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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

MEMRI

The inclusion of the category Propaganda organizations in the article Middle East Media Research Institute has been challenged on the grounds that it is OR. The two sources provided on the talk page to back the inclusion of the category are as follows:

• Brian Whitacker (12 August 2002), "Selective Memri", The Guardian:

  Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia.

  The article then details those two incidents
• Achcar, Gilbert (2009), The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, Macmillan, ISBN 9780805089547

  p. 182: However, MEMRI is conspicuously—even more than the two book just discussed—a function of the Arab-Israeli conflict, acting like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services. ... If such biased inventories and anthologies are of any use beyond propaganda, it is as a barmoeter of the ideological and intellectural regression currently under way in the Arab world. That undertakings of this sort no more reveal the "Arab attitude" than they do "the reality in the Arab world" does not mean that those who compile them invent the quotations they proffer. What they do is put manifestations of the regression on prominant display, while often taking them out of context; selected, assembled, and concentrated in a single stream, these exhibits project a deliberately distorted image of the Arab world's intellectual production. Nevertheless, as long as one keeps in mind that this material is being used for propaganda purposes ...

Is it OR to include MEMRI in this category? nableezy - 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the sources, no... it isn't OR. I would say, however, that it is non-neutral. One of the problems with categorization is that it often can not take into account differences of opinion. Do some sources call MEMRI "propaganda"... yes. Does everyone agree with that designation... no. I would feel a lot better about this if we placed it in a more neutral sub-category... something like "Organizations accused of distributing propaganda" (although "accused" is probably the wrong word). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that this category lists only 27 organizations, all of which seem to be either run by governments, terrorist organizations, or no longer exist, I think we need to be careful what organizations are added. Otherwise, any organization is that is accused of producin propaganda could potentially be added to this list. MEMRI's critics aren't exactly the most unbias when it comes to the Middle East (few people are). Given the pejorative nature of the word "propaganda" and the widespread use of this term as an insult or accusation, the organizations listed in this category need to be carefully considered.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

I've no opinion about this specific organization - the article says various people have called it a propaganda machine, but given the realities of the Middle East conflict what is propaganda to one side is legitimate advocacy to the other. In view of this, I recommend that the category (which carries a substantial pejorative connotation) is applied only to organizations about which contemporary discourse is essentially unanimous in describing them as a propaganda outlet. This would exclude most organizations on all sides of most contemporary conflicts.  Sandstein  05:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Most "legitimate advocacy" is propaganda as well. I think most of the objections are due to people drawing an inference from the word "propaganda" that isnt there. "Propaganda" does not imply that the advocacy is illegitimate, it only implies that the information publicized is selected with the aim of promoting a certain political cause. If there were equally reliable sources that actually deny that MEMRI is a propaganda organization then I could agree that the category shouldnt be included, but thus far no such source has been brought. nableezy - 07:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So every organization that is accused of producing Propaganda (in your words: "information publicized is selected with the aim of promoting a certain political cause") under that definition should be added? That would be one hell of a long list. And again, a few accusations from sources which are hostile towards Israel aren't very convincing, especially since they make broad accusations with little evidence. Of the thousands of videos and translations that MEMRI has produced, only about 6-7 have been accused of being mistranslated or taken out of context (you would think its critics would be able to cite a few more). MEMRI's work is used by major media organizations throughout the world. If MEMRI produces so much obvious propaganda, why do major media outlets repeatedly cite their work - after all, if its as bias as its critics say, wouldn't it be shunned? Nobody says that MEMRI is perfect or that is doesn't promote, in effect, if not intent, a political cause, but that can be said of nearly any organization. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC))

Wiki acknowledges the existence of an Arab Israeli conflict. We have an organisation, dedicated to the propagation of information, which is entirely formed by composed of and funded by people who support one side of that conflict. Yet we don't seem able to agree that they are a propaganda organisation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So any organization that is "dedicated to the propagation of information, which is entirely formed by composed of and funded by people who support one side of that conflict" belongs in that category? Would The Electronic Intifada belong in that category, then? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada has no connection to any state actor, so rather than a propaganda organization, it is an advocacy organization - similar to say, J Street or even the Jewish Defense League. MEMRI is well documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State - regardless of the internal politics of the State. Those are two different things. However, I am against the use of the word "propaganda" in wikipedia outside of the topic of Propaganda and few other related topics and in quotes that use the term (ie if the term is verified), so my solution would be to delete the category (as I would anything with the word "terrorist" or "terrorism"). Since that has no chance of happening, MEMRI could be so categorized without it really being a violation of V/OR. Neutrality is another issue, and in that sense Sandstein's point is well taken.--Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State"? That's weasel-worded nonsense. MEMRI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose headquarters are in Washington, D.C.. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Led by a Israeli reservist who worked as a professional anti-terrorist for two different Israeli administrations, as he himself says. Do I need to source noticeboards comments too? :)--Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as sources go:

• Athina Karatzogianni (2006), The Politics of Cyberconflict, Taylor & Francis, p. 172, ISBN 9780415396844, Online news organizations like the Electronic Intifada and the Israeli Support Group also represent alternative sources for the explanation of conflict, can be used for propaganda and mobilization, and reflect a political contest between Israelis and Palestinians to dominate political discourse.
• Andrew R. Wilson; Mark Lloyd Perry (2008), War, virtual war and society: the challenge to communities, Rodopi, p. 102, ISBN 9789042023475, The parties had been engaged in a fierce online propaganda war since the mid-1990s... This struggle has been far more evenly matched than the real world conflict, largely because of the vast international online support from Palestinians. In particular, a website called Electronic Intifada (EI), launched by two Palestinians and two foreign pro-Palestinian human rights activists...
• Gerald M. Steinberg (Aug 26, 2006), "Ken Roth's blood libel", The Jeusalem Post, Before coming to HRW, she published anti-Israel propaganda in pro-Palestinian platforms such as the "Electronic Intifada."

Looks about equivalent. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the first two sources I would include EI in the category as well. Being associated with a government is not relevant to whether or not an organization is a propaganda organization. nableezy - 00:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't do either, but you seem to say if one is done, both should be done? That sounds like quid-pro-quo to me. I think Sandstein's formula is more correct.--Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

With regards to Cerejota's statement that "MEMRI is well documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State - regardless of the internal politics of the State" the only evidence offered is that its founder served in the Israeli-military and as a anti-terrorist advisor to two Israeli prime ministers. This is guilt by association - you cite no hard evidence that there is some kind of "solid relationship"; military service in mandatory in Israel, so would you consider all Israelis to fall under this designation? (also, Yigal Carmon retired from the Israeli military 10 years before he founded MEMRI) Furthermore, MEMRI employs many people who are not Israelis, including several Arabs - Are they also part of this "solid relationship?" Do you have evidence that MEMRI takes orders from the Israeli government? You are free to make allegations based on such reasoning, but Wikipedia is based on facts, not conspiracy theories.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

@-Cerejota "Electronic Intifada has no connection to any state actor, so rather than a propaganda organization, it is an advocacy organization - similar to say, J Street or even the Jewish Defense League. MEMRI is well documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State."

• Since when? Just because an organization employs former soldiers or even politicians does not make them an accessory to a sovereign nation. And ET cannot be compared to MEMRI because ET is actually supported (partially) by public funds from donor nations. If MEMRI is the bar for propaganda organizations on Wikipedia then there are a thousand articles waiting to be added, including Fox News, The Guardian, AIPAC, Al Jazeera etc. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is so very refreshing to see such a staggering amount of original research on the No original research noticeboard. Id like to remind the participants here that the question is whether or not including the category on the basis of the sources above constitutes original research. How this developed into a discussion on whether or not EI is also a propaganda organization or what, if any, connection does MEMRI have the Israeli government is not exactly relevant to that question. Wikifan, the bar on Wikipedia is what do the sources say. nableezy - 04:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And numerous reliable sources hosting far more credible figures than Whitaker have described Fox News of being a propaganda organization. Do what the sources say, right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a second source here. And yes, do what the sources say. nableezy - 05:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A second but equally partisan source. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So just "Do what the sources say?" Interesting logic - Norman Finkelstein, who is classifed as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia, has described Israel as "a satanic state." Do you plan to add Israel to the Category:Satanism just because a "reliable" source says so? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

Let's say I'm looking for organizations that have been described by reliable sources as propaganda organizations. I use the category to see what's there. Should MEMRI be there ? Sources that can't simply be dismissed have described the organization that way including Professor Mona Baker, Director of the Centre for Translation and International Studies at the University of Manchester, who appears to treat that description seriously on page 75 Translation and conflict: a narrative account. I would expect these things to be covered in the article body but as far as categorization goes, for me it's similar to something like Category:Abstract expressionist artists. When I use that category I expect to find articts that have been described as abstract expressionist artists by a reasonable number of serious RS. I find Richard Diebenkorn. Is he really an abstract expressionist artist ? Like 'propaganda' it's not something that can be established deterministically. It's debatable. Sometimes he was, other times he wasn't, it depends who you ask etc but he has been described that way by enough serious reliable sources to merit categorization and consequently I can find him in the category and make my own mind up. Categories are functional. They're meant to help people find things. This practical aspect seems to get lost in these kind of discussions when it's the I-P topic area. I should also say that the Satanism example isn't very helpful. It's usually trivial to distinguish between literal and figurative descriptions. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Four problems with your argument:

• "Abstract expressionist artists" is not a perjorative term (as far as I know) - "Propaganda Organization" is extremely perjorative. I don't think many people or organizations would like to be called Propagandist or consider themselves as such).
• The term "Propaganda" itself is widely used as an insult and/or to describe anything that a person disagrees with or believes to be incorrectly presented. Trying to categorize organizations based on a perjorative term which is widely used as an insult and is extremely subjective isn't very encyclopedic.
• You have cited professor Mona Baker. Professor Baker fired two people from her publication solely because they were Israelis. A Professor who openly discriminates based solely on a person's nationality (in this case, Israelis) isn't exactly an non-bias source when in comes to this topic.
• A lot of people, not just Finkelstein, consider Israel to be a "satanic state" in a very literal sense. Although most people(myself included) dismiss this as an asinine castigation (i.e. $@^#&%@!), there are many people who believe this literally as well as figuratively.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC))
  • • Oh yes, that is very true - so its the opposite: many people who believe this literally as well as figuratively that Israel is heaven in earth, the promised land. That is relevant how?--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't get the obsession with Mona Baker. She is very partisan. If I recall another issue in the discussion revolved around sources that describe MEMRI as reliable (certainly outnumber sources that label it as propaganda). Do those sources trump Whitaker and Baker? Do sources need to say, explicitly, x, y and z is NOT propaganda in order to refute the claims made by other figures? Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • Really outweight? I would say that both pro and anti MEMRI sources are outweighted by those who see it as one more actor in the complex theater that is the I-P/A-I conflict - that is, partisan but quotable. Sandstein's reasoned point is lost in this partisan noisemaking here: describing the organization as "propaganda" doesn't really help much more the encyclopedic quality as describing it as "partisan" but the RS overwhelmingly describe it as partisan whereas the description as propaganda is generally a partisan description. By framing the sources, as you and others do, as being polarized on the topic, you are brushing aside the overwhelming sourcing that is not polarized. The reality is MEMRI is a propaganda organization only if viewed subjectively, but it is a partisan organization objectively. We cannot advance until that sensible formulation is accepted.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Hyperionsteel Your first two points here seem to me to be essentially the same ie that the term "Propagandist" is pejorative. I agree. Should we abolish the use of this term from Wiki because it "isn't very encyclopaedic". I personally don't think we should. The impulse to tell a story in such a way as to advantage our personal or tribal interests, has profoundly deep roots – are we to skirt round the existence of such forces, paper over difficult issues, and present a sanitised/false "encyclopaedic" depiction of the world? Your next point: " Professor Baker fired two people from her publication solely because they were Israelis". Sorry but as a sceptic I would like some good evidence and context on this. The last point seems to me to be straying from the issue a little – but my penny's worth would be that – information originating from Norman Finklestein should not be represented as fact by Wiki, but should be overtly labelled eg "According to Finklestein" (the same should be applied to Alan Dershowitz and all other partisan commentators). Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So since we're at a stalemate, and there is no other precedent for support such an inclusion, and uninvolved admins appear to be less supportive of this category - I suggest it be deleted until a stronger consensus can be achieved. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Some accepted sources state that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation. I haven't seen any reliable citations/evidence which counter the assertion that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation. I believe Wiki's readership will be ill served by dropping the label "propaganda organisation" from such organisations. I will also happily defend those who wish to label Electronic Intifada and others on similar grounds. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Wikifan. We have reasoning provided at WP:CAT. Looks like one uninvolved admin is questioning the need. It does not matter if Prunesqualler can make an argument for why they are propaganda. It is controversial which means Prunesqualler will have to spell it out in the prose instead of relying on a cat. I don;t like that that is how cats are handled but enough people in previous unrelated but similar discussions have expressed concern that cats can be viewed as being a label applied by Wikipedia in its voice instead of a simple way of filing articles for navigational purposes. Err o the side of caution and remove the cat but feel free to keep on discussing in multiple places.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono- I think that " MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Some accepted sources state that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation." does "lay it out in prose" and I cannot see much benefit to the world in removing the label "propaganda organisation" from MEMRI, when the evidence suggests that they are. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fact is uninvolved editors without a vested interest in this specific conflict question the use of the category. The sources that describe MEMRI as propagandic are just as partisan themselves. "MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict." Irrelevant. Biased and one-sided does not = propaganda. Nableezy's "if reliable sources say so" is hard to defend because such open-ended reasoning would justify virtually every known media organization of being propaganda. The Guardian, BBC, Fox News, Electronic Intifada, etc...are likely candidates for inclusion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It always seemed to me that the main effect of categories like "Propaganda organizations" is to create inclusion disputes. Looking at the current list, I think at least half of them could be the subject of debates similar to the one above. The case for inclusion of Memri seems as good and as bad as the case for inclusion of several of the other entries. I'd be happy to see the category disappear, but I know that I wouldn't get enough support for that. Zero^talk 03:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan I think a reasonable case could be made for including all of the organisations you mentioned in the category "Propaganda organisations". As I have already stated- I for one would back the inclusion of [Electronic Intifada]. Re MEMRI aside from the evidence already offered prehaps disinterested parties could ask themselves the following question. If this organisation is putting out unbiased and even handed information why is it that pro Israeli parties do not complain about MEMRI, yet pro Palestinians have near universal contempt for them (a Google search of "MEMRI propaganda" should satisfy editors on this point). Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Prune, I doubt the wikipedia community will accept news organizations to be placed in propaganda organizations. Every single newspaper, at one point or another, has been accused of promoting propaganda. And not just simple mud-slinging by partisan sources like Whitaker or Baker, I mean actual investigations, like BBC sexing up the war in Iraq or CNN pimping Bill Clinton's policies. I think it is time, for now, MEMRI be removed from the category until a real consensus can be found. It seems the article was inserted into the category without any serious discussion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan I'm not sure that Wiki has a precisely quantifiable definition of what constitutes "real consensus". On many issues in the Israel/Palestine field editors have conflicting views, so if we make full consensus a prerequisite for the inclusion of information then articles in this field would be extremely threadbare. Surly in instances like this, where we don't have consensus, we should go with what the reliable sources say. We have reliable sources which describe MEMRI as a propaganda organisation and, to the best of my knowledge, non which refute that claim. If we are to have a "Propaganda organisations" category at all (that is a separate discussion of course) then MEMRI should be included in it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We've gone over this a dozen times. Partisan sources exist with accusations that MEMRI is a "propaganda organization." But, the majority of sources - reliable that is - suggest otherwise. MEMRI is cited widely in mainstream newspapers, and has been praised as a reliable by fairly prominent figures. Baker and Whitaker are on one clear side of the I/P fence. So, yes - we go by what the RS tell us, but they don't tell us MEMRI is a propaganda organization. They tell us so and so says MEMRI is a propaganda organization. Fact is Prune, there was no consensus for the original inclusion and there is no other similar organization included in the category. MEMRI should be removed from the category until the Wikipedia community can come up with a solid understanding of what constitutes a propaganda organization. Under the proposed reasoning by several editors here, virtually every newspaper, media organization, pressure movement...and, surprise, rights groups could be included in the category. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If the Wiki community are not prepared to accept the validity of the sources provided + a significant proportion of the community can look into the definition of Propaganda, then look into who MEMRI are, and what they do, and - with complete sincerity - deny that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation, then I guess there is little more to be said here. Ie if Wiki is determined to loose credibility by not calling a spade a spade there is little I can do about it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What we have is a series of editors with an obvious vested interest in this particularly dispute. A few uninvolved editors and admins have said that the MEMRI is not conclusively a propaganda organization, at least not to the extent that it should be in the propaganda category - which it was placed in said category without any discussion. So, since you seem so sure that MEMRI is a propaganda organization, you'll have no problem achieving a solid consensus among the community. Such a precedent would have of course open the gates for all media organizations that have been accused of promoting or acting as a tool for propaganda, probably including Wikipedia itself. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan - Just as a matter of interest, would you be kind enough to list these "uninvolved editors and admins"?

Catholics for Choice: source that doesn't mention CFC

Apparently I just really like posting at noticeboards! Anyway, at Catholics for Choice, we have this sentence, in a paragraph about CFC's "See Change" project, a campaign to designate the Vatican as an NGO at the United Nations:

On July 1, 2004, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that reaffirmed the Holy See's Permanent Observer status and extended it the same rights and privileges as other Observers, "in order to enable the Holy See to participate in a more constructive way in the Assembly’s activities, without intermediary."

Other sources have provided detail about the campaign and its goals.

Not only does the UN press release not mention CFC or the See Change Campaign - it doesn't mention any effort to downgrade the Vatican's UN status. There is absolutely no indication in the source that this is a response to anything, in spite of the obviously intended implication that the UN is repudiating CFC's campaign.

WP:NOR is pretty clear: "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." So is WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The UN press release is not related to the topic of this article. The combination of "Source1: CFC's campaign is trying to change the Vatican's status" + "Source2: The UN reaffirmed the Vatican's status" = "We must mention the UN resolution in CFC's article as though the UN is repudiating the campaign" is not supported by sources.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a OR problem. The fact that the assembly changed the Vatican's status is not contested, and its mention in the article does not necessarily (and falsely) imply that this change came about in reaction to the campaign. Rather, it appears logical to mention the change here as part of the coverage of the success (or lack thereof) of the campaign.  Sandstein  05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We already state (cited) that the campaign been unsuccessful; it's also common knowledge that the Vatican is an observer, not an NGO. No more information is needed to point out that the campaign has been unsuccessful, unless one is deliberately trying to falsely suggest that the UN itself repudiated the campaign. Including this reference which makes absolutely no mention of or even allusion to the campaign is a violation of WP:NOR, which states that sources must be "directly related to the topic of the article." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody else at home...? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on one point you make: I don't think that the inner workings of the UN are "common knowledge" to anyone. Brief explanatory context isn't a violation of NOR, so long as the connection is clear.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the relevant articles are already linked (and if they're not, they could be). What I'm objecting to is the insertion of an unrelated source with the aim of making it seem as though the GA voted against this campaign. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the source does not mention the topic, it is not very appropriate. The source does not give a comment about CFC "losing" or the Holy See "winning". The inclusion of the paragraph leads the reader to conclude that the general understanding of the matter is that CFC lost and the Vatican won. I would prefer to see a report saying exactly that. Binksternet (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR. A reliable source is cited. And there's no violation of WP:SYN since there's no combination of materials to reach a new conclusion. There's no implication of a causal relationship between the See Change campaign and the UN resolution. It's simply logical, relevant and informative, in a section devoted to a campaign to downgrade the Holy See's status at the UN, to state that the UN Gen Assembly in fact expanded the Holy See's status. If you're reading "winning" and "losing" or that the UN GA "voted against the campaign", then you're reading things that simply aren't there. Cloonmore (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Material that isn't related to CFC in any way...shouldn't be in the article on CFC. This is because articles are generally assumed to have topics, rather than being collections of assorted material that editors find interesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Adjustment Team

The article Adjustment Team about a short story by Philip K. Dick contains a lengthy section, Adjustment Team#Copyright status and copyfraud, that is sourced only to primary sources such as copyright registry entries. Several editors, including me, have identified this section as original research and possibly soapboxing (see Talk:Adjustment Team#"Copyright Status and Copyfraud" Section...), and have removed it on these grounds of several occasions (see history). The section's author, Refrigerator Heaven (talk · contribs), has however always reinstated it. I would appreciate the opinion of others about how to proceed with this section.  Sandstein  05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Its actually quite a few Phillip K. Dick stories that have significant undue weight leveled to the copyright status. Meddler, Shell Game, The Golden Man. Its a very long list, and I think that when some of the articles have copyright status paragraphs longer than the rest of the article, something is wrong. Livewireo (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That stuff about copyright in Meddler seems to be research using primary sources. If no secondary sources say anything about the copyright then the primary sources don't have any weight, so why is that section in the article? Plus we're supposed to just report on what primary sources say in a neutral way, that section came to conclusions not explicitly said in the original sources. Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be some funny happenings about the copyright for all I know but Wikipedia is not the place for detective work and accusations of fraud without any sources saying that. If someone has a case they should try getting some reliable source to follow up, even getting some literary magazine to make the accusations would be enough. As it is I believe the sections should be either deleted or cleaned up to say just the minimum bare facts without any interpretation, personally I'd go for deletion. Wikipedia is not in the business of making the news, only summarizing afterwards. Dmcq (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear case of original research using primary sources. Wikipedia is not the right place for such detailed analysis anyway. If the analysis appeared in some citable off-wiki place, inclusion of a sentence which cites it might be appropriate. Otherwise deletion is appropriate. Zero^talk 01:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keffiyeh

Another editor and I are engaged in a dispute over the display of a cartoon depicting Che Guevara wearing a keffiyeh at Keffiyeh#Symbol_of_Palestinian_solidarity. It's my position that it's WP:SYNTH to use a cartoon in order to illustrate that the keffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian solidarity, given that Che Guevara never wore keffiyehs.

I identify a similar problem at Hosni_Mubarak#Trial, where there's a cartoon (incidentally by the same artist) showing the former Egyptian president picking his nose. I just don't see how either of these images can qualify as encyclopedic in nature or "inside the major section to which they relate."—Biosketch (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is common knowledge that this headwear is associated with the Palestinian position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although the article should cite sources for this. I agree, though, that the image is misleading, though not necessarily as OR (it is not a source), but because it is misleading, as it suggests that Che Guevara wore such headwear and was an active supporter of the Palestinian cause, which would be news to me. Surely there are photographs of real-life Palestinian supporters wearing the keffiyeh. I also don't understand what the cartoon of Mubarak is meant to illustrate.  Sandstein  06:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Moon Landrieu

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

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

Eddie Sapir sworn In January 1975

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

google

Ruth Traill

An article in the New Yorker for August 29, 2011, states that this article (Ruth Traill) was the result of Original Research by a group of Wikipedians at the British Library. The references given in this article do not back up the statements made in it. Can anybody find some good, reliable Sources for what is said in here? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

CKLN.fm

User:RiseupRiseup is persistently adding personal observations and original research to the article. 69.196.135.120 (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's GPA - OR or acceptable under CALC?

There is a disagreement at Talk:Rick Perry#Rick Perry's G.P.A. regarding editors' calculating of his GPA, based on a document posted by Huffington Post purporting to be his transcript. While I am not arguing that Huffington Post is not reliable, and I am not even saying that I doubt this transcript is valid - in fact I do think it is likely valid - I am pointing out that their article accompanying the transcript says "A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University." - this does not seem to me to be a verifiable source. The editors at Talk: Rick Perry, in a sincere attempt at accuracy, have taken the grade points listed on the transcript and done their own calculation of the GPA, based on their assumptions regarding how such averages are calculated. They say that under WP:CALC, simple calculations can be made by editors and used. I think that this is not what CALC intended (as in figuring age from birthdate) - I think that our going to what appears to be a primary source, and doing our calculations based on what we think is the method that Texas A&M used for their calculations back in 1970 is OR and against policy. In addition, there is at least one secondary source that gives a GPA - I don't know how reliable it is, as I haven't looked into that - and I think that we should go with what secondary sources say, not do our own calculations. Would appreciate some feedback on that talk page on this - it is not a major point, but it is a BLP, and a widely viewed one at the moment, and I think we need to be careful and true to our policies. Thanks - I hope I have fairly outlined the disagreement. Tvoz/talk 18:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care to get involved in a politically-charged article but it sounds like your OR concerns are valid. It also seems that there may be issues of due weight if the GPA has not already been reported and discussed by others but is an original calculation done by Wikipedia editors. ElKevbo (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree... this definitely fails on BLP and UNDUE grounds, even if it might pass CALC (and given the provenance of the document the calculation is based on, I don't think it should pass that either). Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(came here due to question on BLP/N) If the school gave you both the number of credits (numerator) and hours (denominator) figuring out a GPA isn't generally rocket science and I would say fits into CALC. A&M's transcript does provide those values. But calculating Perry's GPA isn't as straight forward as that. By reading his transcript, you will note that the school converted to a 4 point system in June of 1969. The courses taken in 1968 and prior to June 69 were on a 3 point scale. This makes calculating his GPA a little more complex---and no longer a mere factoring of CALC.

You also have to look at the source where this is coming from. Normally, I would have no problem with an article in the Huffington Post being used, but individual stories within any reliable source might not be reliable. This article is, IMO, more of a smear piece than a news piece. First, there is an anonymous comment from a "classmate"---that could be anybody who attended the university at the same time as Perry. Second, there is the claim that Perry rarely received a grade better than a C and goes out of its way to highlight that Perry received "a lot of C's and D's." Well, over a third of his grades were better than C's---in fact he had twice as many A/B's as he did D/F's. The article mentions how he "only" had two A's, but highlights the one F. The article itself, ceases to be a news source but falls into an opinion/attack piece, thus unreliable.

As for undue... yeah, I don't like it, but GPA's are often common fodder for presidential candidates---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If they're "common fodder" then surely reliable sources have reported or will report the GPA, right? ElKevbo (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yupppers, and if this fails to become "common fodder" and no other source reports it, then it is clearly a sign of UNDUE. I mean, if the only source(s) that cite his GPA turn out to be attack pages/opinion pages, then how important could it really be? If we can get a good source, then I have no problem with its inclusion. But unless a SOLID (BLP proof) source is provided, then it fails on several levels.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no way in my mind it's appropriate to include someone's GPA based on a leaked transcript someone posted on huffpo. I don't think it would be a good idea in any situation like this, but it's especially inappropriate here because the primary purpose it serves in the article is too imply he's none too bright. Citing a leaked document posted on huffpo for negative information about a Republican presidential challenger is almost as bad as citing worldnetdaily to claim Obama was born in Kenya or something. Kevin (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors from the page in discussion, I feel the situation has been slightly misrepresented here by Tvoz (no offense, Tvoz) and I doubt most of you will go back to the talk page to read the entire discussion. So, I feel I must add a few things here in my defense. First, we made no assumptions in our calculation of the GPA. It is evident in the document itself how the school assigned grade points so that interpretation is not required for the calculation of the GPA. For instance a 3 hour course with a B grade always produced 9 grade points. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that A&M was assigning 3 grade points per credit hour for a B (3 x 3 = 9). Applying this to the whole document, one can easily tally all of the grades using A&M's own scale. After that, it is merely an average calculation, dividing the total grade points by the total credit hours. As far as the 3-to-4 point conversion, since we know how A&M assigned grade points, converting between the two point systems is like converting Fahrenheit to Celsius (covered under WP:CALC). Calculating an average is a routine mathematical calculation that should be covered under WP:CALC. As far as citation being RS, I think that's covered under WP:NEWSORG as Huffington Post is a major news organization. If this much scrutiny were given to every journalistic source on wikipedia, stories with anonymous sources could never be cited. There is a certain degree of assent that reasonable people give to the authenticity of documents uncovered in the course of journalistic research. Withholding such assent is a bit excessive among reasonable individuals. As to the distinction between news and opinion regarding the HuffPo article, the author's words aren't involved in the calculation of the GPA and weren't taken into account as such. All we were interested in was an academic transcript that had been provided by a major news outlet. Apologies for writing so much. Quophnix (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way that Huffpo is reliable enough to be a sole source for negative information in a BLP. Let alone leaked primary source documents posted there. Kevin (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We're only reporting what the GPA is. It's your own business how you choose to perceive it. Facts aren't positive or negative. They're facts. Quophnix (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. ElKevbo (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A fact is a fact is a fact. People make them positive or negative. Quophnix (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But not all facts are created equal, nor are the required. UNDUE is about facts whose presentation or inclusion is not necessary and might bias perspective. Many opinion pieces in magazines, newspapers, and online present nothing but facts, but they are terribly scewed becaused they pick and choose facts. This is one of those "facts" that people will weigh differently depending on where they sit. Face it, if Rick Perry had a 3.86 GPA, some people who oppose the inclusion of his GPA would support it; and some people who support the lower GPA would oppose it. It's one of those factoids that people like to throw around to make their guy/opponent look good/bad. Which is why I think it needs a solid source, not our computations and not the judgmental piece found in the HP. IF this merits inclusion in WP, then the issue WILL be picked up by reliable sources. If it fails to garner traction outside of the HP partisan article, then it doesn't. Simple as that.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What everyone is saying is that it might pass NOR... but even if it does, it is problematic in terms of half a dozen other policies and guidelines. The simple fact is... There is no way it should be included. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The only other objection I'm hearing is BLP. I've been up and down that page and don't see how it applies. Quophnix (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Texas Tribune publishes an article citing HuffPo as a source for an article on Perry's GPA

This may be OR (it seems like a borderline case because of the necessity of applying standards of calculation) and it may be a BLP issue, but it definitely appears to be UNDUE seeing as we don't have any secondary sources telling us his GPA. Why not just say the guy was a C student?LedRush (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that my objections are not based on UNDUE - I think if we have decent secondary sources discussing his grades, we are on solid ground including his GPA or a characterization of his grades, and it adds to the article. My concerns are only that we are using poor sourcing for a contentious assertion, and we are venturing into our own interpretation of the information we're using. BLP and OR. I hope we can find better sources that make the point, and then can include this. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone produce a source telling *exactly* how to calculate his GPA from a list of grades. Even though this seems "obvious" to some editors, scales and substitutions might make this more complex than you realize, and could end up producing a false result. Your "assumption" of knowing how to calculate the grades IS original research, unless you can get the university to provide a complete calculation guide, taking into account any anomalies that might be present for his years at the college, or perhaps specific application of honors or transfer or who knows what. In short it's OR. -- Avanu (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Avanu, that was the point I was trying to make regarding assumptions. If the transcript had included a final GPA I might have felt differently - although there still could be questions of verifiability - but for us to determine how they managed their switch from one system to another in calculating GPA makes me uncomfortable. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Avanu is 100% correct. Sometimes transcripts that do not contain cumulative GPAs provide the necessary information to calculate GPA or to translate grades from the school's grading system to a standard one on the back side of the form. Without knowing how to calculate the GPA it is absolutely original research to attempt doing so.Griswaldo (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would actually question the use of a calculation guide not published with transcript even if it's provided by the university who attest it would apply to the transcript or it's available on their website. It would seem to be WP:Syn to me. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. Tvoz/talk 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

G. K.'s Weekly

This paragraph is repeatedly (five times—WP:3RR may apply if broadly interpreted) added by an IP contributor. It may be valid, indeed it may be a useful for balance, but as it stands it is an unsupported expression of the contributor's view. Suggestions, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

To Catch a Predator

An editor is insisting on using the phrase "under the age of consent" which has no source. The show, To Catch a Predator, made a contract with the group Perverted-Justice to impersonate 13 to 15 year old children online in an effort to catch sexual predators. The citation for this is here: [1]. The other editor is insisting on adding in "under the age of consent," or adding in, "underage" with a pipelink to the Wiki articles on age of consent. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I proved Malke's source wrong. This source shows that decoys also pretended to be age 12. Hansen specifically says, "The PJ members are pretending to be 12- and 13-year-olds who are interested in sex and whose parents are away." The age range is 12-15, not 13-15. And as I stated in the WP:RfC, Malke is insisting that the show didn't ask for impersonations of children 'below the age of consent.' " and that it is therefore WP:OR to use the term "below the age of consent." Not only because the term is not correct to use regarding American laws against sex with children under 18...since "none of the statutes use the language," but also because "it is a pedophile's term." Malke also claims that "under the age of consent" cannot be sourced with/used in place of "underage," and that there is no citation that says the show contracted for "under the age of consent" children. Malke reasons that "under the age of consent" is not the same as saying "underage," so you can't morph "underage" into "under age of consent" because that would be WP:OR.

I stated that there is no proof that Perverted-Justice was not specifically contacted to impersonate people below the age of consent. In fact, the sources show that "below the age of consent" (the underage factor) is exactly why they were contacted. "Age of consent" is not "a pedophile term." It is a general term used to describe all minimum ages at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is often used interchangeably with "underage" (as various reliable sources can attest to). Both terms are used in reference to the show To Catch a Predator when referring to minors being unable to consent to sex. Underage, which redirects to Minor (law), covers three main things: age of majority, drinking age, and age of consent. Therefore, we are supposed to specify what is meant by "underage" when we use it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be proof of a negative. You need to have a source that says the show contracted for impersonations of children under the age of consent. There are none. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My point is you cannot say "Perverted-Justice was not specifically contacted to impersonate people below the age of consent," especially with the faulty source you provided, unless you have a source saying that. Your argument is ludicrous anyway, given that 12-15 is below the age of consent in all the operations carried out. And as I already stated, saying that "under the age of consent" does not mean "underage" in this case is as silly as saying "statutory rape" does not mean "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", and that we cannot substitute the word "statutory rape" in place of them. We are perfectly allowed to use synonyms on Wikipedia. And "under the age of consent" and "underage" are synonyms. The only difference is that "underage" is a wider term, which is why we are supposed to clarify. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a faulty source and I don't need to show anything other than what the edit says supported by the citation. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's faulty because it is not accurate for the age ranges. But my point is pretty much what LtPowers just stated at the WP:RfC, "Oh for crying out loud. We're allowed to use language that doesn't appear verbatim in sources. P-J always uses personae that are under the age of consent, and I believe 15 is under the age of consent in every jurisdiction in which TCAP operated." Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You've added a citation for the age ranges. The source I've used says this: "Dateline paid Perverted-Justice a consultant’s fee to do what it usually does, go into chat rooms, posing as 13-15 year olds home alone, interested in sex." It does not say Dateline paid them to pose as 13-15 year olds under the age of consent. You want to use that phrase so you can pipelink to the Age of consent in North America article. You can put a link to that article at the end of article. Now, I'm not going to argue with you as this board is for the admins to look things over and decide. I think there's enough for them to do that. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a source showing that 12 is included. That has been made clear. Your arguments and my arguments have also been made clear. I do not want to use the phrase "Dateline paid them to pose as 13-15 year olds under the age of consent." I want the phrase to stay as "It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be below the age of consent (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons." This is not WP:OR, for the reasons I already stated above. I showed these Google searches and these Google Books searches which clearly use the term "underage." Saying "under the age of consent" is just another way of saying "underage." The expressions are used interchangeably all the time. It's no different than statutory rape being used in place of "carnal knowledge of a minor." You claim that we can't use "age of consent" because it's not used in the statutes or in the sources I have provided (though I can also provide sources that state "age of consent"). That is like saying we can't use the term "statutory rape" because it is rarely used in the statutes. These terms are rarely used in the statutes, yes, but they are the WP:Common names for these topics, which is why these articles are designated under those titles.

I do not want to pipelink to the Age of consent in North America article. I stated, "Even if I use the word 'underage' instead, the Age of consent article will still be pipelinked, just as it is pipelinked for 'underage' in the lead of the Perverted-Justice article. It is pipelinked because it specifies what we are talking about. In this case, 'underage' is not simply about people who are under the age of majority. It's about people too young to consent to sex." From what I can see, you misunderstand WP:OR. It is time to let others weigh in now. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You want to synthesize. There's no reason to synthesize when we can use what the source actually says. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. There is no WP:SYNTH in using synonyms. Wikipedia does that all the time. By your logic, we shouldn't ever use "under the age of consent" to refer to underage teenagers. That is absurd! There is also no other article to specify what we mean by "underage" in this case, except to link to the Age of consent article. We are not talking about Age of majority (everyone under 18 in the United States). If we were, impersonating 16 to 17-year-olds would also be included in Perverted-Justice's sting operations. Perverted-Justice, however, stops the age range at 15, because there are barely any U.S. states that have an age of consent that is 15. Ages 16 and 17 are legal in more than just a few U.S. states. You ought to just stop now, like you said you were going to, and let others weigh in. You want to be right and are glossing over the obvious non-WP:OR facts. One very experienced editor already agrees with me. I suppose he's supporting "synth" as well. Not from what I can see. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I could go either way on this, but I lean towards inclusion. Using the term "underage" and piping to "under the age of consent" doesn't seem like a bad resolution at all to me. I understand the NOR concerns, but agree that this isn't really interpretation/research, it feels more like using synonyms to me.LedRush (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes good sense to me to clarify the age of consent, since this is different all over the world. The age of consent in Germany is 14 for instance, so clarifying the legal context of the age range seems sensible if you bear in mind a global readership. Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go along with 'underage,' and a pipelink. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, too, which is why I brought it up as an option (pointing out that the lead of the Perverted-Justice article does the same thing). Either way, the Age of consent article will still be linked in the lead...so I don't see why it matters whether we are hiding the term or not. Other than your feeling that "age of consent" is "a pedophile term" (despite the many non-pedophiles who use it) and pointing out that the exact wording "age of consent" is not in the sources I have provided (though I could provide some with that exact wording, and "age of consent" may very well be mentioned in some of the book sources above). Anyway, Betty is certainly right that just saying "12-15" is not enough. It doesn't tell our readers why Perverted-Justice only focused on that age range. Why not focus on 12-17, for example? Or below 12? For 12, I believe they started there because "12 and higher" generally have use of computers more so than younger children. It could also be that going below 12, which is more so the domain of prepubescents, and is generally labeled "child molestation" or an attempt at it, is typically a more serious crime than "statutory rape" or an attempt at it and is not something Perverted-Justice or Dateline NBC wanted to venture into for their televised program. But why they didn't go higher than 15 is clear: 16-17 is legal in plenty of U.S. states. What if a 19-year-old "predator" had been caught going after a 16-year-old decoy? It would look pretty silly to label him as some serious offender, wouldn't it? They did (I think) catch a 19-year-old going after a 13-year-old in one of their televised sting operations, but 13 is much different than 16. And the 19-year-old still wasn't treated as seriously as the older men in his sentencing (though I feel that he should have). But my point about all that? Well, what I stated before. This is not about age of majority. It's about age of consent. Otherwise, 16-17 would be included. Perverted-Justice is also about going after pedophiles and hebephiles or those displaying the same attraction. 16-17 falls outside of that.

Anyway, by using "underage" (backed with sources) and pipelinking "age of consent," the line of the lead would look like this: It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be underage (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No. "underage (ages 12-15). They impersonated 13 to 15 year olds. You're using the comment by Chris Hansen about "a 12 or 13 year old." But the actor impersonated a 13 year old which what was contracted for. Using the Chris Hansen's comment is not a source that says the show contracted for 12 to 15 year olds. And saying "underage (12-15), does that mean it's okay to have sex with children under 12? The lead should be specific, "The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children ages 13 to 15." You can pipelink under the "13 to 15." Malke 2010 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not about age of consent. That's your argument. The pipelink can be there but you cannot make the claim that the show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children "under the age of consent." You have no source for that. Stating "below the age of consent 12-15" implies two things: 1) does that mean children under 12 are in a special category of consent? 2) Does that mean all children 16 to 18 are fair game for predators? The laws in the U.S. are very specific. They are child protection laws. They are not laws that signal to pedophiles when they can legally rape children. You're synthesizing and your arguments make no sense. Using a pipelink is a concession. You won't stop until you get what you want. The rules are specific. If you want to use 'age of consent' then go find a real source that says that's what the show contracted for. You can't, because they didn't. It's your agenda, not the show's agenda. That's OR and you can't do it. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. They did not just impersonate "13 to 15 year olds." I already provided a source showing that not to be the case, so stop saying that it is. Using the Chris Hansen comment from a reliable source is as much of a source as the one you provided. So stop trying to game the system. I don't need a source that says "the show contracted for 12 to 15 year olds." Hansen explicitly says, "The PJ members are pretending to be 12- and 13-year-olds who are interested in sex and whose parents are away." The show has included PJ members pretending to be 12. So, again, you are wrong. Stop insisting that you are right. But I certainly will provide a different reliable source showing the correct age ranges. The lead should be specific and accurate indeed. Saying "The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children ages 13 to 15." without specifying "underage" is not. And of course saying "underage (12-15)" does not mean that it is okay to have sex with children under 12, but THE LEAD IS NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL BY saying "It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be underage (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons." All it is saying is that these subjects believed these decoys to be underage and then it specifies the age range used for that, which is not WP:OR. You have a strange way of reading things, which no one else is seeing but you. It's also fairly common sense that if the age range starts at 12, then everything under 12 is illegal.

Yes, it is my argument that this is about age of consent. Because that is a fact. I can make "the claim" that these men believed the decoys were under the age of consent all I want, because that is the truth. Do you even know what pipelinking is? See WP:PIPELINK. That means "Age of consent" will still be in the lead when I use "underage"; it will simply be hidden under the redirected term "underage." That is what you just agreed to. And your belief about what "below the age of consent (ages 12-15)" implies is pure silliness. Just more of your strange way of reading things. It does not matter, really, because the same thing is being said by using "underage" in this case. No one said there are laws to signal to pedophiles when they can legally rape children. You also continue to confuse the word pedophile. Go ahead and read over the Pedophilia article thoroughly. It's a topic I am well-versed in. There are no U.S. age of consent laws that signal to pedophiles. The ages of consent in the U.S. are 16-18. Pedophiles are not sexually interested in 16 to 18-year-olds, people who have adult bodies. As for synthesizing, you keep saying that when I'm not, and when all editors have agreed with me thus far. You are the only one making arguments that make no sense. You are the only one that won't stop until you get what you want. But the editors have spoken. I can say "below the age of consent" if I want. And I can also pipelink to it while using "underage." You say "The rules are specific"? You don't even know the rules, it seems. Saying I have an agenda? I am seriously laughing out loud right now. If you are suggesting that I am some pedophile because I am supporting the use of what you call "a pedophile term" -- the term age of consent, which is the common term to describe all minimum ages at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is often used interchangeably with "underage" (as various reliable sources can attest to) -- then you might want to check my contributions to the Pedophilia article and ask around. I have been fighting real pedophiles at that article for years, and we have banned every single one that has popped up...unless some IP spouting off. So take your agenda accusations elsewhere. By your idiotic logic, the three editors who have supported me in this discussion have an agenda as well. Bottomline? You are wrong. Face it. And if you WP:EDITWAR when I add the above agreed upon line, I will report you and link to this discussion and the WP:RfC where an editor already called you out on your ludicrosity. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, I have to agree with Flyer and the others. I have seen serious OR violations on this board, but this is not one of them, so much so that I don't see a need to sign in (but don't worry, not an administrator). "Underage" is a blanket term, and it's used to refer to "under the age of consent" in the same vein that it's used to refer to "under the age of majority" or "under the drinking age." The show is not about the latter two. It's detailing would-be offenders trying to contact girls or boys who are incapable of consenting to sexual activity with adults by law. That falls under Age of consent. Not exactly OR to say that the "potential predators" believed the decoys were under the age of consent. Whether we call them "minors" or "underage," they were believed to be incapable of consenting to sex by law. We really are talking synonyms here, and if we can't use "under the age of consent" to refer to "underage" when speaking of individuals who are, in fact, deemed too young to consent to sex, then we might as well throw out all uses of synonyms and exceedingly violate WP:COPVIO. If the decoys had pretended to be people as old as 17, then I might believe that it's about age of majority. Speaking of that correct age range, most reliable sources do say 13-15 and don't mention 12 at all. But there are sources that say the decoys also pretended to be 12 (like the one shown by Flyer some paragraphs up), and I remember a few episodes that featured 12 year olds. The Long Beach, California case included an 11 year old decoy, the youngest decoy on the show. So if we must use 13-15 because of WP:SYNTH worries, then I would say to use the word "generally" for accuracy. It should be "generally 13-15."

This discussion is also the first time I have ever heard of "age of consent" referred to as "a pedophile term." I don't doubt that they use it, but it is a general term that everyone uses. Because how else are we going to describe such situations? "Underage" just isn't as specific, unless we stress that we mean underage in the context of sexual activity. This Google source shows the generality of the term and attributes it to other similar sting operations; it even mentions To Catch a Predator, saying "...many law enforcement agencies have set up 'sting' operations online using officers or volunteers of legal age posing as those beneath the age of consent. Although this is common knowledge, thanks to the popularity of shows such as NBC's To Catch a Predator, they continue to make arrests on a regular basis." I agree to using the term "underage" and piping to the "age of consent" article. That's a fair compromise. 94.200.27.54 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with using the term 'underage' and piping to the age of consent article earlier. But the lead should make it clear by saying, "The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate underage children, usually in the 12 to 15 age range. . ." This makes it clear that a specific age range was chosen and is grammatically correct since underage modifies the children, and the range is 12 to 15. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Using "children" is POV since these people are supposed to be pubescent, which I see has been brought to the attention of the talk page before. "Minor" should typically be used in instances like this, but "underage minor" is redundant. So we'll need to think of something else. Also, the line is still grammatically correct without Perverted-Justice being mentioned, and they are already mentioned in the second paragraph. That said, I understand your point about making it clearer that the 12 to 15 year olds weren't actually 12 to 15 and that this age range was chosen. So maybe this wording will suffice... "It is devoted to impersonating underage youth (generally 12-15) and detaining adults who contact them over the Internet for sexual liaisons."

Since everyone is in agreement about using "age of consent," but under a pipelink, it is now just a matter of wording. Hope I helped. 94.200.27.54 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, your wording is essentially the same and confusing. My wording makes a concession with the age range and the pipelink and still makes it clear what was contracted for, etc. And it would be better if you identified yourself. I am going to ask an Administrator to check on this because I don't think you can edit as an IP when you have an account. Your edit suggestions are exactly like Flyer22 and therefore I don't believe you are independent editor who happened by and is making comment. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP address is from Dubai. I don't see any obvious connection between Flyer22 and that location. I would have to guess that the two are separate people. Besides, I think it is perfectly okay to use the synonyms "age of consent" and "underage", pipe linking from the one to the other. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, anyone can see that it is from Dubai. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, and yet nothing about Flyer22 suggests Dubai. Binksternet (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming I think Flyer22 and the IP are the same editor. I do not think that. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What else are we to assume? You have already accused me of being a pedophile, without even understanding the term. Don't bother denying it. And now you are accusing me of being an IP who also agrees with me. Thus far, five editors have agreed with me. And, really, I have to ask: Do you misunderstand everything about Wikipedia? You don't understand WP:OR, not fully anyway. And now you don't understand the fact that editors are allowed to edit as IPs. We don't always have to sign in. If the above editor doesn't want to sign in, that is his or her right. As long as he or she is not WP:SOCKING in a way to advance his or her position by making it appear that he or she are two different people, then it is not a violation. The IP's suggestion is exactly like mine? No. There is a clear difference between "It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be underage (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons." and "It is devoted to impersonating underage youth (generally 12-15) and detaining adults who contact them over the Internet for sexual liaisons." Perhaps the IP's suggestion is similar to mine because the lead is similar? I used the wording that already exists in the lead. Do you never see such proposals that use the same existing wording but slightly alter them? This goes on all the time in dispute resolutions where a compromise is trying to be made. Wanting things your way and your way only is not a compromise.

IP, thank you for weighing in. I will use your proposal, and there is nothing confusing about it. And we certainly are supposed to use "minor" instead of "child" (which is first and foremost a person between birth and puberty). What myself and others have learned from editing the Pedophilia article and its related articles is that using "children" when distinguishing some offenders from pedophiles (as the lead of the To Catch a Predator article makes sure to distinguish) is the worst thing you can do. It makes it more confusing for some readers to grasp the difference when we are calling all the underage subjects "children." We use "children" when saying "prepubescent children" and we typically use "minors" when talking about pubescents and post-pubescents. We want to make a clear distinction between biological children and legal children. Malke can edit war all he or she wants. I'll just have to start a new WP:RfC or take it to some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: The matter was also settled here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Licensing in the United States for Caribbean medical school graduates

I have been editing the articles for medical schools in the Caribbean over the past several weeks and there is a WP:NOR issue that has been discussed on a few talk pages, but I would like some more outside input on.

As a little background, there are about 20 "offshore" schools in the Caribbean where mostly American/Canadian students study for the first two years, and then train at US hospitals for the second two years, with the intention of applying for US/Canadian residency programs. These are different from "regional" schools in the Caribbean which train students to practice in their home countries. (I am currently working on differentiating the two in the List of medical schools in the Caribbean article.)

With the exception of 4 of these offshore schools, several individual US states restrict licensure for the other ~15 schools, the most prominent of which is California. California has an "approved" and "disapproved" foreign medical schools list, but many of the Caribbean schools aren't on either list as they haven't been reviewed by the California board (a voluntary process.)

A few states require foreign medical schools to be on the California "approved" list for graduates to obtain licensure there; other states simply require that a school not be on the California "disapproved" list. Some states have explicitly restricted specific Caribbean schools outright. In addition, Kansas for example requires foreign schools to have been in existence for 15 years for graduates to be eligible for licensure.

Now let's say School X opened in 2005, is explicitly restricted in Texas, and is neither California approved nor disapproved. That means the graduates are not eligible for licensure in Texas, California, Kansas, Alaska, Indiana, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

The problem that arises in terms of WP:NOR is that the WP article could only say "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas." The medical board laws for the other states don't explicitly say "School X is ineligible for licensure here" but instead basically say "if a school is not approved by California, it is also not approved here."

I should say that I am completely indifferent on this, and I think the counterargument that "if School X's ineligibility for licensure in California/Alaska/etc. was of interest, there would be reliable sources explicitly saying that" is a very valid argument.

But at the same time, only writing "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas" is misleading since the other ineligible states aren't mentioned.

Thoughts? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but why not just say "Texas has listed this school as one whose graduates cannot receive licensure to practice in Texas". It is less misleading as the emphasis is now on what Texas has done (and not the licensure of school x in general). In generally, I would lean very slightly against inclusion of the entire list as an OR research issue, but I would totally cave if someone disagreed strongly.LedRush (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Tigress

The article contains original arguments.

Looking at the article, I agree, but in future, it would help if you would be more specific about the statements you believe to be original research or synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Museum records

If I visit a museum and view their internal records about a collection and include that information in an article about that collection, is that OR? Assume that there are published sources to verify the existence of the collection but no detailed records about it in the public domain. I am not creating new information or advancing a particular argument in the article, I am simply recording what is already written down in the museums records which they have never got round to publishing, but is that OR and does the extra information over and above what has already been published meet the standard of verifiability? Thanks Philafrenzy (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not so much that it is original research, but the internal records are primary sources. They are more likely to contain simple errors of fact than documents actually published by the museum would. Any information leaflets for the public are reliable sources, and so are explanations in posters, boards, labels in the museum. We can usually assume that museum staff check all these things before they are made public. If the information in the internal records is likely to be controversial in any way, then it should definitely not be used. If it is uncontroversial, it may be OK until a better source can be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely uncontroversial information and of a purely factual nature, but it is information that has not been published before. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's original research, and it is verifiable too if anyone can visit the museum and check the records. The real question is whether museum records are reliable sources. I'd take it to the RS board if I were you but a rule of thumb is that primary sources are reliable for claims about the author of the primary source i.e. museum records are probably reliable for facts about the museum in the way that a musician's website would be reliable for tour dates etc, album track listings and so on. Museum records are probably reliable for claims about artefacts such as exhibition dates, excavation dates and things like that, who worked on an artefact etc, but dating the artefact to a historical period would require a secondary source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research covers what you do with the information. This is more of a reliable sources issue. Sources need to be published. Unpublished material found in filing cabinets and other records doesn't count. If you could convicne the museum to scan or transcribe those records on their website then they'd become published primary sources, and could be used within the same limits as other primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You can describe what the museum records say... but be very careful not to make (or even infer) any arguments or conclusions based upon those records. For that you would need a published source. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that. WP:V say that we must used published sources. There is no provision for using unpublished material. The distinction that Blueboar is should properly be applied to primary published sources versus secondary published sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it has only been published by the museum if they put their reputation behind it, e,g, a label on a specimen on view to the public. If it is just one of their researchers notes stacked away somewhere then it has not been published. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I make clear that I was not thinking about interpretations or opinions penned by curators, so much as purely factual information in unpublished records about an object or collection. For instance, correspondence from donors, dates and places on printed items, figures in financial records, and other factual information in documents, all otherwise unpublished. So the citation would be "Extracted from the Record of the xxxx Collection at xxxx Museum, Volume X, Page X, date." This would allow verifiability, albeit only through a personal visit to inspect the same records. This unpublished information would be combined with the existing published information to expand the article beyond the stub that the article would be limited to using purely published sources. In most cases, I don't think the documents would have even been created by the museum except those relating to the specific bequest of the items to the Museum in the first place. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd avoid using anything that hasn't been published unless it is specifically referred to in a secondary source and only then if there is some overriding reason like the article would be wrong in some way, basically WP:IAR. It verges on or is original research, and what interest is it anyhow if they don't think it is worth publishing? Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every trivial fact. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK but I don't think we can assume that something is trivial just because it has never been published, it is often a matter of resources for institutions. Sometimes collections remain largely unexamined or unpublicised simply because there are not the staff in the institution to do it. Even if the information is detail, it can help to support larger facts and form a picture. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like original research to me, building up something that isn't supported by the secondary sources. If it is only for something like that I'd very much say to just forget about it. I know it can be sad to ignore things you know but it should be published somewhere else first instead. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement

OR issue at RfC here. --Noleander (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about OR

Is the use of OR to argue for a position in a talk page appropriate? Can this be cited as OR or is OR only applicable to article pages?

Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a rulings on a hypotheticals are not useful. Looking at your contribution I have a guess what you might be talking about, but I want to hear it from you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You can directly post on my talk page too, if you know what I am talking about. Anyway... it's something like Person X asserted Location Y belongs to Entity Z and this claim is unverified and Person X is very insistent about it in a talk page. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it involves a current arbitration case. This remains a hypothetical discussion here at the moment. WP:RSN/WP:BLP/WP:FTN/WP:NORN do not give blanket statements on hypotheticals. We judge each on its own merits as presented to us. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not very sure what's the problem with asking if OR applies to talk pages or only to article pages. I see that you already wrote a message to accuse me of gaming the system and using you as a pawn in my talk page [2]. The attitude and accusations I get from people in WP can be quite baffling sometimes... :/ --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)