Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis.

The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to WT:NOR.

Please post new topics in a new section. When a thread is closed, you can tag it with {{resolved}}.

Factual accuracy of The Great Escape

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

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

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

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

Huh? How is that any different than —

NOVEL	FILM
Edward has red hair.	Edward has blond hair.
Maggie is 43 years of age.	Maggie is 37 years of age.

That is clearly Synthesis, just as clearly as —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for USS Texas (BB-35)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

question on original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The revver.com source [1] does not discuss the belt designs at all. The Youtube source [2] shows a belt being presented, but doesn't discuss the design, or previous belts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing for Alexa traffic rankings column

Is primary sourcing OK for Alexa traffic rankings? Please see

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

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

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

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

Wiki farm	Alexa rank (lower is better)	Cost?	Ad?	Content license
@wiki	96,000 as of June 4, 2009.	Free	Yes
BrainKeeper	630,000 as of June 4, 2009.	Non-free Nonfree	?
BusinessWiki	550,000 as of June 4, 2009.	Free (3 users) / Paid (14 days trial)	No	GPL
Central Desktop	21,000 as of June 4, 2009.	Non-free Nonfree	?
Wiki farm	Alexa. Approximative rank according to Alexa Internet. Click on the rank to get the last figures.	Cost?	Ad?	Content license

I believe these are the relevant guidelines:

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

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

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

Genetically modified food controversies

An editor recently added diff this statement to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contested SYNTH claim at EAAN talk

Hi,

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

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

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

I commented on the above that;

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

To which the response;

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

To which my response;

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

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

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

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

Cyrus cylinder

I'm currently trying to deal with an apparent bid to introduce OR into Cyrus cylinder. There have been claims by various people that the Cyrus cylinder was "the world's first declaration of human rights." According to a 1999 book by Professor Josef Wiesehöfer, this claim can be traced back to a work published by the late Shah of Iran in 1967 that has since been taken up by various Iranian nationalists. An (apparently Iranian) editor, Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs), disagrees; he has found a snippet on Google Books from the Christian Science Journal of 1911 which makes a similar argument (see [3]). On this basis, Nepaheshgar argues that the CSJ snippet should be included as, presumably, a refutation of Wiesehöfer's book. This seems to me to be rather obvious original research; it appears to be intended to make an argument - i.e. "Wiesehöfer is wrong" - that is not stated by the source (which was published 40 years before Wiesehöfer was even born!). I'd be interested to know what other editors think. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim is simple. Wiesehofer claims that "charter of human rights" characterization was first done by Pahlavids: "It was first put forward in a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran, by the then Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ". There is a book that shows in 1911 [4], the Cyrus Cylinder was seen as ideals of modern human rights. After I pointed out this 1911 source, some user deleted the crucial part: "It was first put forward in a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran, by the then Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ". I do not care if the Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights or not (clearly an anachronism actually), but what I do care about is that before 1967, there is a 1911 source that charaterizes it as ""All of their people I gather and restore their dwelling places". This statement would seem to indicate a fixed national policy, and strenghten the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle". " I do not care if the 1911 source is correct or not in terms of the actual nature of the cylinder, but from the viewpoint of "as a charter of human right", the source should be included in the body of the text as an early 1911 charaterization of the Cyrus Cylinder. This indirectly contradicts Wiesehofer's claim that such characterizations of the Cylinder: "It was first put forward in a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran". So I have no problem with stating what Wiesehofer says, but I also want to include this 1911 source for its chronological important. Obviously the source provides a counterexample to Wiesehofer's statement, but that is not my fault that it does so. I do also like to point out again that a user out of no where came and deleted the crucial word "first" [5] used by Wiesehofer in order so that this apparent contradiction with the 1911 does not cause a problem. I am open to suggestion on this from any netural not involved user. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with your suggestion. The whole book is here and you can judge the context [6](see pg 283)--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Mary Baker Eddy which you have mentioned? You say: "Mary baker Eddy isn't a good source"? Actually, the source is not Mary baker Eddy. It is Richard P. Verral and the article is titled "Cyrus King of Persia. He is a scholar from 1911. And the section is not about ancient history, but characterization of the Cylinder as doing something with "Human rights". [7](see pg 283). All I am suggesting is that the article states R. P. Verral in the article "Cyrus King of Persia"(reference) in 1911 states: "Blahblah..."(one sentence). Thats it. There is no OR, Synthesis, or etc. But it fits in the section "As a human rights charters" and even if the author is incorrect, there is no reason to suppress his statement. I apologize for any comments that seem bad faith, but we should allows non-involved people to comment and resolve this. Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have a great deal of respect for SlimVirgin, and her opinion. But ChrisO left a message on SlimVirgin's talkpage [8],which I have no objection, since she wasn't involved in that article. But he also left a similar message on 3 involved editors, who have taken his side on this article, asking them to comment. I think it's better to allow comments from editors who were were not involved in the article. [9][10][11] I rather have people that were not left such messages and actually were not involved in the article. As you said though, it is important to follow policy, not what we think is a good or bad idea (I personally think it is good idea simply because there is no reason to suppress something). The issue is not about ancient history (which Wiesehofer knows more about). The issue is about "Characterization of Human rights Charters". I am not saying "it refutes Wiesehofer" or adding any of my own words. I am just quoting a historian from 1911 who sees concepts of human rights in the cylinder. It is very valid for that section because that section is not about history itself (to make the source obsolete), but rather about viewpoint on the Cylinder and its relation to human rights. There is no Wikipedia policy disallowing me to quote the source, as long as I do not add any of my own words or intrepretation. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, I'd like to point out that we know absolutely nothing about who wrote the CSJ article. I've not found any other information about "Richard P. Verral" - assuming it's the name of a real person and not a pen name. He is mentioned again briefly in a 1947 edition of the Christian Science Sentinel, apparently as a speaker at some event.[12] He appears to have no published books or academic works. The CSJ piece in question does not appear to have been cited by any other sources. Do we have any reason to suppose that he is in any way a significant viewpoint? Quite apart from the problem with original research, I think it would be undue weight to use a 98-year-old source by an essentially unknown author which does not appear to have been picked up by any other sources. There's no indication that Verrel's viewpoint is in any way representative of or has influenced any wider body of opinion about the meaning of the Cyrus cylinder. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Uganda, Acholi, and 64.252.184.216

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

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

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

Genetically modified food controversies

• WLRoss (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herodotus

• Haiduc (talk · contribs)

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

Is this original research

Is "will air alongside Samurai Sentai Shinkenger in TV Asahi's Super Hero Time programming block" in the Kamen Rider Double article original research? I think it is original research and Ryulong thinks its not original research. (see me talk page) What do you think is it original research or not? Powergate92Talk 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

God damn it, Powergate.

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

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

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

There is no reliable source that says Kamen Rider Double will be part of Super Hero Time programming block so that is original research as WP:No original research says "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research" and you don't know if the block will still be on by then. Powergate92Talk 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Living with Michael Jackson

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

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

Resolution 2758 and the status of Taiwan

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

Category names and definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaRouche on Gays and AIDS

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

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

Here is the proposed text:

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

FYI, there is also a widely reported incident[13] in which a representative verbally harassed Henry Kissinger with a sexual allegation at an airport, resulting in an altercation with his wife. The follower pressed charges, and it went to trial, but the Nancy Kissinger was found not guilty. That material is problably relevant too and might be added. The draft already has several sources that explicitly say LaRouche himself has a history of attacking gays and of attacking opponents with charges of homosexuality. Also, this matter was first raised at WP:RSN#The Times of London when an editor said the reporting may be incorrect, but that was withdrawn. The editor said the larger issue was WP:NOR, so this is moving here. The question is: does this summary violate WP:SYNTH?   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The original theory is implicit in the composition of Will's proposed re-write of the section ([14]): that the actual motivation for the California AIDS initiatives was not public health concerns, as in LaRouche's published statements, but rather a hidden agenda of homophobia. Also, this edit ([15]) from yesterday serves no purpose other than to create a pretext for the introduction of this material to the article. In response to SlimVirgin, the Wikipedia article in question is about LaRouche's views, so the fact that a newspaper article mentions LaRouche's name does not automatically make it relevant to the Wikipedia article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia?

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

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

{crickets}

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

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

Thanks, Seth. Excellent primary sources (and a lot of links further down on Larry's list are 2ndary sources)? However, are there also 2ndary sources that contradict those? as, we must aspire to the best balance possible among these competing, reasonable viewpoints, of course. (Quote from Sanger's memoir wrt his help founding Wikipedia: "Neutrality, we agreed, required that articles should not represent any one point of view on controversial subjects, but instead fairly represent all sides."[16]) ↜Just M E here , now 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bartender gives me an OE800.

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

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

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

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

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

A new word?

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

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

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

Kind regards /Freddie

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

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

/Freddie

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

George Trenholm biography

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

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

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

The references given are:

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

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

Discussion here: Talk:George_Trenholm

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

Tennis grand slams and the French championships

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

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

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

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

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

Delmonico's restaurant

A dispute exists regarding the following text:

It is not uncommon for profiles in media reports to confuse the present incarnation [of Delmonico's] for the original; for instance Time Out New York magazine erroneously reported that it opened in 1831, and ABC News reported that Lobster a la Newberg was invented at the South Williams location when it fact it was invented uptown.

It is agreed that the facts cited are indeed wrong. The disagreement centers around whether citing them as such to substantiate the claim that "it is not uncommon for profiles in media reports to confuse the present incarnation [of Delmonico's] for the original" constitutes synthesis/original research. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm the other party in this dispute (over on the talk page), and basically what I was saying is that it's synthesis to source the reviews and draw a conclusion about them that's not directly stated. To come to the conclusion stated in the quotation, a reliable source that says something to the effect of "reviews made by Time Out and ABC News are inaccurate." A third opinion was given in this case and agreed that it was synthesis. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and my contention is that for a synthesis to exist, under the guidelines it must be shown that the author is attempting to "advance a position" that might reasonably be contested by others, which is not the case here. It entirely permissible to make an observation about the material cited that is uncontroversial and verifiably true.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to a note by the other party in WikiProject Food and Drink: While Sylvain1972 is correct, and could probably say that about a lot of other revived restaurants, I think policy plainly requires that a reliable source make this statement and not a Wikipedia editor. The "position" he/she is advancing is that reviewers often are wrong on a key fact concerning this restaurant. That is undoubtedly true, but the policy does not say "advance a wrong position." Truth and falsity are frequently in dispute. I think it is an open-and-shut case of synthesis. I've removed the passage, but request that other editors keep an eye on this article and this passage. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Truth and falsity are not in dispute here at all, synthesis is. If a X magazine states, "Michael Jackson was born in 1960," it is perfectly permissible for a wikipedia article to say "X magazine erroneously reported Michael Jackson was born in 1960." The editor does not need to get a third source to state that. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. From WP:SYN:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "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.

What you're doing in the text is essentially stating that (A), "Delmonico's opened in 1827", (B), "Time Out says Delmonico's opened in 1831," and therefore (C), "Time Out is wrong." And you can't do that without a third source to state C. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to include a statement saying that "X is incorrect" in an article, you do need a source for that statement. Otherwise, how do we know that X magazine is incorrect? The only way to demonstrate that fact is to provide a source for it.

Now, if we are talking about talk page discussions, we are allowed to venture into OR (within reason). If we are discussing a source on the talk page, we can say things like: "no, no, no... Source X is wrong... look at what sources Y and Z say... they have it right". Then we can try to determine how to account for the discrepancy in the article.

When sources disagree, we have several options... In most cases, the best is to mention what both say, per WP:NPOV, by saying something like: "According to X, Delmonico's first opened in 1827, while according to Y it opened in 1831. " Another option (assuming there is clear consensus that one source definitely is incorrect, and everyone on the talk page agrees) is to simply ignore the incorrect source, and rely on what all the other sources say. But what we should never do is say "X is incorrect" unless we have a source that specifically points out this fact about X. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, there are sources in the article confirming that X is incorrect. No one is disputing that X is incorrect.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "confirming that X is incorrect"? Do they actually say "X is incorrect"? If so then it is ok for us to say so. If they simply give a different date, then it is ok for us to assume that X is incorrect on the talk page, but it is not ok for us to explicitly say so in the article (as saying so would insert our own analysis into the article).

It sounds like you are dealing with a reliability issue and not a NOR issue. If it is clear that one source contains an error, such as disagreeing with all others as to something like a date, it is ok to simply assume that there is a typo in the odd man out. We can reach a consensus and determine that the odd man out is unreliable on this one date (it can still be reliable for other information). For the date, we can rely on the other sources and simply ignore the source with the erronious date. There is no need to explicitly point out the error in the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think that pointing out the error in the article would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As the first outside observer who commented that this is a synthesis and should not be included, I also agree with the independent commentators here. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the two supposedly "independent" commentators to which you refer indicates that he was recruited to join the discussion in WikiProject Food and Drink, but nonetheless I consider the matter closed for the time being.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dahon

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