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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Panchakavya

what is this i dont even. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

what you didnt i did in. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Separation barrier reversion back to WP:OR

The term is a neologism as far as application to walls/fences/borders and one used almost entirely by the state of Israel. However, evidently in a POV attempt to make it seem politically legit (as opposed to probably against international law) some editors have included in the article everything from the Great Wall of China to a fence separating animal parks in Africa, retrospectively calling them "separation barriers". They did so without any references, or references that do not contain the phrase, or just wikilinks to articles about walls and barriers that have no references using the phrase. They also have gone to all these articles and put separation barrier in the lead description, text and/or see alsos, as well as putting the article itself in Category:Separation barriers.

Last month I announced I was going to clean it up if there was not proper referencing and asked the one objecting editor if he was going to start referencing. He did not.

So last night I was on a roll and checked every reference I had not already tagged, both in the article and in every linked article. (I also did books/news archive/scholar searches and found barely any mentions except for Israel's use. I did search specifically in middle east countries where phrase IS most likely to be used and found just one ref which added.) Thus the cleaned up version looked like this, with three ref'd sections and Uzbekistan which I didn't have energy to complete checking.

The editor above immediately reverted the whole thing back. When I asked again if he intended to reference the material, he just left an incomprehensible message. I then added more section/inline "references needed" tags, but this is absurd. (Note: There also has been massive vandalism by multiple socks of a pro-Israel individual so the article is now protected.)

I'd appreciate hearing a few NPOV comments on this in Talk:Separation_barrier#Multiple_issues_cleaning_up_now. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

hi carol, i got this message from you on my talk page: "Hello, Soosim. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CarolMooreDC 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)" - i note that it says 'may'. up above, you discuss an editor. is that me? is the 'may' really not 'may' but 'is indeed'? i also see you are very quick to point out the editor above reverted, but since it was me, i can say that the edit comment is significant (which you conveniently left out). so, it seems to me that you are now asking for RS for various items missing RS? yes? do i understand that from the above? if so, i am happy to start adding them in. is that ok with you? is that what you are looking for? thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

and carol, the bbc has a list and a series of articles about these barriers including the one in israel. so, although i am not the original editor or among the editors who created, added or edited this page, it is clear that one's view of the situation leads one to various conclusions as to whether it is OR or whatnot. in any case, this article is one of many which uses the terms interchangeably, especially when compared with other articles by the same RS about the same barrier: World's barriers: Botswana-Zimbabwe and it is just one of series entitled 'world's barriers' - example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8342874.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8343172.stm etc. i will slowly review all of them, add to appropriate sections, etc. ok? Soosim (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page I have fully quoted Wikipedia:No original research which reads in part: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Using sources that mention barriers and separation or division or partition, etc. is WP:OR to support that use of the term "separation barrier" which has been used overwhelmingly in one context and occassionally in others.

As I said in talk, I will search country by country to see if the whole term ever has been used to describe their fence/border/wall/barrier, but please do not think that because an article is about "barriers" it is about "separation barriers." Unless I get too busy on articles where the policy violations are not so obvious and I can do more constructive edits, then I'll invoke: Wikipedia:PROVIT#Burden_of_evidence. After all the purpose of WP:ORN is to ensure editors don't have to prove editors engaging in WP:OR are in fact doing so. It is here to ensure that you do take out WP:OR once it is challenged. CarolMooreDC 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page of the article in question. But I would just like to confirm here as well that I agree with you. The article is as mess of original research, misapplied citations and dead links. Your cleaning up was very much needed and should be the version implemented. In case sources can be found it is no trouble adding them later in the appropriate sections on a case by case basis. No example should be included unless a secondary reliable source explicitly mentioning the term "separation barrier" regarding them can be found. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

it is not a neologism - it is no different than the BBC using various terms for walls, fences, barriers in the same sentence and article with the words separate, divide, etc. i believe we should consult a linguist (do they have a wiki page here? i am sure they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linguistics -- i think some non-involved folks would be good. some editors on this page are way too POV.) and hence, since the BBC is RS, and since they are certainly not pro-israel (as in, paid by the israeli gov't, or work for anything israeli, etc.), their use of 'barrier' for their article on the west bank seems to be applicable. haaretz, for example, calls it a separation fence. haaretz also refers to it as the west bank fence. as does amnesty. the point is that your neologism isn't. Soosim (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Neologism wise, the phrase has been used in chemistry for a long time but for a wall dividing people only since 1980s. But even if it wasn't a neologism, per WP:RS you'd still need a WP:RS using the exact phrase "separation barrier" to mention it in the article. However, the Israel section (which currently also has no working refs at all) should mention that the Israeli separation barrier also has been called several other things,so feel free to add that with ref(s) to the article. CarolMooreDC 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ah, but carol, that is exactly the point. if an RS calls him Francis and a different RS calls him Francis I, they are clearly referring to the same person by two different names. if an RS calls that war Pillar of Cloud and a different RS calls it Pillar of Defense, they are clearly referring to the same war by two different names. and so it is with separation barrier, separation fence, security barrier, security wall, security fence, separation wall. all are found in RS and all refer to the same item. so, therefore, it does not have to be just one of those. not at all. and claiming so, seems to be your own OR. Soosim (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The analogies don't hold since a) Francis only would be in an article about the Pope and b) Pillar of Cloud only in reference to Israel's bombing attacks on Gaza in Nov of 2012. The others are far to general to apply a specific term. If we did so, someone could then write an article on Israel's "apartheid wall" and apply "apartheid wall" to every wall/fence/etc. that ever divided any people for any reason, start a category, stick dozens of articles under it, etc. And I don't think you'd like that. CarolMooreDC 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

They don't hold for more general reasons than that too. A person may be called several different things: Francis, Francis I, the king, the duke, Francis of France or whatever. But this is different terms applied to the same object - in this case a person. The same applies to an event (The Great Hunger, the Irish Potato Famine etc). In both case the thing is the same, but the name may vary. In this case the thing varies depending on what you choose to include under the name according to arbitrary personal editorial decision. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

paul - help me understand because it really does apply to the same item/thing/etc. there are literally dozens of names for it in RS, all referring to the same thing - the fence, the wall, the barrier, security, apartheid, separation, etc. and as you said, "the thing is the same, but the name may vary." and carol, what are you talking about? if the article refers to china or israel or portugal, then that is what it is. if it is a general article, then that is what it is. Soosim (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your examples demonstrate the problem with your position, easily shown by the way links work on this very website. A "fence", "separation" and "apartheid" are clearly not the same thing. The links all go to different articles. The Great Hunger, the Irish Potato Famine, in contrast, are redirects to the same article. When you link the the use of the terms "fence" and "apartheid" you are doing so by envisaging a concept that encompases both of them and which may be represented by various things. Paul B (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was saying that "separation barrier" like "apartheid wall" are both specific terms used by a number of people that WP:RS apply overwhelmingly to the Israel-Palestine situation. Neither can be used as an article, as well as a category, encompassing everything from the Great Wall of China to the Mexico-US border. Doing both is WP:Original research. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

and carol, just to be clear, some things are generic, some aren't. 'separation barrier' is generic. lots of things fit that, even according to the bbc and others. as i have said many times, if you want an article about israel's fence/barrier/wall, then call it such ("Israel's separation fence"), but don't give it a generic name and expect it to be understood that it only refers to israel. Soosim (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was generic one would not find that 98% of references to it in any search of the term were about Israel's separation barrier. One also might have found that you would have been able to put even one reference using the whole term' in the article for something besides Israel. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please comment on the following statement:

"If a source says a river flows from north to south it is not "synthesis" to say it flows from a high elevation to a lower one and does not "advance a new position". i.e.If Puerto Ricans are US citizens because they live in Puerto Rico it is hardly synthesis to say Puerto Rico is part of the US because we are not advancing a new position."

[Note: Congress passed a law in 1917 that made Puerto Ricans citizens. The US Supreme Court decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922 that granting citizenship to Puerto Ricans did not make Puerto Rico part of the U.S.]

TFD (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For the first one, it is technically correct but the reasoning is flawed. North to south is completely irrelevant. North being higher on some maps has nothing to do with elevation. We can say a river flows from a high elevation to a lower one because WP:BLUE. WP:SYNTHESIS has nothing to do with it.

For the second one, not only is it WP:SYNTHESIS, but it improperly uses synthesis to arrive at an incorrect conclusion. US embassies, US-flagged ships at sea and US spacecraft are all considered "US soil" for some purposes For example, if Neil Armstrong had murdered Buzz Aldrin while on the moon, he would have been prosecuted under US law. For another example, John McCain is legally considered to be a native born citizen because he was born on a US Navy hospital ship in the Panama canal, None of this makes those ships and embassies actual parts of the united states. If someone wants to claim that Puerto Rico is part of the US, they need a source that says that, not a source that says Puerto Ricans are US citizens. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Pandeism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

Three years ago, user Naturalistic summed up this problematic article far better than I could:

"I am not saying that there is nothing of value in this article. However, there is not much that passes Wikipedia criteria. As pointed out above under BIAS, much of it reads like promotion and proof of Pandeism and attempt to boost the concept to a significance/prominence that it does not possess outside of this Wikipedia article. Outside of this article and links created to it, Pandeism has virtually no presence in the real world. -There is not a single book on the subject. -There is not a single web domain, -There is not a single membership organization. Google scholar [1] gives only 3 results and none of them seem to be about Pandeism as such (by comparison, Pantheism gives 29,800]. Most significantly, Google Dictionary gives only five results for pandeism and ALL of them are from Wikipedia or Wiktionary: [2] This last point proves clearly the lack of notability Taken together the above points prove that Wikipedia/Wiktionary are being abused here to promote an ideology that barely existed before the Wikipedia entries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pandeism/Archive_3#Neutrality.2C_original_research.2C_POV.2C_lack_of_notability

It's disheartening to see that it still stands largely undisputed years later. Basically all historical and even modern references to the word "pandeism" are used interchangeably with pantheism. There's no such thing as pandeism as a discrete philosophy with its own intellectual tradition that can discerned separately from pantheism, or any number of other pantheistic religious doctrines.70.238.130.173 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed lots of the low hanging fruit, still a lot left to be done. I'd guess that ultimately we'll replace it with a redirect but there's still a lot to go through. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

All the above comments in this section of the page seem very reasonable to me. This article seems to be almost entirely a rambling discussion of ideas that might or might not belong to a movement or association of people with a particular belief. There is nothing in the article that indicates whether, in the world in which we live, there actually exists such a movement or association of people. I think that, for its survival in the Wikipedia, the article needs to establish the real existence of such a movement or association of people. Without that, the article is own research or speculative chatter, and should be deleted. On the evidence so far offered here, it is without that. Conclusion: it should be deleted unless good evidence is produced here very shortly.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of notability. I say nominate it for deletion and replacement with a redirect to pantheism. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What are we to make of this Encyclopaedia Britannica excerpt, then: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1550175/pandeism ? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they can't tell us someone who actually believes in it, it's something of a passing reference. It's not enough of a peg to hang the rest of our article on. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That seems like a reasonable substantiation for the existence of the article.

It certainly would seem to indicate that "pandeism" is not a phonetic morphing of pantheism, but a combination of the two words pantheism and deism.

The concept is modern, conceptually novel--if a bit abstruse--and seems noteworthy.19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor provided on the article's talk page these sources:

2011, Paul Bradley This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning, page 156: "On the other hand, Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it."

2011, Alan H. Dawe, The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything, page 48: "Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself)."

2010, Dr. Ronald Bish, Jesus: The Way, the Truth and the Life, page 19: "Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it."

2008, Shane T. Foster, We Are The Imagination of Ourselves, page 77: "The first is known as "Pandeism," which is a combination of pantheism and deism (a philosophical concept which states that whatever force led to the creation and/or existence of the cosmos no longer exists in any applicable or accessible form)."

Of these authors, I am personally familiar with Alan Dawe, whose book won a prestigious award for philosophical literature, and which has as its essential thesis the proposition that our Creator ("God") became our Universe to share in our experiences. He acknowledges the term Pandeism but eschews the use of any theological nomenclature for his theory so as not to have it boxed in. Notably, Bernard Haisch espouses essentially the same theory in The God Theory. Now, here's the rub. We cannot redirect Pandeism to Pantheism because Pantheism is not Deistic. The notion of a Creator actually becoming our Universe to experience through our lives is as old as time; Hinduism in some forms expresses it. Eriugena expressed it. Numerous examples are presented in the article as it stands, Deepak Chopra, Warren Sharpe, Scott Adams, and such. But in Pantheism, there simply is no Creator at all, so it doesn't fit. Now we could as one editor proposed retitle this Theory that God became the Universe -- clearly this theory exists, and is not Pantheism, nor traditional Deism -- but that title is unwieldy, and it is unnecessary if there exists a word, as there does, which sources use to denote such a theory. I suppose it could be moved to some such title and have it noted in the opening that this theory is sometimes named Pandeism, but why go to the trouble? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's plenty of evidence of notability. Based on the above I say keep it with the current title. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the above evidence, I now see that the article should stand with its current title. I have taken the liberty of thinking I can "improve" the article as it stood. I have only changed the lead, mainly to shorten the sentences and make them easier to understand. I intended to leave the main meaning unchanged.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you did a fine job, given the complexity of what was the originally. I resurrected two links, and addressed the BBC source question there. I think perhaps the article as it is reflects the fact that it might essentially be compared to a play written by a committee -- bits and pieces here and there added by many authors with differing voices, degrees of education, and levels of talent for explanation. As with many articles here, to be frank, but this one seems to have more inputs and fewer efforts at making it all cohere. It is actually quite a similar problem as to Panentheism, and even to a degree to Pantheism (but Pantheism has drawn some editors who are dedicated to ensuring that it reflects their views, so it has been made to cohere with those views). I do object to the proposal on the talk page to remove the etymological history of German and Italian uses of the word, but perhaps that is neither here nor there. But again, a fine job with the opening. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We could still us some help over here. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The focus on what word is used to describe this theory necessarily misses the real question, the encyclopedia question. And that is: does there exist a theological model which proposes that a Creator being created our Universe by becoming it? That is exactly the model that William Walker Atkinson assails in the criticisms section, and what William Sharpe proposes and the Taaroa legend describes and various other authors identify as a model. That is the initial model proposed by Bernard Haisch and Alan Dawe in their respective recent books. I asked on the Pantheism talk page and unsurprisingly was told that such a model would not constitute Pantheism. But if such a model exists, and is notable and meritorious of encyclopedic coverage (and I don't see how the theological model itself would not be in light of those uses), them the question becomes, what is the name of this model? Maybe there is no best option, but at least some authors have modernly called it Pandeism. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The solution is to follow the sources. We have four sources that call it Pandeism, so we call it Pandeism. If someone wants to name it something else, they need to provide sources for the alternative name, at which point we would have to compare and evaluate the two alternatives. Until that happens, we have to call it what the sources call it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well here is precisely the crux of the problem. We have several sources stating that Pandeism is the name of the theory which combines Pantheism and Deism to the end that the Creator of our Universe becomes our Universe. And then we have a source like the one under contention in the criticisms section which denounces as false the "certain schools of Pantheism which hold that God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe," but which I am told can not be used in this article because that critic didn't use the word "Pandeism" to identify which 'school of Pantheism' he was talking about. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told you that and I quoted the specific policy. The policy which prevents us from doing so is WP:SYNTH. Does anyone disagree? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are about a dozen points of WP:SYNTHNOT under which you are wrong, one of which is that not all synthesis is wrong, only synthesis which introduces original research. Nobody is claiming that Atkinson was somehow defining Pandeism; the claim is that Atkinson was criticizing a particular proposition, which happens to be exactly the proposition made by Pandeism (or whatever name you wish to give the "God becomes the Universe" proposition). Another point at WP:SYNTHNOT: don't be a zealot. It's easy to get in your head the notion that you're right and others are wrong on some point, and become a POV warrior for the validation of your belief. Remember Voldemort in Harry Potter? Imagine if the rule was that we couldn't presume the characters were referring to Voldemort wherever the author instead alluded to "he who must not be named." DeistCosmos (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

PIGS (economics)

After long frustration with this article (and one editor in particular), I bodly dynamited the article on Friday. I simultaneously opened an RFC on the dynamiting and would like input from folk here into that RFC.

The article has many problems, including, at its absolute worst, straight-forward reference fraud. But the more endemic problem, in my opinion, is the kind of original research described at WP:NEOLOGISM:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Input would be appreciated. And, regardless of anyone's opinion on the dynamiting, the participation of experienced editors in getting the article into shape would be greatly appreciated. --RA (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an outdated term, of little historical significance. Just redirect to European Union, because they're all PIGS now. Hcobb (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army

Hi all, first let me apologize for the length of the post, and emphasize that any committed input would be immensely appreciated, as well as extremely helpful in solving a very difficult OR dispute. A long, repetitive, and heated NOR discussion over at Talk:Syrian civil war; the section in question is "Naming of the opposition fighters". The issue concerns whether the term "Free Syrian Army" refers to a singular organization, or is a vaguely-defined label referring to several organizations and factions. My position is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", engendered by the liberal and vague usage of the term in the media (as explained by sources).

There are numerous media links that use the term "Free Syrian Army" (FSA). However, none (that I've seen thus far) state explicitly that that it is a singular faction. Two sources were brought forth that deal specifically with the meaning of the term [1][2]. They explain, quote: "the FSA label is used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support". Here are a few more excerpts:

• "This term [Free Syrian Army], however, is not used in reference to a specific organization, but rather as a sort of catch-all brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general. In this way, the FSA label should be understood as a synonym for 'the resistance', similar to 'La Résistance' in france during WWII." p.10

• "Today, the FSA brand name remains in use within the Syrian opposition, but mostly as a term for the armed uprising in general. It’s quite similar to how a French person would have employed the term 'La Résistance' during WWII – not in reference to a specific organization fighting against Hitler, but as an umbrella term for them all." [3]

• "One can’t disregard the fact that many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as 'a brigade of the FSA'. But that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy: it’s still just a label, typically intended to market these groups as part of the opposition mainstream."

• "Today, it [the term] is understood to apply mostly to army defectors (ex-Baathists), non-ideological fighters, and more moderate Islamists. That still doesn't describe an actual organization, but at least it’s closer to a working definition of what the 'FSA' would mean in a Syrian opposition context – a definition that can’t really decide what it includes, but which clearly excludes most of the anti-Western salafis, all of the hardcore salafi-jihadis, and, for example, the Kurdish YPG militia."

..and so on. To "counter" the above, opposed users cite media links using the term "Free Syrian Army" in various contexts they deem inescapably support the notion the term refers to a singular organization. Then I reply that the usage of the term therein chimes completely with explanation in the sources ("a shorthand for a number of factions.."), and point out WP:STICKTOSOURCE, affirming that the media links do not "directly and explicitly" support their position - that such conclusions are OR. And so it goes on, over and over and over again.

Here's a bunch of googled media links just recently brought-up as a counter to the above-quoted sources, reportedly in support of the position that the FSA is a singular organization [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] etc.. No doubt there are dozens more. Taking into consideration the position of the previously-cited sources, is it WP:OR to claim these links contradict them in the relevant question? My position being that the quoted links do not address the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", but merely use it - and that completely in accordance with how the above sources describe their use. -- Director (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I do again sincerely apologize for the length of the post, I just don't know how to elaborate on this complex issue in less words. There is one more aspect that clouds the issue somewhat: the "Supreme Military Command" (SMC), a body analogous to the SHAEF that coordinates between the (quote) "disparate factions". The first source I quote above [18] is a scholarly paper that covers that institution in great detail. Here are excerpts from the summary:

• "The SMC is not structurally cohesive, and its ability to enforce command and control is dependent on the cooperation of each of its members."
• "The incorporation of rebel networks has resulted in chains of command that are not uniform across five fronts, with each sub-unit retaining their own unique authority structures. The SMC's primary function to date has been to serve as a platform for coordination."

..etc. The reason why I elaborate on the SMC, is that news links covering its establishment e.g. may report that "military commanders of the main Free Syrian Army units from all over Syria agreed Friday to a unified command structure" [19]. My key point being that the "Supreme Military Command" (SMC) is a coordinating body for the various rebel factions (see the source for a detailed elaboration) - and not a faction in and of itself. In this regard I emphasize that the "Supreme Military Command" does not refer to itself as the Supreme Military Command "of the Free Syrian Army", nor does its coordinating the activities of the various rebel factions suddenly bring into existence a new faction by such a name. etc..

There's more.. to fully understand the matter as well as avoid any misunderstanding of cited media sources, I recommend a quick read-thru of the central sources that started this mess with their detailed insight [20][21]. Regards -- Director (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Video game perspectives

What is the best thing to do when a user may have visual evidence that a source is incorrect, but admits that there may be no source to prove his counterclaim?

I am trying to maintain quality on a Good Article in this case, and want to make sure we are not introducing OR into the article.

The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Isometric perspective on Pool of Radiance. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Original Mythbusting: Wikipedia is Plagirising

Wikipedia has a policy of not citing certain sites on the basis that they are deemed "unreliable", but its editors are free to plagiarize 100% unique and new mythbusting information from those very sites to correct Wikipedia's own errors and then justify not citing the author of that work on the grounds that he/she published it on an unreliable site. This is a licence for plagiarism. Wikiepdia has been now quite rightly outed - and shamed - and the wiki-editor has been named: here.

Can this institutionalized stealth plagiarism policy be brought to a rapid end please?

You should cite the author and their unique work - do not plagiarize their unique work as though Wikipedians discovered it with irrational, painfully ironic, self-serving policies to assist editors with their guilt neutralization in order to help Wikipedia and its volunteers justify plagiarism and vainglorious intellectual theft! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendersghost (talk • contribs)

In a nutshell this is what is written on Mike Sutton's Best Thinking Blog about how Wikipedia has blatantly plagiarized his original work (Sutton 2013):

Wikipedia's psychopathic self-serving stealth plagiarism policy is that if unique information discovered by an author is reliable and valuable enough to plagiarize, because it is essential to correct Wikipedia's own errors, then that author and originator should not be cited if Wikipedia's rules state that the site where the author published the unique information, from which they just plagiarized the author's work, is an unreliable source of such information.

Bendersghost (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC).