Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
  • Include links to the relevant article(s).
  • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:

  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
  • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


Search this noticeboard & archives

Genocides in history[edit]

This is an exchange from as section called: Talk:Genocides in history#RfC: Inclusion criteria:

  • Oppose. The inclusion criteria states that you cannot classify something as genocide unless the source defined the act as genocide, but the term "genocide" wasn't even used until 1944 (see [1]). Are we going to eliminate every source that was written before that date? GregJackP Boomer! 03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    @GregJackP The UN convention on genocide (CPPCG) explicitly states in its preamble "Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity". Since 1948, academics and other reliable sources retrospectively categorise historical events as genocide for example see the Whitaker Report (United Nations) published in 1982 that "The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary [1985] Iranian killings of Baha'is.". Besides if no reliable sources has stated that an event was a genocide to include one in this article would be a breach of WP:SYN (OR). Please reconsider you opposition. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    @PBS:. Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide, and it is not a violation of WP:SYN or WP:OR. See WP:SYNNOT. In addition, you did not address the basic question, of whether pre-1944 sources are now worthless for genocide articles. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide. If not how does one assert that it was a genocide, without SYN? This is just as true for post 1944 events as those that pre-date the coining of the word genocide. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide." No, you don't. Again, see WP:SYNNOT, especially WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not obvious II. If you have a source defining genocide by stating the elements, you can state those elements, cite to the post-1944 source, then cite to the individual facts in pre-1944 sources proving each of the elements. "Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison." It's not WP:OR, therefore it is not SYNTH. All this does is provide support for genocide deniers, and I'm not going to support a proposal that is slanted towards a denialist POV. GregJackP Boomer! 23:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are many different definitions of genocide and even experts on the subject do not agree in many instance on what constitutes genocide, see for example what the ECHR has to say about how opinion among legal scholars over the interpretation of the CPPCG between early German court judgements and the later ICTY judgements (Bosnian Genocide#European Court of Human Rights). There is no single source single stating the elements of genocide, and even if there was Wikipeda editors are not qualified legal or academic scholar who can authoritatively make such an analysis. To do so is OR. You write "Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide". I have no idea what you mean by that. What is a genocide denier? A genocide denier is someone who denies that a genocide took place when the majority of expert sources have concluded that one took place. A genocide denier is not a Wikipedia editor who requests that another editor--who has alleged that a series of events are a genocide because that editor thinks it fits a pattern of one of the many definitions of genocide--produces reliable sources that state that those events were a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you're wrong on the OR and SYNTH, as well as the ability of WP editors (many of whom are qualified to make a legal or academic analysis without going into OR). There is no point in continuing the discussion, I'm not going to change my position, at least as long as the current criteria is part of the package. GregJackP Boomer! 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Others thoughts on the points raised in this exchange would be appreciated. To summarise:

  • I do not think that an event can be called a genocide unless reliable secondary sources have described it as one. For a Wikidepa editors to compare a series of events with a definition of genocide and draw the conclusion that those events were a genocide is a WP:SYN.
  • From my understanding of what GregJackP has written above (and I invite him to explain if I have got it wrong), if an bird walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and so meets the requirements of a definition of a duck taken from a reliable source, then Wikipeida editors can describe the bird as a duck even though no reliable sources has been found that states it is a duck, because it is not a SYN to do so.

-- PBS (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • That is an over-simplification and inappropriate application of WP:SYNTH. First, if it is not WP:OR, it is not SYNTH, period. See WP:SYNNOT (yes, I know that is an essay). Second, if I'm talking about a 1956 Ford Thunderbird, I don't have to have the source say that it is a car for me to say it is a car in the article. See WP:OBVIOUS. If you have an established definition of genocide, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is genocide, any more than it is OR to say that a source that describes a murder but does not use that term can have that action identified as an unlawful killing, a homicide, or murder. See what Jimbo said here. It's not appropriate to limit Wikipedia sources on genocide to those published after 1944, when the word was first used. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with GregJackP - We have Duck blocks, we refer to people we're certain are socks as duck socks, so yes, the reasoning is sound, further, when we look back in history itself, we see examples of this, i.e: In colonial times when a person died of a certain lung disease, it was called "Consumption", when we look back at that same period of time, we don't call that disease "Consumption", we call it "Tuberculosis" because that is what it's properly called. It meets the symptoms, and therefore recieves the label. PBS is right KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: - could you please clarify? You state that you agree with PBS, but the text you wrote seems to agree with my position. My understanding of PBS's position is that unless the source actually states the disease is tuberculosis, we have to call it consumption because that is what the source called it. I'm claiming that it is not OR nor Synth to call it TB, because that is what it actually is, it is apparent from the description of the symptoms, and that's what it should be called. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP Woops! my mistake, yes, you're correct, I agree with your position. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If someone describes symptoms of an illness carried by a person today, then just because a Wikipedia editor thinks those symptoms indicate that the person has TB one can not add to an article that the person has TB unless there is a reliable secondary source that say they have it. That is true today and it is true for the diagnosis of people in the past. In the case of consumption there are plenty of sources that sate that consumption is an old name for TB, but that is very different from an Wikiepdia editor looking at the symptoms of an illness and labelling it TB. In the latter case the usual way to deal with such text is either to find a modern secondary source that states the person had TB, or if one can not be found use an older sources that says the person had consumption and then another source to note that the modern term for consumption is TB. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make diagnostics like this. While the duck test can be used in Wikipedia namespace it can not be used on article pages to draw conclusions which are not present in reliable secondary sources.-- PBS (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "If you have an established definition of genocide, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is genocide" Actually, it is. It is a violation of NOR precisely because there are some conflicting definitions of genocide, because the facts are not (cannot be) known in sufficient detail to editors (to use the UN definition, just how many people must die to cause the death "in part" of a group? Is one enough? How about ten?), and most especially because non-politically motivated experts sometimes come to opposite conclusions on the question of whether or not a particular event crosses the threshold for genocide or is more appropriately classified as mass murder. This problem is so well known that this problem is all over the popular press (example). You need a source for a claim that an event constituted genocide, no matter how obvious it seem to you personally.

Deciding whether the mass murder of people based on their socioeconomic status, e.g., nobles during Revolutionary France, constitutes "genocide" is far more difficult and far more fraught than saying consumption is universally acknowledged to be an exact synonym for a disease that we now call tuberculosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous and not covered by OR. If I have an established definition of a car, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is a car. If I have an established definition of a duck, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is a duck. If I have an established definition of a TB, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is a TB. What your argument does is provide ammunition for genocide deniers, who will go back to sources from before 1944 and say, "see, no statement that it is genocide." GregJackP Boomer! 05:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is OR to look at "discrete set of facts that match that definition" and conclude that the facts match the definition. This is covered in the NOR policy in the second sentence in the lead:
  • "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
In the section on primary sources it states
  • "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
As the section in NOR linked to by WP:STICKTOSOURCE says
  • "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."
-- PBS (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Look, you obviously have ignored the part on WP:SYNNOT and every other wikilink that I've put up. You have still not addressed why I can't discuss a duck as a duck or a car as a car when it is not explicitly stated in the source. If a source calls a bird a Mallard, I can call it a duck. If a source calls a motor vehicle a '56 Chevy, I can call it a car. I can show you the policies and the statements by Jimbo about using commonsense and WP:OBVIOUS, but I can't change a bureaucratic mindset that is apparent here. GregJackP Boomer! 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of book as source for it not mentioning something[edit]

User:Valerius_Tygart has repeatedly added "(This was the Stargate Project, although Ronson never refers to it by name.)" to his synopsis of the book The Men Who Stare at Goats. He states on his talk page that " We clearly differ in our interpretation of WP:NOR, and you have not made a case that seems at all convincing to me. The statement is not my "personal observation and opinion". And it is not OR. It is a fact that I have included in the synopsis of the book. What is my source for the statement that the Stargate Project is not mentioned by name in the book? It is the book, The Men Who Stare at Goats, passim. Put the reference in yourself if you like." Unless something has changed, both the statement that it isn't referred to by name, and that the thing being discussed was the Stargate Project, are original research. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Any interpretations, inferences, or perceived allusions must come from secondary sources. Pretty simple. --NeilN talk to me 20:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The lack of mention by name can surely be sourced to the book. Not quite, but in the spirit of, WP:BLUE and WP:When to cite. (It presumably is not complicated to verify by reading the book, and I presume it is trivial to verify in a Kindle edition.) That the name is the topic of the book would normally have to come from secondary sources. Choor monster (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall any discussions here that have agreed that you can use the original source to claim it doesn't mention something. But the editor isn't interested in policy so far as I can tell and has replaced the text that has been removed by several editors (and again edited my comments on his talk page, or rather moved them around and added their own section headings. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The lack of a mention needs to be cited to a secondary source to show its relevance. Otherwise we'll get stupid stuff like, "Obama never stated he was not beholden to the Chicago unions in his autobiography". The material in question has been re-added (twice) by User:Valerius_Tygart. The first time I reverted as a self-published source was used. The second time, a book by a seemingly independent publisher was added along with the self-published source. I don't have access to the book so I cannot verify what is actually stated. --NeilN talk to me 15:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
He reinstated the sources. I've removed the text and sources because, as you say, the first is self-published. The second is by a martial arts expert who almost immediately after the mention of Ronson in a footnote writes "According to at least one knowledgeable source, an accomplished Japanese psychic in the employ of Japanese intelligence (or, some maintain, a remnant of the Black Dragon Society) caused Bush to become ill by using an ancient ninja mind control influencing technique known as ki-doll." Pretty clearly fringe and in any case a search of the Amazon book[2], where I found the quote, doesn't say the book doesn't mention Stargate. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that User:Dougweller has (apparently) accepted the identification of the unit as Stargate, there remains only the issue of whether the absence of mention by name in the book is "relevant". User:NeilN states that "The lack of a mention needs to be cited to a secondary source to show its relevance." I would disagree, asserting that its relevance is obvious to (almost) everyone in context. The author, Ronson, spent many months interviewing Stargate participants, and writing up his findings for his best-selling book, then failed to mention anywhere between the covers the actual name of the unit. (Don't ask me why.) The material on Stargate occupies something like a third of the book. The name of the unit is clearly relevant to a synopsis of the book, and the absence of the name is also relevant, as a reader of the synopsis who then proceeds on to the book itself, will naturally be confused by not finding it there. Valerius Tygart (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate that I consider the book itself an acceptable source for the lack of mention of of some detail. I add that if the book spends a significant part on something it is worth informing our readers of what that something is called. The stupid stuff concern is a non-starter.
It's easier to think with an actual example. I faced the above issue in an article I created a month ago. The book Ohio Town is all about Xenia, Ohio once upon a time. Remarkably, the main text does not mention the name of the town once! The first edition did not even name the town on the dustjacket, with location information about the author omitted. I put the main text lack of mention in the article, I can assert its truth having read the book (with foreknowledge that the name was not mentioned). As a point of fact, at least one review noted this lack and interpreted it as a sign of the book's greater significance, all about "Everytown, USA", so to speak. However, I have not bothered to reread the reviews to find this comment. As such, I restricted what I put in the article to the bare fact about the omission (since I consider the text to be a valid source). Any mention of the significance of the omission, no matter how "obvious" it is, would need to be cited.
I will point out that all the reviews referred to Xenia by name, so the problem of sourcing the name did not exist in my case. I have absolutely no opinion or interest whether the name "Project Stargate" is properly sourced or not. Choor monster (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Once it has been established that the unit described in Ronson's book is Stargate (& I think that surely has been establshed by now) nothing could make more sense than Choor monster's statement that "I consider the book itself an acceptable source for the lack of mention of of some detail".... The book is, of course, the DEFINITIVE source as to what is, or is not, in it. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If i t isn't mentioned in the book but is mentioned in reviews I think it would be okay to say 'according to reviewers this was the Stargate Project' rather than stating that it actually is. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Stating that "according to reviewers this was the Stargate Project" would seem to imply that there is some doubt or debate about it. But there is none. No one has claimed (Wikipedia editors or otherwise) that the Stargate Project is not the one in the book except User:Dougweller, and even he has recently given up on that.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW, since I have no idea why Ronson neglected to mention the name I would not include any speculation about that or about the "significance" of the omission, in the article. And I have not tried to. (I will speculate here: Surely he did know the name, having done extensive research & interviews, so I suspect he left it out to heighten the mystery or mystique of the group, or to exaggerate the government's desire to hide it.... But this is mere surmise...) Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there any more discussion on this?? If not, I propose adding the phrase "... which the book never mentions by name" after the existing link to Stargate Project. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
As there have been no objections in 3 days, I will restore this edit. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeframe of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[edit]

Over at Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn there is a discussion going on regarding the propriety of including specific dates to establish the timeframe of the story. Some months ago specific dates (1835-1845) were removed from the article as unsourced and possibly anachronistic; I happened upon this comment and thinking it fair removed similarly unsourced dates from a related article (Huckleberry Finn).

Another user then came around and pointed out that since Mark Twain described the book as having happened "40 or 50 years ago", this, combined with the fact that the book was published in the mid-1880s, sufficed as a source for the 1835-1845 claim.

I contend that this is OR, specifically SYNTH, on the grounds that Mark Twain intended only to vaguely situate the book at a time similar to his own childhood, sometime before the start of the American Civil War. From a stylistic perspective I don't think "1835-1845" is more descriptive than some variation on "before the Civil War", which is what we had in the article before the dates were reintroduced.

However another editor seems to agree with the first that 1835-1845 is a fair deduction from the established facts, and that as simple arithmetic it shouldn't qualify as OR. I am aware that arithmetic calculations are exempt from OR policy in cases where it is straightforward, but I don't think this qualifies.

As a point of policy, should this or should this not be considered OR? Eniagrom (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's an inappropriate synthesis. It's not simple arithmetic, because the "40 or 50 years ago" is taken from a different source than the date of publication of the book, and because it is necessary to interpret what is meant by "40 or 50 years." (I'm assuming that the source of the "years ago" statement is not signed and dated.)
The exception to WP:SYNTH applies if there is only one way to interpret the information available. Here, several assumptions are being made that constitute OR. "Forty or fifty years ago" is an ambiguous expression; it could mean 38 or 53 just as easily as 44 or 45. The statement is also tied to 1885, which is arbitrary since the book was published in 1884. Choosing a time frame where the years end in a 5 is OR, because the editor, and not the source, is doing the rounding.
To address the time period of the novel, you could say something like you said above: that Mark Twain described the events as taking place "40 or 50 years ago," and that the book was published in 1884. Going on to say that Twain intended to write about the time period of his own childhood would be OR without a source, although there probably is a source. Roches (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad Elk v. United States[edit]

Withdrawn by OP. Being resolved at Talk page Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here is a passage for discussion.

Internet meme and myths[edit]

The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.[1] The most commonly quoted version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."[2]

In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.[3]

References

  1. ^ Plummer v. State, 34 N.E. 968 (Ind. 1893).
  2. ^ Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, Rayservers (Jan. 2, 2010, 1:00 PM); Protesters Have the Right to Protest … and to Resist Unlawful Arrest, Infowars.com (Nov. 13, 2011, 7:52 AM); Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, Freedom-school.com (Dec. 12, 2012, 12:26 PM).
  3. ^ Wright at 388 (noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests); see also Miller, at 953 (only 13 states allow resistance to an unlawful arrest).

discussion[edit]

This suffers from a whole host of problems.

  • The first paragraph (including the quote) is WP:OR in two ways. First, with the unsourced claim that the quote is from Plummer and not from Black Elk. The ref there is to the Plummer case from 1893, so cannot be a source for current internet sites. A few random websites are presented to justify the claim that is on many websites. Second, the editor who created this went around to various FRINGEy blogs and gathered quotes to present here. I have looked for secondary sources on this claim that there are a bunch of websites claiming wrong things about resisting arrest. I didn't find any law review articles, real law blogs, etc, that discuss this. So the editor who created this decided himself that this is a problem that he should address on Wikipedia. That is WP:OR.
  • the 2nd paragraph hangs on the first, and without the first, it has no reason to exist. WIthin that paragraph, the sentence "All of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful force—not defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest" is unsourced WP:OR - neither the Wright source nor the Miller source says this.
  • I tried to delete this policy-violating mess and have been given no answer other than "there is consensus for this". Meh. So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Jytdog is clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING because things are not going his way on the reliable sources noticeboard or on the article talk pages, and his attempts to force the content of the page away from the stable, established version into his preferred version while the discussion is ongoing are also not working out well for him. I advise closing this thread and letting the discussion at the RSN run its course. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No. I am not forum shopping and yelling doesn't make it so. I don't do that. These issues are not being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Google_search_result_as_a_direct_source which is about using google search results as a source (like "there are 10,000 google search results about x") I tried to discuss the issues I raise above at the article talk page, and the article's creator said "read the sources" (which I had before I edited) and "this is a Good Article and you have no consensus" so I opened a GAR to deal with the Good Article status which is here. And I opened this, which is a direct continuation of the failed Talk page discussion, per DR. Claiming at GAR and here that I am forum shopping is just sticking your head in the sand. Please actually deal with the issues here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (remove link to pending-speedy GAR and struck Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC))
Only three places? You missed arbcom and Jimbo's talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Failed talk to noticeboard is standard DR. I withdrew the GAR to lower the temperature. Please deal with the issues. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog, persistent harassment and disruption. What we have here is a single editor who is ignoring the fact that consensus was reached on the articles, particularly Plummer, and demanding answers when told to obtain consensus to remove sourced material. GregJackP Boomer! 05:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That is off-point. I am looking for community input on the content issues here. btw there appears to be "consensus" of maybe two editors, and consensus doesn't trump policy violations, in any case. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus can trump policy, it's done so numerous times, see WP:IAR. It is not relevant in this case, as it is neither OR nor outside policy. You can't just come in and change an article against consensus (which was more than two editors, BTW). GregJackP Boomer! 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I am looking for community input here. (consensus can change, and it should do here, in my view) If you want to participate please discuss the content and sources please show how the content is supported by the sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I will add here that with regard to the last sentence. Wright at p 388 does not mention Plummer or Bad Elk; instead it reviews the reasons why the right to resist is no longer relevant and provides citations to case law and legislation that took away or diminished the right to resist. The content at Miller 358 is parallel, doing the same thing, and also does not mention Plummer or Bad Elk. The statement fails VERIFY and is OR. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You may want to watch the talk page, where there is a discussion on the issue occurring. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest close. This issue is being addressed in a number of venues. Discussion has progressed on the talk page and the article has been improved in a manner that addresses Jytdog's original concerns. Minor4th 17:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The two Hampton L. Carsons[edit]

Is this OR? I would like to say that Hampton L. Carson (lawyer) (1852–1929) is the grandfather of Hampton L. Carson (biologist) (1914–2004). (In both cases, the middle name is "Lawrence".) According to Joseph Carson obituary, the Joseph Carson in question is 100% definitely the son of the lawyer. The 1953 obituary goes on to mention Joseph's son Hampton L. is a professor in St. Louis, it also names Joseph's wife's maiden name was Edith Guest Bruen. The biologist has a Who's Who entry naming his parents, Joseph and Edith Bruen Carson. Choor monster (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)