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)
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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Walashma dynasty[edit]

I added the origins of the Walashma dynasty using reliable sources that state they are Argobba. p.174 [1] & [2] p.175. The editors removed it and in the Talk:Walashma dynasty, they are using original research and synthesis of original material in an attempt to come up with their own conclusion that Walashma were Somali. Is this what im seeing or not? Zekenyan (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not what your seeing. It has already been proven by multiple users that the claims by Braukämper are fringe. You, on th other hand, don't care. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AcidSnow (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I had requested counter sources countless times. Instead I get wp:SYNTH sources. Zekenyan (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*Sigh*, we did provide countless sources against yours but you still don't listen. All of these state the same thing without us needing to combine anything. This is the same issue that got you blocked just a few days ago and you still haven't learned from it. AcidSnow (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Stay off wikipedia if all your going to do is insert original research into articles. Zekenyan (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop with your baseless accusations. If not, then you risk being blocked per WP:NPA. I would also like for you to read all the other policies that were requested for you. AcidSnow (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC
You yourself risk being banned. Watch it. Zekenyan (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
For what exactly? AcidSnow (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Supporting original research. Zekenyan (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
*Sigh*, none of us has supported orginal research. You should know this by now since it was already stated numerous of times already. So please stop with your baseless accusations. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AcidSnow (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Your using the policies incorrectly. IDONTLIKEIT policy is for content removal because the editor feels he simply doenst like the content. Im adding content with reliable sources while you and other editors are removing it based on your wpsnyth and original research. Zekenyan (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not actually. Instead of providing academic sources you instead choose to provide blantly fringe sources in an attempt to remove a historical fact. None of us have engaged in Original Research, let alone WP:SNYTH. So please kindly cease your baseless accusations. AcidSnow (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll end this quick, I'm not interested in playing games with Zekenyan as he just wants to make baseless claims that a dynasty was of a certain ethnicity using sources everyone explained to him were fringe. Not one editor on that page will ever claim they were Argobba people. All I did was explain to him that the dynasty's genealogies are Somali/ tied to Somali patriarchs like Isma'il Al-Jaberti (father of the Darod founder and a claimed clan ancestor)& a Somali saint (and shared sources as Acidsnow or any other member will testify) but somehow he thought this wasn't adequate proof that they were Somali and called it "Original research" and then I showed him sources saying the dynasty is referred to as Somalized Arab or Arabized Somali (here is a source again: [-]). All legitimate historical work on this dynasty implies that they are either Arab or Somali or somehow both at the same time which is why one editor I believe even tried to refer to them as "Multi-ethnic" (Harar234). I didn't do "original research" and just shared sources with Zekenyan he was apparently unhappy with, that is not my problem. Despite all that and his sources being shown to him to be fringe, he decided to keep edit warring and edited the page to say they were of the ethnicity he keeps arguing they were of using fringe sources. Now, we've all reached a comfortable consensus back on the page where we removed the old text "Somali Muslim dynasty" and simply hit a compromise of "Muslim Dynasty", no other editor seems remotely bothered by this clear compromise from the rest of us (those who believe them to be "Arab" & those who believe them to be "Somali") except Zekenyan who seems hellbent on saying they were Argobba people. Zekenyan has also done this before where he reported Acidsnow for apparently being "uncooperative" when instead he's the one who's always uncooperative by ignoring anything and everything that's said to him in talk/discussion pages. That's all this is and have a nice day, Zekenyan. Do everyone a favor and refrain from edit warring or vandalizing that page. Take care, Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see his block log as well for the reasons why he was blocked: "Disruptive editing: continued edit warring on multiple articles, accusations of bad faith, refusal to listen to other editors, stirring up drama at ANI". As anyone can see, he has clearly learned nothing from it. AcidSnow (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Awale your sources dont mention Walashma and the ones that do dont mention Somali. Im not denying that Somalis were in the region. My point is your combining sources and using arguments to come up with your own conclusion and your friends here are backing you up. It seems more like a conflict of interest now WP:COI. Here is another source from the university of norway that says the leadership was mostly Argobba and Harari. Page 14 footnotes [3] Zekenyan (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you reading anything that is said here and shown to you Zekenyan? The book literally mentions both the Walashma and the Somalis. Why do you need to deny this? It's quite clearly that you simply WP:DONTLIKEIT. By the way, that document you know mention is not from the University of Norway but rather Kassaye Begashaw. Ironically, he too takes his work from Braukamper whose work has already been proven fringe. So please come up with a better tactic instead of just covering your eye and ears. AcidSnow (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am and I quote Awale Abdi "You are wasting your time if you are trying to find sources that state somali". [4] Zekenyan (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's highly doubtful that you did. Anyways, that's not what Abdi said exactly. He said you would find few sources that state "Somali" since they called ethnic Somalis "Berbers/Barbaris" or by their clan name. But that's not necessarily true since the Futuh's chronicler, Shihāb al-Dīn, states this: "Then he [the imam] tied a red standard to a spear and entrusted it to his brother-in-law Mattan bin 'Utman bin Kaled, the Somali, their chieftain, their knight, and the most courageous, the bravest of them all. There rallied to him one-hundred-and-ten knights and three-thousand infantry, along with the tribe of Harti, the tribe of Jairan and the tribe of Mazra, all of whom were Somalis".[5] Ironically, you claim to have read the "entire" book as well has having done "countless research on the horn of africa".[6] AcidSnow (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The british had Indian soldiers. It doesn't mean the British empire was Indian. Also the book mentions many other tribes but you conveniently left them out. Thats cherrypicking. Not only that but now you have completely changed the discussion from Walasma to Adal soldiers. Zekenyan (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I left no one out, let alone was I cherry picking. You attributed a comment by Abdi as something different completely which I saw and corrected. AcidSnow (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI the Imam had brother in laws from various tribes. Zekenyan (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a source instead of just saying that. Seeing how he married a Somali, as did his sister, it seems highly doubtful. AcidSnow (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Its off topic as we are discussing a different issue here but if your interested we can continue that on my talk page. Zekenyan (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, I asked you to provide a source early, but you still have yet to provide one. Why is that? All it does it further diminish the value of your claim. You have now also decided to dodge the request once again. Nonetheless, you're right this is off topic. So let us continue on you're talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my dispute that is why I didnt respond to you. Zekenyan (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Then why mention it? Anyways, I messaged you on your talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

More sources "Only a few groups of Argobba, one of the oldest surviving Semitic peoples in Ethiopia, still survive between the Harar and the lfat. Starting in the 13th century, they gave the Adal kingdom its oldest dynasty, the Walasma. [7]. and also [8] Zekenyan (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Their both based off the work of Braukämper (see here and here). Are you thoroughly reading these before you present them? If so, then can you please stop with the fringe work by Braukämper? AcidSnow (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It was not taken from ulrich its was taken from "Tradition & Transformation of Argobba" by abebe kifleysus. [9]. Fringe theories dont appear on multiple academic books. [10] Zekenyan (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What? I just linked you to the book by Braukämper, see here and here. AcidSnow (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
My first source was published in 1978. So how can it be based off of Ulrich's book which was published in the 2000's? My 2nd source is on page 119. Argobba walasma's are mentioned in depth by Abebe and i even linked you the book. Aethiopica is a reliable source. Its an encylopedia. "Argobba ethno-history is thus very much tied to the history of the sultanate of yefat and its control by members of the Walasma dynasty or the Argobba ruling families". [11] Zekenyan (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all, Tradition and Transformation: The Argobba of Ethiopia isn't mentioned anywhere in CNRS (see here) rather only in the Encycolpedia of Aethipica (see here). Judging by how CRS mentions the work and a book by Braukämper (see here), it seems that it wasn't published in 1978 but later. More importantly, Kifleysus takes his own work from none other than Braukämper (see here). So it seems that you're not thoroughly reading these. Nonetheless, I will still give you the benefit of doubt. AcidSnow (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the bickering and the insults. You both are wasting our time. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Zekenyan (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Where exactly did I insult him as I am unable to find anything close to it? AcidSnow (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. My feeling when I wrote the comment was something like: When you preface a remark with "Sigh," well, that is insulting, as if to say, "You, sir, are a ninny, and I am fed up with catering to your imbecility." I would hope you not "Sigh" through your keyboard anymore. Were one to sigh with exasperation in my direction, I would be mightily offended. This is what I was feeling and, come to think of it, still feel. But the conversation has tapered off, and that is a Good Thing. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I see what your trying to say but I wasn't trying to offended him. I used the two "sighs" to express my tiredness to this discussion as it hasn't gone anywhere but in a circle. But thank you for your input. Anyways, it hasn't ended as he is still fourmshopping. AcidSnow (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi chemical weapons program[edit]

In 2008, a user uploaded the .gif that appears the upper right-hand corner of Iraqi chemical weapons program stating that he was the copyright holder of the work. It is claimed by the user that this contrasts the pupillary light reflex of an Iranian solider exposed to nerve gas to a nurse that was not exposed. I believe this to be unverifiable, but I thought it best to bring it here for additional opinions. (It appears there are other photographs in the article noted as "own work" which might need to be addressed, too.) - Location (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No proof at all that the image is what the caption says it is, even with WP:Assume good faith. I removed it and will head back there to see the others you are talking about. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@BeenAroundAWhile: Thanks for taking a look at it. Cheers! - Location (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this summary OR?[edit]

A summary of the findings of two review articles was inserted here.[12] The summary clearly discusses the strength of the primary articles being reviewed ("there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain"), however, neither of the review sources cited discuss the strength of the evidence (primary sources) - they simply state whether the Scrambler system is effective or not. The two sources are - [1] and [2]

In summary, 4 studies have been examined. Three of these (Smith et al. 2010, Sabato et al., 2005, Marineo et al., 2012) recorded a beneficial effect of the Scrambler system. One of these (Campbell et al., 2013) failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect. Is it OR or perhaps WP:Synth or perhaps POV to summarise this as " there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain."?

  1. ^ Hershman, D. L., Lacchetti, C., Dworkin, R. H. et al. (2014). "Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Oncology: 24. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0914. PMID 24733808. 
  2. ^ Rivera, E., & Cianfrocca, M. (2015). "Overview of neuropathy associated with taxanes for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer". Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 75 (4): 659–670. PMC 4365177. PMID 25596818. 

__DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've dropped notification at the article Talk page and the relevant WikiProject Talk page WT:MED about this discussion. Zad68
Assessing material one thing, including your assessment in original language in an article - like characterizing the results of several studies as "no strong evidence" or "insufficient evidence," when no such evaluation exists in any of the sources - is quite another.
I am struggling to find how this is "in line" with WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED. The most relevant guidance I could find in fact discourages this: MOSMED: Citing sources: "Do not publish your own views about studies." That, in turn points to the Wikipedia:No original research policy, which is what I have been referring to from back at Talk:Scrambler therapy where this began.
Specifically, in NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The secondary sources cited do not summarize all of the reviews they discuss, they simply present them, and characterize one subset of controlled trials as delivering "mixed results." So I'm not clear on your rationale. This seems like original research through synthesis of conclusions. --Tsavage (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I keep trying to answer you. I don't know what to say anymore. I will let others try, Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
(This addresses the Jytdog reply just deleted and replaced with the one above.)
You are conveniently misinterpreting guidelines. Yes, of course I've read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Assess_evidence_quality (aka WP:MEDASSESS), which is concise and informative for a non-technical editor, but is not WP:SYNTHESIS. They are complementary, one does not supersede the other.
Any editor should assess the quality of the material that is about to be used to create content (using, if appropriate,WP:MEDASSESS), and it is very helpful for the non-medically trained editor to have a quick guide to the various types of medical study. In the area of medicine, this could for example help an unfamiliar editor avoid writing in an article, "Xyz drug was proven 98% effective," based on the glowing results of a single uncontrolled study. It helps avoid poor quality edits that would eventually have to be fixed by more knowledgeable, even "expert," editors.
This has nothing to do with evaluating the relative merits of several studies, and forming an original conclusion about the overall body of research, like "no good evidence," for inclusion in an article. How do you find that WP:MEDASSESS gives special dispensation to override WP:NOR and synthesize conclusions?! --Tsavage (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. It is not original research. It is an entirely proper characterization of the sources, per WP:MEDRS. That has been made perfectly clear on the article talk page and on at least two other discussions. Drop the stick. This is starting to look like not merely forum-shopping but a vendetta. Banks Irk (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop trying to turn a genuine issue (on my part, at least, I have nothing to do with DrCrissy), into a personal one against an editor. See my comment just above: how exactly does WP:MEDRS allow synthesis of conclusions (per WP:SYNTHESIS) by evaluating a collection of medical study results, determining relative weight of individual study types and findings, and coming to an overall conclusion like, "no good evidence"? It is one thing to assess material, it is another to form original conclusions about it that are in no way supported by a proper secondary source and include them in an article - where is the attribution for that conclusion? If I am so wrong, it should be simple to point to the guidance that indicates that: if I can't understand a specific sentence or paragraph or section that clearly supersedes WP:SYNTHESIS, then I am an idiot and will shut up. Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. It's one of the few things in that article that doesn't violate policy. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • no I believe also that it is not original research (there is a difference in what is or is not original research and its important to adequately recognize that difference with logic)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
(add)Wikipedia:No_original_research this seems to explain--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

comment@Ozzie10aaaa. Thank you for your input. I'm afraid I simply don't understand the logic here - please would you expand.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Note to all This is not simply a vote. The decision will be based on quality of comments. Simply directing people to view a large article is hardly a high quality comment. Let's try harder. __DrChrissy (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Here's what Pachman 2014 has to say:
ABSTRACT: Other nonpharmacologic interventions including acupuncture and Scrambler therapy are supported by positive preliminary data; however, further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute their effectiveness.
Small trials have investigated Scrambler therapy for the treatment of CIPN. The first study involved 16 patients were treated with Scrambler therapy for 10 60-minute sessions. After 10 days of treatment 15 patients had a 20 % or greater reduction in pain score [66]. The second trial was a small randomized, double-blind study including patients with neuropathic pain for 96 months. There was no difference in pain score in patients who received Scrambler therapy (N equals 7) or placebo (N equals 7), but the author of this trial did not have much experience using this treatment [67]. Another trial investigated the use of Scrambler therapy for the treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (N equals 39), 33 of which had CIPN. There was a reduction in pain scores from baseline to the end of treatment, 6.6 before treatment to 4.5 at 14 days and 4.6, 4.8, and 4.6 at 1, 2, and 3 months, respectively [68]. An additional pilot study included 37 patients with CIPN who were treated with Scrambler therapy. From baseline to the completion of treatment there was a 53 % reduction in pain, 44 % reduction in tingling, and a 37 % reduction in numbness. In addition, this benefit appeared to last throughout 10 weeks of follow-up [69]. Thus, a phase III, placebo-controlled trail is indicated to follow-up on the promising appearing pilot data.
Our main job as article editors is to summarize the conclusions of secondary sources. The conclusions this source provides in the abstract, and in the authors' discussion of the sources, are:
  1. The data are promising, but also
  2. There's not enough good data to make a conclusive recommendation yet--this is exactly what the authors indicate when they say "further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute their effectiveness" and talk about the existing data as being "preliminary" and "pilot". Saying the data are of only "preliminary" and "pilot" quality can also be expressed by saying there is not yet strong enough data to make a conclusion.
Summarizing this as "no good/strong evidence" is directly supported by the source. Zad68 23:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Zad. I have 2 concerns about your comment. The first is that this discussion is based on the summary of two secondary sources (Hershman et al, 2014; Rivera, E., & Cianfrocca, M. 2015) - Pachman 2014 is not one of these 2 sources so your comment is largely irrelevant and somewhat distracting. Second, if by some twist Pachman 2014 is to retrospectively become part of this discussion, we should note that it has already been deleted from the article by a very senior author who labelled it as "unreliable".[13]__DrChrissy (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the purpose of this discussion to resolve collaboratively an article content concern regarding possible OR? I hope so because that's the only goal I'm interested in. Let's stipulate that Pachman 2014 is an acceptable source to use for this purpose; given that would you still have OR concerns? Zad68 12:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of this discussion is clearly stated at the top of the thread. It is based on the summary of 2 sources. Why should other editors now consider a third which has already been labelled as "unreliable". This discussion would then descend into "What about this reference?" "What about that reference". All this is irrelevant. I raised the discussion on the basis of the summary of 2 sources - let's deal with those.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Bringing in a new source that resolves what's actually important--a question regarding article content--I thought would be seen as helpful. I'm much less interested in getting involved in an academic debate for its own sake, with artificially narrow constraints. Zad68 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad60: I appreciate your thorough reply, and that your intention is only to solve the content problem. In my opinion, this new source STILL does not support "no good evidence" as a useful non-technical summary ("strong" seems better), because it evaluates and characterizes technical aspects, such as relative value of types of testing and their findings. As this noticeboard is about what is original research, I'm still curious to the answer to the original question. Even taking Pachman into account...
The original question concerns multiple sources with no summary language, but also applies to Pachman (and please bear with me, because ultimately our measure is comprehension by non-technical readers):
Expert: "Ok, no good evidence here." (or even "no strong evidence")
Non-technical Reader: "Oh, ok, so I guess write this one off. But hey, what's this stuff over here?"
E: "That's weak preliminary evidence, it's not great, from less rigorous experiments."
NTR: "Kk... did the weak evidence turn out?"
E: "Well, there were some positive results, so you could say there's some promise there. But definitely nothing conclusive."
NRT: "Hmmm. So it's, like, 'possibly promising preliminary results, but far from conclusive'? Then why didn't you say that instead of 'no good evidence'?"
E: "Because they mean the same thing!"
NRT: "Umm, not to me?!"
Although perhaps automatic and inadvertent, the expert plain English summary characterizes the topic in a more dismissive, negative way than an incrementally more spelled out summary.
Replaced by Pachman, I still don't see how the abstract is equivalent to "no good evidence," as they give (in my opinion) two quite different impressions, the former more tentative and future-looking, the latter more dismissive and negative:
"Scrambler therapy [is] supported by positive preliminary data; however, further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute [its] effectiveness." does not give the same impression as "no good evidence."
Aren't abstracts intentionally written in accessible summary language in the first place, that could be quoted? Or, a meaningful, understandable summary might be:
"Scrambler therapy is supported by positive preliminary data; however, more [comprehensive/rigorous testing] (such as larger-scale randomized controlled trials) is needed to confirm or refute its effectiveness."
That summary seems absolutely clear and easily verifiable against the source, whereas "no good/strong evidence" STILL seems to be applying an editor's characterization of the source.
If part of the it's-not-OR answer being promoted is, our WP experts are ALSO attempting to cut through the medical doubletalk that is even present in plain English abstracts (like "more research needed") - maybe "positive preliminary data" is euphemistic code for "statistically all-but-meaningless junk data"? - well, that's a great service to our readers, but unfortunately, without sourcing, it's still original research, isn't it?
Please let me restate (since there seems to be a degree of going ad hominem on DrChrissy across Talk and noticeboards): A) I don't know and am not jointly pursuing this question with DrChrissy; B) I began as an uninvolved editor, visting Scrambler therapy for the first time via AfD notice; C) personally, I would have remained on the Talk page, as discussion was kinda ongoing there. --Tsavage (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
we never say "more research is needed" because we would have to say that in every single article about anything related to health. there is never enough data. the thing i think you are not wrapping your head around TSavage is that there is:
a) either enough data such that reliable secondary sources come out and say "it is safe and effective for X" or "it is not-safe (or not-effective) for X" (and even if we can say one of those based on the source, there are always open questions that more research would clarify)... or
b) there is no good data to say anything. With scramber, if you look at the studies that have been done that are described in the reviews - they are all tiny (so mostly worthless) - only the unblinded ones had positive results and the only DB-RCT had negative results. So saying "positive preliminary data" is not accurate/oversells. We could say the "preliminary clinical trial data is mixed", but that leaves the reader hung out to dry. you are really hanging up on summarizing being OR and I reckon you will never be satisfied with the community practice, but that is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, I really love that "E vs. NTR" conversation! It's an excellent and accessible illustration. "Statistically all-but-meaningless junk data" really is what the sources are trying to convey, and I love your turn of phrase by the way. Poorly-controlled tiny studies are really worse than meaningless, especially when studying some physical treatment like an electronic machine, and its effect on something subjective like pain, because they're so prone to bias or placebo effect that they can't produce informative results, and only end up causing arguments like this one. Zad68 04:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding: Tsavage I actually like the direction you're going in, instead of worrying about trying to convey something that isn't very practical or applicable like "no strong data" maybe it should be summarized with the more consequence-based angle you're bringing, like "Scrambler therapy appears promising, but it has not be studied well enough to know conclusively whether it is effective." I'd be totally happy with that, even better than "no strong evidence." What do you think? Zad68 04:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
what i am struggling with in TSavage's formulation, is the "they give (in my opinion) two quite different impressions, the former more tentative and future-looking, the latter more dismissive and negative." Our job is not to prettify anything and be "future-looking". we describe the state of the evidence. "Supported by positive preliminary data" is not accurate, especially with the negative DB-RCT. (especially since placebo effects in pain studies are huge, and a small single arm study is no data to speak of. When experts read about them they think "OK, so they did that single arm pilot study.. nothing to see here, move on". So I would struggle to agree with "Scambler therapy appears promising" but i can agree to the rest. (i said "struggle to agree with" on the first part - not "i don't agree with"!) Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, man, I know... I'm still trying to echo what's in the sources. Pachman as was pointed out isn't great because it's an opinion and not a regular review, so it gets less weight. But both Rivera and the ASCO do give a nod to the low quality studies. I'd be happy to weaken "appears promising". Of course once there's a real high-power study this all goes away. Zad68 05:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68 Yes, from your last two comments, you seem to see what I am saying. I'm shocked! :) Of course, I don't think there is a hard line between summary and synthesis, summary is synthesis, it's a matter of how well and to what degree the source material is literally reflected in the final wording. "It's all crap" is a summary that could be applied to...anything at all, but it reflects nothing of where it comes from and how it was arrived at - perhaps it's simply a personal opinion - and that is essentially what my argument with "no good evidence" is. The more inclusive wording you're discussing allows most any reader to reason between the summary and the cited sources. The less accessible the source material becomes to the non-technical reader, the more important the actual wording and nuance become in the summary, if the goal is to make the content widely verifiable. And I appreciate your content-centered approach here, because IMO it's not really an NOR noticeboard issue, it's a let's collaborate and use common sense issue, which ideally would have been the approach taken on the Talk page. If editors just dig in their heels in Wikipedia, nothing works, and there are no rules that can fix that. Thanks for the input!
@Jytdog You say, When experts read about them they think "OK, so they did that single arm pilot study.. nothing to see here, move on" and that's exactly what my E vs NTR exchange above was about. If that's what the experts think, they can write that down and publish it, we can find it, and quote it or paraphrase or reasonably summarize it, and cite the source. If the experts' published expression of that opinion is a succinct "no good evidence," perfect. However, when they don't do that, Wikipedia editors can't step in as the in-house experts and fill in with their own expert conclusions, we may want to, but without a closely similar source to cite, that's OR. (Here, you even want to counter "supported by positive preliminary data" from the source, because you know it actually means, like, the opposite of what it says, yet when I go to check the source, there it will be! Not a solid solution.) The lack of a good source for what you want to conclude is perhaps why you want to eliminate this article via AfD, but that seems extreme, akin to censorship. There are other ways to handle this, like this discussion! The treatment/product exists, it's documented and received some bona fide medical establishment recognition, the rest seems to be a straightforward editorial issue of wording. I humbly submit... --Tsavage (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not OR appropriate summary supported by the sources. A basic editorial assessment of the content of the sources with an eye towards MEDRS clearly supports the summary language. A handful (4) of extremely low quality (n=?, randomization?, etc.) sources (with mixed results) = no strong evidence. This seems beyond obvious. I think it could even be phrased more strongly, "no good evidence". As above "more research needed" is meaningless. "Primary studies show promise" is OR and does not really reflect the sources. There seems to be a battleground/tendentious editing issue going on here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks Mrbill! Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Diapers, masculism and fathers' rights movement[edit]

A section about access to diaper changing facilities was recently added to the pages masculism and fathers' rights movement (FRM): [14] and [15]. They were later restored after I removed them. The three sources ([16], [17], [18]) do not discuss diaper changing facilities in connection to masculism or the FRM, they actually don't mention masculism and the FRM at all. I should probably add that the two pages have a consistent problem of editors adding any disparity between men and women and declaring that disparity a masculist or fathers' rights issue without any support from RS. Can experienced and uninvolved editors weigh in if this is original research/synthesis or not? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Not original research, but the connection to the FRM should be clear so it's not out of place. Do FRM groups talk about this issue? Chrisrus (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
How is this not synthesis? Someone cherry-picked a disparity between men and women and decided that it was a masculist and fathers' rights issue. The sources do not support that connection at all. Are you saying that editors can add any random statistic and disparity between men and women to the two pages? Also I would like to have input from uninvolved editors, not the usual MRM and GG stuff. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable synthesis that there being a diaper changing station in the ladies' room but not in the gents' is an issue of parity for fathers, albeit a minor one. Is it really true that no such group has mentioned it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not unreasonable to you maybe. Other editors might think that it's not unreasonable to add other stuff they believe is "an issue of parity for fathers" and men in general. For example, how unfair that stores sell more women's clothes than men's! Can I now add an "access to clothing" section to the masculism article? Or how unfair that breast cancer screening is only recommended for women. Where's the parity in that? How about a nice breast cancer section in the two articles? What you're suggesting is that the two articles should become coatracks where any editor so inclined can hang any random "lack of parity" coat, regardless of the sourcing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
For there to be original research, there must be a novel claim unsupported by any reliable source. No such claim has been identified. The presence of a claim on the page is not itself a meta-claim. A Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word. It is part of the role of editors to select and curate a set of claims that pertain to the concept under discussion. Those claims may be about the definition of a word. They may include ideas about the concept that has been defined. They may include reactions, opinions, and applications of the concept. They may include elaboration, interpretation, and contextualization out to several degrees of separation from the lexicography of the article title. The boundaries of relatedness are circumscribed by editorial consensus about due weight. The reasoning applied by editors is not bound by OR or SYNTH. Rhoark (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
For there to be synthesis of published material, there must be an attempt to advance a position not supported by the sources. You claim that the disparity in access to diaper changing facilities has something to do with masculism and the FRM. Your position is not supported by the sources which do not mention masculism or the FRM, let alone claim that this is of any relevance to these topics. The FRM has a clearly defined set of issues and "access to diaper changing facilities" isn't one of them, at least not according to any RS. The same goes for masculism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Societal issues faced by fathers are related to masculism and fathers' rights by definition. This is an editorial conclusion that does not require the support of a secondary source. It is not acceptable to create a WP:POVFUNNEL that only permits issues that can be positively linked to people using particular terminology to label themselves. Rhoark (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
We are not talking about "fathers' rights", we are talking about the fathers' rights movement. And if you believe that the disparity in access to diaper changing facilities is an issue relevant to masculism and the fathers' rights movement, you should be able to provide RS that connect the subjects to diaper changing facilities. But you can't. It's not acceptable to start adding everything that you believe is a "societal issue faced by fathers" to the two pages until the pages are nothing more than lists of what you and no RS believe to be relevant. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Without a source that directly connects "access to diaper changing facilities" as an important topic relevant to the movements or whatever, there isn't support for mentioning it in the article. I can see how this might be considered OR because it's individual Wikipedia editors making this connection, and not the sources. It's probably better characterized as a "coatrack" problem which would technically fall under NPOV and not OR, but either way, its inclusion wouldn't be supported by the sourcing. Zad68 23:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Coatrack and PoV funnel are basically two sides of the same coin. Both are instances where material seems outside the scope of where its placed. The question is which should budge, the material or the scope? In this case, its clearly the scope that needs to expand. It would be fine to have a page that is just about a movement, in which case anything on that page should have a paper trail to a person or organization that claims membership in the movement. But what about the rest of the stuff? There is a vast quantity of information about fathers' rights not connected to any group claiming membership in the label [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31].
There is information here of encyclopedic interest. Where does it go? "Fathers' rights" redirects to "Fathers' rights movement". The article mostly discusses issues, not specific advocacy groups. This seems to already be the page for fathers' rights issues. Masculism, meaning a concern with mens' rights, is already not conflated with any particular movement but still has a WP:CHIMERA problem to resolve. The issues need a place to be discussed in the clear, and the connections to particular groups can be treated in subsections as necessary. A page move to clarify the scope may be necessary, but in the meantime material that belongs in a final article should be WP:PRESERVEd. As long as its clear material is included on the basis of being an issue of fathers' rights, it should be self-evident that a source discussing the rights of fathers doesn't need a big blinking sign saying "THIS IS A FATHERS' RIGHTS ISSUE". The same applies to masculism and any controversy about discrimination against men. It's simply a matter of paraphrasing and editorial discretion. Rhoark (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The articles do not simply discuss issues, they discuss what RS identified as FRM and masculist issues. The pages aren't supposed to be laundry lists of gender disparities. For example, you interpret the fact that there are more diaper changing facilities for women as evidence of inequality or discrimination against men and therefore a masculinist or fathers' rights issue. Others might interpret it as a reflection of the cultural expectation that child rearing and changing diapers is still a woman's job and that most primary caregivers still tend to be women. Regardless of your interpretation, there are not RS to support "access to diaper changing facilities" as a masculinist or fathers' rights issue. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are academic sources that cover the article topic but don't include mention of this indicates that trying to include it is problematic and so needs to be removed from the article. Zad68 04:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites[edit]

Could we get some moderators over at Crimean Karaites please? I notice also that a lot of the images on related articles have been taken from the International Institute for Crimean Karaites without appropriate accreditation. The story of Crimean Karaites is very simple, but you need to be able to read Russian. Here are three articles for example which sum things up. They are descendants of Turkic Church of the East Christians who are thought to have had Jewish (Israelite) origins. They regard themselves as Spiritual Israel just like most Christian denominations, they are Judaizers, but also developed a keen respect for Mohamed. One could never guess this by reading through the article as it is right now. I wrote a rather angry comment in the discussion page here. Would like to see if there are any Russian speaking editors who can look into this please and keep it in check. Many thanks. (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I would like to add Todddy1 is a disruptive editor, apparently a sockpuppet or lackey of Nepolkanov. Discussion on what to do about such abuse of editing priviliges are welcome. (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I also need to point out now that there is a little tag team (or sock/meat-puppet team) involving Toddy1 and SamuelDay1 removing my comments against Nepolkanov and the Libor Nissim Valko links from the talk pages and notice boards to hide their little enterprise. I see therefore that both Nepolkanov and Libor Nissim Valko have "disciples" here. Please be aware of this. (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hague Convention synthesis[edit]

An anonymous editor has been adding unpublished synthesis about the Hague Convention of 1907 to a variety of articles about naval operations that happen to involve naval mining. While there might be some relevance, the editor has never cited a secondary source, or reliable source, that supports the relevance of the Convention to the discussion of the articles. He's been reverted several times, but keeps coming back to push the same original research.

The articles in question:

There is also questionable editing at:

I'm at a loss for how to handle it at this point because the editor seems unwilling or unable to understand how Wikipedia policy works. I'd appreciate any input the participants here can provide. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussions are at Talk:Operation_Starvation#New_section:_Legality and Talk:Corfu_Channel_case#Disputed_references. (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor appears to have no understanding that Wikipedia articles should only contain summaries of published thought, rather than contain new thoughts assembled from disparate sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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 [32]). 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)

Undead and Ezekiel[edit]

While that section (and the article) needs a lot of work, the area in particular that I contend is original research is the portion about Ezekiel. The verses in question do not state that the individuals are undead.

1) The Ezekiel quote needs a non-primary source

1a) Including the Ezekiel quote asserts an undead interpretation: To (as User:A_Georgian put it) "include the quote" obviously asserts an interpretation that the bodies described are undead, otherwise the quote is pointlessly irrelevant and utterly out of context.
1b) A non-primary source is needed for any interpretation: Per WP:PSTS, "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."

2) The interpretation that they are undead is opposed by the interpretation that they are resurrected

2a) "Undead" and "resurrected" are distinct concepts: wikt:undead specifies that the undead, though animate, are by some measure dead; while fully returning to life is wikt:resurrection. Thus they are not compatible interpretations, but competing ones. While I am aware that this would be original research if used in an article, it is reasonable for a Wikipedia: or Talk: page for determining article content.
2b) The undead interpretation should only be given due weight: Per WP:DUE, we should weigh the non-primary sources that support the each interpretation, and determine article content accordingly.

3) No non-primary sources support the undead interpretation, only the resurrection interpretation

3a) The Ezekiel quote is not mentioned in any of the other cited sources: As shown at Talk:Undead#Resurrection_VS_Undeath.
3b) Secondary sources support the resurrected interpretation, none support the undead interpretation: non-primary sources support the concept of resurrection. I tried searching in Google books for "ezekiel undead" and only pulled up horror fiction and pop-theology that recommends using zombie walks to get kids to come to church (not exactly academic sources).

While I've personally used that portion in Ezekiel to argue that the Dungeons & Dragons spells Animate Dead and Create Undead should be an option by good-aligned clerics, the undead interpretation of Ezekiel has no place on Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

All I want is a non-primary reliable source that we can use to give the quote some context and not leave the reader wondering why it's stuck in there. I believe Ian is after the same thing. --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Were there good sources for it, I'd be fine including it (save me time breaking in new Dungeon Masters). There aren't, so I'm not. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)