Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Moon Landrieu

The part of the article on "Moon Landrieu when he was a Mayor has several incorrect facts. The Mayor of New Orleans is the Executive Branch. The City Council is the Legislative Branch of Government. This part of the government makes laws and puts them on the books, not the executive branch. The Mayor as part of the executive branch would not have had that power or authorization to interfere in the business of the legislative branch. There are five district councilman or women and two elected "at -large" city wide for a total of seven. Five members of the City Council can override a Mayor's veto. On the subject of who chose A.L. Davis the first African American to be on the city council. It was the City Council that chooses the replacements not the Mayor from the Executive Branch. In fact it was Eddie L. Sapir that was voted in Moon Landrieu's old DIstrict "B" seat when he was elected as Mayor of New Orleans. All of the accomplishments you attribute to Moon happen after he was Mayor. These are in fact the the accomplishments of Eddie L. Sapir, a well know fact here especially among the older African American people. It was and still is the custom that the city council person leaving in good standing will choose their replacement and the other councilmen or women will support that choice. In this particular instance Eddlie L. Sapir was elected as judge. He was the councilman from District "B" Rev. A.L.. Davis was also from District B. It was Judge Eddie L. Sapir that chose A.L. Davis the first african american to be on the city council to take his seat until an election was called to permanently fill the District B seat. It was also Eddie L. Sapir that lead the charge for the public accommodations law as well as taking down the confederation flag in the council chambers. Eddie also fought the fight against Moon Landreiu and others in the 60's when the powers that be, wanted to put another bridge across the Mississippi River. This action would have destroyed our future riverfront developments and everything we have today. Woldenberg Park, the Ouarter, the Riverwalk shops, our huge convention center facility. This ignited a big controversy with the people who lived in and loved this city. Eddie fought his heart out while on the council, went to Washington and told them the right place to put it was next to the existing bridge. He won the battle against all odds. He was the city hero. Twenty years and countless studies later the bridge was built exactly where he said it should be built, next to the first bridge. In all the elections Eddie was in, he never lost. While on the bench he was never opposed. Eddie at his time was the youngest elected person when elected to the House of Representatives. Moon and Eddie soon became good friends and allies. That strong friendship carries on to this day.

Information on A.L. Davis appeared in Jet Magazine February 13, 1975

Eddie Sapir sworn In January 1975

Minutes from Council Meetings regarding all subject matter are recorded and written up and now televised as well.

google

Continuation War again

I posted about this here before but only got one user to respond; the problem still remains.

The sentence in question is:

...according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day, [ref1][ref2] although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement [ref3] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time [ref4] and neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War. [ref5] [1]

The last part implies that the fighting is not confirmed by Finnish sources and probably did not happen.

The citations ref1 and ref2 are for sources that explicitly say that the fighting took place. However, User:Wanderer602 says that he can't find any confirmation of this in Finnish sources and adds the "although..." part that puts the information from reliable sources into doubt. (see 2nd paragraph here: [2]) Is not that original research? Since when does information from reliable sources have to be confirmed by the research of a user to be taken seriously?

As far as his sources, ref3 says that the 12th division was near the town, ref4 refers to diary entries (primary source) that supposedly say that it was quiet in the area the 12th division was covering.

To me this looks like a clear case of synthesis: 12th division near N. Beloostrov + diary entries of the 12th division saying that it was quiet = no fighting in N. Beloostrov

-YMB29 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To be more exact... Finnish 12th Division was at the western shore of Rajajoki river (which is 10 - 20 m wide, see picture [3], non-wiki map [4]). N. Beloostrov lays on the eastern shore. Ref. 3 is there stating the location of the unit since YMB29 refused to accept it. Ref. 4 is direct quote from war diary discribing situation at the line which run along the river (it describes the situation at both the Rajajoki facing N. Beloostrov as well in the whole of 12th Divisions area as 'quiet'). Ref 5. is a Finnish histography of the Continuation War which does not mention fighting at N. Beloostrov at 4/5 September at all while making clear statements of other fighting that took place in the vicinity (such as at the S. Beloostrov) - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not mention it, does not mean it did not happen... This is your own conclusion based on the sources you have looked at.

The sources I used explicitly mention the fighting and your sources don't contradict them, only your own analysis does.

I don't refuse to accept that the 12th division was in the area, but I do refuse to accept your conclusion that it was the only Finnish unit that could have been there and that there was no fighting. -YMB29 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I only followed advice from the last reviewer of the page

If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource. Of course the Finnish source should be reliable in that it is a thorough description of where fightings took place.... -POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This might be so if there were no sources that said that the fighting did take place, but in this case there are and you can't claim that the sources are wrong because you can't find Finnish sources that mention it. -YMB29 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. He said that should there be Finnish secondary source which deals with the fighting in detail that does not make any mention of the fighting at N. Beloostrov at 4-5 September then it would be valid to state that fighting did not take place (according to Finnish sources). And now there is such a reference. Soviet/Russian sources can state their point of view but the Finnish sources omissions of the fight are equally valid and important to be noted in the text. Unless ofcourse you can provide Finnish sources which mention the fight and the units involved. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To state that the Finnish sources omit it you would have to do some research involving many sources, which is OR. This is what you fail to understand. If a historian did this research, came to the same conclusion as you, and published it, only then you can insert it into the article. -YMB29 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone comment on this? -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Finland at War" states the Finns launched a large scale offensive at the Tuulos river on the 4th and halt their advance on the 7th and do not take Leningrad despite Hitler's urgent request to do so. Unfortunately, that's the Finns advancing on the other side of Lake Ladoga; that said, any action not in that vicinity was certainly away from the center, but I haven't found any additional detail as of yet. Националист-патриот ►TALK 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We are treading here The Issue which has confused Soviet and Finnish historians decades. This is also in a such small scale that it cannot be found properly handled in any books written in English, German or Swedish, not to mention any more distanced language. It is not properly handled in any Russian or Finnish books, in fact the only book in the Finnish side with required depth is "Suomen sota 1941-1945" part 2 (of 11) and based on YMB29's Russian sources, outside memories/hearsays there isn't any books written by historians available. So, basically on the both sides, Finnish and Russian, one has to dig deep to the primary sources, as has been done. But, that means it is extremely unlikely that there is even a single wikipedian capable of providing insight to this issue. At least the roaring silence which has answered our calls for help points to that direction. --Whiskey (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking anyone to dig into sources... This is the original research noticeboard you know... Any experienced user can tell what is original research or not, and does not have to know anything about the topic.

So you are calling a war diary and an official army report memories/hearsays? -YMB29 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting claim. So tell me, why nobody dares to stick their heads to this discussion? We have got just one or two comments from others, but also they have abandoned us almost immediately before following this to the conclusion. We are providing an information overload to all others and they cannot help us because they do not know enough to evaluate presented sources.

I guess we have already concluded that Pavel Luknitskiy's book wasn't an official document, but even there he describes only the September 20th attack to the railway station, and passes the September 4th with a single sentence as he seemed not to been there then (hearsay?). 23rd Army report uses quite wide area with description Beloostrov, which could include fighting in Aleksandrovka.--Whiskey (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well looks like you did not read the army report; it is very specific. Also you can't claim information about an event to be hearsay just because the person writing about it did not witness the event himself.

As for lack of comments, I kept it simple in the initial post but Wanderer602 is the one who flooded the discussion with too much detailed information, which does make it difficult for others to understand the problem. -YMB29 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

2112 (song)

I have just been in what could be called my first edit war, in which I was (unfairly, in my opinion) accused, first of insufficient citation, then of inserting original research. On the first, I relied on no additional sources aside from what the article already cited, so I didn't feel a need to add a "ref" (nevertheless, I did subsequently include one that I thought would be comprehensive enough to cover the entire Synopsis section--both my edits and pre-existing stuff). On the second, I don't believe that I crossed the line between simply paraphrasing (acceptable) and making subjective personal inferences (unacceptable)--but "Wisdom89"--whose user-page suggests he considers himself a pre-eminent authority on the rock band Rush--disagrees and threatened to block me like a common vandal (touchy, touchy--considering he knows nothing about me personally).

Strictly speaking, ANY paraphrasing of a source--putting something "into your own words"--involves making interpretations and inferences; therefore, anything other than verbatim quotations (which I also included in my edits) could be considered "original research" by an overzealous, overprotective editor. IF I crossed the line and made personal deductions that didn't necessarily follow from the lyrical and non-lyrical text (which I DID NOT intend), THEN some of the previous editors must have done so as well--and, since their text apparently wasn't reverted, they got away with it. I simply expanded on what was already there to the extent of providing more detail. I may have been over the top by referring to the song "2112" in the beginning of the article as a mini-rock opera onto itself (that could be considered speculative), and perhaps my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences). But I stand by all of my other edits--as I relied on the exact same sources as previous editors--namely, the CD liner notes. (Should I have mentioned that in my "ref"?) In any case, any change to the overall meaning of the Synopsis section was minor and--in my personal opinion--in the direction of greater accuracy.

I understand that "common sense", in and of itself, is not sufficient rationale for inferences--as what's obvious to one can be counter-intuitive to another, depending on life experience and prejudice, but if what I added was unreasonably speculative--then the article was already that to begin with. (It's like saying that "1 person, then 2 more people, came" can't be paraphrased as "3 people came".) I'd like know more on how I might--might--appeal or arbitrate this (I've already posted my objections on his talk page and the "2112 (song)" talk page). I'm not a sorehead, but I take objection to his assuming vandalism on my part and being so quick to do a blanket revert. I've been an editor for less than 6 months, and edit disputes are an entirely new experience--although I've already created my own article on something, which required me to research not only my subject but your instructions on many things. (You could say I have a fair amount of experience in Wikipedia matters but I'm not an expert yet.) I don't want to get blacklisted for things that were innocent (in intention) even if wrong; and the web site doesn't say a lot about "taking issues upstairs" before you get blocked or banned.

-User:RobertGustafson (talk) October 7, 2011

Good that you came here and that you are keeping a cool head. Take a day or two away from this article. Then read the article through again and see where you think it needs to be improved. Then make a suggestion on the talk page, in a new section, saying what you think needs doing and see if others agree. I saw that the other editor three times reverted you, each time saying they were good faith edits. Now is the time to start a discussion on how to work up this article from sources. Have a look at some featured articles on music to see how they use sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whose edits did he say were good-faith? His (the reversions) or mine (which he reverted)? Is he giving me the benefit of the doubt? Also, how do I provide a detailed description on the talk page of what I think the article should say without using more text than a simple edit on the article would use? You've noticed, no doubt, that when I complain I can be a bit wordy.

Yours. That's what the edit summary means. He used it because he wanted to revert but didn't want to label someone a vandal. When you're ready to go to the talk page, try and make a short proposal of the kind of things you would like to have in the article. Say "I would like to add some ..., what do people think?" Draw a line under the past. A featured article on a song that I found was Smells Like Teen Spirit. If there is so much to say about that song, with references, there should be just as much on 2112. And if you think an editor has been rude to you on a future occasion, a Wikiquette alert is a simple way to get someone else to look at the situation. Happy editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Personally, I've noticed that just about every Wikipedia article contains something that somebody could deem original research. As I said, it's a fine line between paraphrasing and speculating.

Not at all. Have a look at WP:OTHERCRAP. Yes, I see it could be a fine line. There is an art in summarising a source accurately. So it is good if all concerned can assume good faith and discuss the best ways to use sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

...my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences).

—User:RobertGustafson

User:RobertGustafson's statement above is indeed WP:OR. I tend to agree with the substance of it, but it's still his personal commentary until a source can be provided for it. Since this is an article about a song, editors'll probably be relatively liberal with regards to WP:V, but User:Wisdom89 was acting within policy in reverting the additions.—Biosketch (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RobertGustafson (talk):

I have posted on the 2112 (song) talk page my "Proposed New Synopsis", along with another section talking about how I think my proposed version has less OR & synthesis, is more straightforward & less redundant, and how a case for an exception can be made regarding the meaning of "Overture" and "Grand Finale"--in that it would not make sense to explain only some of the song to Wikipedia's fans (my proposed version is careful to qualify that Rush has not officially confirmed my interpretations regarding "Overture" & "Grand Finale", yet "many fans" believe them), that my interpretations are probably widely held (I intend to look for 2ndary sources to back them up, however), and that Rush no doubt has people who'd remove anything they objected to (not that it's their responsibility). I also said that I would wait 7 days for any feedback on my talk page, the 2112 (song) talk page, and Wisdom89's talk page--and that, if I recieved no negative responses, I would paste my proposed changes into the article. I then advised anyone who objects after the fact to discuss it with me on the talk pages (in search of a compromise), and make only surgical edits to fix or remove specific problems, rather than doing blanket reverts and accusations of vandalism.

I also posted what I said on the 2112 (song) talk page to Wisdom89's talk page; he deleted my posts without responding to me. When I re-posted, he accused me of harrasment; I posted a formal apology and advised him to give me feedback on my proposals. I worry, though, that if after 7 days, I get no feedback and make my edit, he'll respond like he has in the past--revert-and-accuse. Are there some Wikipedia editors who are "control freaks" regarding article content? Is Wisdom89 somehow connected with Rush, thereby giving him a "right" to micromanage edits regarding their songs?

• Update: I have found 1 source to back up my assertion that "some listeners" regard "Overture" to mean the rise of the Solar Federation, and 5 sources to back up my assertion that "some listeners" consider "Grand Finale" to be its fall. I am careful to qualify that these interpretations are not officially endorsed by Rush. They are all internet sources, mainly reviews and blog reviews by listeners. I hope this suffices to make them non-OR.

I don't think it's good practice to instant-delete messages left in good faith on editors' Talk pages, so I don't know what's up with that and the harassment accusations. But what's your source for the assertion you're trying to incorporate into the article now? As long as you preserve the source's qualification that it's an interpretation suggested by listeners and don't give it more prominence in the article than what's solidly sourced there, it should be ok. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs.—Biosketch (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Natib Qadish (a 'modern neo-Pagan religion')

Natib Qadish is a modern neo-Pagan religion which may or may not be notable enough for an article. However, this article is mainly about ancient religions, coins, death masks, a black stone in Rome, etc. Am I right in thinking that most of the material should be deleted as original research? Of about 27 sources, less than a handful mention the subject of the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is a doozy of an article. Yes, you're right. It's almost entirely OR and SYNTH. Maybe totally. Anything that is not backed up by an independent reliable source should be deleted as you suggest. I suspect that there will be very little left, which suggests that an AfD might be the next step. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost entirely SYNTH. I'll see if I can find any sources for the Neo-Pagan version. Until then let's strip the entry of the synth material.Griswaldo (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There are really no sources to use so I redirected it to Semitic Neopaganism, but that entry could also use some attention, and/or perhaps be deleted.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Update - Someone objected so it is now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination).Griswaldo (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pierce Brosnan

The following Statement in the article is FALSE and libelous:

"educated in a local school run by the Christian Brothers while serving as an altar boy.[7] Brosnan has expressed contempt for his education by the Christian Brothers. "I grew up being taught by the Christian Brothers, who were dreadful, dreadful human beings. Just the whole hypocrisy. And the cruelness of their ways toward children. They were very sexually repressed. Bitter. Cowards, really. I have nothing good to say about them and will have nothing good to say about them. It was ugly. Very ugly. Dreadful. I learnt nothing from the Christian Brothers except shame."

Pierce Brosnan was not educated by the Irish Christian Brothers, nor did he attend a school run by them!

Please have that statement removed!

There are various sources that say Brosnan was educated by the Christian Brothers and which seem to confirm the general sentiments attributed to him in the article: [5] [6] [7] [8] --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:BLPN#Pierce Brosnan - same complaint.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor should also review our policy against legal threats, and avoid describing a well-referenced quotation as "libelous". We are simply quoting Pierce Brosnan on his education. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Patriarchs (Bible)

Specifically, the section on "Religious significance." This section seems to contain original research of a definite POV nature. Edit Centric ^talk 23:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but the place to start would be the talk page of the article. I would suggest being bold--make some edits, add some sources, and ask for feedback on the talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence in Data Mining

Student essay full of speculation and redundancies. See talk page: Talk:Artificial_Intelligence_in_Data_Mining#Nomination_for_deletion. I can, however, not go on with the nomination for deletion, since only registered users are allowed to do so.

Note that this article is part of a student course assignment: Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Artificial_Intelligence --178.2.61.184 (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi

Continued unsourced additions by Mark Hayesworth [9] to a good article, without explanations or citations. Requesting assistance rather than edit-warring. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This new(?) contributor just seems unwilling to talk, or to stop. I think a block will be the end result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mark_Hayesworth_at_British_Bangladeshi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented there. My experience is that wholesale additions of unsourced content and original research are usually removed, especially from high-quality articles. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning criticism of kosher slaughter in the Criticism of Judaism article

On the talk page of Criticism of Judaism an editor has repeatedly alleged that the section of the article on kosher slaughter is original research. For the entire discussion see:

• Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism#Kosher_slaughter

A majority of editors commenting do not agree that it is original research, and because of this I've repeatedly asked the other editor to start an RfC or a thread here to ask for outside input on the matter if he wants to try to get consensus for his POV. He has not done so, and therefore I am now doing that for him. I'd like this to be settled so that it doesn't come up again and again every week. Any comments, but particularly uninvolved comments, would be greatly appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I just hate all these "Criticism of... religion" articles. I can't see any way to get them to conform with NPOV. I suppose if there is to be an article with this title, then criticism of Kosher slaughter is one thing people would expect to see in it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent about "Criticism of ..." articles even more generally ... not just religion. However, I don't see them disappearing from the project, and IMO the kosher slaughter section of this article is a good example of a fairly neutral presentation of the material. It gives a pretty balanced view of the topic, explicitly covering how such criticisms were at times part of antisemitic canards and how recent research answers the criticisms of animal rights groups. If a "Criticism of ..." article is simply a pile-on of negative commentary then I'm inclined to think it doesn't belong, but when it is more balanced it can be quite informative. The difficulty is keeping them balanced, but I think editors at this entry are trying in good faith to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved, but given that it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record, and, as Griswaldo says, not showing much interest in seeking more productive discussion, I don't see much to be gained by Griswaldo opening this thread, other than seeking reassurance (especially since it will keep coming up even if editors here are clear about it not being OR). I know that Griswaldo doesn't much listen to my advice, but I'll give advice anyway: don't let that one editor get to you so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful to distinguish between the two separate issues going on here. There's one issue, which is whether or not a section on criticism of kosher slaughter belongs in an article on criticism of Judaism. Underlyingly, that's not the issue being disputed at the article. The issue being disputed at the article is whether editors can project onto FAWC a context that FAWC never itself so much as implied. The bottom-line question is Is FAWC being critical of Judaism in its criticism of kosher slaughter? The answer is that to associate FAWC with criticism of Judaism, when what they're criticizing is kosher and halal slaughter, is original research. There's nothing in what FAWC says to indicate that they have an problem with Judaism, and we can't synthesize their criticism of kosher and halal slaughter into an article on criticism of Judaism in a way that mischaracterizes them as criticizing something that in all likelihood don't have any problem with. If FAWC had criticized Judaism, it wouldn't be original research to mention them in the context of the article. But nowhere has FAWC expressed any criticism of Judaism – not the religion, not the people, not Jewish history, not Jewish philosophy. They've criticized one component of Judaism and never articulated their criticism as a criticism of Judaism. It's therefore original research to make an inferential leap from one criticism to another.

Now, is the section on kosher slaughter original research? That depends. Given that it's nowhere been established that FAWC is critical of Judaism, it's pure WP:SYNTH to mention FAWC in the section and attribute things to that organization that they never themselves took a position on. So yes, on some level at least, the section constitutes original research. Ergo, is it just "an editor" repeatedly alleging that the section on kosher slaughter is original research? No, that's again a mischaracterization of the debate taking place on the Dicussion page. There have been issues raised that continue to go unaddressed by the editors arguing for the inclusion of FAWC in the article. And the situation is made worse by the same inclusion-bent editors engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics to isolate one editor they disagree with and pommel him with nasty remarks. Add to that the fact that one of these editors just had to revert an entire section he added to the article because he failed to verify any of the sources in his addition, and there's probably a more serious problem at work here.—Biosketch (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch your argument fails because the view of Judaism you present is incomplete. You suggest that the Farm Animal Welfare Council isn't criticizing "the religion ... the people ... Jewish history ... Jewish philosophy," and therefore it isn't criticizing "Judaism." How is it that you are excluding religious practice and ritual from "the religion," or from your overall picture of "Judaism?" The various practices of the Jewish ritual tradition are at the core of Judaism as a religion, and the Jewish way of life more generally. To claim that a traditional Jewish practice, which is proscribed in religious texts, isn't part of the religion is beyond my comprehension. Reliable sources also show that Jewish groups feel that the FAWC is being critical of their religion, because they consider the practice an essential part of that religion. This has all been explained with sourcing on the talk page. In the end, please also recognize that the FAWC material is about 1/4 of the entire section, so when editors like Jayjg call the entire section OR, we're dealing with much more than just this issue, which you have oddly twisted the debate into only addressing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Jayjg actually argues that the entire section is original research. That is why I posted this. Biosketch's reply does not address the scope of Jay's disagreement which is, again, why I posted this. I'll respond to Biosketch as well, but contrary to what Biosketch says, there are indeed editors arguing that the entire section is OR and it isn't a "tactic" to engage those editors on their actual arguments. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, and in the future, don't make straw man arguments or "clarifications" on my behalf. See my more complete response below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's what User:Jayjg argues or not. There's a general problem of people misrepresenting or misconstruing one another's arguments. From my perspective it isn't so much that the section is original research but rather that it's WP:SYNTHESIS to force FAWC into an article on criticism of Judaism when they never expressed any criticism of Judaism. WP:SYN is a section of WP:OR; so yes, at least on some level the section constitutes original research.—Biosketch (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this is your opinion, now can you please address the actual argument I made to you above about the scope of Judaism. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times is it necessary to tell you: FAWC nowhere expressed any criticism of Judaism. We have no information from them directly that they have any problem at all with Judaism. They've taken issue with kosher and halal slaughter. Does that mean they have a problem with Judaism and Islam? It assuredly doesn't. If you want to attribute to them an attitude that's critical of Judaism, you need a source – from FAWC or from a reliable news source – where FAWC's criticism is directed at Judaism. They've made no indication that they have a problem with Judaism, hence you cannot characterize them as attacking Judaism. Characterizing FAWC as having criticized Judaism when they never articulated any criticism of Judaism is pure OR.—Biosketch (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I've deleted FAWC from the page, although I don't know whether I'll be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, despite Trytofish's claim that "it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record", there are actually several people who have objected to this section on OR grounds, including the editor who placed the tag on the section in the first place (and that wasn't me, I might add). Second, I'd appreciate it if editors here would not make straw man arguments in my name - particularly if they don't have the decency to tell me about this discussion or their presentations in my name.
My consistent point has been that the sources in this section have not stated that they are criticising Judaism; on the contrary, as I've pointed out, they would likely vociferously deny this accusation - pretty much the point Biosketch makes in his comment of 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC) directly above. In fact, they are criticising shechita, a practice observed or demanded by a small number of Jews and not considered mandatory by many Jewish religious movements. In fact, these critics are often merely insisting that animals be anesthetized before shechita is done. This is a problem with all the sources used in the section; none of them say (or even imply) they are criticising Judaism per se. When challenged, the editors who insist on using these sources bring various other statements from the sources which neither state nor imply a criticism of Judaism itself, and then say that what the sources really mean is that they are criticising Judaism, despite not actually saying so. This is, of course, Original Research.
I have no objection to criticism of shechita in the shechita article. Nor would I have any objection to this section in the Criticism of Judaism article if the sources actually said something like "one of the problems with Judaism is that it demands shechita". Neither, however, is the case here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly

There is a minor disagreement over at Talk:OPERA_neutrino_anomaly#Corrections_in_GPS over whether it is acceptable to include a generic statement that GPS corrects for relativistic effects, even though no reliable source has made such a statement in relation to the subject of the article. My position is that including the generic statement gives an unverifiable impression that the statement is relevant for the subject matter.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Boxford, Massachusetts

Section on points of interest is becoming a site of contention, beginning with an attempt to link to a business whose importance I've questioned. Link has been restored, along with much original research, no sources. Taking here rather than edit warring. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a better place to start would be on the talk page of the article. Has there been discussion of this somewhere other than edit summaries? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps; I think this is primarily an effort by several accounts to slide Ponix Laboratories into Wikipedia, and I'm asking for a broader overview. This edit summary [10], accompanied by an unacceptable reference, kind of makes my point. Aside from Ponix the larger issue now being broached is whether local notability, unsupported by any sources, is enough to justify content that's essentially chamber of commerce text and/or spamming, and appears to be mostly, if not all, original research. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(Same user as above, new IP) Given that this appears more and more to be about the laboratory getting its name into the encyclopedia, in one article or another, and that three separate registered users are acting as WP:SPA accounts, this may be more appropriate to discuss at a different noticeboard. Comments or bold move elsewhere welcome. 99.178.163.46 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think initiating discussion on the talk page would be a good idea, esp. if we are to assume good faith. I do see your point, but let's see how it goes. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nuujinn. I've initiated discussion at the Boxford talk page, Ponix talk page, and at the talk pages of several users. My take is that the defense of the 'Points of interest' section isn't the real agenda here. 99.178.163.46 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Great American streetcar scandal

The article Great American streetcar scandal is badly compromised by synthesis and original research, starting with the name. First of all, there are no sources that use this name. It is used by Wikipedia editors to refer to an alleged conspiracy that every reliable source presented so far agrees did not happen--that GM purposefully destroyed the streetcar system in the United States. It is true that they were found guilty of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. But that is all. The hyperbolic and fanciful title is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia to invent.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The conspiracy did happen. There was a court case which decided against the conspirators, fining them $1. The tiny fine showed how the court determined there were many other social and economic factors working against the light rail line operators.

Regarding the problem with original research, I thought most of the article was based on the 1995 book by Bradford Snell: The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit. Have you read it? Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, GM was found guilty only of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. That is a tangential issue to what the article is purportedly about. As far the book you mention goes, I can find no trace of it. It certainly doesn't seem to have been published by a reputable publisher, and it is not cited in the article. However, it is indeed clear that the article is principally based on Snell's allegations, made in other contexts, which are ultimately dismissed as unfounded by every reliable source the article does cite, including the detailed assessment in Urban Affairs Quarterly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit is cited in the bibliography, not via inline refs. The work was published by the New Electric Railway Journal. Here are three scholarly papers that cite it. Here's another, a paper cited in turn by others. Here's another, one in which Snell is quoted saying that he thinks that in 1922 GM decided specifically to kill the streetcars. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Call for a constitutional convention in Occupy Wall Street?

Should the following paragraph be added to Occupy Wall Street and summarized in its intro?

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, and others.

This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention. I do not understand why people are trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Dan Froomkin[11] and Peter M. Shane[12], both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC and on the Rachel Maddow show. (I am asking here because the only uninvolved party who responded where I first asked on RSN suggested ORN would be more appropriate.) Dualus (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, neither of those sources reports that. And Lessig wrote the book and planned his conference before OWS even existed.

As I and other editors have mentioned at the duplicate discussion over at RS/N, as well as other discussions in which your contentions (that OWS was somehow responsible for Lessig's book and conference, or that Lessig collaborating with a Tea Party leader somehow means that OWS was collaborating with the Tea Party) were rejected by numerous other editors, such as this discussion, and this one, and this one, you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the nature of the connection between OWS and Lessig. Even if, for example, Lessig publishes a book tomorrow entitled I am OWS — And So Can You!, that will still not mean that his conference, co-chaired with a Tea Party leader, is an instance of "OWS collaborating with the Tea Party". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The one uninvolved respondent at RSN asked that it be discussed here at ORN. Here are several more sources on the question. Dualus (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Lessig has nothing to do with the OWS movement, nor has he (as far as I know) commented upon it, I do have to wonder why an article on the Occupy Wall Street movement is discussing Lessig in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He has repeatedly commented on it, e.g., [13], [14], [15], [16], and here he is speaking at it. Dualus (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and looking deeper, I stand more than corrected). But I still have to wonder why we mention him in the article in the first place. The purpose of the article should be to explain what the OSW movement is/was for future generations. How does mentioning Lessig further that goal? Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He's saying that there's no way the protesters can get what they want without a constitutional amendment, and he's trying to help them get one. Dualus (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What he is saying they should do is entirely different that what the protesters are actually doing. It is synthesis of material to take Lessig's opinion with the sources you have to imply that a constitutional convention has any meaningful aspect within OWS. Do you see the difference? Arzel (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The 99 Percent Declaration includes a call for a constitutional convention. Dualus (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand the concept of reliable sourcing. Arzel (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a news story saying that is the first official document from the New York City General Assembly. Dualus (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... I can see where Lessig himself has stated that, in his opinion, the protesters won't get what they want without a constitutional amendment... what I don't see is a statement from Lessig himself saying that he is trying to get them one. Do we have such a statement? If not, then someone else is interpreting Lessing's comments that way. If that someone else is a wikipedia editor, then we have a case of Original research. If not, we have to ask further questions... Is that someone else a reliable source? How much weight should we give that person's interpretation? At a minimum we would need to attribute the interpretation to the person who makes it - we need to say who believes that Lessig is trying to the OWS movement a constitutional amendment. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Lessig says, "That system for us is a representative democracy, cabined by a constitution that both limits the power of government and checks the power of one branch against the others. It is the rules of the game. The terms upon which competition happens. Sometimes those rules don't work. Or they don't work anymore. Sometimes they defeat the objectives of not just one side in a competition, but all sides. And when that happens, all sides need to stop the competition for a moment and fix the rules."[17] and [18] has a copy of his draft amendment. Dualus (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, though, Lessig had this idea, and was writing his book, and planning his conference, all before OWS came a long. He would have done this even if OWS had never come along. He's a progressive professor on Constitutional Law; this is his gig. As I said before, making proposals that are very appealing to OWS is very different to doing the same thing for or on behalf of OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone should probably ask Lessig whether he subscribes to Adbusters or is on their email list. I'm sure he knows people who do and are. Dualus (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Centrify's comment is apt here... there is a difference between calling for a constitutional convention and amendments, and calling for them specifically on behalf of the OWS movement. We need a source that directly links OWS to Lessing's calls for an amendment. Otherwise the connection, while perhaps quite logical, is a synthesis that we (ie Wikipedia editors) are making. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive‎‎

• Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the end of World War II, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society was renamed as the Max Planck Society, and the institutes associated with the Kaiser Wilhelm Society were renamed as "Max Planck" institutes. The records that were archived under the former Kaiser Wilhelm Society and its institutes were placed in the Max Planck Society Archives. What happened to the records in this archive?

Research materials related to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, including personell, photographs, etc. are very difficult to come by. Indeed, information, including photographs of now-deceased researchers, are effectively "classified" (unavailable). This article illuminates why these research materials are difficult to access.

...

What does the above discussion -- true or not -- have to do with difficulty in accessing materials at the Max Planck Society Archive? Let us examine the following. Any normal, thoughtful person has thought processes that can travel back and forth in time. Suppose one wanted to censor the history of National Socialism in Germany during the Third Reich. One might then think 'What ideas prior to the Third Reich should be censored in turn?' One might find a precedent to the actions of Facism in what transpired in German Southwest Africa. This in turn might imply a necessity to censor the ways in which German Southwest Africa led to ideas during the Third Reich. Thus, finally, the realization in the present time, that aspects of the history of German Southwest Africa must be censored, in order to censor the origins of Nazi racism. Not only does this require thought (as a function of time), but also the 'dialectic' of moving back and forth in time. A use of Temporal (or Chronological) Modal logic.

The underlined bit seems to sum-up the problem. Is anything salvageable? So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that ArtifexMayhem has a problem with the way the article is introduced. I suggest s/he take a stab at fixing the introduction so that it makes more sense, or -- even better -- ask some questions. If ArtifexMayhem doesn't feel qualified to fix it because s/he can't follow the article, that's possibly due to a lack of clarity in the article's writing, a problem with the way the article develops its argument (structure), or possibly a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.

Now: Is the material worthwhile? Hmmm. Is it worthwhile to note when historians meet with great difficulty due to censoring or obscuring of the historical record, on the part of the people who were key figures in that history? ArtifexMayhem's user page portrays him/her as a skeptic; therefore, he/she already knows the answer to that one.

Anyway, "baby seal", stand by. I'm going to be doing some editing of the article's language in the next few days. Maybe if you check back you'll find the article easier to comprehend.

Excelsior,Virago250 (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

James, son of Alphaeus

I believe that these edits are basically original research. Starting from the top, a citation request for " there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers" was replaced by references to biblical passages, which is OR. The next paragraph, 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' again has no sources other than the Bible, which is true of the paragraph after that. The next para is also headed 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' and is again sourced to the Bible, but also has 2 references to The Good News Bible Revised Edition 1994 but with no page numbers or quotes. Following that we have another paragraph called 'Ambiguous James' entirely sourced to the Bible. And finally the section 'Tradition' has unsourced text saying " we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother." and two sources which supposedly back the statement "Robert Eisenman <ref"James brother of Jesus" Robert Eisenman</ref> and The New Advent online Catholic Encylopeida Catholic Encyclopedia: James son of Zebedee both suggest that the death of James in Acts 12:1-2 is James, son of Zebedee and not James son of Alphaeus." I can't find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I may of course have missed it) and I will ask the editor to provide a quote from each backing the claim. See also James son of Alphaeus Biblical Criticism by this editor, prodded as OR by one editor with the prod endorsed by another, who added WP:SOAP and WP:FORK as reasons for the prod. Bunofsteel (talk · contribs) has accepted the prod but is still confused about our policy of OR. Hopefully once he understands he will become a good contributor. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that we are starting to get somewhere now. What I have been accused of by others is the synthesis argument. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Lets apply this to the first part of the Possible brother of James. Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (reliable source says A). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (reliable source says B), which has led some[who?] to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (implied conclusion C not explicitly stated by any of the sources). "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Therefore the citatation is required at this stage.

I then put in the biblical references to try to defeat this unreferenced synthesis argument. The biblical references in some ways backs up the statement which I might add that I didn't write but I agree aren't ideal. I would simply delete this whole section.

I'm unaware that if you use only the bible then that is not ok in a paragraph. You will have to find that in the rules for me. Taking passages from a the bible to alert the reader to aspects of the story is not original research because I'm not trying to interpret the story. However, the facts when laid out does challenge the reader to think more deeply about James.

Matthew is not referred to as Mattew son of Alphaeus. I wasn't quite sure what to do there as far as quoting it. I'm thinking that when I get around to it I will find everytime that Matthew is mentioned in the bible and quote that. I will fix this up in the next few days.

My good news bible also idicates which stories are paralled in other books in the bible. It does this by placing the biblical references at the top of each story so that you can read the different accounts. I'm not 100% sure how to quote this properly.

Acts 12:1-2 which I strongly believe refers to James son of Zebedee. I admit that I was being lazy with my James brother of Jesus reference but with good reason. I deleted Acts 12:1-2 and stated the reason why in the talk page but it was reinstalled with no explanation. Given that I believe that whomever wrote that in made a mistake I felt compelled to write an argument contradicting as a tempory measure until this line gets deleted. The plan is to delete my section from the tradition section once the original incorrect line has been removed. Also you will find James son of Zebedee's death here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm

Citing the bible to support a statement as to what is (or is not) contained in the bible is not OR. It is an acceptable use of a primary source. That said, it is important to remember that there are multiple translations of the bible, and they are not the same. A word or phrase may appear in one translation and not in another (just a general comment... not one directed at this specific issue). Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Bible to show what is not in the Bible is, I think, generally considered OR (what else could it be if it's not sourced?), as is counting the number of times something is mentioned, eg Matthew - we are not reliable sources for something like this, are you saying we are? Are you saying that "we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother" is a statement we can make on the basis of our own reading of the Bible? Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely OK to cite the bible for a statement as to what is or is not contained in the text of the bible... the statement "The King James version of the Bible does not contain the word 'fluoride'," can be reliably cited to the King James version of bible. On its own, the statement and citation are not OR...

However, context matters, and if we change the context it can be OR... for example... if an article states "Biblical scholar, Ima Expert, believes that Christ's parable of the aardvarks refers to the necessity of using fluoride in one's toothpaste <cite to Ima Expert>" it would be OR to counter this with "however, the Bible does not contain the word 'fluoride' <cite bible>" The reason it is OR is that we are setting up an implied conclusion - "Ima's view is wrong". A primary source should not be used to reach a conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen numerous sitatuions in which people have been told that they cannot make claims about what is not mentioned in a book in order to construct an argument. Are you saying that they were wrong or is that what you are describing as OR (I think it is, but would like it confirmed)? You haven't commented on counting the number of times X is mentioned, I've also seen that described as OR. Have you read the passages in question? Because it looks to me as though the editor has been building an argument based on his own research on what the Bible doesn't say, and you agree that that is OR. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

men's rights

Men's rights could really use some people with experience applying the original research guidelines. There are many potential OR/synth issues in the article, including some that haven't yet been discussed on the talk page yet. This talk page section is one where I would especially appreciate outside opinions, but the talk page needs more NOR-experienced contributors in general.

(Also: this article is currently under probation, the terms of which can be viewed here.) Kevin (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes

What do traffic jams, weather, a pony cart, a murder, President Bush, an electric heater, gilded breasts, a baseball field, Afghanistan, hormones, and the Lebanese Civil War have in common? They are all included in a coatrack article titled Golden Domes, which was recently put up for GA review.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize sources, but this article is more like journalism: it takes bits and pieces of information -- which are largely passing mentions in articles on related topics -- and weaves them into a 4,000-word article. There is no single source that includes this information, and as far as I know, there is no third-party source that focuses solely on the subject of the Golden Domes. My question is whether this sort of journalistic approach to writing Wikipedia articles is acceptable or original research. --BwB (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

First, this seems like a bad faith posting since the OP didn't place a notification on the article talk page and he didn't notify me, the principle editor, either.

Every source mentions the Golden Domes, and every incident in the article directly concerns the domes. The OP seems to be suggesting that articles are limited to including topics all of which have been included in a single source. I doubt there are any featured articles which meet that standard.

I don't see any part of WP:OR which this article could be considered to violate. Nor does it violate the WP:COATRACK essay since all of it is about the Golden Domes, and the incidents and phenomenon which have occurred there. None of it is about tangentially related biased content.

If this were an article about a theater or a stadium, it would likewise be natural to describe various important or unusual events, even if the sources about those events were not primarily about the venue.

As for the specific incidents listed by the OP, the answers are obvious in the text. Is it really a coatrack to say that one of the domes is located on the site of a former baseball field? Is it a coatrack to quote descriptions of the domes? Is it a coatrack to describe a notable event which occurred at one of the domes? I get the feeling that the OP does not understand either the policy or the essay to which he is referring.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This accusation won't have come as a surprise to you because "coatracking" was raised on the day after you created the article. And the GA reviewer called it "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM. Since the article is about buildings it should contain the info about the buildings. Yes, you can briefly mention things that regularly happen or have happened in the buildings. But also, the article should stick to the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Teardrop tattoo

Could use a second set of eyes on this one. A stubborn but good faithed editor is insistent on adding his own interpretation of this tattoo. The sources simply don't back it up, nor are they reliable, but it's all we got so far. -- œ^™ 13:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)