Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Leonard Cohen biography

Resolved

 – Article is correct. User appears to have misread 2009 for 2010. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Final concert" in the 2010 North American tour was not held in San jose. It was a two night presentation at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas on Dec. 10 & 11, 2010 (I was in attendance). The San Jose concert was held on Dec. 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.2.243 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Honda D engine

Resolved

 – Page was protected on March 17th. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

i get lost in this maze of administration pages, this one is the closest i've located for my concern: it looks like i've become instantly unpopular after a major clean-up of the said article, starting here, along with a comment posted in its talk page at Talk:Honda_D_engine#Major_clean-up (and, as a bonus, this one). My reason for posting here is that i feel that the page is not monitored closely, so i am calling to its attention, if anyone cares and has the time. Thanks in advance for any assistance. I wonder whether the page should be semi-protected. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Spector & Associates

Resolved

 – Article was nominated for deletion on March 16. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spector & Associates please visit the page... It should be removed no info ? Jonathangluck (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

List of the biggest selling R&B/Hip Hop albums of all time in the United States

I came across this page today and want to know if it is OK, it looks like it could be a verbatim copy of the "Recording Industry Association of America.", however I can't find any source for the material. Mtking (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This query is in regards to List of the biggest selling R&B/Hip Hop albums of all time in the United States. This list curently lacks references. The page history shows it was prodded in 2007, but removed by Crypticfirefly (talk · contribs).[1] Contributions show user as currently active; I will make contact and invite the user to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a blast from the past. Back in 2007 it was proposed for deletion on the grounds of being "indescriminate" (sic). I disagreed. If, on the other hand, the info can't be verified, that's a different problem. Has anyone tried to find references for this? I'm afraid I don't have time to be terribly active regarding such things these days. Crypticfirefly (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Conducting surveys or a tally on Wikipedia

A user on the Bigfoot discussion page has suggested we create a tally intended to have scientists list their names on either a "for" or "against" list regarding the possiblilty of Bigfoot's existence. The user intends to show that the majority viewpoint of the scientific community is actually in favor of the possibility that Bigfoot is real. I have informed the user that such a survey or tally would probably be a gross violation of WP policy, but I have had no luck in finding anything specifically addressing the issue. Would this violate WP:OR as well as any other policies? If so, could someone cite the relevant text? Thanks Racerx11 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is just silly and not worth taking time discussing. There are umpteen websites that the user could use - Facebook for example - and they could just go ahead and do it. But who's going to check the "scientists'" identities and credentials? At the end, the results won't be usable on Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course the whole thing is silly, but is the answer to my question; there is, or there is not specific language in WP policies that forbid creating such a survey or tally on a Wikipedia page? In other words, what prevents someone from using Wikipedia to solicit opinions for the purposes of their own research? Racerx11 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proofreading

Over the past year or so I have greatly expanded the Proofreading article. It is now based entirely on my own experience over many years and as such it is original research. I deliberately wrote it in a polemical vein in hopes that it would generate a good discussion-level and be a rallying point among proofreaders everywhere. But nothing of the sort happened. Although it has respectable page view stats, the article has generated almost no discussion in general and none whatever about my expansion of it, and few even accesses that page at all. And the article remains unrated. I suspect that its actual readership is nill because most viewers are looking for practical tools and advice for their own projects. I doubt if they are on the page for more than a few seconds.

Lately editor Ckatz has begun to delete the sections I wrote on the grounds of original research, and adding various template messages (there are now three). To my knowledge he is the only other regular follower of the article except myself. Since virtually the entire article is original research, I propose that either it be reduced to a stub (which is what it would be minus my contributions) or all his deletions be reverted; or 2) the entire article be reduced to a stub and my past contributions be legitimized in the form of an external link to a copy of my contributions that I created on Google's Knol website; or 3) the article be reduced to a stub and left that way with no such link. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing to stop you taking any of those three routes; you don't need approval from this noticeboard (though it might be a good idea to raise your points on the article's Talk page). But it strikes me that the best solution all round, which would mean your work was not wasted while answering Ckatz's concerns, would be to start adding references. I'll also mention WP:OWN, merely because someone else is bound to if I don't! Barnabypage (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, but there are no references for me to add -- that's the problem. Also I raised the issue here because I doubt anyone (other than Ckatz) would see it if I posted it on the discussion page. BruceSwanson (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of books on proofreading and I imagine professional journals or newsletters too; do none of them make any of the points you made? Barnabypage (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is that I engage in legitimate research for free. True, I could get a smattering of references from various legitimate-seeming sources, but what a thankless task. The books are unreadable, dishonest, and beyond the bare fundamentals of little practical value. It simply wouldn't be any fun going through them -- never mind citing them -- and after I was done no one would thank me for it.

The important question here is: does anyone actually read the article? If you look at the stats for Paul McCartney and then look at the stats for his discussion page, you realize that by comparison very few people ever look at it or comment on it.

Based on that extreme example, we might make an assumption that the proofreading article is in fact being read every day in spite of its lack of discussion activity. Taking that readership and the lack of discussion as a measure of acceptance, we might actually re-frame this evaluation onto the three template-messages at the top of the article. If the goal is to remove them, then the article itself must be changed based on their principles. As a practical matter that means reducing the article to a stub, if only for the moment. On the other hand, if the messages can be left in place, why should Ckatz or any other single editor delete on their whim sections from the article that exemplify those messages? It makes no sense. Either enforce the messages and then remove them by changing the article, or leave them and the article in place. Right? BruceSwanson (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

re..."What you're suggesting is that I engage in legitimate research for free"... um... YES... that is exactly what we are suggesting ... that is what editing Wikipedia is. If you don't want to do legitimate research for free, you should not edit Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the research would be fruitless. BruceSwanson (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if it resulted in a better article? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would readers be best served by deleting my original research, leaving only a stub (with or without an external link) until someone (feel free to volunteer) performs the drudgery of expanding it from published sources? Or would they be better served by ignoring the original research rule, leaving the template messages intact, and reverting Ckatz's deletions?

Our readers would be best served by having an article that was grounded in good research and backed by citations to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, IAR is for exceptional circumstances, and this strikes me as a pretty mundane issue. I'm not sure what BruceSwanson means by "the research would be fruitless". Either there are sources or there aren't, and if there aren't, reducing the article to what can be sourced is appropriate. If sources are to be found, great, use them and there's no problem left to solve (at least on that one issue). --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Accurate representation of a source

A dispute has arisen on whether a source is being represented accurately. The discussion is here [2] The text, presently in the article, reads: the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult", which implies criticism. The paragraph in its entirety is: “Though the TM movement, which claims to have taught six million people worldwide, has over the years had to weather allegations of being a cult, today meditation, in all its many forms, has become as acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine. There is one particularly non-spiritual reason for this: medical science. While claims about its benefits were for a long time purely anecdotal, clinical research is providing evidence that meditation has real health benefits for those who practise."

Discussion concerns whether the sentence the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult". used in an isolated way is an accurate reflection of the source per WP: NOR: Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Thanks.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To expand, the material in question is in the "Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion" section of Transcendental Meditation movement. I had deleted the additional material because it concerns neither the TM movement nor the characterizations of the movement as a "cult, sect, or religion". I'd be happy to see the material on "meditation, in all its many forms" in an appropriate article, like Meditation or even Transcendental Meditation technique.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To complete the text's history (alluded to above)-- I made the initial edit on 10/19/10 when I added the following text and ref:

• The London Times reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult" and become as "acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine". Source: London Times, A Peace of His Mind, Sharon Krum, Sept 3 2005[3] [4]

Will Beback then changed the text on 2/8/11 to this version:

• The Times of London reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult". Source: A Peace of His Mind|first=Sharon |last=Krum|date=September 3 2005|work=The Times [5]

Will Beback's edit summary says he "removed content about meditation in general" he goes on to say on the Talk Page: "We only add material relevant to the topic at hand, not everything contained in a source or even everything in a sentence." [6] See complete discussion here[7] In my opinion the remaining text appears to mis-represent the source and creates POV. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember the topic is Transcendental Meditation movement, and specifically characterization of the TMM as a cult, sect, or religion. The article is not about the practice of meditation. What does this have to do with that topic? "today meditation, in all its many forms, has become as acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine. There is one particularly non-spiritual reason for this: medical science. While claims about its benefits were for a long time purely anecdotal, clinical research is providing evidence that meditation has real health benefits for those who practise." The health benefits of meditation are covered at great length in Transcendental Meditation technique, Transcendental Meditation research, and more generally, at Meditation and Research on meditation. Keithbob and Luke Warmwater101 seem to be suggesting that anytime we cite a source we need to summarize everything that source says on any topic. That's obviously not how an encyclopedia is written. Instead, articles and sections are devoted to specific topics, and we report what sources say about those topics. The source in question is about TM advocate David Lynch - should we also be summarizing, in the section on cult, sect, or religion, what the author says about him? That'd be absurd.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

.

The discussion above does not answer the issue: whether the source, as reported in the current version of the paragraph is represented correctly as per WP: NOR. Please refer to the original question at the beginning of the section.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The source says

• ...the TM movement, which claims to have taught six million people worldwide, has over the years had to weather allegations of being a cult...

We summarize it as:

• The Times of London reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult".

That seems accurate to me. What is the exact inaccuracy that you're concerned about?   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Will Beback is correct to note the source's distinction between the TM movement and meditation. When this difference is kept in mind I don't think what the source says about the TM movement is being misrepresented. After reading the section, though, I'm not sure that using the source in question adds that much to the article, since there are already many other sources discussing the nature of the TM movement that give more substantial information than the quote from the Times piece. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. There are stronger sources in the article already.   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I certainly agree that deletion is the best option. I still have a lingering question, though. Is it appropriate for me to take information from a dependent clause and use it in Wikipedia without giving any indication of the overall context? For example, what if the source said, "Though the jury found him guilty of killing his wife, they didn't agree to a finding of murder because it was done in self defense." If I were to just use the information in the dependent clause, I could put the fact in Wikipedia that he was found guilty of killing his wife and not mention the rest. Would that be appropriate? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In that example, obviously completely inappropriate, but there are many non-controversial cases where it would be fine. E.g. "Though they did not market it until 1992, Kola Koka had begun to develop their Lite product in the mid 1980s", in an academic book about the food industry, would be good for a statement "Kola Koka marketed their Lite product in 1992". (Notice, entirely made-up case.) The grammar is the same but here there is no misrepresentation. That's why we have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the sentence from the article seems like a reasonable compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and am glad everyone is comfortable with this. Thanks to everyone for their participation in the discussion. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple calculations

I am currently in a discussion with an editor at an RFC at Talk:List of states with limited recognition.

The key question is about the number of states that recognise a given entity, whether and how it should be listed. I have concerns with NPOV here, but I will leave those out on this forum and deal strictly with OR concerns. The example we are using is Abkhazia, but this is purely for the sake of discussion since the principle applies to several entities.

So, there is dispute as to whether the article should say that seven states recognise Abkhazia. Abkhazia is recognised diplomatically by:

• Russia
• Nicaragua
• Venezuela
• Nauru
• South Ossetia (recognised only by the above four, plus Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria)
• Nagorno-Karabakh (recognised only by Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria)
• Transnistria (recognised only by Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia)

All of those can be sourced, and the basic facts of this list are not (I believe) disputed.

It is argued that it is a simple mathematical calculation (1+1+1+1+1+1+1) per WP:CALC to get seven here. My OR concern is that interpretation is required in that calculation: specifically, the interpretation that South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria should be included given their own relative lack of international recognition. This is demonstrated by the fact that, while the value of seven is unsourced, it is trivially easy to find another value, four, in sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Even the Abkhazian government gives the number as four (though they explicitly count UN member states). All of these were written since December 2009 (when Nauru recognised Abkhazia); based on the recognition dates provided by the article International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the methodology above would give either six or seven during this period.

The question: given the above, is it original research to say that seven states recognise Abkhazia? Pfainuk talk 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to think of it as avoidable. If the states are listed then readers can count for themselves. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR, but it is POV, because it implies that all the states are recognized states, and therefore overstates the degree of recognition. TFD (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, given that some of the nations are not themselves widely recognized, I'd veer away from providing a number based on that list. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is no OR here because as Pfainuk said we have sources for all of these 7. The issue of POV/NPOV is separate and we discuss it at the RFC talk page. I would like to say that the article where I propose to use this information is List of states with limited recognition and the number of recognitions is the main metric illustrating the topic of the article - so it is not advisable simply "to avoid" mentioning it - I hope that we would find some compromise solution over the exact way of presenting it. Also, it should be noted that the latest proposal is to mention the number 7 in one of the columns of a table, whose first column (after "name") is "status" where all 7 entities are listed and their differences in status are also described. Also, the column where number 7 resides has a clarification note explaining that figures presented include both entities with wide recognition by the international community and entities with limited recognition - after all these are the subject of the article. Alinor (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake

User:Lkmen, currently blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on this, has repeatedly added the following (with variations) to both the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake articles. [16] A number of editors, including myself, have reverted these edits on WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR grounds. Additionally, we've given Lkmen advice about how to proceed with this controversial material until such time as the wider community reaches a consensus on it. [17] Lkmen has not followed that advice and has consistently contended that this material does not run afowl of our OR, NPOV and RS policies. [18]

== Yellowstone in Major Religions == === In [[Islam]] === Some '''[[Muslims]]''' believe that Yellowstone was mentioned in '''[[Qur'an]]''' 18:86. They believe that there was before '''[[Mohammad]]''' long time ago, a great leader or prophet was named '''Thoo al Qarnain''' who went to the far west until he reached a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and then he was able to see the sunset on this lake or spring of water, which means that this lake or spring of water is large enough to see the sunset on it, like what they see when they watch the sunset on a sea. They also believe that he found a people near it, then '''[[Allah]]''' had commanded him to rule these people by the law of '''[[Allah]]''' according to the Qur'an. So they believe now that these people were the ancient predecessors of the '''[[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]]''', who were living near Yellowstone lake for about 11,000 years. All these beliefs were based on '''[[Qur'an]]''' 18:86 '''"Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people".''' They also support these beliefs by how the lake looks like from the sky. They believe that the lake from air looks like a standing strong man pointing his shield towards the west or the sunset. <ref>Qur'an 18:86</ref> <ref>http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86_%D8%B0%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A6%D8%A9&oldid=6397751</ref> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8B7DxRU2Rc</ref> <ref>Dr. Ghali's translation of the Qur'an 18:86.</ref>.

To that end, I am assisting Lkmen in a task he should have performed in seeking a wider audience for evaluating this potential contribution with the following general questions:

• Would the sources cited above be considered RS in the context of this content and its use in the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake articles as Lkmen proposes?
• Is this proposed content OR in the context of Yellowstone?
• Is this content consistent with our NPOV policy or as many contend (I included) believe that even if it is not OR and supported by RS, it would violate our balance policy in the context of Yellowstone?

I trust Lkmen will look to the wider evaluation and consensus of the community on this material when his block is removed two days from now. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Youtube and other Wikipedias are not relible sources. The Qur'an verse does not outright mention Yellowstone. If the Qur'an actually did say "hey, there's this place called Yellowstone on the other side of the planet," I wouldn't see a problem mentioning it. If someone notable said that the Qur'an mentions Yellowstone, and that belief was notable, then it'd be worthwhile to mention. But as it stands, a user's personal exegesis of any text is original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone can contribute to YouTube and ar.wikipedia.org. Therefore, citing them as sources is just saying "someone else in the world said that". I'm not sure if Dr. Ghali is a reliable source, but see the next point.
• The phrase "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people" could refer to any of thousands of places in the world. Unless a reliable source also says so, to say this refers to Yellowstone specifically is surely WP:OR.
• It's probably not NPOV to mention it at all, unless this is a really widespread belief among Muslims, and we don't give it undue weight. For starters, we shouldn't mention only one religion. Native American beliefs, for example, would certainly be at least as notable in this context. However the point is moot without sources. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Mike, Ian.thomson and Suffusion of Yellow, I hope you all will notice that my latest edits did NOT have all these info. My new edit is: (In Qur'an: "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people". < .ref>Qur'an 18:86.</ ref >.)

• As you see here: It is NOT WP:OR because it is a quote from Qur'an. And, it has 100% WP:RS because if any reader on Yellowstone wants to know what does major religions say about Yellowstone he will look for descriptions of places in its holy or text books. So, if he or she wants to know what does Islam say about Yellowstone he/she will look at Qur'an as No.1 source to know such a thing. Qur'an is 100% WP:RS about what does Islam say about anything. So, my edit is WP:RS and NOT WP:OR .

• Now, does that verse talk about Yellowstone literally or through descriptions? Yes it does for sure. This very clear. No doubt about it. Why? Because Yellowstone is the only place in the (far west) that has (a hot spring of water which has a black clay) and (it is large enough so you can see the sunset on it) and (there were people living near it in the ancient times). If you, or anybody in the world can tell me of any place in the far west has these descriptions other than Yellowstone I will stop this edit. Lkmen (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotes from the Qur'an may or may not be OR. Without sources, interpretations are. The interpretation "this is about Yellowstone", while not expressed in your latest edits, is certainly implied by your placing the quote in Yellowstone National Park and Yellowstone Lake. It doesn't matter if your interpretation is correct or not, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We could argue at length about sunsets on Yellowstone Lake, the color of the clay, the geographic distribution of ancient peoples, and so on, but that would just be my OR vs your OR, which would get us nowhere. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• :::: It is NOT about interpretations. These are clear descriptions in a clear quote. But, let us put it this simple. If any person can tell us about any place in the far west that has these descriptions other than Yellowstone, then I have no right to argue or re-add that quote in Yellowstone pages again. It is this simple. It is NOT about anybody interpretations. Lkmen (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unless the Qur'an actually says "Yellowstone" or gives unambiguous geographic coordinates, then it absolutely IS interpretation - you are interpreting what it says to mean Yellowstone. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are literal names and unambiguous geographic coordinates every thing in WP?! What about clear descriptions in a clear quote?! Lkmen (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that your claim that it is a clear description of Yellowstone is a personal interpretation - and that is not permitted. If it was a widely-accepted interpretation, supported by multiple reliable sources, then that might be different - but it isn't -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• If these descriptions were NOT really clear about Yellowstone alone, then it should be very easy for people to tell us about any other place in the far west that fits these descriptions. If nobody can do such a thing, then it can NOT be only a personal claim or interpretation. Lkmen (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's still not relevant - it is still a personal interpretation, and there is no onus on anyone to disprove it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and your logic is faulty - an absence of disproof is not proof -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Forget now about personal interpretations, proving and disproving. Can any person only denies that these descriptions has things to do with Yellowstone because there is another place fits these descriptions in the far west?! It is that simple. Lkmen (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, that's not it at all. Even if there were no other interpretations that anyone here could think of (and see below - there are clearly lots of possible interpretations of that line), that would still not mean you could add it, because it is still unsupported interpretation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Even if it was acceptable as a source and interpretation, where in Yellowstone is this black clay? It's not mentioned in the article here. I don't recall seeing much black ground, clay or otherwise, at Yellowstone. The place isn't known for having black clay. It's famous for its bright colors, yellows, oranges, bright white, etc. There's probably some black ground somewhere there, the place is huge, but there probably is somewhere at Lassen Volcanic National Park, which also has large hot springs. Are you are saying Yellowstone Lake is the hot spring referred to? Yellowstone Lake is a regular lake, not a hot spring at all. It doesn't really matter though, this is an interpretation of an ancient statement that could be understood many ways. Pfly (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I can immediately think of some possible flaws in the mooted interpretation. Firstly, what does "far west" mean? West is a fairly unambiguous direction, but "far" is relative and entirely subjective - it's not that long ago that the distance between London and Rome was considered to be very far indeed. Hot spring with black clay? A quick Google search finds this, which says "The region's hot mineral springs covered with a black clay...", talking about a place in Tunisia - and I'm sure there must be hundreds more, as volcanic clays are frequently black and hot springs are associated with volcanic areas. And why does it have to be large? You can easily see the sunset reflected in a small pond - try it yourself. And there were people there? There were people in lots of places -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was just going to post that link about El Kef. Also [19], a long page about this exact line from the Quran, with many diverse interpretations. Nothing about Yellowstone. Pfly (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• 1. It is a fact that north america is the far western continent. + It is a hot spring with black clay large enough to see the sunset on it. You can see the sunset on a sea or on a large lake, but can NOT see it on a small lake. I am talking here about the sunset NOT about reflections.

• 2. (Lassen Volcanic National Park, which also has large hot springs) Is any of these springs large enough to see the sunset on it?

• 3. Is Yellowstone Lake a hot spring? Where in Yellowstone is this black clay? Here on this amazing video about Yellowstone National Park HD | 3:44 min you can see that the lake is hot, see the black clay and you can see the amazing sunset on that hot lake at the second 44: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY5vpcap2Q Lkmen (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Look, have a read of that page linked above - it's clearly debatable what is meant by the sun setting, by the black/murky issue, whether there was any clay, whether there was a big lake, and where it all took place - it is blatantly not obvious that it's Yellowstone. Anyway, I won't argue further - if you can get a consensus to support you, you can add your interpretation to the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Interpretations again?! These are FACTS. Clear (unique) descriptions (together)+very well known unique place that fits these clear (unique) descriptions (together)=FACT. 1+1=2. It is that simple. Did you watch that video on YouTube? Lkmen (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• You might have missed the bit where I said "I won't argue further - if you can get a consensus to support you, you can add your interpretation to the article". Good look with the consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To be more direct: Ibn Kathir says that verse is about seeing the sun set into the ocean: Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Quran Tafsir, on 18:85-90. (he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. (Ibn Kathir thought the sun orbited the Earth) Pfly (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Boing! you wont argue further. OK. But did watch that video?

2. Pfly, Ibn Kathir is mistaken here for sure because spring is NOT ocean. Did you see that video? Lkmen (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"But did watch that video?" Oh, I know what Yellowstone is like, it's a beautiful place - but that doesn't change anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• I mean, did u see the black clay, the hot lake and the sunset on it at the second 44 on that video? Lkmen (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I already know there is hot water there, earth of all kinds of colors, and lovely sunsets - but you're missing the entire point that that means absolutely nothing when it comes to that fact that it is still your own personal interpretation, which is clearly at odds with a number of other notable interpretations. And that really is all from me now - goodnight -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yellowstone Lake is not a "hot lake", it's a frigid cold lake with a few local warm areas. The clay in that video looks white when the sun is shining on it. Also, that's a sunrise. See this photo and look up where West Thumb is located. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Kathir was arguing that one should not read these verses literally, because if you do they say the sun actually set into a muddy/warm spring (that is, the sun actually goes into the Earth) and that Dhul-Qarnayn traveled to the westernmost point on Earth (then went to the easternmost point). Ibn Kathir finds this impossible: (Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun,) means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth. As for the idea of his reaching the place in the sky where the sun sets, this is something impossible, and the tales told by storytellers that he traveled so far to the west that the sun set behind him are not true at all. Unable to take the Quran literally here, he came up with the ocean interpretation. He may well have been mistaken, but are you seriously claiming that you understand the Quran better than Ibn Kathir?? Pfly (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Arabic is my 1st language also. It is midnight now. I want to sleep. So, to be cont... Lkmen (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You are saying that Dhul-Qarnayn traveled to Yellowstone Lake and that this is obvious fact according to Quran verse 18:86 and in no way your own interpretation. You really don't see how preposterous that is? You may continue tomorrow, but I am finished. Pfly (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WOW! Is this nonsense for real?--MONGO 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pfly, MONGO and every body, if this is preposterous and nonsense, this should mean that you can tell me about a place in the far west (north america) that fits all these descriptions other than Yellowstone. Still waiting : ) It is that simple : ) Lkmen (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. And I went to Dr Ghali's translation for myself and he says nothing of the sort "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, (The western part of the then known world) he found it setting in a muddy spring, and he found a people at it. We said, “O Thulqarnayn, either you will torment (them) or you will take to yourself towards them a fair (way)." I'm far more inclined (and it isn't very far) to take Brendan the navigator's land of fire and ice as Iceland than any of this stuff as being Yellowstone, I'm afraid this is just a teensy bit too unspecific. Plus I'd prefer that such descriptions be written before the place is already well known. Reliable secondary sources needed rather than some utube video. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is really simple. Even if a religious text used the word Yellowstone, we wouldn't use it because it would be a primary source. We would only use reliable sources that referred to the passage in the religious text and said that the passage might be referring to in this case Yellowstone or Yellowstone Lake. And it would have to be shown that this is a 'significant' opinion in the religion. In addition, Lkmen, you are clearly arguing against consensus, but that's another issue and trivial compared to the OR issue. Unless you can show that multiple reliable sources (by our criteria at WP:RS) make this connection, I would ask you to drop this. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding yet another voice to the chorus of "yes, it's a textbook example of OR, just please stop re-adding it." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)

There's a dispute whether Karl Kerenyi should be used as a source in the section Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)#Origins. This section of the article reports the argument of Ronald Hutton that the Neopagan Triple Goddess is a modern creation, largely of Robert Graves. Kerenyi is then cited as an opposing view that there were triple moon goddesses in ancient Greece. However, Kerenyi was not writing in response to Hutton (Kerenyi wrote in 1952, Hutton in 1998) and was not writing about neopaganism. As far as I know, no source dealing with neopagan ideas of a triple goddess cites Kerenyi. So using Kerenyi here strikes me as an instance of WP:SYNTH. This dispute is discussed at length at Talk:Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)#Karl_Kerenyi_on_Triple_Lunar_Goddess; more input welcome either there or here. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rousas John Rushdoony

I am in a dispute with another editor the article section Rousas John Rushdoony#Racism and Holocaust denial - in particular, whether it is permissible to have the sentence beginning "In 2000, Rushdoony stated concerning this passage in his Institutes..." This clearly comes under WP:PRIMARY, which states "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." My question is whether the insertion of this quote is interpretive. StAnselm (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, StAnselm inserted this material to counter statements by multiple reliable secondary sources that Rushdoony was a Holocaust denier himself, who used "atrocious, secondhand, and unverified" sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Image used in Murder of Meredith Kercher

There's an interesting discussion here about whether File:Kercher Knox house Perugia Italy.gif constitutes original research. My own view is that it does; the point has also been made that the notes on the diagram seem contradictory. Responses there or here would be equally welcome. --John (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's some history on this image in the discussion. Apparently it's been deleted at least once, maybe twice, as being too close in dimensions to a published map of the flat. Wikid77 then created this version, basing it on that diagram. From their description, it's supposed to reflect the general layout of the flat, but does not accurately reflect the scale or true shape of the various rooms. The article has some incredibly (overly?) detailed description of events which can overwhelm some readers. I think this image adds useful information to the article by providing some reference for those descriptions. As currently depicted, it is only labeled with the names of each room plus the location of one piece of physical evidence (glass). It does not reference any WP:RS for the information used to create the image (the FOA advocacy site is NOT reliable).

My view would be to keep the image in the article but in the image description add links to reliable sources used to create the image and remove the FOA link. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:OI "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Can anyone explain how this diagram promotes unpublished ideas or arguments? --Footwarrior (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the exact nature of the image somewhat strange. On the file page, Wikid77 describes it as "merely a rough concept of the area", and a note in the image itself states that "positions are approximate". It is said to be a "conceptual diagram" as opposed to a "map" due to the absence of a scale legend. With regard to WP:OI: there is perhaps no blatant illustration of "unpublished ideas or arguments", but the fact that the file has been user-generated is a possible concern in light of the description's emphasis on the word "rough". I also don't really understand why the rooms have to "narrowed ~16%" when the actual rooms were "nearly square" - it rather distorts a user's visualisation of the apartment and leaves room for potential misrepresentation of the crime scene. On the file talk page, in response to the suggestion of using an actual scale diagram, Wikid77 states, "then the exact wall dimensions and locations of all furniture would be subject to endless debate, as questioning the accuracy to scale" - but that would seem to be a greater problem with this "rough concept of the area", which allows no room for scale. If the image were to incorporate accurate proportions, it would be far less problematic. It would be a great help if fresher eyes at this board were to make their own conclusions. SuperMarioMan 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the image could be improved, but the article or image talk page is the correct forum for such a discussion. And as I have already pointed out, Wikipedia policy allows creation of original images. The editor who opened this noticeboard incident apparently didn't understand WP:OI policy.

Operation Dwarka‎

Recently and editor with a history of disruptive editing on article Operation Dwarka‎ and a Pakistani ship PNS Ghazi has again been trying to add sources which are totally irrelevant to the article. He is trying to add a source which has no mention of any Pakistani naval operation or even the word Dwarka as shown here. I have tried to engage him in discussion on talk page but he does not seem to be interested in sorting the matter on talk page and continues to revert. He also removes the two sources already on the article which provide eye-witness account and neutral observation respectively. I have given him multiple warnings for removal of content including OR in article but he continues reverting. I would request administrators assistance to prevent further disruptions on the article. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian

In the article Lesbian there is a sentence in the third paragraph that I want to verify is not original synthesis/research.

Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality.

We've been discussing this for weeks and it badly needs resolution. I read through the article myself, and I believe it to be original research. However, User:Moni3 is adamantly defending the statement and believes that the sources say it. I've had more than my share of this discussion and I want to move on to other things.

You can find the discussion at Talk:Lesbian#Men have historically shaped, Talk:Lesbian#Break, and Talk:Lesbian#Break II. --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what you consider OR in that sentence? Without looking at the sources, I'm skeptical that "people have often thought that lesbianism didn't exist" wouldn't be supported. To what sources is the statement cited? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement is not directly cited. It is in the summary of the article, and I assume it should be supported or somehow stated in the article. The passages cited by Moni3 support a similar statement, but not exactly this one. e.g., women played a huge role in defining Islamic tradition (supported in Talk:Lesbian#Break II), so men did not completely define "standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships" (and that's a gross understatement for the example I gave).

Moni3 was correct that the larger context of the source I used (Women and Gender in Islam) supports the notion that in the Abyssinian era (and in certain times and places afterwards) Muslim scholars and Islamists (mostly men) interpreted the Qu'ran and Hadith in ways that undermined womens' rights. The statement is plainly wrong, and will undoubtedly cause future conflicts, if it is interpreted to mean women never defined such standards.

The statement also asserts, without cited evidence, that "[men] often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality" because "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships". Moni3 has not pointed out, and I have not yet found, a cited statement in the article that states this specific causal relationship.

--Fennasnogothrim (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, move on then already.

The discussion has dragged on since March 17. I posted in the talk page discussion 14 examples of cited passages or sections that support the statement. I've asked for input in rewriting the sentence to summarize the same points but have received no sufficient reply to this. The talk page discussion is quite clear, in my opinion, that to remove the sentence, which seems to be Fennasnogothrim's goal, Fennasnogothrim needs to provide sources to make his/her point. While a source was introduced to alter the wording of the sentence, the source in totality seems to support the sentence staying in its current form. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please let's come to some sort of compromise. Please agree to a compromise wording which would encyclopedically say basically "Early sexologists viewed it thusly, and then predominant lesbian sources reacted in this way", and then move on, as opposed to doing it the other way around? That way, it'd be chronological and phrase it as the points of view of others, not that of Wikipedia.

I should clarify that it's not just the tagged sentence, but also its immediate context which I am referring to. I thought about ways of generalizing the placement of the tag (I didn't tag it) but I don't know how. I don't know that I should tag the whole section. Chrisrus (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the definition be derived from the source that does not contain it?

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974

Whereas the page 19 of this book On Google Books contains the following words:

"Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing economic and political system through the use of terrorism in the hope that the violence will inspire the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system.

no definition of "Communist terrorism" as a separate category is found on this page and in the book as whole. In connection to that, can the following text (taken from the Communist terrorism article:

"Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

use the Drake's book as a source, and, generally speaking, can the definition of some phenomenon be derived from the text that does not contain it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a consensus on the RSN board over this sources usage, and on the article talk page. This is really beating the carcass. Everything in the content is also found on page 19 of the Book. There is no original research here. I have also added the full quote from the book. Tentontunic (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If the definition in the article is based solely on that one single sentence from Drake, then it clearly goes beyond the source, and would be considered OR. However, it sounds like this is not the case. It sounds like the article's definition is a summary of what Drake is saying throughout that page (and perhaps on other pages near it). If it accurately summarizes Drake's views, then it is acceptable as far as OR is concerned. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Drake's views (expressed on this and adjacent pages) is that terrorism (a generic term) is associated with different ideologies, including liberal, anarchist, communist, nationalist, etc. However, I found no confirmation that Drake proposed the term "Communist terrorism" (or "liberal terrorism", "anarchist terrorism", "nationalist terrorism", etc) to describe a separate category of terrorism. Therefore, I do not think that the text we discuss accurately summarises the Drake's views: Drake speaks about the aims of terrorists who subscribe to some concrete ideology, however, he proposes no typology of terrorism, and no subcategories of terrorism. In addition, whereas I have nothing against summarizing the author's view, the text is written in such a way that it creates a wrong impression that Drake proposed a definition for this type of terrorism (which is obviously not the case). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To demonstrate my point, this:

"Communist terrorist groups are the groups that subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

is a correct and adequate summary of what Drake says, and it contains no views he did not express.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The original was far better, and it did not misquote Drake either. You really ought not have changed it when it has a consensus. Tentontunic (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The original text creates a false impression that the term "Communist terrorism" has been used by Drake, whereas he neither proposed nor used it[20]. By writing this text you did misquote the source. BTW, there was no consensus for the first version either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course there was a consensus, both on the RS board and on the talk page, an admin also agreed there was a consensus when he did the edit protect request. And the term communist terrorism was used by drake, it is right there in the quoted passage above. Tentontunic (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The RSN consensus was that the source is reliable for communist terrorists. In addition, as you probably know, consensus can change. At least three users (TFD, Zloyvolsheb and I) expressed a concern about this fragment. And, in addition, if I don't miss anything, Drake proposed no definition of the term Communist terrorism", and speak about the goals of Communist terrorists (along with other terrorists), so the word "Communist" is clearly an adjective, and no new terms is defined by Drake. If I am wrong (I, as well as everybody else, can be wrong), please, provide the quote from Drake where he defines the term. Otherwise we will have to conclude that my version transmits his opinion more adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask who this "We" is? Thus far one uninvolved editor says it is fine as is. Your singular opinion on what you think drake has written carries little weight i`m afraid, the source says what it says and is quite clear and unless a consensus forms to support what you have written we shall go back to the consensus version. Tentontunic (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Under "we" I meant myself, you, and all other reasonable persons working on this article. Regarding the uninvolved user, they wrote "If it accurately summarizes Drake's views, then it is acceptable as far as OR is concerned." The question is still open, however if this condition has been met in actuality. Please, provide the fragment from the Drake's book that demonstrates that it has.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

But it does accurately portray what drake has written, and given he wrote it the nI would have to assume is in fact his view. This is why there was a consensus for the content inclusion in the first place, first at the RSN board, and then on the article talk page. I do not think it is for us to "Know" what drake meant. Tentontunic (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If one does not "know" what a source says then one cannot report it accurately. Anyway, see WP:CONSENSUS. It changes. TFD (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "But it does accurately portray what drake has written" Good. Could you please provide the quotes that demonstrate that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Original image

File:Jafr alien invasion.jpg

Besides being incorrectly licensed, the image is total baloney and is apparently not even based on an actual account of the event. Marcus Qwertyus 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what is the problem with the license. I used this image that is released in public domain by its author, and released my photo-shop image with the same license.

Of course the event was just April Fools' Day prank, but all the sources I used had some images. So I decided that wikipedia's article will benefit from an image too.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ)

I am looking for third-party guidance on clarifying a minor point related to a specific definition used in this article and the source which is cited for that definition. It relates to NOR as it involves the creation of a definition which does not closely match the sources cited.

In the initial sentence of the current SAQ Overview section, the term "anti-Stratfordian" is defined as follows: "a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories".

The actual first sentence of that lead source ("The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms" 2008) defines anti-Stratfordian using the phrase: "Reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the true author of plays and poems published in his name".

In light of the above definition, I felt that current reconstruction of the definition was inappropriate and offered this definition: "a collective term for those reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the canon published in his name."

I offered detailed reasons which led to a LOT of rigorous discussion, but no resolution in addressing the direct point as to why a dictionary definition is preferable in this case or not. This can be viewed here: [21] under the final section entitled "Loose ends".

My simple summary of my own reasons in asking for the edit are as follows:

1) It is axiomatic that a definition should follow closely the source which is cited as a reference for that definition, especially if that source is an actual dictionary.

2) The current definition involves a combination of thoughts and ideas not represented in the source, and possibly crosses the line on WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS.

3) The definition as currently written also happens to be factually incorrect, as there are recognized "anti-Stratfordians" who express generic doubt without adhering to any specific "alternate authorship theory" or candidate. The most media-notable group of these, featured Time a 2007 story in TIME magazine (and others as it contains several high profile Shakespearean actors and the former artistic director of the Globe Theater) is known as "Doubt About Will". There were also historical anti-Stratfordians including Henry James, Sir George Greenwood, and Mark Twain who demurred as to choosing a specific candidate or authorship theory, but who met the definition as cited in the dictionary used as the source.

Advice please...

Note: This entire SAQ page was subject to an arb com a few months ago. I was not involved in this in any way, and had never commented on the SAQ before that decision or after until this specific issue. I do recognize, however, that past history may have made the remaining editors very wary of even the slightest suggestion of change. I respect that wariness and I do not view this wariness as any sort of negative reflection on any editor, but rather as understand-able and reasonable in light of the past history of this article.Rogala (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Original article[22]

I think this has been adequately discussed but feel obliged to add a note here, just to assure Rogala that this issue has been given comprehensive attention also on the original talk page.

We have:-

(1) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories.

You proposed:-

(3) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who doubt that the Shakespeare canon was written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

• The first definition is positive, focusing on the aspect of alternative authorship inexorably (logically) consequent upon a denialist position.
• The second is negative, restricting the definition purely to the denial of WS of Stratford as author.

• It follows that (1) is comprehensive of all positions whereas (3) is partial, even if underpinned by a convenient source (about which more presently).

• It is implicit in (1) that WS's authorship is denied, for that is the premise sine qua non for asserting an alternative author.
• It is not implicit in (3) that sceptics have invariably offered (Wadsworth), alongside their dismissal of WS, an alternative proposal.

• I might add that, probably inadvertently, (3) is more or less the 'official' position of the authors of the Declaration of Doubt' (i.e. the neo-Oxfordian tactical orthodoxy). That at least is what editors long familiar with the material see, i.e., an edit that would recast the authenticated WP:NPOV cast of the article towards a nuanced, subtly so, set definition preferred these days by only one of the parties whose ideas are analysed.

The present formulation, (1), is multi-sourced to Baldick 2008, pp. 17–18; Bate 1998, pp. 68–70; Wadsworth 1958, pp. 2, 6–7.

What you have done is take one sentence from Baldick, discuss Bate, and ignore Wadsworth who is, to date, the most comprehensive historian of Anti-Stratfordianism. You replace a multi-sourced formulation with just one of the RS, ignoring what the others say.

• You cited Chris Baldick's The Oxford dictionary of literary terms, (p.17) in support of your edit. 'Anti-Stratfordian Reluctant to accept William Shakespeare (1564–1616) of Stratford-upon-Avon as the true author of the plays and poems published in his name.'

• Just as Steinburg, higher up on that page was shown to have omitted the full context of Gibson's book, suppressing by some curious lapsus that decisive 'may' which undid his interpretation, so you did not apparently read to the end the whole of the definition given in Baldick (terrible name to wear, though eminently Shakespearean in its bawdy ambiguity! It gives the many Richard Cocks of this world a run for the money.)

'a succession of amateur scholars and conspiracy theorists in the 19th and 20th centuries proposed various alternatives as the 'true' author. Although disagreing among themselves on the central point of attribution, they shared common ground in their refusal to accept that a provincial glover's son . .could have written such magnificent works himself: all anti-Stratfordian theories attribute the poems and plays to a better-educated or more socially distingushed contemporary, and most of them propose that William Shakespeare was used as a front-man to disguise the true identity of the hidden genius.'(2008 pp.17-8)

• In making his laconic definition Baldick seems to support (3). In expatiating on what he means by that terse summary, it is clear that he underwrites (1).
• Even Greenwood, who had no alternative candidate specifically to propose, believed subscribed to a theory that someone else did write the play. His theory was both negative and positive, since, in addition to shellacking Arden's buffoon, he determined that the author was 'a courtly cultured aristocrat', on thoroughly at home in the Inns of Court. He has an alternative candidate theory, at least in profile. He just didn't find evidence allowing him to finger exactly who in the court was responsible.
• I might add also, as an editor who feels discretionary judgement is often required when one is overwhelmed by many sources, in order to ensure precision and avoid the kind of flood of quibbling complications that instrumental citation can produce, that Baldick's 'reluctant' strikes me as an unfortunate epithet, and 'historically' imprecise. He seems to have the extreme minority position of a Henry James uppermost in his mind, and not the vastly majoritarian drift of positive proposal in anti-Stratfordian literature. 'Reluctance' is certainly not what other historians, amply surveyed in the article detect as the basso ostinato of anti-Stratfordianism. Rather it is an alacrity at catching after 'true' candidates to replace the upstart. Every sceptic has had no doubt that someone else wrote Shakespeare. That is not clear in Baldick's definition. It is pellucid in Paul Prescott's definition:

Anti-Stratfordian' is the collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him.’ Paul Prescott, ‘Shakespeare in Popular Culture,’ in Margreta De Grazia, Stanley Wells (eds.) The New Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press, 2010 pp.269-284, p. 273)

Like our definition Prescott accentuates the point that the Anti-Stratfordian is someone who 'adheres to a theory of an authorship alternative to Shakespeare's'. In Prescott's words, paraphrased: someone who believes someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is certainly therefore misleading to simply put over that the issue is simply doubt about Will, and not also a strong conviction that someone else, most often identified, fits the author's imagined profile better.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I thank you for the volume of background material and extremely thoughtful response. I can state for the record that you have been an extremely helpful resource in this entire matter.

That being said, I truly want to see how "disinterested third parties" see this matter. If they say I am somehow "out to lunch" I respect that fully and this will be resolved quickly with their added inputs to the consensus.

My viewpoint is that when one contrasts the need to parse a) the 'complex in nature' and 'volumetric in size' background material presented here by Nishidani (which I agree is excellent material) vs. b) the simplicity of using the definition as clearly written in the DICTIONARY source already cited and approved by the FA process, it makes a prima facie case for simply using the dictionary definition.

To put it a simpler way: Why not use it ?

To digest and SYNTHESIZE all of the material above, and then create a new definition is IMHO not needed and probably treads close to WP:OR and begs the question of some sort of obscure POV issue as well. That was my entire point, but I leave the matter to other commentators to judge.

Rogala (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"To put it a simpler way: Why not use it ?" Because if you'll take the time to read past that first sentence you'll see the information that is actually used for the statement, as is obvious by reading the cite: "… anti-Stratfordian theories attribute the poems and plays to a better-educated or more socially distinguished contemporary, and most of them propose that William Shakespeare was used as a front-an to disguise the true identity of the hidden genius." That statement is partially on page 17 of the source and partially on page 18. Coincidentally, the cite actually contains that range of page numbers. There is nothing inaccurate about the edit at all, and this is a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be brief. There were 7al sources for the sentence, you chose just one. The definition we have also reflects points made by Wadsworth (I have added Prescott, and if needed, several other new sources can be added if you wish, to show that the formulation we have is rather standard) to show why that formulation was correct, and not a matter of WP:OR. Of course, I endorse your request that third eyes (no ambiguity intended) put into their tuppence worth. I'd be interested myself to hear from them, after they work comprehensively through the relevant debate on the talk page, and check all sources there. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There were three sources originally under #20 on the SAQ talk page. I commented on the first two, neither of which support the current definition and both of which were also the most timely (2008 and 1998). Let's please just let other editors view this and comment and stop re-hashing it here.

Warning for Viewers - Source #20 for this definition (as originally entered in the SAQ) has just been altered to demote Baldick from the lead source and inserting a different source by Prescott. Please take note of the original [23].Rogala (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for an alarmist warning. I noted on the talk page and here, and Tom has now seconded the fact by quoting the key section, that you engaged in a selective citation from your source. We are having problems with editors who trim and selectively misuse sources here, and then complain that those who note these things are engaged in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or both. This is rather tiring, to have to deal constantly with new editors who use the same techniques, and often, the same prose style, to make points that everyone else on the page appears to dismiss.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(An aside): I am glad you brought this up, rather than me. The term for this in the business world is "group think" and I am well familiar with it. The SAQ world does seem to show some of the classic symptoms of this phenomenon. Once this "definition issue" is disposed of, one way or another, I plan to exit (for little awhile) from the SAQ page and work on a page which is less "tiring"...to quote you. After the past few days, I have come to the conclusion that it is still too contentious an atmosphere despite the arb com and FA status.

Since you have been with wikipedia from its inception, dear Rogala, you should have acquired more of an inkling of the fact that the very mechanisms of the encyclopedia militate against 'groupthink', since there is such a thing as collegial review. At FA it is strenuous, and delightfully sceptical. It means that people who have vast experience of reading between and behind the lines of every word on an extraordinary variety of articles, experienced NPOV proof-readers, put the 'group' through the wringer, and until every tittle and jot of suspicious slanting is expunged, the prospective article won't get past GO. What your remark about Groupthink tells me is that you consider (a) the baker's dozen of editors who have raked over the page these last months are a cohesive coterie of the like-minded and (b) the gunslinging wikihands who shot through residual oversights, flaws, tendentious phrasing and then approved it as a neutral, comprehensive and eminently good example of wikipedia's work were gudgeons (well that's a nice period word) taken in by our groupist conspiracy of the unlikeable like-minded. A just-so story, very much like the just-so stories the article discusses. Personally, I welcome anything from anyone out there, Oxfordians, Marlovians, if it (1) shows a command of the scholarship and (2) is not a gambit for endless talking past the community of editors here in order to insinuate that the encyclopedia is unfair or provide the 'small but highly visible and diverse assortment' of Oxfordians who watch these pages with further proof that their grievances are a fair response to the cruelties of the world's infamous indifference to 'truth'. So don't give up, but please focus on issues that have a good grounding in both policy and the relevant scholarship. Your willingness to argue this in terms of RS was, whatever the merits of the point, commendable.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rogala, I believe I qualify as a "disinterested third party" having had some disagreements and some agreements with Tom and Nish. I certainly do not think you are "out to lunch" and I can see your point but I think you are making a mountain out of anthill. Your version is too long and cumbersome in the context. I don't think it is an OR issue since the wording has the same meaning as that in the cited ref. Poujeaux (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)