Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Moon Landrieu

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

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

Eddie Sapir sworn In January 1975

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

google

Continuation War again

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

The sentence in question is:

...according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day, [ref1][ref2] although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement [ref3] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time [ref4] and neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War. [ref5] [5]

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

The citations ref1 and ref2 are for sources that explicitly say that the fighting took place. However, User:Wanderer602 says that he can't find any confirmation of this in Finnish sources and adds the "although..." part that puts the information from reliable sources into doubt. (see 2nd paragraph here: [6]) Is not that original research? Since when does information from reliable sources have to be confirmed by the research of a user to be taken seriously?

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

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

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

To be more exact... Finnish 12th Division was at the western shore of Rajajoki river (which is 10 - 20 m wide, see picture [7], non-wiki map [8]). N. Beloostrov lays on the eastern shore. Ref. 3 is there stating the location of the unit since YMB29 refused to accept it. Ref. 4 is direct quote from war diary discribing situation at the line which run along the river (it describes the situation at both the Rajajoki facing N. Beloostrov as well in the whole of 12th Divisions area as 'quiet'). Ref 5. is a Finnish histography of the Continuation War which does not mention fighting at N. Beloostrov at 4/5 September at all while making clear statements of other fighting that took place in the vicinity (such as at the S. Beloostrov) - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I only followed advice from the last reviewer of the page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cringe_comedy#Humiliation_comedy

This section is quite speculative and particular in characterizing the humor employed by Ben Stiller in various "Ben Stiller movies". The critical points for me:

1. Complete lack of citation
2. Laser focus on Ben Stiller
3. Seemingly unsympathetic (though possibly neutral) characterization of Stiller's performance

If it weren't for the first one, I would easily overlook the last two. In the absence of citation, the critical focus on Ben Stiller is in need of justification here.

• (Note: the comment above is not mine)--A quick Google search reveals there is no readily available source that defines "cringe comedy" or "humiliation comedy". That, and the fact that the article has been tagged as citations needed for four years and there is not a singe reference in the article make if fair game for bold editing and removal of questionable content and maybe even an AfD. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I removed the section as original research. There are also BLP concerns as Stiller is very much alive. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

County surveyor

County surveyor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I ran into this while fixing dab links, and it's a doozy. Massive page, referenced only to primary documents, such as the Domesday Book and the Oxford English Dictionary, and with this bizarre author's statement on the talk page. Considering reverting it back to before this editor started in on it, but would would like some feedback before doing so. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 16:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that OED is a primary source, but otherwise I agree. The main thing wrong with the article is lack of sourcing. Zero^talk 05:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The user has agreed to move his draft to userspace, a couple editors will help him work on it. Resolved for time being.The Interior (Talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Is it original research to include selected Quranic verses in our article on women's rights in Saudi Arabia without secondary sources demonstrating their relevance? Noloop and Aerobicfox argue that because the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia states that the Quran is the country's constitution and judges there apply the law by citing it, we may, for example, include quotes that "seem relevant" such as 4:34:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.

in a paragraph about how women require a male guardian for most public activities in Saudi Arabia, not cited to a source. I argue that we nonetheless need secondary sources applying the Quran verse to the situation in Saudi Arabia, just as we would need secondary sources applying any other general, broad-brush "constitutional" principle to a specific law or case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear case of original research. The Quran says lots of different things and courts need to interpret it. A secondary source is required to indicate the relationship between the text of the Quran and existing practice in Saudi Arabia. Zero^talk 05:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Zero. The Quran is no different from other key religious texts in that it can be interpreted many ways. A straight quote from any such text cannot serve as a support to disputed facts. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The two editors above should take attention to the specific case of Saudi Arabia as well as the purpose of this quote since they are just coming into this. In Saudi Arabia no written legal code is used, and judges are given enormous discretion to give individual interpretations of the Qur'an and other early Islamic texts in order to arrive at their own verdicts. Differences in enforceability and interpretations vary widely from judge to judge as well as region to region, the sum of the different approaches to female guardianship normally described to western audiences as the legal requirement for females to have guardians. It is however more of a custom that varies between different localities with a pseudo-legal backing which is enforced largely by ultra conservative judges who do not actually require any specific law or direct quotation from a Muslim text to support their ruling. Now, in order to familiarize the reader of this article to the nature of male guardianship in Islamic society a quote from the Qur'an is provided to illustrate a sentiment within the Muslim community, which it does successfully. There is no explanation of the quote, or use of the quote in any way to support a "disputed fact" or to support a legal position. While weight could be a potential argument, previous consensus agreed to the current quotes on the page, and I believe it does not add undue weight but gives the reader useful background to the culture. I agree that it would be beneficial to find sources that specifically mention certain quotations from the Qur'an that are often cited. At the moment though I have little access to a computer to search for such sources or respond here. Please consider helping to find a source or explaining how this quote misleads or is harmful to the article; I should be able to do so in a few days after I get my computer back, so apologies if I am late to respond in the meantime.AerobicFox (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is required to prove that the quote is harmful to the article. It's the job of the editors who wish to include it to find sources connecting it to the article topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm too busy right now to be burdened with looking this stuff up. It doesn't really seem to affect the article too much either way, so go ahead and do whatever you like.AerobicFox (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well that settles it, then. And, since God has willed it that Noloop be indeffed, I have gone ahead and removed all the annoying disembodied quotes from the article. If anyone is thinking of reinstating them, please consider also adding Sura 4:34, without which any scriptural commentary on women's rights in SA seems incomplete. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows and Linux

Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux#Market_share refers to another Wikipedia article which calculates the median of market share for 2 operating systems, based on a number of sources. Firstly, I'm not sure that it is proper to reference another article this way. Secondly, I suspect that the calculation of the median constitutes synthesis. Statistics is not my field, but I'm pretty sure that median is not the way to deal with possible bias introduced through possible self-selection and biased sources.

So how to deal with this: Leave the reference? Cite the same sources with the same caveats? Choose the sources which seems least biased? Or just remove it altogether since there's no way avoid WP:OR? Useerup (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be easier to just redirect to the other article with a small blurb discussing the difficulties getting exact numbers? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But my concern is that median between a number of potentially biased sources is not a proper way to even out bias, and it smacks of OR in the other article as well. A redirect would work, if the median was removed from the other article. The sources are ok, and a reader can reasonably determine from the differences that potential bias is at play. Perhaps the potential bias should be better explained for each source. But the median, how does that come into play? What I need guidance on is whether such calculations are considered OR or not. Useerup (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest documenting the differences between the sources, rather than evening them out--you can say that opinions regarding market share vary, give a range of values citing the various sources, or, if the sources are notable enough, list values separately with attribution. Determining these values is not trivial, and the numbers will not only vary from source to source but also year to year. WP is not a reliable source, however, so referencing another article is not appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary - synthesis and original research, no sources talking about this principality in 895

Users wrote that my older report was not belonging to this topic. But Iam sure that it belongs here. I would like to report article Principality of Hungary because this article is a synthesis: [9] It broken also this rule: [10] „If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research“ - we have a extremly small minority view, from the authors whose are not experts in topic This term is not based at reliable secondary sources: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Term „Principality of Hungary“ is based only at tertiary sources and non-scholar publications. Its very rare anachronism for a Hungarian tribal alliance and it does not deserve own article. Entry of the article is classical example of synthesis:

The Principality of Hungary, also Hungarian Principality or Duchy of Hungary (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség), was the first documented Hungarian state, a tribal alliance in the Carpathian Basin, established 895 or 896, following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.

The Magyars (Hungarians), a semi-nomadic group of people led by Árpád formed the Principality of Hungary at the very end of the 9th century, arriving from Etelköz, their earlier principality east of the Carpathians.

The principality was succeeded by the Christian kingdom of Hungary with the coronation of Stephen I in AD 1000.

In contemporary Byzantine sources, the territory of the Hungarian tribal alliance was also known as in Greek as "Western Tourkia", because of its allegiance to the the Khazar Khaganate.

Sources deprecating the existence of Hungarian principality:

[11] „the is no reson to believe that conquering hungarians considered a carpathian basin as their final home“ „after defeat at Ausburg (955) Arpad princes trying to make a independent christian state“ [12] talks about hungarian tribes and chieftains in 10th century, „1001 – creation of the state“ [13] no simple word about hungarian principality [14] in 899 Pannonia mentioned as the part of Frankish empire, talking about tribes in 10th century and „after 955 was formed a basis for future hungarian kingdom“

NOTE: 50% of sources speaks about Hungarian principality only after 955 and 50 % of sources about Hungarian history dont use the term Hungarian principality, they speaks about TRIBAL ALLIANCE in Carpathian basin ([15] [16] [17] [18]) and kingdom in 1001.

A pagan principality is a tribal alliance.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wanna see sources from historians which speaks that "pagan principality of hungary" is the "tribal alliance". Its your original research. --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources talking about principality in the end of 10th century:

[19] talks about tribal union in 950 – p. 102 and about principality after 955 [20] about principality of Hungary in 10th century not in 9th century [21] about principality in 948 [22] hungarian principality – started to create after 955 and creation finished in 972 [23] principality in 10th century, not in 9th century

For instance, Etelköz was another pagan Hungarian principality in present-day Ukraine in the 9th century.[24]Fakirbakir (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one book says that Etelkoz was a principality - its original research. 99% of sources talks about magyar tribes. --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not find a book which speaks about foundation of the Principality of Hungary in 895

Its a classical kind of the essay, synthesis and original research from User:Fakirbakir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position). Firstly he created article Principality of Hungary without proper references and sources for example he used the translator as the reference. It was kind a propagandistic and patriotic ([25]). I have found a mistakes and uncited matherial and reported this article, he started with canvassing (other hungarian users) and he repair this page – but without consensus and he used only hungarian point of view. This user was firstly trying to legitimize a term Principality of Hungary. His sources:

1) [26] We cannot verify this book and we dont know about which hungarian principality talks this book – 17th century in Transylvania or Principality of Geza in 972? Author is theologian and book is assigned for high schools.

2) [27] this book is just a outline of history and author is not expert in topic. He use the fictive names of the countries. „Principality of Hungary“ and „Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia“ – this countries are fictive and they are not useing by seriouse historians. Btw in the book is mentioned that hungarians came in the end of 9th century and than established a principality, but principality could be established after 955, there is no exact year.

3) [28] term principality of hungary is used, but in this book is also used the term slovak principality (so can we call the Principality of Nitra the Slovak principality? It can be mentioned like an alternative name but not like a name of whole article). and we dont know from this book the establishment of the principality so it could be after 955.

4) [29] this source is from 1905, its talking about principality of hungary and about slovaks. But in which period? It could be the principality of transylvania in 16th century or it could be attempts from the Slovaks to make a principality in the northern hungary in 19th century.

5) [30] it talks about hungarian principality in 10th century, so it could be after 955

The next activity of the User:Fakirbakir was to make a connection with the arrival of the Magyar nomadic tribes into Carpathian basin and establishment of principality, but his sources says nothing about establishment of the Hungarian principality:

1) [31] its only tertiary source and says that hungarian state starting with creation in 896 – can we talk in this time about principality or about tribal union, tribal alliance, tribal federation...? creation started in 896, but when the principality was a realy created? Was it created?

2) [32] same encyclopedy like above – he used a feedback to source his claims

3) [33] its book from amateur astronomer talking about hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.

4) [34] its book about Tokay vine and its only mentioned hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.

I do not understand this problem. The pagan state was founded when the Magyars settled (from Etelköz) in the Carpathian Basin around 895.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source about this. Your sources talks about "state" - tribal polity. Find a sources saying that "Principality of Hungary" was founded in 895. Now it just a original research and synthesis. --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions:

A. Term „Principality of Hungary“ is mentioned only in the tertiary sources or in non-scholar publications and it should not be the name of article according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

B. Majority of seriouse historian publications deprecating existence of Hungarian principality, Principality of Hungary, etc.

C. Term „Hungarian principality“ is used from the reign of Geza in 970.

D. Term „Hungarian principality“ in Hungarian language is very rare and it used only in one book (other books say the same sentences about this so its feedbacks): [35] and seriouse Hungarian academics use term Hungarin tribal union in 997 ([36])

E. Calling the rulers of Hungarian tribal alliance princes in Hungarian patriotic literature does not make a principality from the seminomadic tribes. Term prince is used for a monarchs, lords, tribal chieftains sometimes.

Principality of Hungary was called "Western Tourkia" or "Tourkia" by contemporary Byzantine sources. The term of Principality of Hungary or Hungarian Principality or Duchy of Hungary are latter expressions. (Principality of Nitra is same case in reference to its latter name)Fakirbakir (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Show me the source that principality of hungary was called a western tourkia. I have found source that hungarian tribal union in pannonia was called a western tourkia and it was not independent state. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=VOVrTp3XLIGd-waJvvjeBA&ct=result&id=K2ppAAAAMAAJ&dq=Nomads+and+their+neighbours+in+the+Russian+steppe%3A+Turks%2C+Khazars+and+Qipchaqs&q=%22western+Tourkia%22#search_anchor) --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible solutions:

A) Rename the article to Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpathian Basin)

B) Move the present content of the article to [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes] and delete this article

C) Rename article to „Geza´s Principality“ or „Hungarian principality“ and we can talk about history after 955 or 972 and the earlier period move to the articles [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes]

D) Create articles Hungarian tribal alliance (Etelkoz 830-895), Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpahian basin 895-972), Hungarian principality (972-1001) --Samofi (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, there was a pagan principality (Western Tourkia in contemporary sources), English sources exist about it (at least) from the 18th century as Duchy of Hungary.[37]. The rulers were called Duces or Princes by contemporary and latter sources. The first ruler of this entity (Árpád) was called prince.(895-907)[38]Fakirbakir (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed.....why we do have two sections here about Principality of Hungary?Fakirbakir (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You dont agree because its your synthesis. Find source that Principality of Hungary was called a "Western Tourkia" in Byzantine sources. Its clear syntheis, you are connecting sources about tribal alliance, duchy, magyar tribes, principality. You are connecting name prince with principality. Samo (founder of samo empire) was called rex, king. So was it kingdom? Svätopluk was called rex - king too. So great moravia was a kingdom? Nope.. "Principality of Hungary" is a frinde theory and its no place in wikipedia for such theories and original research. You really dont see, that its synthesis? Why its not a 1 source which speaks that Principality of Hungary was established in 895? Btw one from your sources says that "Principality of Hungary was established in 830 in Etelkoz". Its just a minority views.. Term principality of Hungary is not videly accepted by scholars so article should be changed or deleted. Its used by non-scholars for a variouse polities in periods from 830 to 1900.. Do you have sources that principality of Hungary, Hungarian state, Duchy of Hungary, Hungarian Tribal alliance, Western Tourkia are the same polity? So show it. About duchy of Hungary: http://books.google.com/books?id=N3rxAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&dq=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&hl=sk&ei=LaSOTu_HKM6F-wbwpaX1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA - Geza established monarchy and his son stephen inherrited the duchy in 997. Reign of Geza started about 970. So we cannost talk about duchy of hungary before 970. Old english sources (from 18th century) useing the term "Duchy of Hungary" and all say the same thing: "Thus -Henry II. erected the duchy of Hungary into a kingdom, in favour of Stephen, who before had the title of duke" but its sources from 18th century (you should use a modern neutral secondary sources) and Hungarian duchy was mentioned only with connection with Stephen so after 997. How can you connect it with 895? Its here 2 times, because first report was not done good, now its better and its belonging to the original research noticeboard. --Samofi (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed a 2 manipulations with sources you written here. "The first ruler of this entity (Árpád) was called prince.(895-907)[39]" the is writing about hungarian leader prince arpad, but which entity do you mean? Try to read all sources not only informations you need to your synthesis. There is written that hungarians were destroyed by pechenegs, thier mortality was high, they were ethnicaly mixed and they were nomadic (its not sure if elites were). Article speaks about tribes. First mentioned hungarian polity is in the 990 with connection with geza. Second manipulations is this. You written "I disagree, there was a pagan principality (Western Tourkia in contemporary sources)". But source says: By the terming their land "western tourkia", the hungarian tribal union in pannonia was reffering their allegiance to larger turkish tribal union. So it was a tribal organization and not Principality of Hungary (http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=VOVrTp3XLIGd-waJvvjeBA&ct=result&id=K2ppAAAAMAAJ&dq=Nomads+and+their+neighbours+in+the+Russian+steppe%3A+Turks%2C+Khazars+and+Qipchaqs&q=%22western+Tourkia%22#search_anchor). --Samofi (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

1, There are Byzantine sources about Western Tourkia,[40]

2, Samo's Empire is called Empire (hypothetically it is more than kingdom) , however there is no medieval source about this name "Samo's Empire"

3, Principality of Nita is the same, there is no contemporary source about its name "Principality of Nitra"

4, Principality of Hungary was not a kingdom it was a pagan principality,

5, You did not read carefully the sources, all of them are about 10th century

6, Please prove your statement why Etelköz is just a minority view.

7, Please prove your statement why Principality of Hungary is not accepted by scholars.

8, Please see the page and you will find another new (2004) source about Duchy of Hungary. I wanted to demonstrate its English usage.

9, There is no other Prince Árpád in Hungarian history.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is out of question that there was a "Principality of Hungary" before the "Kingdom of Hungary" was founded in 1000. So the name of the article itself is correct. We can discuss about when was this principality founded. As far as I know it is a standard statement in textbooks that the Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin in 895/896. The period between this and the foundation of the Kingdom of Hungary is called the "age of principality" when princes, such as Árpád, ruled the country. Several sources were already given in the article and the talk page, as well. Anyway, it is acceptable if somebody wants to challenge the foundation date of the principality, but this discussion should be done on the Talk:Principality_of_Hungary. Koertefa (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User Koertefa is right. Cited:"Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD"[41] Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The name of article is original research and all article is just a synthesis. Cooking from a water, findig a exact words from the text and writing this synthesis. Cited:"Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD" I see again attempts to make a synthesis. "Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD" which principality? It could be meaned Nitra principality [42]: Duke of Nitra, united the other Magyar chiefs under his rule and became the ruler. It was also Principality of Transylvania in this time or Principality of Great Moravia. Btw Great Moravia finished in 906, so Magyar tribes created principality and lived for a 10 years in the Principality of Great Moravia in the Tisza valley? Stop with synthesis and original research. If you are right It will no problem for you find a 2-3 sources which speaks that "Principality of Hungary" was founded in 895/6 "Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD" is not connected with "Principality of Hungary" - in this time in central Europe was a Nitra principality, Great Moravian principality. Transylvanian principality, Pannonian principality, Bihar... Give me a evidence.--Samofi (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research continues:

Answers:

1, sources are about tribal union in the panonian basin (http://books.google.com/books?id=uo_xAAAAMAAJ&q=western+tourkia&dq=western+tourkia&hl=sk&ei=AN-OTuaGN4vwsgbcoM3-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ) - no connection with principality

2, it has nothing to do with this dispute

3, http://www.hervardi.com/images/conversio_bagoariorum_et_carantanorum006.jpg - vocato Nitrava - locality is mentioned and the ruler rex (king) Pribina. So we know that "King Pribina was ruler of Nitrava" But connection of western tourkia with present-day hungary? :) its original research. Its like I would make article "Kingdom of Slovakia" because Pribina was the king of Nitra according to primary sources. BTW primary sources are base for a original research at wikipedia. Your edits in this case are a product of "romantic nationalism" and again original research

4, no it was not, "Principality of Hungary" did not exist. It was Geza´s principality or Hungarian principality after 972. find a source connecting "Principality of Hungary" with 895. This source doesnt exists

5, 10th century is after 900, hungarian principality could be founded after 972. its no connection of this polity from 10th century and establishment of this polity in 895

6, its easy, 2850 sources talking about Etelkoz (http://www.google.com/search?q=etelkoz+tribal&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#sclient=psy-ab&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=etelkoz&pbx=1&oq=etelkoz&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=22030l22030l3l22254l1l1l0l0l0l0l164l164l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ca7f4cea4f4eb571&biw=1680&bih=839), only 1 calls this region "principality" - its original research. wikipedia is no place for original research

7, You should prove that it is - say me 5 names of scholars writing the secondary sources which use this term. I have written above about 10 scholars which dont use it.

8, I agree, but English term Duchy of Hungary is used from the reign of Geza or Stephen, so we can talk about Hungarian principality or Duchy of Hungary after 972. I could not find earlier usage than 972, 990 or 997 connected with term "Duchy of Hungary"

9, It was prince Arpad and he was prince :) But he has not principality. His father Almos is called prince and was a nomadic tribal leader (was he traveling across europe with his principality?? lol :)). So again original research.. Its also Prince (musician) and Prince Nasheem the boxer. :) It was just a title for rich man with own army. --Samofi (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can not follow you. In 947 Taksony was called Dux Taksony.[43] I think it is a content dispute we should not discuss it here.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, its not content dispute. He was called Dux Taksony, but was he a ruler of the "Principality of Hungary"? He was a Dux of the Duchy of Nitra - earlier Slavic principality was not destroyed but was ruled by new monarchs - Magyar tribal chieftains. There are no archeological evidences that Principality of Nitra was destroyed. He could be a Magyar dux of the Principality of Nitra, but here is a no connection with the principality of Hungary. Please think about this: 1. Hungarians were running against Pechenegs, they came into the valleys of Tisa and Maros - majority of sources say this and its archeological evidences, they were not too numerous in the time of arrival and they suffered from a big mortality. 2. In this area was a Great Moravian empire (Principality of Moravia, Principality of Nitra, Principality of Pannonia, Principality of Bohemia, Principality of Sorbia) when Hungarians arrived to present-day Hungary. 3. Hungarian tribes had a tribal structure and they were not a ethnically homogenous. 4. It was a more clans which raid into Europe with a more leaders and it was a more smaller polities 5. its no reason to believe that hungarians consider a Pannonian basin for their final home, they were running against Pechenegs 5. It was a Geza in 972 who united magyar tribes and the creation of "natio hungarica" started 6. Mike Kenedy: "The history of the Hungarian state begins in the late ninth century when tribes of Magyars, led by a chief named Arpád, swept from the east into the middle Danube Basin." it doeas not mean, that it was a principality in that time. The history of Slovak state begins when Slavs arrived in the present day Slovak territory. Can I talk about Slovak principality when Slavs arrived to Carpathians? There was a ruler Samo and than Pribina. I would like to find a compromis in this case with you. But I dont know how to do. As I can see, term "Principality of Hungary" is not used as a stable historian term, and connecting all history of Carpathian basin in 896-1000 with principality of hungary is unscholar. There was a lot of smaller tribal polities connected with the raids to Europe. Btw Slavs and Hungarians made a common raids against Europe - for example in 970 the hungarian raid against Byzantinium was led by Svjatoslav. Say me the name of one principality which was established before the polity become feudal. Principalities are connected with feudalism. Polities before the feudalism we dont call principalities. Hungarians were semi-nomadic in that time - no feudalism. This kind of polities we call Tribal alliance, union, federation and so on. The most frequented terms about feudal principality of Hungarians is Hungarian principality or Duchy of Hungary and its connected with Geza. Name "Principality of Hungary" its just a minor theory - original research and synthesis and original research is also connecting the history of 10th century in the carpathian basin with principality of hungary. Look to english language sources. I hope that I just a little opened your eyes. I can write article about Hungarian tribal alliance and there will no original research.. But I want a consensus with you. --Samofi (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to sometimes change our opinions. You should be more critical with your history and you should take all good and bad parts from this history. History of "Hungarian political nation" started in 972/3 when Geza started to unify Magyar tribes and started with Christianization - begin of feudal system. History of "Slovak political nation" started in 1728 when Baltazar Magin wrote apology of Slovaks in: Murices Nobilissimae et novissimae diaetae Posoniensis scriptori sparsi, sive Apologia pro inclito comitatu Trenchiniensi. Iam not trying to create a Slovakia from Samo´s Empire or Nitra Principality so you should be proud for your history but you should not know make a original research and you should be neutral. --Samofi (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

2112 (song)

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

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

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

-User:RobertGustafson (talk) October 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

—User:RobertGustafson

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

RobertGustafson (talk):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pierce Brosnan

The following Statement in the article is FALSE and libelous:

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

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

Please have that statement removed!

There are various sources that say Brosnan was educated by the Christian Brothers and which seem to confirm the general sentiments attributed to him in the article: [44] [45] [46] [47] --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Patriarchs (Bible)

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

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

Artificial Intelligence in Data Mining

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

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

British Bangladeshi

Continued unsourced additions by Mark Hayesworth [48] to a good article, without explanations or citations. Requesting assistance rather than edit-warring. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mentioning criticism of kosher slaughter in the Criticism of Judaism article

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

• Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism#Kosher_slaughter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPERA neutrino anomaly

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

Boxford, Massachusetts

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

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

Perhaps; I think this is primarily an effort by several accounts to slide Ponix Laboratories into Wikipedia, and I'm asking for a broader overview. This edit summary [49], accompanied by an unacceptable reference, kind of makes my point. Aside from Ponix the larger issue now being broached is whether local notability, unsupported by any sources, is enough to justify content that's essentially chamber of commerce text and/or spamming, and appears to be mostly, if not all, original research. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)