Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Request input on possible original research content

What this noticeboard is for: Editors may ask for advice about material that might be original research or original synthesis. If the content in question includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position, it may not be published on Wikipedia. If you're not sure whether the content is considered original research, please post here so other users may take a look at it.

When starting a discussion: Please link to the relevant article(s). If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread. Familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.

Reporting form

Enter the name of the article in the space below:

Tatarstan

Could someone please look at the situation around the Tatarstan article? There is an issue around this edit, and a string of reverts that followed. Since I've already reverted more times than I should have, and since my explanations did not go through to the user, I would appreciate if someone else could take a look.

In a nutshell, the original sentence (52% of the estimated 3.8 million population is Muslim) was sourced to this sptimes.ru article, which states, verbatim, that "52.9 percent of the 3.8 million population is predominantly Tatar and Muslim". The anon is arguing that the 52.9% figure is actually the percentage of Tatars as taken from the 2002 Census, and on those grounds he changes the percentage to 53.2%, which is the percentage of Tatars reported by the 2010 Census (and the source he uses is actually the ethnic composition sheet from the 2010 Census results).

Now, the anon's statement that 52.9% is the percentage of Tatars in the 2002 Census is correct (and can be easily verified using a similar ethnic composition sheet from the 2002 Census results). Problem is, the sptimes.ru article does not say that the percentage is from the 2002 Census results but merely states that it is the percentage of "Tatars and Muslims". My argument is that while the source is most likely wrong in that (because it is ridiculous to assume that all Tatars are Muslims), their being wrong does not give us the right to engage in synthesis: to replace 2002's 52.9% with 2010's 53.2% requires assuming that sptimes took the number from the 2002 Census results (there is no proof they did) and then logically concluding that it would be OK to replace those results with the 2010 Census results. If this isn't a textbook example of synthesis, I don't know what is. Furthermore, in the anon's version we end up with a sentence that tells us the percentage of the Muslims yet is referenced to a source which does not even contain the word "Muslims". A third opinion would be greatly appreciated. My discussion with the user can be found on my talk page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 6, 2012; 15:49 (UTC)

What, no takers?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2012; 15:06 (UTC)

Yup, you are right - synthesis, entirely unsupported by the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you (or whoever else reading this who happens to agree) care to get involved into this, change the article to the previous version, and perhaps explain this again to the anon if he persists? I really don't feel comfortable continuing to re-revert.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2012; 15:44 (UTC)

Ezhiki: It seems the reliability of the SPTimes article, for the purposes needed, cannot be reasonably judged as established: (a) we now don't reliably know what year it refers to; (b) it speaks of "Tartars and Muslims" and not simply "Muslims" (it may be wrong on both these counts because, if based on Census ethnicity figures, it should really be just "Tartars."). I cannot read anon's source as it is not in english. However, from what you say, anon also makes the assumption of (b) above - which means his source, alone, does not strictly support his statement either. Why not compromise and (provably) state that the vast majority of Tartars are Muslim. That will make it obvious to readers what the majority faith is even if a percentage figure cannot be reliably sourced. Blue Horizen (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in! The source which you couldn't read is simply a table of results of the population census, one which deals with ethnicity only (indeed, religious preference was not even a question asked during the census). As for the sptimes article, I, too, agree that it is not the best source to illustrate what is being said (although it is definitely more suitable than the Census results). I do not, however, agree that it would be OK to just say that "the vast majority of Tatars are Muslim" and leave it there. That very well may be true, but it is an extraordinary claim all the same, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources (or at least some sources). There are undoubtedly many secular Tatars, as well as Tatars who culturally identify with the Muslim faith but do not really practice it, so simply saying that the "vast majority" of Tatars are Muslim would be quite presumptuous on our part. Perhaps removing the offending passage altogether will be the best solution, at least until appropriate sources are found?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2012; 14:31 (UTC)

That sounds a fair interim solution to me. (You may not have noticed that I said above that you would need to provably show "the vast majority of Tartars are Muslim" if you wanted to go that way. Of course if such a source cannot be provided then you cannot go that way as you rightly conclude.) Blue Horizen (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, whats so offending? Ezhiki, if you visit the Islam in Tatarstan page, a BBC article said most of the Tatars in Tatarstan are practicing Muslims. I also gave several points on the Tatarstan talk page, please adress those. 68.149.133.218 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Virginity#Cultural value last paragraph

Please see the last paragraph of Virginity#Cultural value and the discussion Talk:Virginity#Removed paragraph from "Cultural value" on the talk page. I'd appreciate more eyes on the issue. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been resolved following a discussion at the talk page and an edit I made to remove the undue paragraph. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

This article is about a figure in the Qur'an whose identity is uncertain, with suggestions including Alexander and Cyrus. It's an OR magnet, the latest being the section "Oghuz Khan and/or Bilge Qaghan" which is pure OR (I'm sure there's more). More eyes would help as IPs keep replacing it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Am looking for better sources. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Religiosity and intelligence

Could somebody please take a look at the Religiosity and intelligence page. There is a discussion on the talk page.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC) (I'm expecting this would be a particularly quick and easy fix, BTW. There are a couple of studies about the religiosity of National Academy of Sciences members. Various editors over the years have seen this as relevant to an article on religiosity and intelligence, I see it as clearly original research, but it's come up so often that I'd like an opinion from others.) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... definitely a problematic article, with multiple issues. Not only does it have WP:OR issues ... I also see WP:Neutrality issues. Even the title is problematic (see: WP:AT#Titles containing "and"). There is some good stuff in there mixed in with the problematic stuff, and so outright deletion is definitely not called for... but a significant rewrite may be in order. I encourage a much wider pool of experienced editors to look through the article and lend a hand. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop Islamization of America

Our article on Stop Islamization of America includes the information, cited to a NYT article, that the organization opposed the construction of Park51, a Muslim community center in Manhattan. Is it original research to include the claim that the center was "controversial," cited to a Fox News poll about whether or not respondents opposed the construction? Users in favor of adding the claim state that it can be sourced and is true. Users opposed to adding the claim state that if a source does not refer to SIOA (the article subject) or if the claim is unsourced, we are inviting readers to draw conclusions about SIOA's opposition to it in violation of WP:SYN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well a straight google led me to quite a few pags linking Stop Islamization of America with park54 and saying it was controversial. Foir instance Salon: Park51 says 'In short, there is no good reason that the Cordoba House project should have been a major national news story, let alone controversy. And yet it has become just that', and 'May 7, 2010: Geller’s group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches “Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!”'. Wouldn't it be better to cover the business properly and write a good article rather than try suppressing the obvious by trying to invoke policies to remove stuff? Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

*shrug* I repeatedly asked the user in question to provide sources. It's not my job to find sources for material other people wish to add. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes... if you go by "the rules" you were correct, it was not your job to find a source... now, step back and think about how much time and effort you are spending arguing about this... Do you really think that Park51 wasn't controversial? Would it have been less stressful to look for a source yourself (even though it wasn't your job to do so)?... Did you even do a quick Google search for "Park51 controversial" to see how easy it would be? Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Was a particular clairvoyant hallucinating?

My source for the medical consensus upon clairvoyance is: Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. http://books.google.nl/books?id=qbF44AEMGdcC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=clairvoyance+is+hallucination&source=bl&ots=DWUXEwghqR&sig=XhJlAbFciinqaXoKOGVIW-pw1oo&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=tvENT8rOPIWk-ga0ybStBw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=clairvoyance%20is%20hallucination&f=false. Retrieved 2012-01-11. "Clairvoyance

Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination.

Reference
Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books." 

Now, Rudolf Steiner claimed that he was clairvoyant (there are enough sources to prove this). In fact, most of his teachings are based upon clairvoyance.

May I add the logical straightforward inference that Rudolf Steiner was hallucinating? Does it constitute WP:OR or WP:SYN? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It may possibly be a "logical straightforward inference" - but it is your inference, and thus original research. So no, you cannot add it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be the very definition of original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I posted it here because I have read something on the Romanian language wiki, saying that simple logical-mathematical operations (elementary arithmetics and immediate inferences) are allowed and do not constitute original research. See for details ro:Wikipedia:Fără cercetare originală#Operații matematico-logice (use Google Translate in order to translate it). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The equivalent here is WP:CALC and what you wrote is still original research. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You should also be aware that different language Wikipedias often have different policies regarding such issues. In any case, you aren't making a "simple logical-mathematical operation" here - you are attempting to make a medical diagnosis, based on a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's "all clairvoyance is hallucination" logical conjunction "Rudolf Steiner was clairvoyant". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is original research. It isn't even particularly good original research, given that you are citing a statement in a book as representing the 'medical consensus' without providing evidence to this effect, given that the book is written by a clinical psychiatrist and evidently describing hallucinationary symptoms in people with mental illness, and given that you are assuming that what Steiner meant by 'clairvoyance' was the same as what the psychiatrist means by the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that according to Wikipedia policies it constitutes original research, since it means synthesizing two different sources, instead of being written in a single source. However, the idea that Steiner meant something else by clairvoyance is a weak argument. Blom wrote "The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ...". So Blom's own judgment is: parapsychologists (and occultists, since they are investigators of the supernatural, they fit the idea of someone investigating paranormal phenomena) use the word clairvoyance in order to mean that they receive images and sounds from the higher world/higher beings/paranormal realm, but we, psychiatrists, know better that such people are deluded and that they don't actually communicate with any higher reality, but instead they are having hallucinations. This can be inferred from Blom writing about the usage of the term in parapsychological (i.e. paranormal, occult) literature. He was not commenting upon the usage of the term by psychiatrists, since psychiatrists don't professionally assume that one could communicate with higher worlds. Even if some particular psychiatrists could be privately persuaded that such communication would be possible, their professional consensus is that God does not talk to people, nor angels do that (consensus is not unanimity). As Szasz put it "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." Szasz wanted to expose such double standard, but in doing so he admitted that this is the consensus of the psychiatric profession. Upon Blom's view representing the consensus, the argument is the following: a medical dictionary is not meant for promoting original research, but it instead renders what is consensually accepted by the experts. There are other channels for promoting original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: You appear to be advancing a classic syllogism:

Premise 1: Rudolf Steiner is clairvoyant.

Premise 2: All clairvoyants are hallucinating.

Inferred Synthesis: Therefore Rudolf Steiner is hallucinating.

Syllogisms fall over when either premise cannot be supported or when the inference is invalid. Such syllogisms are rarely as tight or as straightforward as we might first think. That is why WP:SYNTH rejects them. Simple mathematical operations, precisely because mathematical concepts are clear and precise, tend to be very tight/straightforward syllogisms and are without ambiguity. Hence the WP:CALC exception to WP:SYNTH. Unfortunately this cannot be applied to your syllogism as it is neither a calculation nor a conversion. Some of the real-world ambiguities in your proposed syllogism are:

(1) What is your actual source for premise 1? RS himself? If so, he no doubt denies he is hallucinating therefore his definition of "clairvoyant" must be different from whoever you source for Premise2! That is logical too. If your source for Premise1 is some person or group other than Steiner then ... that source cannot be part of Blom's "consensus" group. That too is logical. Hence it is far from clear, in the real world, that "clairvoyant" means the same thing to the same people in both statements!

(2) Is Premise 2 reliably sourced - and if it is are there other views that could also be called reliable? Technically, Blom may be considered reliable - however he only represents a probable consensus of one "professional" discipline (parapsychology?). There are other disciplines which would disagree with a holus bolus acceptance of this premise. There may also be a significant minority view within Blom's own discipline that would not be so 100% re this premise. "Consensus" is not tight and "hides a multitude of evils" as they say. Significant minority views, in Wikipedia, must be fairly represented also. Such a global premise therefore looks impossible to uphold from any source.

Perhaps the most straight forward thing you can conclude here would be "Rudolf Steiner, according to mainstream Parasychology, would be judged as hallucinating." While technically still not allowed by WP:SYNTH it is very tight and, afterall, not all syntheses violate WP:OR which gives WP:SYNTH its raison d'etre. The problem is of course that you would need editor consensus and most editors are technically picky. Anyhow, is this suggested conclusion very useful anymore!Blue Horizen (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bringing in a source which does not at least tangentially mention the topic is practically always a sign that something wrong is being done like synthesis or coatracking. The source saying clairvoyants hallucinate does not mention the topic of the article and shouldn't be in the article. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, while the matter of policy is clear, I have no doubt that Blom and Steiner described the same phenomenon, namely clairvoyance. It's not the phenomenon which is different, but the label attached to it. One calls it "knowledge of the higher worlds," the other calls it "hallucination," but they speak about the same phenomenon. Blom knows how people like Steiner use the word clairvoyance, he does not ignore the fact that people like Steiner believed they have reached a genuine communication with "higher worlds". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard only deals with stuff that is put into articles, not editors own personal beliefs. Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter has been well explained above, but in addition, it is not satisfactory to say that a particular clairvoyant was hallucinating because there are lots of other possible explanations (perhaps they were cynically making up the whole act). Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity, Relevancy, Interpretation and Reliability of text...

Being aware of certain WP policies regarding original research and reliability, your objective remedial input, according to WP Policy and Guidelines is needed.

Basically, content in the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak section, claimed by User "Oakshade", reads, in the Death section:

"After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door , Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called."

According to WP:NOR, "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; - In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

Both my arguments in support of editing the disputed text passage and Oakshade's arguments in favor of leaving the contents as is are in obvious conflict with each other. I have argued brevity, relevancy, coherency and reliability as forms of scrutiny that would accord to WP Policies, there are certainly more to claim, however, I got inconclusive responses from "Oakshade". Another editor offered an unchallenged argument, stating that:

"While a source was given for the deleted phrase, it is not clear that the content as presented was adequately covered by the source. The deleted phrase presented it as a fact that Violand told Couture-Nowak to barricade the door, while all we learn from the source is that he recounted telling her to "put that desk in front of the door" – and while we have no reason to think he made this up, personal memories of such events are notoriously unreliable. --Lambiam 13:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are the links to the page and our exchanges:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak

[1]

[2]

[3] History.

Please ascertain in earnest the reliability of the disputed text as to whether it is in conformity with WP Policy and Guidelines and please have immediately removed the above-mentioned disputed section of text if it conflicts with WP Policy and Guidelines. just (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just for the record, two editors reverted User:Just's removal of the sourced material, user:Edward321 and myself.[4][5]. It should also be added that User:Just has identified himself as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• May I suggest that if you seek to have corrected, for the record, any of the above, that you leave the above original text which I have inserted intact, and that you supply any of your arguments and/or corrections in your own section below my section of text, via indent, in a chronological fashion, this in order not to mislead anyone that cares to make a reliable analysis of the situation. Thank you for your fullest cooperation. just (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is intact. That second sentence section, "Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom... " was not removed by you in your edits but you have chosen to include it in this ANI anyway. That section is sourced by the Toronto Star and needs to be noted as so since this is a NOR noticeboard.--Oakshade (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oakshade, the sentence referred to in the above sample started and ended with: "After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door [8], Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called." If you look closely after the word "called", there is a period. I never inserted text beyond that period (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=474311873). You later edited and inserted three suspension points followed by your reference. In order not to mislead anyone, and only after requesting permission from me (since it arbitrarily alters my input), if agreed, you would have been allowed to insert the full phrase which refers to the reference you added, i.e., like this: "The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful.[9]", immediately followed by your name, since you added that, not me. However, since the contents of this phrase, according to my request for remedial analysis in this Notice Board, is not in dispute in this WP:NOR, I obviously did not include it as a reference, and I don't allow you to alter my original text in this WP:NOR. You absolutely cannot arbitrarily insert anything in anyone's section of text where they have never relied on it and where you have not consulted them beforehand. It goes the same for anyone who would try to alter your text in your talk pages or Notice boards. For the last time Oakshade, do not edit my text. Constantly and arbitrarily editing or altering my text input in this WP:NOR or anyone else's input provided in any Notice Board is a blatant disregard to ethics, among other things. Your intrusive and unwarranted editing tantamounts to harrassment, must I request a WP:HA followup? Stop now.
• Oakshade, please provide below a link that redirects to the section of text created by me in Wikipedia and related to this issue where I have "identified" myself "as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak".

• User:Just: "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture." --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fail. Please read carefully the request: Please provide below a link that redirects to the section of text created by me in Wikipedia and related to this issue where, according to you, I have "identified" myself "as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak". just (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what you're going at. You identified yourself as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak in this edit summary. Whether you identified yourself in a "section of text created by me in Wikipedia" or in an edit summary doesn't change the fact you have identified yourself as the brother of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oakshade, the edit summary absolutely does not mention in any manner whatsoever that I am "the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak". I request that you provide me written proof via link that I have explicitly "identified" myself, during my Wikipedia activity related to this issue, "as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak". Thank you for your cooperation. just (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• To most English speakers, if someone types, User:Just: "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture.", it means, their sister is Jocelyn Couture. I might've mistaken your gender and if you mean you are the sister of Jocelyn Couture, then I will stand corrected and apologize for jumping to conclusions in regards to your gender.--Oakshade (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oakshade, I respectfully submit to you that you have demonstrated, based on the contents of all Notice Boards and other Wikipedia venues used for this dispute, your inclination to misinterpretation. You misinterpret writings and you seem to want to formulate another version or meaning which does not, among other things, reflect reality. One such reality is the one where I have never initiated in writing what you constantly claimed belonged to me. That says alot about one's honesty and credibility, among other things. In any event your actions, reactions, and inactions expose the crux of the matter, which is that you seem to allow yourself, in the name of a Wikipedia editor, to misinterpret information in order to present it or argue it in a manner not reflective of original meaning, content and/or context. May I remind you that that is what the original dispute, concerning the challenged text in the Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak page, is all about.

• Now how will you correct the falsehood you propagated? just (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is now looking like trolling. Just, you typed "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture." You can write all the attacks you want but you can't get around that. If you are not the brother or sister of Jocelyne Couture, then why did you type out "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture."??--Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again, you are misinterpreting. I see that according to editor Professor marginalia, "This notice board is simply to give feedback about what NOR says as it applies to the content dispute." I was obliged to expose your falsehood here since what you wrote is false and unjustly affects other Wikipedia editors. I see that my respectful attempts in having you correct the record are fruitless. You may argue anything you want from this point onward, but I will have to finally respect Professor marginalia's input. You are now sole participant in this fruitless debate, editor Oakshade. A piece of advice, stop misinterpreting. just (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For clarification for everyone of what article User:Just has opened this case for, it's Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. --Oakshade (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted twice now just to zoom on the text itself, exactly, which is challenged per NOR, because this is getting pretty tangled. Can I ask the both of you to provide just the text itself that you've attempted to add, or eliminate, with the references that go with? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. What I wanted to add (between quotes) was:

• "Moments before Seung-Hui Cho arrived at room 211," Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called. The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful.

The above quoted text would have replaced, between quotes:

• "After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door ", Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called. The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful.

I have nothing against arriving at a compromise, where valid and justified, but editor Oakshade seems stuck on providing "notoriously unreliable" text passages. just (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. I see that you're both offering these as alternatives, but you're challenging his version on the basis it's a "notoriously unreliable" passage? If so, no-that's not a NOR rationale. NOR addresses the problem where liberty is taken interpreting a source that is too vague or self-contradictory to use to support a specific claim here, or that a statement from there is applied to a different situation here, one that isn't clearly specified in the source. It doesn't evaluate whether or not the stuff the source clearly does say was reliable. Sorry. The dispute between you can't be resolved with NOR. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is your analysis based on review of all relevant info supplied, and are you reminding me that this dispute cannot rely on any of the following guidelines?

• WP:NOR "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; - In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

If so, can you remind me on what type of WP Notice Board the above issue should be submitted and resolved? Thank you for your guidance. just (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you also expound on the following directives and explain to me why this Notice Board is exempt of the following directives?

• WP:NOR "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Please inform me on the above and remind me why this Notice Board is not the proper forum to determine this issue. Thank you for your guidance. just (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. This notice board is simply to give feedback about what NOR says as it applies to the content dispute. I don't mean to give you the run-around. Frankly at this point I'd judge your dispute as having two opposing opinions about what to say even after it's been determined that both are sufficiently sourced as per policy, an editorial judgment call in other words, and those kinds of disputes can't be settled by citing a NPOV, V or NOR policy justification. And for those your best route is probably with a Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment through talk_pages. To achieve consensus, you need more opinion from editors about which version they feel is the more important, the more encyclopedic, and not more opinion about policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for your input, Professor marginalia. just (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this is not a NOR issue.--Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleeper hit

• The examples in the article pretty much say it all (not that I necessarily disagree with all that is being said in the article, but....) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Erpert: I believe this Noticeboard is more about particular statements disputed by local editors. Your concern seems more general so you may like to consider requesting the sub-articles be deleted as a whole. On the other hand you do not personally dispute the truth of these areas as a whole but may be concerned with particular statements. Unsourced statements may be challenged by adding a "citation tag". If they are not sourced within 2-3 months you can delete them. Blue Horizen (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Americans Elect

I've been having a deuce of a time keeping up with the edits on the Americans Elect article. There's a host of relatively new accounts making sure to remove the description of the organization as a political party. The source for this seems to be a lawsuit filed by the predecessor organization. My inclination is that citing such is original research (the suit is anything but clear in defending the new editors' claims, since it actually starts with describing the plantiff as a political party). The "non-partisan organization" is rather one of the key elements of how Americans Elect describes itself, but the news seems to pretty regularly describe them as a political party. Any help sorting out this mess would be appreciated. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

Page: Line of succession to the British throne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Disputed edits: [6]

• By the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 the succession is limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover
• No constitutional texts say that the succession is so limited

The Act of Settlement 1701 says that "...in Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively and that from and after the Deceases of His said Majesty... and of Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively the Crown...shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants...."[7] R.C. van Caenegem's An historical introduction to western constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, 1995, says, "The Act...laid down that after the deaths of William III and Anne the throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover or her descendants" (p. 117)[8]

My reading of sources is that the act does not limit succession to the descendants of Sophia, but merely places them first in line. If such a restriction does exist, then we should be able to find a constitutional law text that says so explicitly.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said before here, the royal website says "only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed". DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording is ambiguous, it could mean non-Protestant descendants are ineligible to succeed. While the website is a good source for members of the family, it is not the normal source one would expect for constitutional law. TFD (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording on the website is clear, and is a reliable source for the article. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Television in the United States

This article relies on one source and looks too big; I wonder if there are OR materials here. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wesleyan University

There has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing regarding my removal of

According to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Wesleyan is the only Baccalaureate College in the nation that emphasizes undergraduate instruction in the arts and sciences, also provides graduate research in many academic disciplines, and grants PhD degrees primarily in the sciences and mathematics.

from Wesleyan University. The issue was also discussed on that article's talk page at least once in the not too distant past. Can we have some more eyes on this issue, please. Is it an acceptable use of the sources or not? I'll drop a note on the article talk page in a moment. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The links in question are: the institution's Carnegie Classifications and a search of CFAT's database for other colleges or universities with the same Undergraduate Instructional Program, Graduate Instructional Program, and Basic Classifications.

I dispute that this is original research. It's too trivial to rise to the level of being research in the sense that we use that word in this context. And it doesn't seem to be original if it's a trivial use of the website, no more than looking up a topic in the index of a book is original research. Whether or not this information is interesting and important enough to include in the article is another question entirely but it's certainly not original research. ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Carnegie classification but my concern is that linking to search results in this manner is entirely dependent upon the chosen search criteria. We do not link to GBooks search results, for example. We probably could get round it with a series of standalone statements, each individually referenced, but collating them in the present manner has the appearance of "piling on". It is a problem that runs throughout the article: I can deal with most of the instances but in this case I simply lack sufficient knowledge of how Carnegie do things and how susceptible (or otherwise) their search systems are with regard to statistical manipulation etc. The issue is a much one of synthesis as research. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is linked to the particular search criteria in the sense that the statement restates the search results. The classifications aren't "susceptible...to statistical manipulation" in the sense that an end-user can manipulate things to any great degree. The real question - and the reason that this doesn't belong on this noticeboard - is whether the information is interesting or important. I don't have a strong opinion on that topic except that it shouldn't be cluttering up this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere near to the top of this noticeboard it says "Editors may ask for advice about material that might be original research or original synthesis". Do you have any suggestions of an alternate noticeboard where this might be more appropriately discussed? WP:DRN, perhaps? Although I really do not see this as being a "dispute" in the sense that is commonly used. As I see it - and I gathered this impression prior to reading the article talk page thread to which I link above - there are too many variables. But, yes, I admit my ignorance regarding how the Carnegie stuff works and indeed a pretty significant level of how US educational ranking systems work. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We usually begin discussions about article content on the article's Talk page. Have you tried that?

And a quick correction: The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education are not a ranking system. They're a collection of taxonomies created by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. ElKevbo (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That has already been tried on several occasions, one of which I link to above. I suspect that you are aware that there are some rather POV-type contributors there. It needs a wider audience, although it is beginning to look like this may not be the place to achieve that. The Carnegie stuff is being used to rank in the article, regardless of how Carnegie perceive themselves. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So that's a "no, I won't try the Talk page (even though I haven't) because I don't think I'll get the answer I want (even though I'll edit war over it and ignore WP:BRD)." Nice. Real class act. ElKevbo (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the reason. The reason is because in the past people who have taken up this position have been browbeaten and given up. There is no harm in seeking a wider opinion, ever. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Quaid-i-Azam Academy

Do either of the sources added in this diff [9] support the content? I do not see how they do. First source Second source Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I can't find where they do. 'Comes under his ministry' in the first source is presumably supposed to back "an institution of the Pakistan Government" but doesn't. The other source says nothing about the academy other than it organised an event. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought so, thank you for checking. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked the editor who added them, he said that he was responding to the lack of sources and didn't mean them to back the statements, and has moved one. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw he had reverted them back in, and added another one [10] Is it standard practice to point to an entire book and say "it is in there somewhere"? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan sentiment

This article is full of OR and I would appreciate some help on it. I had removed the most of it but it has been edit warred back in. The situation is hopeless. See this as a prime example [11] The use on an Op-ed for statements of fact. There are no such thing as Pakistanophobia#hl=en&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%27%27Pakistanophobia%27%27&psj=1&oq=%27%27Pakistanophobia%27%27&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l256452l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=972d3f93f73cffa8&biw=1024&bih=679Pakistanophobia It is a made up neologism. Most of it is uncited. What does this Simultaneously, the common people of Pakistan have shown a great affinity for Indian culture, music, TV programming and consumer goods, which conflicts with the official narrative to do with the article? Seriously, help me out here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The user is not discussing the content and straight away blanking the article right after protection expired without a consensus. The op-ed was removed after going through proper channel (ie. RSN). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• This source has been added [12] to support this content Pakistanis are often referred to as Dal Khor by Afghans The term Dal Khor is not in the book. Nor does the term appear to be in second source [13]. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I added it from the main article Dal Khor (where it was already sourcing content). Ofcourse you can further verify it. But you've not discussed that at all with me as yet. So I can't know. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you not garner from my comment s directly above that I already checked the source? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And I didn't say you didn't. You only missed to tell me that on the talk page and instead chose multiple noticeboards. I did a little search of my own (not indepth though). And it is the first reference that comes up with the term in the book. [14]. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That first book does not support he content either. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read full pages cited for both books. One book cites the nickname while the other cites it as well as attributes it to Pathans/Pushtuns. It is verified now, page numbers are given. You've not read it. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange then that a search of those books dose not show any results? Would you please provide a full quote so as to ensure their is no OR going on. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And you said you verified the book and it did not contain it?!? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes at 18:03, 8 February 2012 Look at the links. Please provide the full quotes from the books. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Op-Ed is still there, even after it was pointed out on the RSN board. "Many nationalist Indian Muslims also have anti-Pakistan sentiments."

I remember moving the content from the Saudi Arabia section to talk page. This was not discussed there. Also I'll prefer you do not open the same topic at multiple noticeboards and admin talk pages without discussing the content on talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines & TopGun You've both made your case, give it time and allow someone uninvolved to step in here. Going back and forth really scares folks away.--v/r - TP 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New York City

There is a bit of debate over how information regarding New York City should be presented. One of the contentious sentences is "New York is an important center for international diplomacy[15]and is widely deemed the cultural capital of the world.[16][17][18][19][20] The debate has largely revolved around whether "...is widely deemed the cultural capital of the world" is original research or not. There are other sentences, especially in the lead constructed and supported much the same way. The current discussion is located at Talk:New York City#NPOV. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't original research... but I could see objections on NPOV grounds. Perhaps " widely deemed a cultural capital of the world" would be more acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case then I have completely misunderstood WP:Weasel and WP:Synth. Did you check the references that are used to support this claim? Note that there is no other attribution within the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

Hi, kind of a technical question, but perhaps an important one. Is it considered OR to quote more of a quotation that a secondary source quotes, provided you have access to the full original quote in a primary source. In this case, Jimmy Wales commented on a blog...a secondary source (a reliable one) reported an excerpt. Currently Wales' is quoted in the Wikipedia article more fully than the excerpt. Is that considered OR? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)