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it has been explicitly commented on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On that Green Day related article, the song, 21 Guns, I was wondering if this is original research, because it is most likely not in a source. But let me tell you that it can be proven, and it is a fact, it's just a fact that no one has thought of before.

The fact is: the Pop 100 stopped its charting about a month ago and so it was discontinued, but I wanted to say that that was why 21 Guns was so far back on the Pop 100, because it could not chart anymore. And you know that's true, but how can you prove it? I just feel that users should know that.

Is that original research? Because I feel like it is, but it is something that can be actually proven, because the facts are all there, they just haven't been put together in one link. -- Zzguitar14 ( talk) 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is definitely OR. It may be a logical deduction, but the simple fact is this: you (a wikipedia editor) are making that deduction and not a reliable source. That said... if the Pop 100 has been discontinued, then it probably should not be discussed in the article. Blueboar ( talk) 14:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just state the fact that "At the time the Pop 100 was discontinued, 21 Guns had reached position XX", leaving the reader to figure it out for themselves? It is a rather obvious conclusion. Eaglizard ( talk) 09:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I take that back, it's not obvious if the song was going up, or down. But still, if you mention Pop 100 at all, I say you should state it was discontinued, b/c that has relevance to the position of any song on it at that time. But as Blueboar points out, does the Pop 100 have any relevance to the song at all? When it was discontinued, it more or less becomes meaningless at that point. Eaglizard ( talk) 09:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like some outside input. I performed a very basic merger of earthquake light and earthquake cloud into earthquake weather ( stable version). The merger had been proposed for a while, as they all relate to atmospheric conditions preceding or coinciding with earthquakes. An editor has claimed that this is OR, as the clouds and lights are "not what people have in mind when they say earthquake weather". I have never heard anyone say this phrase, I only knew the title from an album by Joe Strummer. Even if this is a common piece of folklore, I don't see how adding real-world context is bad, and I certainly don't see how this is OR. Please see the full discussion at Talk:Earthquake_weather#lights, and I would appreciate comments (either way) there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The title is OR exactly because no one uses the term. You came up with it, so it is original to you. That said, I have to question whether these phenomina are notable enough for an article, either joined together or seperately. I can see them being of passing interest in the main Earthquake article, but on their own? Blueboar ( talk) 12:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

A draft of revised material for Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS is here: Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS. It contains a paragraph that describes two incidents that were reported in reliable sources. Here are excerpts from those sources:

• In the middle-class community of Ventura, LaRouche supporters have set up tables outside post offices and supermarkets with their petitions denouncing homosexuals. One local minister who refused to sign was called 'a queer' and his mother a 'lesbian'.
  • "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche". The Times. London. November 1 1986.
• A woman who works with AIDS victims was found not guilty Tuesday of battering a grass roots organizer linked with Lyndon LaRouche. [...] While testifying during the district court trial, Kevin E. Pearl of Baltimore claimed that Lark E. Lands crumpled literature and spat on him twice outside the post office on June 12. Prosecutors had charged Ms. Lands with battering Pearl during a struggle. Pearl is a grass roots organizer for the National Democratic Policy Committee. Lyndon LaRouche was the chairman emeritus before he withdrew to run for president of the United States. Ms. Lands, 36, lives in Frederick County and works with AIDS victims in Washington. She was outraged by posters she saw outside the post office which she recalled saying: "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." [...] Dana Scanlon, press spokesperson for the LaRouche Democratic Campaign, said that the National Democratic Policy Committee representatives who visit the Frederick post office want "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."
  • Olnick, Philip (SEPTEMBER 2. 1987). "Woman who works with AIDS victims found not guilty of battery". THE FREDERICK POST. (FREDERICK. MD)

Here is the proposed text:

• In 1986, a minister and his mother who refused to sign petitions were called a "queer" and a "lesbian" by LaRouche supporters staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office.[19] In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker who said they had posted signage that read, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." The woman was found not guilty of battery. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."[20]

FYI, there is also a widely reported incident [32] in which a representative verbally harassed Henry Kissinger with a sexual allegation at an airport, resulting in an altercation with his wife. The follower pressed charges, and it went to trial, but the Nancy Kissinger was found not guilty. That material is problably relevant too and might be added. The draft already has several sources that explicitly say LaRouche himself has a history of attacking gays and of attacking opponents with charges of homosexuality. Also, this matter was first raised at WP:RSN#The Times of London when an editor said the reporting may be incorrect, but that was withdrawn. The editor said the larger issue was WP:NOR, so this is moving here. The question is: does this summary violate WP:SYNTH?   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that it does. Anecdotes about misbehavior of individual LaRouche supporters are off-topic on an article about LaRouche's views. LaRouche's views have been widely published, so it is unnecessary to introduce original, unpublished theories about how we might adduce his views from the behavior of supporters. Note that none of the sources cited above mention LaRouche's views. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You could please point out or describe the "original, unpublished theories" asserted in the draft text? I don't see any theories there at all.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove the sentence, "The woman was found not guilty of battery," because the proposed text doesn't say anything about that (the source does, but not the proposed edit). As for OR, it's not OR for three reasons: (1) The Times links it directly to LaRouche, not simply to some of his followers, with the headline, "US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche"; (2) In the second example, a spokeswoman gives a comment, but doesn't say, "This is disgraceful. The movement distances itself from these hooligans"; and (3) given the cult-like nature of the movement, supporters would not act in ways they felt LaRouche would not approve of, or at least tolerate, especially not in public over something contentious. You could dismiss (3) as my own deduction, but not (1) and (2). SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding yor first line - I'm not sure I follow. The proposed text includes the disposition of the case, but the excerpted source material does not. However that was just my omission. While the verdict is not directly important to the topic of the article I tend to think it's good editing practice to report the disposition of cases that are mentioned. But it's not an essential element.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've now added the text from the source about verdict to the excerpt above.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I too would remove the sentence, "The woman was found not guilty of battery." It has an unfortunate way of coming across as though the court found it was okay for the woman to beat the guy up because his views were so offensive. Beyond that, what the woman recalls seeing on a follower's sign is not a good example of LaRouche's personal views. First, the source says "which she recalled saying ...", introducing an element of doubt as to what the sign actually did say. Secondly, a sign displayed somewhere, even if by a follower, could conceivably reflect this follower's views more than LaRouche's. From what little I have read in the noticeboard discussions of this edit, it sounds like the sort of thing that LaRouche himself might well have said. But if LaRouche regularly said such things, then it should be easy to find a source that directly and unequivocally attributes such a statement to him personally. We should rather cite one of those clear-cut cases. The alternative, mentioned on one of the other boards dealing with this, is to rename the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. JN 466 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The essential points are two: first of all, there is an element of doubt as to what the sign actually did say. Secondly, it is easy to find a source that directly and unequivocally attributes statements on this topic to LaRouche personally. Therefore, we shouldn't be messing around with a citation that is dubious in several ways. We don't lack for sources. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Doubt" on whose part? Yours? The source is reliable and the text does not go beyond what the source says. The presentation is neutral and the incident is relevant. In order to expedite editing I proposed removing this and a poorly sourced quotation, but that compromise was rejected. I don't see any basis for deleting it. There are many parts of the article that are far worse and we should devote ouor attnetion there rather than writing thousands of words about two properly written sentences.   Will Beback  talk  18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The text omits something that is in the source, which is attribution. The source says that the woman "recalls" seeing wording on a sign. The source is not reporting this wording as fact -- they protect themselves by attributing to the woman. You, on the other hand, report the wording as fact in your text. It's an allegation by an involved party, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- Coleacanth ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We include all sorts of allegations by involved parties in Wikipedia articles. The current version of the text makes it very clear that the wording of the sign is the recollection of the defendant. It now says:

• In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker, against whom charges were brought. In her defense she claimed that a sign a LaRouche supporter held had said "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor", and that this had provoked her.

Since you helped to draft that text, I assume it's acceptable to you.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I do sort of see what Coleacanth is getting at, and reading the article as a whole (it's in newspaperarchive.com), the immediate altercation was actually about literature that implied AIDS could be transmitted by saliva, rather than about signs saying "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." Another LaRouche supporter actually seems to have testified against the supporter who had brought the complaint. Another point is, Dana Scanlon was not referring to these statements about killing when she spoke of efforts "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures." She was saying that AIDS sufferers should not be going into public swimming pools, that there should be AIDS testing and quarantines. The way we have it it almost sounds as though she equated killings to "traditional health measures."

All in all I think it would be better to use something that LaRouche himself said or wrote. He seems to have made abusive statements often enough; there shouldn't be a shortage of sources. JN 466 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We can disucss the details of how to reflect the source, but I strongly disagree with the idea that we should only quote LaRouche's own words. The man is notable because of his movement, and his followers write and speak extensively. Virtually all sources quote from him and his followers interchangeably.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If the sources use his and his followers' quotes extensively and tend to intermingle them, then that makes a strong case for renaming the article "... of LaRouche and his movement". -- JN 466 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but there is probably no way that the other accounts editing the page will agree to that.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are some good points. I hadn't relaized the not guilty verdict could be interpreted that way, but it's just a side matter so it's no problem to delete it. As for the scope of the article, a large portion of it is already made up of writings or comments by LaRouche followers. The simplest solution seems to be changing the article title so that it reflects the contents of the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The original theory is implicit in the composition of Will's proposed re-write of the section ( [33]): that the actual motivation for the California AIDS initiatives was not public health concerns, as in LaRouche's published statements, but rather a hidden agenda of homophobia. Also, this edit ( [34]) from yesterday serves no purpose other than to create a pretext for the introduction of this material to the article. In response to SlimVirgin, the Wikipedia article in question is about LaRouche's views, so the fact that a newspaper article mentions LaRouche's name does not automatically make it relevant to the Wikipedia article. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how there is an implicit theory. The section, for a very long time, has been titled, "Gays and AIDS". The two topics are obviously linked, not just in general use but also in the comments of LaRouche and his followers. But that doenst imoply any causation. This section is a summary of notable views about those topics. Again, if the theory isn't explicit then this complaint is too vague to be dealt with.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If "This section is a summary of notable views about those topics," how would you justify the inclusion of the two anecdotes you seek to include? -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The two incidents center on statements made by members of the LaRouche movement, acting on behalf of the movement, regarding gays. The comments reflect an approach which mirrors the language and approach used by LaRouche as shown in reliable sources. You still haven't shown any original research or synthesis.   Will Beback  talk  18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"The comments reflect an approach which mirrors the language and approach used by LaRouche as shown in reliable sources." Do you have a source for this theory? -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't kow what theory you are referring to. Please quote the text tht contains this theory.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have more time to respond, let me rephrase that. You seem to be saying that the idea that followers espouse the ideas of their leader is original research. I'd argue that it's axiomatic. If his followers didn't believe in his ideas then they wouldn't be his followers. This same "theory" is "implicitly" expressed by numerous reliable sources who report on his followers statements and actions as part of reporting on him. None of the reports are focused on peopple who just happen to agree with LaRouche on certain issues. Each of the incidents occured while the followers were acting as representatives of LaRouche's movement, staffing card tables in public places and soliciting contributions or signatures on behalf of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your sources demonstrate that LaRouche supporters have allegedly been rude and used bad language in public confrontations with their political opponents, who seem to be a bit unruly themselves. From this you wish to extrapolate some ideology that you imply LaRouche subscribes to. In other words, you are combining material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources ( WP:SYNTH.) If you stick to sources which explicitly address LaRouche's views, we will have no problem. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• The party persistently harasses journalists and publications it regards as unfriendly.
  • Howard Blum and Paul Montgomery, "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy," New York Times, October 7, 1979,
• They also blame liberals in the party for policies they say encourage drugs and sex in the schools, and charge that the party is being held hostage by the 'Gay Alliance.'
  • " POLITICS; 'GAG' ISSUE IS RAISED ON DUMPING PROJECT" By JOSEPH F.SULLIVAN, New York Times June 5, 1983
• Ghandhi, West Coast coordinator for the conservative LaRouche party, has accused state health officials of permitting AIDS to be underreported. He also has charged them with inaction against AIDS because of pressure from "a powerful gay lobby" and the Reagan Administration.
  • "Proposal for Ballot Would Subject AIDS Carriers to Quarantine" Los Angeles Times . Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 25, 1985. pg. 32
• At a Chicago press conference, LaRouche spokesman Sheila Jones said the party would use the powers of the Illinois secretary of state to revoke the licenses of banks suspected of laundering drug money, and use the "eminent domain" authority of the lieutenant governor to order AIDS testing for all state residents.
  • "'LAROUCHIES' FORCE STATE TO TAKE NOTICE;" R Bruce Dold and Wes Smith Ray Gibson and Kurt Greenbaum contributed to this report. Chicago Tribune Chicago, Ill.: Mar 23, 1986. pg.
• Lyndon LaRouche, holding one of the biggest news conferences of his no-longer-obscure political career, today characterized his enemies as drug pushers, homosexuals, insane and pro-Soviet.
  • "LaRouche Brands Enemies as Drug Pushers, Insane; Los Angeles TimesLos Angeles, Calif.: Apr 9, 1986. pg. 2
• LaRouche calls [a Leesburg merchant] a lesbian "tied to international terrorism."
  • "Man who calls Queen a pusher worries town;" By MATTHEW WALD. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. A.1.FRO
• However, a number of letters and telephone calls protesting harassment by the signature gatherers came in to the secretary of state's office, officials said. According to one complaint, a youth yelled at a Catholic priest in Camarillo, accusing him of being a homosexual, when the priest would not sign the petition. In Huntington Beach, a woman coming from a Post Office was accosted for her signature and when she refused to sign, the petition pusher yelled, "You are going to get AIDS!" according to her letter to the secretary.
  • "LaRouche is linked to petition , Initiative proposal would quarantine AIDS patients;" Don Davis. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: May 23, 1986. pg. A.3
• Proposition 64 is sponsored by the Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee. Ghandhi, the president of PANIC, is also West Coast coordinator for the National Democratic Policy Committee, a national LaRouche organization that has no tie to the Democratic Party. "I'd say right now the only place where you can get competent medical information publicly on AIDS is from us," Ghandhi said at a June 25 press conference where he announced that Proposition 64 had qualified for the November ballot. "We are the world's leading experts." Ghandhi explained that LaRouche, who calls himself the leading economist of the century, had created a group known as the Biological Holocaust Task Force at his Virginia headquarters. It pulls together data on the AIDS virus and has collected material on the spread of infectious diseases, particularly in Africa, since 1974. Another arm of the LaRouche empire, Caucus Distributors Inc., supplied most of the $215,000 spent to gather signatures for the AIDS initiative.
  • "AIDS a la LaRouche" ROBERT STEINBROOK, KEVIN RODERICK. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Aug 17, 1986. pg. 19
• Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. and his political camp followers have taken up a new cause. They are out to make prejudice against AIDS victims respectable.
  • "LaRouche Turns To AIDS Politics;" [OP-ED] Berkeley., David L. Kirp: David L. Kirp is professor of public policy at the University of California at. New York Times. ' New York, N.Y.: Sep 11, 1986. pg. A.27
• Some LaRouche followers have suggested AIDS is a tropical disease transmitted by insects and one that can be spread through the air or even casual, non-sexual contact with those infected. 'Blatantly false' "A person with AIDS is like a person running around with a machinegun shooting up a neighborhood," LaRouche told a San Francisco radio talk show earlier this year.
  • "Californians face tough choices" Jim Byers Toronto Star. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Sep 21, 1986. pg. B.3
• Increasing the anti-homosexual rhetoric from Lyndon LaRouche supporters, a newspaper tied to LaRouche said this weekend that communist gangs of the "lower sexual classes" controlled by the major parties are opposing Proposition 64, the AIDS measure on the California ballot. The latest issue of New Solidarity, a newspaper that is the most widely read of several publications that espouse LaRouche's extremist political views, included the slur in a story about gay activists who picketed LaRouche's Los Angeles headquarters to protest the initiative. LaRouche supporters placed the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot. [...] But the new attacks on gays lend credence to critics who contend that LaRouche and his followers are motivated by a long-standing hatred of homosexuals. LaRouche and his supporters also frequently attack people they consider enemies by labeling them as homosexuals in print, often in vulgar slang terms. In his 1984 presidential campaign platform, LaRouche broke from prevailing medical opinion and said homosexuality is a disease whose spread can only be stopped by law.
  • "Paper Tied to LaRouche Attacks Gay Movement;" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 6, 1986. pg. 21
• Any semblance of independence was dropped when financial reports filed with the state showed that most of the money for Proposition 64 had come from LaRouche headquarters in Leesburg, Va. In recent weeks, several top LaRouche aides have flown to California to appear as experts on AIDS.
  • "LaRouche Wrote of Using AIDS to Win Presidency" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 17, 1986. pg. 3
• To foment rebellion against this so-called conspiracy, LaRouche urged his followers: "Spread panic, not AIDS" -- an instruction that his California contingent apparently took to heart when they named the pro-64 campaign the "Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee," or PANIC. [..] Over the years LaRouche has frequently claimed his political opponents are homosexuals. He made that accusation against Kissinger in an August 1982 press release titled "Kissinger, the Politics of Faggotry," in which LaRouche wrote that "faggotry destroyed Rome." When LaRouche follower Will Wertz ran for the U.S. Senate in California four years ago -- on a platform calling for industrial investment and massive public works projects -- he also attacked the Democratic Party's eventual nominee, then-Gov. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr., as a closet homosexual.
  • "AIDS initiative talk centers on LaRouche;" Gerry Braun. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: Nov 3, 1986. pg. A.3

I could go on listing sources that link the views of LaRouche followers to LaRouche, but but I think that last source helps cover the matter of supposed original research. LaRouche urged his followers to spread panic, and they did what he told them to. I see no source that in any way implies that LaRouche's followers and activists, when acting on his behalf, express ideas idfferent than his own. Unless an uninvolved editor has a different view on this, I don't think we're any closer to supporting your assertion that there is improper synthesis here.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt, LaRouche's supporters are influenced by LaRouche's ideas. Many of the sources you cite might be suitable for an article like LaRouche movement. However, the article in question is Views of Lyndon LaRouche, which is about LaRouche's own political stances, ideology or philosophy. There are also many sources available on that topic, but instead of availing yourself of those sources, you are repeating a painfully convoluted argument for the inclusion of anecdotes about the behavior of LaRouche supporters in an article about LaRouche's ideas. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't proven, or found any support for, the idea that the comments of LaRouche followers, while acting as his representatives, are inconsistent with his ideas. In numerous reliable sources the views of followers are included in discussions of the views of LaRouche. The existing article already contains several instances of views expressed by followers, and is not limited to those that came directly from the mouth or pen of LaRouche himself. Unless an uninvolved editor has an opinion to add I think we're done here.   Will Beback  talk  17:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that under Wikipedia rules the burden of proof is on you. It says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article," and now because you are unable to do that you are arguing for a change in the topic of the article. -- Coleacanth ( talk) 14:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Every source for this material mentions LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've commented further up, in the older part of the thread. JN 466 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)