Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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

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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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

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

Arbitrary list of "Riff-driven songs"

Resolved

 – inline citations have been added. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This article offers little more than a poorly organized, highly questionable list of songs. The term "riff-driven" is vague and the article doesn't cite a single source to establish it is a relevant song category.

Denial of the Armenian Genocide

These two possibly OR edits [1] (also the same [2] [3] [4][5][6][7] and so on) and [8] (also the same [9][10][11][12] [13] [14]) are reverting again and again by the users User:Adoniscik and User:Turkish Flame (already was warned for the editwarrings). First edit is misinterpreting the Clark University site. and the second edit is adding "The Recognition and Denial of Armenian Genocide" (the user calls it Massacres) to Armenian foreign relations templete while it is not something directly related. A comment will be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaz conveniently forgets to mention that (s)he began the reversions after I inserted a sentence to balance his insertion. Please can you explain how I'm misinterpreting the meaning of the concept of a funded chair? You have not been forthcoming in the talk page. I won't bother to enumerate your numerous reversions without referring to the talk page and silly attempt to play the anti-Semitism card. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem in the first link provided above:

The source being cited states:

Taner Akcam , PhD.
Associate Professor; Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies etc.

But the text being inserted, and for which that source is being cited, states:

Armenians, esp. in the diaspora, have funded scholars on this issue, for example [[Taner Akcam]], raising accusations of bias from Turkish quarters.

The OR issues are these:

• "Armenians, esp. in the diaspora,..." Its not really evident from the source that its "Armenians, esp. in the diaspora" who are funding the chair. The source merely suggests that an Armenian studies chair at ClarkU is sponsored by Aram/Kaloosdian/Mugar (whoever they are).
• "raising accusations of bias from Turkish quarters..." A faculty directory does not raise any accusations whatsoever. Its just a faculty directory.

The solution:

• Drop the "esp. in the diaspora"
• Find one of those "Turkish quarter" sources that "raise accusations of bias" and cite it.

I didn't check more than the first link. One issue at a time. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are past this. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the definition of a term in a source imply the term?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – answered. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I have both a general and a specific question. Generally if there are sources on a topic that use the same definition for different terms can we say that those terms are equal. i.e. source 1 states explicitly that A=F, source's 2 through five state B=F, C=F, D=F, E=F, F=F is it original research to conclude that A=B=C=D=E=F and use all of those sources in an article about A? My specific question has to do with the article Homosexual transsexual. I am in a long running dispute that partly hinges on the above general question. The specific dispute comes down to this. Multiple authors have defined the term homosexual transsexual as being (in the male to female case) " "homosexual transsexuals" are attracted to men. They are very feminine from an early age." [15]. (I point here to the personal webpage of an author but this mirrors what he has written in books and others have written in peer reviewed journals. RS is not an issue here.) To describe IMO the phenomena of transsexuals who are feminine from an early age and sexually attracted to men. (another issue is term VS phenomena) Multiple other authors have written about the phenomena things like this... "From all that has been said, it seems evident that the question "Is the transsexual homosexual?" must be answered "yes" and " no." "Yes," if his anatomy is considered; "no" if his psyche is given preference. What would be the situation after corrective surgery has been performed and the sex anatomy now resembles that of a woman? Is the "new woman" still a homosexual man? "Yes," if pedantry and technicalities prevail. "No" if reason and common sense are applied and if the respective patient is treated as an individual and not as a rubber stamp." [16] Is it or to conclude that the second author is writing about the same thing as the first? The concept that transsexuals who are attracted to men are in some sense a variety of homosexual male? There are some other simmilar cases that occur in this article? A court case where the judge defines that the ruling applies to "gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico". (A couple of RS's make the connection to transsexuality more plainly) A number of historical and cross cultural groups which in sources that describe them say that they were/are attracted to men, dressed as and lived/live as women, were constitutionaly feminine from a young age. But these sources of course use terminology that is not in English. i.e. transwomen from thailand are called kathoey. But in thailand effeminate homosexuals males have also also been called kathoey. They translate by google into "lady boy". Is is OR to make a coonection between a group like that and this concept/term/phenomena?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Sounds like what's being described here is simply a merged article; that's perfectly fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Not a merger. The main articles Kathoey etc. Will have the most information. The article Homosexual transsexual as a couple or a few sentences about these groups.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) The starting equations may not be generalized anywhere apart from basic arithmetics. Even if all sources report contemporary point of view on generally uncontroversial subjects, the underlying definition of "what is F?" may be incompatible, and the concepts of "what is equal?" may be different too. Consider, for example, Species problem in biology. NVO (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC) So if I write about an Orange colored citrus fruit commonly grown in florida and used of orange juice being called an orange. Then someone writing in Chinese about an Orange colored citrus fruit commonly grown in florida and use for orange juice being called (whatever the chineese word for orange is). Writing here that (whatever the chineese word for orange is)= orange would be OR?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Correct me if I am misunderstanding exactly what are asking... are you asking whether you can translate non-english terms such as "kathoey" as the English term "transexual", and if doing so is OR? I gather that Translation is often a tricky issue... In any language there are some words that can clearly be equated as being the same thing, while other words will not have an exact counterpart in other languages. Because of cultural nuances, two words from different languages may be close in meaning, and yet not be exacly the same. The potential for OR depends on how close the meanings are, and whether reliable sources have linked the terms. We often have to look at the context of how the words are used. From your discription, it seems as if these non-english words are contextually close enough to "transexual" that they can be equated. Another option is to discuss them as being similar, but not exactly equal, in concept. In that case I would suggest placing the discussion in a seperate section, where you can discuss the similarities but also note the differences. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC) You are partly right about the issue. The cultural context of non western transsexuals means that they may understand themselves in a number of ways. However there is a commonly accepted measureing stick. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association defines "Gender Identity Disorder" based on criteria x,y,z,. In each case (except for the court case) there are secondary sources which use the standards in that book (or a simmilar autoratative primary source) to make the case that the group they are writing about is equivalent to what we in the west call "transsexuals". Another issue is the term "homosexual transsexual". They are defined simply as transsexuals who are attracted to the same biological sex (and opposite mental gender). There are many sources which define the term "homosexual transsexual" they all boil down to the preceeding sentence. The hard question I guess is if a source writes "Kathoey are male to female transsexual or transgender women who are attracted to men...." Is is OR to conclude that the writer has called them homosexual transsexuals? On the other hand should we demand that any and all sources explicitly mention the word "homosexual transsexual" verbatim just like that?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I take it that the consensus is that equating words such as kathoey, Hijra (south Asia), Mukhananthun, etc with transsexual is ok and not OR?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I would disagree with extending this beyond specific sourced comparison. A statement of equivalence in such definitions is usually not an exact identity. Even the example of "orange" is in fact not so simple--there are a number of varieties and species: is a tangerine an orange? is a blood orange an orange? Different languages may have subtly different definitions here,and going beyond the stated facts is in my pinion OR even in a case like this one. Certainly it is for sexuality. I do not think any sexual terms are clearly defined enough across cultures to make extended statements of identity. This is one of the areas where I would be most reluctant to do this, and I think the specific ones asked just above are examples of this--the cultural roles are different. The people to whom the term is applied in one culture might well not be so in another--the equation of physical and social and emotion sexual roles is not all that straightforward. I'd as soon equate the concept of God across cultures,, or use a translation of "democracy" to have the same meaning in one language as another. DGG (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Let me ask you this then. Suppose we were writing a article about homosexuality across cultures. If I have a source from India that refers to the homosexual males there as "Evening people" then goes on to describe them taking part in homosexual sex. Under your interpretation I could not use such a source to write about homosexuality in india. I would instead have to write a article about the evening people and NEVER MENTION that they are basically homosexual males. That is a close analogy to what I am talking about here. How about the question of using research that does not use the exact same verbatim term "homosexual transsexual"? Such as Dr. Benjamin's quote which is largely critical of the notion that male to female transsexuals are on some level homosexual males. Please keep your remarks general and on the principle. To pick through case by case would be a monumental task. Does the term "homosexual transsexual" have to appear verbatim (not in translation, not some related term that begins with A just homosexual transsexual).--Hfarmer (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I think I see the distinction here... While your source from India refers to the homosexual males there as being "Evening people", does the source refer to Evening People as homosexuals. In other words, does the source equate the two terms completely. Or does it say that homosexual males are a sub-set of Evening People (or is the source saying that there is an overlapping conjunction... some evening people are homosexual, some are not... and some homosexuals are Evening People, and some are not). If it is clear from the context that the source does indeed completly equate the two terms, then I see nothing wrong with reporting that according to the source, the two terms are the same. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) The sources on that topic basically describe the evening people as all being queer. Some being Hijra transwomen, some being bisexual or homosexual males. To the point though. In analogy from that to the article homosexual transsexual. There are similar sources from India Thailand etc. Like in the case of Kathoey RS's describe that as benig a name Thai's give to both transwomen and effeminate homosexuals. Or the Benjamin quote that ask "is the transsexual homosexual". So it seems we have a consensus four who favor making the connections, vs two DGG and Jokestress who do not. At least for now that is the consensus. Thankyou.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC) The question being posed here is fundamentally forum shopping. The problem as I see it is that the underlying concept "Homosexual Transsexual" is a controversial fringe theory that Hfarmer has been trying to present as if it wasn't a fringe theory. Hfarmer is trying take a small fringe theory and include unrelated research from elsewhere in the world to support that. Hfarmer is consistently abusive in talk pages, has made implied legal threats, has admitted to ownership issues with the article homosexual transsexual and has displayed a fundamental failure to understand NPOV. I can't even enter a discussion without being personally attacked, such as having my gender identity attacked by being referred to as a man, or having my name referred to as a fantasy. The problem has become so bad that I've been considering requesting that Hfarmer be topic banned from transsexual related articles. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC) First let me address the forum shopping allegation. What other real "forums" has this been at? The OR concern with this article using sources that do not have the actual verbatim phrase "homosexual transsexual" in them is relatively recent. User:Jokestress asserted that. We haggled basically me and her alone about that. Two people cannot be a consensus. So I took the issue here seeking un interested opinion. I am sure that if I misrepresented Andrea's position she would have said soemthing. (Her position that a source must be western and have the term "homosexual transsexual" in it. Or using it is OR. She repeats basically that on the talk page of homosexual transsexual many times in our discussion.) I posed the question to the forum and with one exception they felt that it was not OR to interpret a source like say the Benjamin quote at the top of this page as being about "homosexual transsexuals" Or a RS which is about "men who live and dress as women who are attracted to men." as being an example of homosexual transsexuals. This forum which has many many people agreed with me. It's a good thing too because many things that are critical of BBL theory make no explicit mention of "homosexual transsexual" anywhere and would also have to be excluded if Jokestresses's position were adopted. The article would be denuded of much information that all sides agree is vital to having any sort of article at all. If you think I am abusive there are other forums for hearing that out. I don't think anything would happen to me though. Because those "legal threats" were in response to another user minorly slandering me. Taking the fact that I was a guest of a border in the house of a involved person here in Chicago and taking that to make me out like I broke into the house. No one would stand for that. Then there are the "Ownership issues". Those are not on my part. I have been left alone to be the one who actually does the editing on most of these articles. Only Jokestress has ever done substantial editing of these articles aside from me as I recall. However unlike her I get blamed for everything that is wrong. Alice if you don't like something change it! Be WP:BOLD but be prepared for me to disagree with you if you try to slant the article the other way. (Ask user JamesCantor if he feels I am on his side why don't you?) Also Alice says I called her a man? On her user page At the top she writes "I am a Transgendered person. More specifically, a male who cross-dresses as a female. As is the case for most cross-dressers, I am a heterosexual male and cross-dressing has nothing what-so-ever to do with sexual behavior. In real life, I'm two completely separate and distinct people. A man with a relatively normal life (if there is such a thing!) and a woman who has a fairly distinct personality and a quite separate life." She is in her own words a male crossdresser! I could have called Alice She and just as well had her say I was not respecting her gender identity that way. IMO CD's TV's and true part time DQ's, basically TG's who dress for fun, money, or kicks don't deserve to be called SHE. Most such people do not like being called she/her in my experience. They are males who enjoy some aspect of the feminine acoutremaents. OTOH actual transsexual women like me and Jokestress are transsexual women even when sleeping and not wearing a stich. We don't put it on. IMO it is a insult to transsexuals everywhere (pre, post, and non op) who deal with this 24*7 for a part time heterosexual crossdressers to colonize our collective identity as transsexual women! You know what I can save us all allot of time here. What Alice has written here has nothing to do with WP:OR and should be redacted. But I will leave it to someone else to do it. I suggest you take this issue to formal mediation and we will hear this out. At worst I will be topic blocked. But then so would most people writing on this topic. Thats the nuclear option and would hurt us all. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC) what you want is a RfC either of the article or the general question. Many general questions that come here and are presented as general questions are in fact dealing with very specific issues--and this is obviously one. A general rule about what counts as OR is never going to be more than a general guideline: OR, like RS, is one of the things that has many nuances and not all matters are yes/no. On one hand, if there is a firm chain of undoubtedly reliable statements from good authorities that various things are exact synonyms, and each link of the chain has clear consensus, it's not OR to summarize this, though one must be prepared to specify the full logical chain. But on the other hand if there is a long chain of things where each pair's equivalence is stated by one or two people who may be only relatively authoritative in only part of the field, made perhaps as passing statements without full consideration or given as the usual sort of very rough equivalents in a dictionary list of synonyms, and not all of the equivalences have full consensus in the subject, then saying that the two at the ends are identical is OR, and very contestable OR at that that would never pass any proper peer review. it's like saying that 2.1 is approximately equal to 2, and 2.2 is approximately equal to 2.1, and continuing until 2=4. I am fairly clear in my own mind which of the paradigms I give here is relevant in this particular subject. DGG (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC) and, by the way, I think that Hf's longer paragraph above is entirely inappropriate in this context, and very close to an extended BLP violating personal attack on an individual; I urge any admin who agrees with me to redact it. Some other comments by those tkingt his personally are pershaps also suitable for redaction. In general it is not the best of ideas to use oneself or one's associates as examples. DGG (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC) What are you talking about I was accused of making implied legal threats, and referring to Alice J. Markham as a man. The implied legal threats thing comes from my defending my right to not be slandeered. I was a guest of a border in the home of Diedre McCloskey. At the time Dr. McCloskey was out of the country. The border was a person who sought me out for advice and I thought it would be nice to have TG/TS friend who was also a graduate student. We would comisserate about how miserably TG/TS peoople are treated at UIC at the graduate level. That's neither here nor there. Someone tried to spin that fact into my "breaking into" McCloskey's house. You damm right I'll threaten a lawsuit in that situation. How much more personal does it get. Am I just supposed to take that because I am standing up for actual neutrality on a unpopular subject? As for what's in that paragraph about me calling Alice Markham a man. It says on that character's userpage that alice Markahm is a "heterosexual male crossdresser". Then goes on to explain that Alice J is a sort of female personae. I am sorry but I have a personal policy I don't call part timer's she on the internet. If I am out in public with a part timer I call them she because at least I know they have put it out there. It takes guts for most CD's to step out. But being on the internet is different. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Let me see if I understand your position on the substantive matter. It is your opinion that only reliable sources that say "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim) is the same as "{whatever term no matter how it is defined.}". Or the source must discuss "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim) is that your position? Because if it is just so you know allot of really valuable critical comments will be excluded because many of them do not mention "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim). So far as I know there is only one such RS that is critical that mentions "homosexual transsexual" (verbatim). There are a few others that mention Autogynephilia but if those are allowed... "because everyone knows that HT is used in the theory of Autogynephilia"... Then one should just as well be able to see a piece of litrature that ask as Benjamin did "is the transsexual homosexual" and include it. For it's remarks critical of the idea. One should also be able to look at how words are defined in reliable sources. Remember there is pre existing wikipedia wide consensus that gathereing information under a common heading is not or (see WP:NOTOR).--Hfarmer (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen

The following regards edits by user DarlieB User talk:DarlieB. These are the diff's going back through time:

• [17]

• [18]

• [19]

As you can see they are focused on removing any mention of the exact context in which Alice Dreger's work comes to us. The publication it was in, Or of her academic affiliation. Her affiliation would not be significant in most cases but it is in this one. It cuts two ways. Yes it does smack of an appeal to authority but it does also suggest a possible conflict of interest, since the person she was supposed to be impartially researching also works at Northwestern. That is a important tidbit that should be in this article IMO. The fact that they both work at the same place is highly suggestive.

Then in one of her edit summaries she alleges that "no investigation took place". Again she asserts this without a source. No one else has decided that Dr Dreger's looking at the time date stamps on emails is "not an investigation". Perhaps she can say it's an inadequate, or minimal, or pharsical etc. etc. investigation. But to say so could only be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

FYI Alice Dreger is a Bioethics who works at Northwestern University who attempted to write a history of the whole controversy around the book The Man Who Would Be Queen. In the paper she produced which was published in a journal, which many think is biased in favor of the book. At issue here is a claim made by critics of the book, and one of the subjects of the book that the author of the book had sex with the subject. A subject who was at the time a post-op transsexual woman. Dreger makes the counter claim that this is impossible because on the date in the formal complaint that the subject filed Bailey was taking care of his kids. He has emails between him and his wife which say this which place him far from where the subject says he was on that day. Many in the Transsexual/Transgender community think this is really flimsy "proof" to say the least.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries do not generally require citations to reliable sources. What's the point here? Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries don't. But points of view do. Based on her edit summaries she is clearly pushing the POV you like. Which is ironic that she choose to delete a fact that can be interpreted as hinting a conflict of interest on the part of Dreger. In her zeal to make Dreger sound less authoratative she has also removed info that would imply her conflict of interst. To include that info means mentioning where dreger works and her job title which would seem to give her authority as a by product of suggesting that conflict of interest.

Dick are you totally sure you want to fight me on that one? Part of chess is knowing when not to capture that pice.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about winning. I know people have been taking you to task today, but don't take it as a fight. It might be worth taking a break for a little while. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

H, you say "Based on her edit summaries she is clearly pushing the POV you like. Which is ironic that she choose to delete a fact that can be interpreted as hinting a conflict of interest on the part of Dreger." I don't see a POV here, or what fact you could be referring to; the only fact removed was that Dreger's comment was quoted in the NYT, which would still be apparent from the cited source and still should be removed from another place. I'm not following what's bugging you about these edits. And I'm not fighting, I'm asking. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Darlie also removed Northwestern University ethicist Alice Dreger. Why remove that? The only reason could be to push the POV that Derger was an unreliable source by making her sound less authoratative. As if she was just some random person writing this. It is ironic that Darlie would do that and that on her talk page you would call it "a good first step". User_talk:DarlieB#Dreger_and_NYT A step which removes the implied notion (Which since no reliable source says it we cannot explicitly write this in the article) that there is a conflict of interest on the part of Dreger. I will "so fix it" myself. Since you agree that the fact she works at NU is important. Right? ?_? --Hfarmer (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed that detail. Certainly I'm OK noting her affiliation, since it's relevant that it's the same as Bailey's as you note. As an interpretation of "I do social justice work in medicine. I'm a medical humanist, writer, speaker, patient advocate, a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics in the Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program at the Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University in Chicago. ... I hold a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Indiana University," it seems to me that ethicist is a bit of a POV stretch. But not as unrealistic as calling her a historian would be; how about just "professor"? Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I know WP is not about winning. It's also not about letting one POV prevail over the other just because it is popular among the editors. That POV has to be the POV of reliable sources as deemed by WP:RS. I don't agree with all of it but the policy is what it is. I cannot help it if most of the critics only publish on their blogs. If I can be taken to task then I reserve the human right of taking other people to task! It is not uncivil to do that is it?--Hfarmer (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but little details like this hardly deserve a big noticeboard discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Research claimed if synonyms of "lobby" used in lobby articles

Lobbying is described as trying to influence politicians and government. However, one editor holds that no article can be used as a source unless it uses some variation on the word lobby, even if the source describes in detail all the machinations common to lobbying and says the purpose is to "inform" or "influence" politicians. He calls any such use "original research" and immediately deletes the material, even well known historical examples of concerted lobbying.

While the following currently is an issue in Israel lobby in the United Kingdom (including being used as an excuse to change the name of the article), it also has been an issue in Jewish Lobby and Israel lobby in the United States and is an issue that could be used to effectively gut articles or AfD Arab lobby, China Lobby, Energy Lobby, Pharmaceutical lobby, Cuban-American lobby.

In general I do think there should be at least two or three WP:RS that use the term "___ lobby" but after that use of terms that are synonymous and WP:RS descriptions that clearly indicate lobbying should not be considered original research. Thanks for your input. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the objection really over just applying the term "Lobby", or is it really over applying the term "Israel Lobby". I think you are correct if the issue is whether someone is a "lobbyist" (ie attempting to influence policy) but to tie that person to the "Israel Lobby" needs a more definitive source. For example: a person who meets with an MP to promote better trade policies with Israel is clearly a "lobbyist", but you need a direct source to say he is part of the "Israel Lobby". Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point sticklers demand that Israel and the word "lobby" both be in the article and tied. Are you saying this is only a WP:BLP issue where both Israel and lobby must be describing explicitly person's actions, affiliations, etc?? That's more understandable, though not yet an issue in this article. (Lengthy quotes of diatribes against some who say there is an Israel lobby in Britain is the BLP problem in that article.)

The more relevant issue is more WP:RS says GROUP A did a, b, c to influence policy/attain its policy goal/for the betterment of Israel (or China or Cuban-Americans or Energy industries, etc) that only could be obtained through influencing in some way politicians, legislation, government - but the actual word "lobby" is not used. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is this... Given the title of the article, there is going to be an automatic assumption by the reader that anyone mentioned in the article as being a "lobbyist", or any act mentioned as being "lobbying", is in some way directly tied to something called: the "Israel Lobby". So my question was... when the editor or editors who are objecting state an objection to the terms Lobby, Lobbyist, and Lobbying, could he/she/they really be stating an objection to tieing the persons or actions under discussion to the narrower concept of "(insert name here) Lobby", rather than objecting to the broader concept of "Lobby"? Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well based on the way this is described. We have sources that say person X went to some legislative type body and advotated/promoted/argued for pro Israel legislation. Isn't that the definition of lobbying? Sometimes sources don't want to say "lobbying" or "lobbyist" because it has a negative connotation to some ears. They will instead describe precisely what the person did. I don't see how using our own intellectual capacity for reason and concluding therefore that person was lobbying is research. Unless looking in a dictionary is now research.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:OR, "Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context.". If the source doesn't want to say "lobbying" or "lobbyist" because of a negative connotation, we shouldn't use that source in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the source. Its a clear case of WP:OR violation. DigitalC (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page of the article, it seems that the real issue was not to the use or non-use of the term Lobbying in the sources... it was that the sources do not tie that action (what ever you want to call it) to the "Israel Lobby", which has all sorts of connotations and associations attached to it.

In other words... while it is not OR to say that the actions discribed are "lobbying", or that the person doing them is a "lobbyist" etc. ... it well might be OR to discuss that lobbying within the context of one of the Israel Lobby articles. Given the context, you need a source that directly ties a specific lobbying action to the term "Israel Lobby". Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, Blueboard doesn't quite get the question, which is: if the actions described are clearly "lobbying" but are not called that (in large part because of reasons Hfarmer notes) and are explicitly said to be for Israel or Pharmaceuticals or Energy (etc. other lobby articles), is it WP:OR to put them in an article called _____ Lobby?

To quote leads of other articles that will be affected here, in that much info might be deleted:

• Energy Lobby is the umbrella term used to name the paid representatives of large oil, gas, coal, and electric utilities corporations who attempt to influence governmental policy.
• The Pharmaceutical lobby, also known as the "drug lobby," refers to the paid representatives of large pharmaceutical and biomedicine companies who seek to influence government policy.

It seems to me there was some policy statement or guideline I quoted six or eight months ago that allowed something a little more general as is done in those two leads, but frankly I'm too tired today to look for it. In case anyone else wanders along and can think of what it might be in the interim. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the question... I am saying that in this situation it probably is OR to put them in the article... To identify someone as being part of a specific group (ie "The <Insert name here> Lobby"), or to identify their actions as being on behalf of that specific group, you do need a source that directly ties that person or action to the specific group. Otherwise it is WP:SYNT. This is especially true when the very name of the Lobby in question is controvercial. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure all of the industries or groups whose name is used before the word "Lobby" consider it controversial, especially much maligned energy companies. Meanwhile I remembered what the page in question is: Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research. Sections which might apply are:

• Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. So if Israel or Energy Lobby is defined as anyone doing a lot of lobbying for Israel or Energy companies and Lobbying is defined as xyz and a group is doing xyz for Israel or Energy companies, then one can say the group is part of the Israel or Energy lobby.
• Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented. Zionist/pro-Israel/Jewish or Oil/Coal/Nuclear power efforts/protests/contributions/communications etc to influence/change/shape etc policy/law/administration/etc for benefit of Israel or Energy companies are part of "Israel Lobby" or "Energy Lobby." CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid deduction 1 doesn't follow. A person can lobby for Israel without being part of the "Israel Lobby" as a movement. Deduction 2 is just... way too vague. Essentially, you're claiming that anyone who supports Israel is part of a broader "Israel Lobby," which is WP:SYN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how. If I go to washington and try to influence congressmen and senators by buying them expensive gifts, and meals, so that I can talk to them about the merit's of the Israeli claim to 100% of the west bank. How would I not be a Israel lobbyist? --Hfarmer (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I can think of many reasons why someone might lobby congress on this issue... the lobbyist could be a Christian Fundamentalist who thinks firm Israeli control over the West Bank will hasten the rebuilding of the Temple (a prerequisite for the Second Coming), he could be an arms dealer who thinks that if the US continues to support Israel's claim, the conflict will continue and he can sell more arms to people on both sides.

The more I read this thread, the more I think there may be a disconnect here on what constitutes the "Israel Lobby" in the first place. Hfarmer seems to be saying that anyone who lobbies Parliament or Congress with a pro Israeli stance is automatically part of the "Israel Lobby". I would disagree with that. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the definition of lobbyist to the lobbying article since lobbyist redirects there. For both words, among the many definitions, from both dictionaries and govt agencies overseeing lobbyists, there are both very broad definitions including any individual who attempts to persuade, and narrower ones that mean only organizations or individuals who get paid for it. So I think we have to opt for the broader definition, which includes the narrower. This is one support for those who choose to so define it broadly in any article on a "___ Lobby."

Note that because of holidays this discussion probably will drag on for a couple weeks. Let's not get blinded by concerns that any particular national or business or or other lobby will get smeared but stay concerned with general wiki policies. Which reminds me, I forgot to mention Arab lobby so adding in first list above.

Also I'm pushing for clear guidance because I'm very interested in lobbying in general and I can think of a few other "___ Lobby" articles I'd like to start. And again I'd start with several WP:RS saying there is a "____ lobby" and then include other info as this discussion, or any final discussion where appropriate, consenses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a few comments from an uninvolved editor:

1. At least in the U.S., there's a very clear definition of lobbying. Lobbyists have to be registered, and tax-exempt nonprofits can't lobby. I don't know what the British rules are like, but if we were writing a contentious article on lobbying in the US, it would make sense to demand that everything grouped into that article be either a registered lobbyist or described by some notable commentator, without hyperbole, of being a lobby.
2. On whether "Israel lobby" wrongly implies a centralized organization. I could go either way on this. People always talk about the "tobacco lobby" or the "pharmaceutical lobby" and nobody assumes they are single organziations, why would they assume the same of "Israel lobby"? However, because something like "Israel lobby" is going to attract a lot of unwanted attention, maybe it does make sense to use the less bold "Pro-Israel lobbying in the United Kingdom".
3. On whether "Jewish lobby" and "Zionist lobby" belong in the article. "Jewish lobby", no. That could be the basis of a separate article about Jewish causes that don't necessarily have anything to do with Israel. Again, I don't know about the UK, but in the US there are orthodox Jewish organizations that aren't interested in Israel, while on the other hand there are many "Christian Zionist" organizations that would belong in the article, not to mention groups that have nothing to do with religion but lobby because they do business with Israeli companies. "Zionist lobby", yes. I know the term "Zionist" attracts all sorts of attention, but originally it's just a synonym for pro-Israel. If we were discussing organizations pre-1948 that would have been the preferred term. And this would be particularly relevant to the UK who controlled that territory during the interwar period. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Using your format a couple replies:

1. Actually the US Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 does have exemptions (less than 20% of activity) for nonprofits and individuals. One problem in the article I am going to try to correct today is that a POV source's claim there isn't organized lobbying in Britain, so there is no Israel Lobby. The BBC details on the history and current status of lobbying was deleted as WP:OR the first time I put it in!
2. The "unwanted attention" or the "special circumstances" or "exceptionalism" claim is a big problem and the article is filled with attacks on British pols who dared to even say there was any kind of pro-Israel lobby, despite existence of a number of organizations. But obviously I don't think smear tactics used against anyone perceived as critical of Israel should bias the way articles are written in wikipedia. So I probably should bring this to arbitration per arbitration of early 2008--but waiting til get all my sources straight and see how close I can get the article to way I think it should be so POV issues will stand out better. (Plus solve this WP:OR problem.)
3. Re: Jewish Lobby it sometimes clearly refers to pre-dominantly pro-Israel lobbying and other times to non-Israel related issues, so obviously it only should be used where the reference in the source is explicitly to pro-Israel lobbying. (Two such cases are currently in the article. Others might in future be more controversial.)
4. Re: pre-1948 Balfour Declaration and British Mandate of Palestine period, THAT WP:RS information was deleted because the sources weren't found to use the word "lobbying," instead using a varieties of synonyms or descriptions OF lobbying. One of the reasons I brought this here in the first place! CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

From another uninvolved editor: Follow the sources. If the sources don't use the term lobby, lobbying or lobbyist, then they probably shouldn't be used for an article with that in the title. If the source didn't use those terms, then it is impossible to determine whether the author(s) intended the source to be used to discuss lobbying, and therefore it fails WP:OR (see my post above for the exact quote as to why). DigitalC (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From a somewhat involved editor: I believe people have the comparative cart before the horse. All other lobbies, mentioned above for comparative purposes, grew from something that already existed with words defined to describe them. This is true whether it is the energy or pharmaceutical industry, China, Cuba Arabs or most of any one can imagine.

The pro-Israel lobby is very different from these, because this lobby existed before its currently accepted descriptor, Israel. This lobby was propagated by a fervent Zionist ideology, a dream, something that didn’t exist. It has since morphed into something that does support something existing. Whatever it is and whatever should be included in the article should come from its history and its activities, all adequately RS'd.

The history of the pro-Israel lobby considerably predates the establishment of Israel in 1948. Tivnan notes the following in the first paragraph of his introduction. <ref>Edward Tivnan, ''The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy''. Touchstone Books, 1987. ISBN 0671668285, ‘Introduction’, p13. </ref>

Before Israel existed as a state, it existed as a political lobby first in the capitals of Europe and then in Washington. Zionism was the romantic dream of a band of nineteenth-century European ideologues who often could agree on only one thing: that to achieve a “normal” life in an anti-Semitic world, Jews required a “Jewish state.” Zionist leaders worked tirelessly to convince the rest of the world to help them make that dream a reality. They met with hostility and skepticism. Foremost among their doubters were the Jewish leaders of America.

The term ‘Zionist propaganda’ is not uncommon to describe its output and methods throughout its history, because that is their history. It would be appropriate in this case to consider the uniqueness of this lobby and not try to over-homogenize it with other, quite different lobbies, which use a more commonly accepted yardstick of what constitutes a ‘lobby’ its methods and means. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tivnan reminder; any chance he actually uses UK or Britain in the book discussing Israel and lobbying? :-)

To Digital C - I quote two sections from Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research above and now below without my comments:

• Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.
• Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented.

If these don't apply to this situation, perhaps you could explain why, as opposed to other situations where it does apply.

Also, in case there is confusion in this topic in general, while it may be that writers do not use lobby because of a negative connotation, on the other hand we cannot assume the lack of use is because the writers do so unless they somehow make that clear, for example saying, "I don't want to use the 'l' word" or something. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest trying to find a source that expressly identifies the pharma lobby et al as lobbies.

Due to its negative connotations, no "non-partisan organization that furthers the public interest" (not kidding!) is going to call itself a lobby, but all those lobbies have their critics, and at least one of those critics is going to use the word "lobby".

For example, calling the oil lobby a "lobby" might be found in the publications of the renewable-energy lobby. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that WP:RS using "lobby" need to be identified several times in the article, and perhaps at least once in each section and definitely in any description of any individual's action. The question is, once that is adequately established, can articles that robustly describe the activities of incluencing and lobbying be then deleted as WP:OR?? Or should we rename all these articles "Influencers of legislation on ____" since influence is maybe 10% easier to find in articles than lobby :-) Also WP:Naming Conventions would suggest that a frequently used shortcut phrase makes "___ Lobby" acceptable where it is in fact used. Holidaying too much to link to specific sections :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Related: When only title of source uses word lobbying

A related issue is - if the Title of the article or book uses the phrase “lobby,” but the text of the article (or relevant section of book) only describes lobbying, I assume there should be no problem with WP:OR. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem that I can think of. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A caveat... if we are talking about a specific lobby then we could be in OR territory. If the title uses the phrase "lobby" but does not name a specific lobby, then it would be OR to say that the lobbying described in the text was an action on behalf of the specific lobby. For example, if a book about a famous lobbyist is entitled "Life In The Lobby", and describes various actions normally considered to be lobbying, we can say that these actions do infact constitute lobbying... but, we can not say that the actions constituted lobbying on behalf of a specific Lobby (Israel Lobby, Oil Lobby, Religious Lobby, etc.). For that we need a source that ties the lobbying actions to the specific Lobby named. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

All the sources I refer to use "Israel Lobby" in the main title of the article; many do not use it again in the rest of the article. So it sometimes is claimed that therefore the article is not relevant! (I.e., if article contains something individuals do NOT want to see in it as opposed to something they do and then it never becomes an issue; frustrating.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In which case there is no OR involved. If the authors use the term "Israel Lobby" in their title, then the lobbying actions have indeed been connected to the Israel Lobby. It is not OR to discuss this connection. I suppose the next question is whether we should phrase such discussion as fact or as opinion. Should we say: "X did Y" or should we atribute the statement: "According to author A, X did Y". However, this is not really a WP:NOR question (it is more a WP:RS issue, as it depends on the level of reliability of the source). Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to comply with wikipolicies, but that doesn't stop some people from reverting such material. Maybe it needs to be an explicit note in Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research (and much of that I think belongs in WP:OR]]. By the way I'm going to present a couple of examples of things declare "WP:OR" soon so people can see how ridiculous it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at this in a while, although I was involved earlier. There is an issue that lobbying generally in the UK isn't as organized and regulated as it is in the US. But it's catching up, and there are now recognized lobbying organizations. UK lobbyists now even have their own trade association, the Association of Professional Political Consultants. The UK Parliament itself now has a web page on how to lobby.[20]: "Lobbying is the practice of individuals and organisations trying to influence the opinions of MPs and Lords. Methods of lobbying vary and can range from sending letters, making presentations, providing briefing material to Members and organised rallies." So pretending there is no "lobbying" in the UK is futile at this point. --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Carol, along with the article that included "Israel lobby" in the headline (though not in the body of the article), you added a whole series of sources that yet again did not even refer to "lobbying", much less "Lobbying on Israel in the U.K.". You need to stop doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if only the title of an article refers to lobbying- and that title is written by an editor possibly over the objections of a writer who would not have used the term lobbying- surely that introduces questions over the appropriateness of using the title to summarize the thrust of the article? Nevard (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously every edit needs discretion; if there is no real description of any activities commonly known as lobbying and the editors had some inexplicable reason for putting it in, including space considerations, it could be challenged. But since the whole point of WP:RS is that some editor has edited the stuff, unless it looks totally irrelevant or misleading, it might be relevant as a backup to better sourced material which would precede it, as is true with many sources. I don't use any myself in this article, though titles have been used for emphasis on a couple different places in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Examples of allegedly "WP:OR" material removed

This talk page link includes the material removed from the article and some discussion. In brief:

• Originally much of same material was removed as being "WP:OR" but now after changing it to include exact quotes and more sources explicitly mentioning some variation on lobby and Israel it is removed merely as "not mentioning lobbying"?!?!?
• Possible semantic issues that have not been clarified?
• Fact that the only sources that do not directly mention lobbying and Israel are there for transitional purposes since this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in WP:wikilawyering per WP:These_are_not_original_research which explicitly comes out against such wikilawyering.
• The two sections removed are details about Zionist lobbying and Balfour declaration and whole section on British Board of Deputies which is the leading Jewish community group which several sources say engages in lobbying on Israel. (I struck through one sentence that didn't pass muster on third look; and see I somehow dropped a whole relevant sentence from another which I reinserted.) I'm all for beefing up sections with better references. But I believe wholesale deletion is just not good cooperative editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost Consensus position/with still unanswered question: I think this sentence from "Fullstop" neatly wraps up the discussion: "Due to its negative connotations, no "non-partisan organization that furthers the public interest" (not kidding!) is going to call itself a lobby, but all those lobbies have their critics, and at least one of those critics is going to use the word "lobby".

Nevertheless the question remains about related explanatory or transition material that helps an article make sense in an encyclopedic fashion. Example below:

• Using Source A which mentions "Widget Lobby" one writes: Mr. Jones, in working for Company A, which is part of the Widget Lobby, lobbied Cong. Smith on January 5, 2009.
• Using Source B in next sentence which describes Jan 5 incident, but does not use phrase "Widget Lobby" one writes: When Mr. Jones was speaking with Cong. Smith about the Widget bill before Congress, Jones told Smith 5 million dollars would be raised for his opponent for office if he didn't vote for the bill. Smith complained to the media, which reported on the controversy nationwide.
• Using Source C which does mention "Widget Lobby" but provides only the details in quotes one says: Mr. Jones was fired from his job with Company A for "unauthorized statements to Cong. Smith about contributions and the widget bill" during his January 5 visit.

Right now some editors are deleting B because "Widget lobby" is not explicitly mentioned, leaving the reader wondering what Mr. Jones said that was so bad. While each such edit must be discussed on its merits, suppression of relevant information under mines the goal of making a comprehensible encyclopedia. (The concern of the essay which should be upgraded to policy: WP:These are not original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists

We've got a heated dispute going on over at Discrimination against atheists regarding original research; one user is claiming that because he concludes something constitutes discrimination, that is sufficient to have Wikipedia say that it's discrimination. Examples include the British monarchy mandating the monarch be CofE constituting discrimination against atheists; one would think that if it were so obviously such discrimination, there would be at least one reliable source asserting such, not just his appeal to the dictionary. Or are the rest of us offbase? Serious WP:OWN behavior as well. I'd just protect the article myself except I got involved. Extra eyes would be nice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes... That article is almost entirely Original Research. It is essentially one giant WP:SYNT violation... it list all sorts of laws and constitutions, etc. from around the world, and states that these are discriminatory. At first glance it looks well sourced... but if you actually look at the sources, it isn't. Most of the sources are simply links to the various laws, constitutions, etc. These citations show that the various laws exist... but do not support the statement that they are discriminatory... or even that anyone claims that they are discriminatory.

Essentially the article is geared towards "proving the point" instead of "discusing the issue" Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There must be good sources for some of this, eg the British Humanist Association, etc. dougweller (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about the rest of Discrimination against atheists, but any statement about "the British monarchy mandating the monarch be CofE constituting discrimination against atheists" is historically inaccurate, as any decent textbook will show. The CofE requirement was brought in by Parliament in the Act of Settlement 1701, after the overthrow of James II of England, and was intended to exclude Roman Catholics. At the time it was assumed that everybody would have some religious beliefs and I can't think of any notable professed atheists in Britan at that time. --Philcha (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Political party affiliation & privacy

Resolved

 – asked and answered. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When researching the political party of a government official, is it acceptable to use public records as sources? The particular piece of information I am referring to contradicts an article by showing no party affiliation for the person in the state's public voter registration records, whereas at least one referenced source assigns a party to the individual. The main problem I have is that to put a reference in the article will necessarily reveal personal information about the individual (home address) which is not provided elsewhere that I've seen. It seems inappropriate to me, but the information is publicly available and didn't take me but 30 minutes to find. 66.26.42.28 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This indeed would be Original Research. If the person's political party affiliation has been the subject of public discussion, then it should be sourced to the reputable media. If it hasn't it should not be mentioned in the article. See also WP:BLP. You must not post the person's home address anywhere on Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't "Original Research", with the big boogieman caps. It's simply the use of a primary source. However, the voter registration doesn't necessarily trump the published source. I'm sure lots of people are active in a political party but register as unaffiliated. There is also a question of BLP privacy if we link to something that shows home address, age, etc. Because of those two reasons the public record should be left out. Furthermore, is there a reason why we're interested in this person's political affiliation? If there's no serious reason for it, and you have doubts about the published article, why not leave politial affiliation out of the article altogether? Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef is correct. In response to privacy issues... What external resources say is not a 'pedia issue. But there is absolutely no need to link to every damn thing that comes down the turnpike. The government document has a unique, unambiguous title. USE IT and basta. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:SYNTH in Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

I believe that this edit in the OCRT article constitutes original research by synthesis. This statement compares and contrasts various primary sources to create a novel synthesis never discussed in a reliable third-party publication. There is no third-party source discussing Al Buttnor's joint affiliation with OCRT and Scientology, nor is there any third-party source saying that "most of the text" of an OCRT article "is identical with an official Church of Scientology site" or anything to that effect. This comparison was undertaken by Wikipedia editors on their own initiative. It may be good investigative reporting - but it is not good encyclopedia writing. *** Crotalus *** 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Each page on OCRT concerning Scientology lists the authors of the page.[21] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is in Ontario, Al Buttnor is/was an official Toronto Org in the public eye, and I've met Al Buttnor, in Ontario. Small world. It isn't investigative reporting or rocket science, this is listing a contributor to the site, as documented on the site, with sourced background information. There is no other part of the article that has a third-party source, and if it wasn't for the site's apparent popularity in being cited and Wikispammed, it should have been successfully AfD'ed years ago. No third parties mention the uncredited plagiarism/copyvio, but if not handled here, I'm sure that there are other venues for that concern. Certainly I would seek a RS/N that they not to be used as a RS for Scientology articles at the very least. AndroidCat (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In general OCRT is not a reliable source, because it is a collection of self-published essays written by a few people who run the website. They are a good resource for locating actual sources by using their footnotes, but the website itself does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. But for information about their own website, such as author names and discussion of their articles, they can be used as a primary source, in my view.

Regarding the synthesis question, my view would be that it's basic factual information, like 1+1=2, to note that the text of two webpages is identical. Some may disagree, but I would not consider that to be synthesis. There seems to be a synthesis jump in stating that the author of "most" of the Scientology articles are written by that author though. That could be addressed by simply listing the names of the articles he wrote and citing them, in other words, something like this" "The articles on OCRT titled <list titles with footnotes> are co-authored by Al Buttnor, Director of Public Affairs and Human Rights for the Church of Scientology Toronto <with footnote>. The same articles have also been published on the official Scientology website <with footnotes>." To me that appears to avoid synthesis while managing to include the correct information --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In additon to the SYNT issues... I don't see any claim of notability in this article, no indication as to what makes the organization notable under WP:ORG. I have left a note on the talk page to this effect, and alerting editors that unless the article is re-written to establish notability, I may nominate it for deletion (I'll give people a few weeks to respond). Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There are all sorts of WP:NOR issues with the article, but this is one of the more egregious. People are constructing a criticism of the OCRT based on their interpretations of primary sources (in this case, pages found on the website itself). If someone thinks there's a concern that OCRT articles about Scientology being written by a Scientologist, then they should find a secondary source that raises that concern. If they think the articles on Scientology reproduce verbatim articles on Scientology website, then they should find reliable sources making that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the article talk page, I disagree that listing affiliation of a significant contributor is original research. There are probably thousands of articles in which we given some indication of a person's notable affiliations which aren't necessarily mentioned in the same source as for the article. For example, if we have a list of notable alumni and we indicate that "Joseph Hedebeck" is a best known as a running back for the Jets, we don't necessarily need a single source that makes both assertions. So long as there is no doubt about identity, and that the assertion is relevant to the article or otherwise appropriate, then this type of identification is standard procedure on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether two documents are (essentially) identical is separate. That would appear to be the kind of self-evident assertion that any reader could confirm for themselves, assuming both sources are linked. If so, that'd be no more original research than showing a picture of a building and writing a caption saying that it is painted yellow. However, if the documents are only similar and not identical then that conclusion would be original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time I checked, the OCRT page was an identical sub-set of the CoS article by Heber Jentzsch, credited to Bruce A. Robinson. (The site blocks Wayback, so there's no neutral way of tracking changes.) AndroidCat (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Hy there Today I noticed the new article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. In my opinion this article shows original research and original synthesis. The well-intended author wanted to compare the two empires, took a couple of points and then tries to argue how one empire fell and the other one vanished by presenting a couple of conclusions. While I personally think that the subject by itself is quite interesting Wikipedia is not the proper place to publish one's personal theories and views. Its neutrality is also a bit suspect (A pro-China view seems to be present) but that is besides the point. Flamarande (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really original research, as the information is derived from several sources; I did add a cleanup template. Could take out the conclusions section as well, I think this belongs more on the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While a lot of the basic information is not OR, I think many of the conclusions are. So yes, some work does need to be done to bring the article in line with NOR. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic information has been manipulated. The author only presents what facts he wants, calls it "evidence for larger trends", and then reaches his own conclusions. IMHO that's Original Research. 'Nuff said. Flamarande (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that completely. I have already modified a great amount of the information to remove any speculative bias. I invite anyone to search through the article. There is no place in the article where I state that in conclusion, so and so. ALl the controversial facts in the article are backed up by citations. 76.66.50.175 (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The facts (battles) are not the problem. It is the conclusions that you draw from them (and you only mention a picked handful of battles). They are your own conclusions and that's the problem. Flamarande (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I mentioned battle of Mayi(Early Han) battle of Mobei(Middle Han) and for the Romans i mentioned (Battle of Zama) early roman, Battle of Carrhae(middle roman) for a comparison at certain times. Four MAJOR battles i dont think is a handful. You would be welcome to choose your own battles to show your own point.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So basicly you picked four battles/campaigns and compared then to each other reaching your own conclusions. Do you have any idea in just how many campaigns and in how many battles the Roman army prevailed and defeated its enemies? How many sieges the Roman army made? How many peoples and nations they conquered? And notice: you picked the four battles/campaigns; it wasn't a historian/military historian at all. It was only you. You don't seem to base any of the sections of the article upon a work/books written by professional historians at all (in which the historian(s) compares the two empires with each other). You simply thought it would be interesting to compare two different empires, both of them figuratively on opposite sides of the "known world" who had different cultures, religions, economies, forms of government, armies, climates, geography, neighbours and enemies. IMHO this means that the whole article is from the bottom up quite clearly OR and unpublished synthesis and has no place whatsoever within Wikipedia. Sorry Flamarande (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is unnecessary. We should concentrate on having good articles on the Roman Empire and Han Empire, then if readers want to make their own comparisons they can. An article like this is only justified if there is scholarly work that makes the comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you didnt notice there is nowhere in the article a section where "I" compare the article; the facts are simply listed for the reader to compare. There are many such articles on wikipedia, where information is provided side by side. Flammarande is continuing to say that i am "Comparing" and using "OR" but if you notice in the talk page his claims are all OR and nowhere in the article is there an article where I conclude or compare the two empires. There are simply facts layed side by side. As to other articles see comparison of 2000s figher aircraft. See external sources for scholarly work. I challenge you to find one sentence in the article which is synthesis and not sourced. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How many of the sources actually compare the two empires? I hope they all do, because it looks very much to me as though this is much more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. Eg, "The Chinese economy was much more liberal than the Roman one, which depended largely on slave labor." - does your reference here actually compare the two economies? dougweller (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A) No it doesn't and B) it's the website of a distance learning company. Putting the article up for AfD right now, no point in prolonging the agony. Sorry teeninvestor, but some of us have strong opinions about sourcing in history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that no historians have published comparisons of these two empires... but without some discussion about what historians have said when they compare these two empires, (and citation to the historians), it does indeed come across as being OR (more specifically WP:SYNT). I agree with the AfD... but suggest that teeninvestor ask that the article be placed in his/her user space... so that he/she can hit the books and work on a new version of the article that focuses upon reporting what the historians say. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that earlier historians probably have made such comparisons already. However to compare two nations/states with different peoples, religions, cultures, forms of government, and economies who then had to face different challenges (different geography, climate, neighbours and enemies) with different results is simply unwise. Such comparisons are by default very difficult and controversial and precisely because of this largely avoided by modern historians these days. Formerly they would do it exactly to demonstrate the "superiority of one against the other" but I like to think that these days serious academics are wiser and much more cautious than that. Such comparisons are good enough for a friendly debate between friends (and usually both sides only reveal their ignorance and learn that they truly don't know all that much about the relevant subjects). Flamarande (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, check comparisons between the GDP of Indian states and countries! is there a source that compares the indian states' GDP and countries'GDP? the source cited shows there is slave labor in Roman Empire, while there is less in china. Putting facts side by side is not banned on wikipedia. Also, "Some of us have strong opinions"? you dont own wikipedia Itsmejudith.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And neither do you or I. I agree with the placement of the article towards Teeninvestor's userpage. Teen, to be honest: I have nothing against you, the Han empire (I admit that I'm a bit pro-Roman though :), or with such an article (IF it is based upon proper works by accepted historians). I have been there were you seem to be now. Some time ago I have made OR in the article SPQR (and then learned from my mistakes). It's all too easy to do it, you read something somewhere, and then compare it with something else you read somewhere else. It makes sense and then you jump to obvious conclusions (that's what I did then and what you made now). What one must/should do in this case is read a couple of books in which these authors compare these two empires which each other (a single book is technically enough but the more the better). The subject of the book must be the comparison of these two empires. Flamarande (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

what do you wish to do with this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Cricket_and_BaseballTeeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC). Also, I do have a source in which Han and Roman Empires are compared; check comparing two classical civilizations, china and Rome- China institute.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS. I am getting increasingly concerned that you continue to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong. dougweller (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Three new sources have been made available which compares two empires. See article for more details Teeninvestor (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Earth and its peoples, World history outline, <http://www.course-notes.org/World_History/Outlines/The_Earth_and_Its_Peoples_4th_Edition_Outlines/Chapter_6_An_Age_of_Empires_R_0> (Accessed December 27, 2008)

• Hyper history net, Decline of Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw07hanromecollapse33100120.htm>(Accessed December 27, 2008).
• Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf>(Accessed December 27, 2008)
• Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [22](accessed December 26, 2008)

Is this not enough sources on this subject??? Theres a ton of material about this on the web. These sources and probably 100+ others you can find on google shows this article is not original research. They make it obvious that this article is NOT OR or synthesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Teeninvestor, I don't own the encyclopedia, and the debate can go on. Sorry if I bit you. I note that your work has been accepted into Wikiversity, which could be appropriate. I also note from your reference 2) that the China Institute in America ran a course on this topic and you should probably draw this fact to the attention of the Wikiversity people. Perhaps the topic is more suitable for a course than an encyclopedia article at the moment. Putting facts side by side - sometimes it is banned, sometimes not - it depends on whether an original synthesis is created. I will look at the other article you mention, but it may also be poor, so don't necessarily expect that I'll be convinced. History articles have to be sourced from the work of reputable historians, for example a statement about slavery in ancient Rome could be sourced to Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology by Sir Moses Finley. In the meantime you could follow Blueboar's advice about working on the article in your own user space. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also pointed out on the article's talk page that some of the sources used don't meet our criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. Some are obvious problems, ie using other Wikis or essays, others a bit more complicated, eg relying on an academic who isn't a historian for this article isn't, I believe, acceptable. Other material on the web can't prove that this article isn't OR - what is happening here is, I believe, a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy on original research. dougweller (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there are enough sources that are acceptable so that the article is sourced, accurate and notable(I'm sure you wont disupte notability.). I welcome any attempts to improve the article, but deleting it makes no sense; its information is accurate, its notable, and it has reliable sources. My work has been accepted into wikiversity, and there is an ENTIRE category of articles similar to mine r u going to delete them as well?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comparisons Teeninvestor (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What does your work being on Wikiuniversity have to do with this discussion? dougweller (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your work has been transwikied into Wikiversity precisely because that is the appropriate venue for editors who wish to publish their Original Research... OR that is not allowed here on Wikipedia. And just so you know, being "accepted" in Wikiversity does not have any weight here at Wikipedia.

Assuming that at least some of the sources you have found are reliable... the next step is for you to edit the article to tell the reader what these sources say, rather than what you say.

Let me make up an example to show you what I mean. Suppose one of your sources discusses the military tactics of both the Han and Roman Empires, and reaches the conculsion that the key difference in fending off barbarian invasion was that the Han remormed its tactics while the Romans did not. You could then say:

• "According to historian X, the Han Empire succeeded in repelling Barbarian invasions by reforming its military tactics, while the Roman Empire did not.."

This tells the reader that the information (both the underlying facts and the conclusion) is based upon what the reliable historian says... not what user:Teeninvestor happens to think. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What i said is what the sources said! I did not put anywhere in the article where i said "in conclusion, han empire was better than roman" and stuff like that. I simply presented the facts for the reader to study. That is within wikipedia policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not always... in many ways the problem is less with what you say in the article, but with how you do so. When you take a bunch of statements from disperate sources and link them the way you do, you clearly imply a conclusion... which is almost as bad as stating the conclusion out right. And it is still a form of WP:SYNT. You take items that may have never been compared before and link them. If these comparisons have been made and linked by reliable sources, then say this in the article... and tell us what conclusions those sources have reached. Don't use on your own intelegence to make the connections... use the sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You should not be presenting facts culled from various sources and synthesized into an article, but what reliable sources say about the subject, ie what reliable sources say comparing the two empires. 22:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

Teen, do you have a credible source written by a historian that directly compares the two empires or not? For example I just love the beginning of the economy section. "The Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman one. [23] But if someone cares to follow the link, the author (a geopolitician - not an historian - and he doesn't seem to deal with ancient geopolitics at all but to have modern interests and concerns) never ever compares the two empires with each other. He writes that "China was the largest economic power on earth for most of two millennia before the 18 century". He doesn't compare it with ancient Rome or even mentions the Roman Empire at all. So basicly you noticed the relevant sentence, reached your own conclusion (the Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman economy), and then wrote you conclusion as a fact. And to be completely honest: this happened in most of the "sourced material". Exactly this approach is OR and unpublished Synthesis. Flamarande (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That source states China's economy was the largest for two millenia, which shows it is larger than the Roman Empire. As to the organized part, that was also from a source which state: "The han economy was more organized than all other economies at the time." which proves my point.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it just says that the Chinese economy was the largest for most of two millennia before the 18th century. There is absolutely no direct comparison with the Ancient Roman economy. Flamarande (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you have one source that talks about size, and another that talks about organization, and you put them together in this way... that is a WP:SYNT violation. I think the problem here is that you are "trying to prove a point"... let that go. Focus on what each source has to say... attribute what the source says to its author so everyone knows who is saying what. Start with the sources that make a direct comparison between the two empires, and then expand upon what they say by discussing sources that only talk about one empire. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BlueBoar please see my source below. Also, remember this is a debate about whether the article should stay. See my source and arguments below. Also, regarding the top, i made an error. there was one source say it was largest, and another talking about how it was largest AND most organized. And no, i am not trying to prove a point. I have nothing against the Roman Empire or its people and culture. Will you not agree that I have found several credible sources that directly supports the topic, and therefore it should stay. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No... the place for a debate over whether the article should stay is at WP:AfD... this page is for discussing the OR problems. If they can be fixed then there is no need to nominate the article for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The main point is whether the article should stay. The point is that this article does fit the criteria for notability, accuracy, source, etc... Even if you disagree with the article's contentions, it is obvious this article fits the criteria for inclusion. Remember, there is also a whole category of contentions. I think this is more of a content dispute than a dispute about whether the article should stay. Also, theres at least two reliable sources on this article, (China institute, princeton university) comparing the two empires directly and numerous others fleshing out the details, so you cant say its not sourced. The original contention was OR, which these sources certainly show the article fits the crieteria for inclusion.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, by stating I "implied" WP: SYNT, the detractors of the article are themselves violating the policy(Concluding i must have "implied" violations). As I have stated repeatedly, I simply put a description of both empires in each area side by side; in no way does that violate wikipedia policy. Also, see wikipeia category of comparison articles. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Puting a two things side by side can violate the policy if you don't cite to a source that has placed the same items side by side. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Flammarande's comment above whether i have a source written by a credible historian, I do. Here I have found a book directly comparing the two empires by an expert in the field who is a credible historian: Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires by Walter Sheidel, professor of classics and world history, stanford university. ISBN: 9780195336900 . You might want to work with that. I am already adding information from this to the article. As for more credible sources check this page http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heres a link http://books.google.com/books?id=QjS7W-BtXOkC&pg=PR17&dq=Rome+and+China:+Comparative+Perspectives+on+Ancient+World+Empire#PPR7,M1 It is a direct online source about Rome and china being compared! What do you have to say about that! this is one of my sources. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Great!... now go read Prof. Sheidel's book, and then edit the article to include some discussion about what he has to say in his book. This is what we have been telling you to do all along. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar the point I'm trying to make is that my points have shown that the article is worthy of preservation, but several people are now trying to delete it. Please proceed to make your vote at AFD if you believe this article should stay, which i believe is what you think. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Teen, I strongly advise you to buy and to read the book in question (and can only hope that you buy and read more than one) because the larger part of it seems to be unavailable from the internet. If you only had bought and read the book before creating the article....Flamarande (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Teen, this isn't the place to try to argue whether an article should be preserved or not (make those arguments at AfD if it is actually nominated)... this page is for dealing with OR problems. It sounds as if you now have enough sources that you can fix these OR problems. Why don't we end this conversation on this good note, and let you get to work reading the sources and actually fixing the article. Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, the article has been nominated already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires Flamarande (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Since now you both seem to agree that with this source OR is resolved I suggest you two go to the AFD board to prevent A legitimately SOURCED article from being DELETED! and im sure you can change your mind on your delete vote flamarande.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You truly don't get it, do you? Noone is or was against the article in particular, or against the subject in general. What most (I in particular) of the users who voted 'delete' find appaling is how you pick some dubious sources, twist them into your own liking, and then write down sentences which were never defended by the original person/source at all.

Let me pick up (again) the beginning of the economy section. "The Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman one. [24]" - the whole sentence is mighty, powerful and leaves absolutly no space for any doubts.

I followed the link, reading and studying the text. The author (a Indian geopolitician) is not (and never claims to be) a historian or and historian who studies economy. He writes that "China was the largest economic power on earth for most of two millennia before the 18 century".

The authour never ever compares the Han empire with the Roman empire. He never mentions the Roman Empire or the Han Empire at all. The whole text is mostly about the recent (last 40 years) political development of China. To be honest I think he speculates a lot (his forecast of failure for the European Union is very funny and quite dubious).

So what happened here? I'm going (yet again) to explain to you how you did Original Research and Unpublished Synthesis.

You noticed the single sentence, and then twisted the sentence it into your own conclusion "the Han economy was larger and more organized than the Roman economy". Afterwards you wrote it down and presented it as a fact. However the original source never said that the economy of the Han empire was larger and more organized than the econmy of the Roman Empire. That's quite clearly your own conclusion.

As a matter of fact he writes: "China was the largest economic power on earth for most of two millennia before the 18 century".

I already presented this problem above but you seem to be unable to understand that what you did is unacceptable for a serious article in Wikipedia.

Your answer was: "Exactly. That source states China's economy was the largest for two millenia, which shows it is larger than the Roman Empire. As to the organized part, that was also from a source which state: "The han economy was more organized than all other economies at the time." which proves my point."

What you truly did was twist the original statements into your own liking and this action is clearly forbidden in Wikipedia. Exactly this is what we are not supposed to do at all.

And this happenend not only in the Economy section; it happenend nearly everywhere.

IMHO it isn't a legitimately SOURCED article. It is the product of someone who doesn't understand reliable sources, academic fairness, or neutrality at all. Just as another example: You claim that Huns are the same nation that was defeated by the Han empire but then beat the Roman empire, but it is clear that the identidy of the Huns is considered unclear by the overwhelming majority of Historians. I clearly showed you in the article-talkpage how and why the vision "Huns VS Roman Empire" is not true.

The current article is largely your own world-view "supported" (clearly not) by random sentences you picked up from the internet.

I will also acknowledge that you have done a terrific job in "sanatizing" some of the more clearly outragous statements. However I will continue to stand by my vote of "Delete" - as an alternative I see no problem with the fair proposal of Aecyr (The article survives - but more of less 90 % gets deleted). Flamarande (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I fully acknowledge that this was a BITE but I feel that I had to answer with nothing but the truth (IMHO).

I really think this debate needs to return to the article talk page... we all agree that there are serious OR problems with the article as currently written, and we all (I hope) agree that there are probably enough sources out there to support a completely rewritten article on this topic. The key is for us now to stop bickering about what the current article looks like, and move towards achieving the rewritten article. Those discussions should take place at the article talk page, not here. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down flamarande. I'm sure there's a compromise as of now. This subject is obviously suitable for wikipedia, therefore I believe it should stay. As to the content of the article, We are all very flexible here. I don't understand reliable sources? please state one thing in the article now that is false and not factually accurate. You have only argued about the military section and part of the economic section, not elsewhere. You have yet to produce one concrete example. If you continue with personal attacks, I may have to file a wikiquette alert. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestions: The article at present is based primarily upon the web page from the China Institute; that page in turn is part of an institute to prepare such material, [25]. I consider it a reliable source at an elementary level. But the additional material for it must be gotten from actual sources which discuss the comparison. It can not be assumed that comparing general statements about one to similarly general statements about the other in different sources is sufficient--unless utterly obvious, it will be OR, as will such over-generalizations as the current text abut religions.The web p. lists without full reference some usable sources including especially The Cambridge illustrated history of China by Patricia Buckley Ebrey 1996; ' and its source p. lists Arthur Cotterell (ed.). 1996. The Penguin Encyclopedia of Classical Civilizations. You need however to actually read the books, not just look in GBooks for isolated phrases. DGG (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Geosurveillance - AfD in progress

Please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geosurveillance. I sent this to AfD. It's a postmodernist essay, and looks like WP:SYNTH type original research. I'm not sure whether it's just someone's rant, or whether there's accepted postmodernist theory behind this position. There are plenty of references, but they're only vaguely relevant to the "geosurveillance" topic. The article needs a look from people who take Focault seriously. --John Nagle (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely based on subjects that Foucault was interested in, but definitely a synthesis, rather than a summary or exegesis. Not a rant though, and would be fine on Wikiversity. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor issue in Deepak Chopra

Resolved

 – Section deleted - contributor needs a cite if it's to be restored. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor added a section to the Chopra article that seems to be a personal observation.[26] I tried three times to explain the problem to the editor who added it, and I moved the section to the Talk page for discussion.[27][28][29] The editor fixed the problem with first person that I had also noted, and added two book titles -- and then reinserted the material, without discussion, and without addressing the NOR issue. It actually seems an apt observation, so is this something that should just be let go? I kind of wanted someone else's involvement or opinion. I'm reluctant to remove it again. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sander Residence

User:Maxwell33 (talk) has written a paper for school and keeps adding the information to this article. He has overwritten other changes, including simple facts (square footage) from recent cited sources (NY Times) with unreferenced information. I have tried to explain policy to him but I have failed miserably and a revert war is starting. The user is new and confused (he was last seen getting into a fight with SineBot). There are WP:BLP and privacy issues, he showed bias on the talk page and deleted initial communication on his user talk page so I was a little firmer on reverts than usual. I'm going to let it go for the night. Would someone else take a whack at it? His talk page and the article talk page have all the background. As an aside, this article is borderline on notability but we'll deal with that once we sort out citations and content. Thanks for the help. -Savewright (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamitic

A dispute has arisen on the article Hamitic about the continued use of the term "Hamitic" as an ethnic identifier in the CIA Factbook (a book that has been determined to be an RS when raised several times on the RS noticeboard). One editor states that the reference is "OR" on the following grounds "neither the CIA nor another source talking about the CIA says that it's still in use; it's wiki editors personally 'reporting' that it is". In response to the assertion that all summaries of the content of RS's constitute wikipedia editors "personally reporting" the content of the source, the editor replies "It's OR. User is indeed personally reporting that "the CIA Factbook continues to uses [sic] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity"; CIA ref itself makes no such assertion; see WP:NOT#OR)" I can see nothing in the rules which state that this is a misuse of the source. The source lists information in the form of tables [30]. Among these is a table which states "Ethnic groups: Hutu (Bantu) 85%, Tutsi (Hamitic) 14%, Twa (Pygmy) 1%, Europeans 3,000, South Asians 2,000". I do think that it can possibly be OR to state that "the CIA Factbook continues to use the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity", since this is indeed what the table asserts, in exactly the same way that it asserts that the Twa are "Pygmy" and that they constitute 1% of the population. The fact that it does not make the assertion in the form of a sentence, but in the form of a tabulation seems to me to be irrelevant. If it were not, all the content would be inadmissible. This eems to me to be a clear case of "wikilawyering". We need precedent here, otherwise it will be possible in future for editors to claim that any information in tabulation form "makes no such assertion; see WP:NOT#ORWP", and that the tabulation "Twa (Pygmy)" just constitutes the word Twa with the word Pygmy in brackets after it, not an "assertion" that the Twa are Pygmies. Tabulations that follow clear rules constitute statements made by the source, otherwise we are in for pointless rounds of dispute over tabulated sources with statistical and other information that editors don't like. OR should not be used as a tool to delete information one does not like. In my own view the CIA is being sloppy by using an obsolete term no longer considered useful by anthropologists, but that does not justify excluding the fact that the term continues to be used by a mainstream source. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell - should be an easy one to clear up

We're having trouble with this article with an editor ((83.67.217.135 (talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". [31] Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.

It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles ([32] [33]) blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis (WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.

It seems to me that the only reason to include information on a share price relating a claim made on a website for a campaign that the subject of the article is not particularly closely linked with, is to push the POV that the boycott was a success.

As can be seen from the history of the article, 83.67.217.135 considers himself the "owner" of the article, reverting others' changes whenever he disagrees with them, sometimes with an edit summary such as "what the fuck is wrong with you?". From the talk page you can see that he will not listen to other editors, considering himself to be the ultimate authority on what changes are allowed to be made. He has had to be warned about civility on several occasions (indeed, he has recently called me a liar, ignoring me when I show that what I have said is true).

Frustratingly, this debate would probably not be occurring if 83.67.217.135 would declare the WP:COI that he seems to have. He refuses to confirm his identity, or rule anything out. He has almost certainly used at least one sockpuppet on the talk page. With deference to WP:OUTING, examining his contributions reveal that he is almost entirely concerned with mentions of the name 'Stuart Campbell' on wikipedia. His writing style and way of treating people is recognisable from other websites. Yet this article cannot currently be changed without his say-so, as he will just revert the change.

All we really need is a few more than the 3 or 4 editors we currently have to come along and chat for a few minutes. Maybe you will all agree with him, but at least the debate will be resolved. Please do help - it could all be resolved so easily and quickly! Thank you. Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and "Gaza massacre"

Reliable sources have identified Arab leaders, media, and personalities as saying the events in Gaza are a "massacre". Editors have felt that this is the generalized viewed as simple POV name for what the Israeli side calls the "Operation Cast Lead", and should be included in the lede and in the article itself as an important contrast to the name given by one side. Other editors have insisted on removing this sentence, and have raised concerns about POV, bias and Original Research, they have also removed content in the article itself that elaborates on the fact that this name is used. (as a note, the "Gaza massacre" is a redirect)

I find the POV/Bias arguments snowballable wrong: describing the opinion and name used by one side of a conflict is never POV unless we appear to support the actual name as if it were fact, which we don't.

While I think the sentence is very well-sourced, I do recognize a weakness I recognize: they do not explicitly refer to the "Gaza Massacre" but rather than "massacre in Gaza" or "massacre" and specifiying place somewhere else, etc. SOme editors opposed to the inclusion of the term argue that using the phrase "Gaza massacre" is OR because we are deriving a novel idea from the sources. I and others have argued this is an incorrect interpretation: the sources are unambigous int hat when "massacre" is used, it refers to the current events in Gaza, and not to another event. In case the "offending" sentence is removed from the version of the article you read, here is it in context at a "previous version" link and in text (no context):

“ The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in the Arab World. ”

There are other issues I would like to raise regarding what I consider pointy allegations of original resarch, but this one would do for now. Please give us your perspective.--Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that none of the linked sources state the foregoing quote in their articles. For further (and the countervailing view) discussion of this problem see Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Three unaddressed problems with the term "Gaza Massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read my paragraph above I said: I do recognize a weakness I recognize: they do not explicitly refer to the "Gaza Massacre", that is why I opened this process: I feel that is a valid point, but the current climate in the discussion (which you said had to go to arbcom - which I disagree) is not conducive to such nuances. I say lets get a new set of eyes and get it over with.--Cerejota (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And here for a more complete discussion Nableezy (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (fixed link by: --Darwish07 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

And I recognize no such weakness. The BBC Arabic site uses the Arabic words for Gaza Massacre here: [34]. Aljazeera does here: [35]. Numerous other arabic sites use the arabic words we cite. Nableezy (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And on above news links, the conflict is completely identified only by the term "Gazza Massacre" in the titles themselves. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

May I also add that there are other 8 Arabic references saying the "Gaza Massacre" term ,in Arabic and on the titles and with no extra explanations, on the ("more complete discussion") link provided by Nableezy above. So I claim that this weakness does not exist in the mentioned Arabic references. Thank you --Darwish07 (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that they do not capitalize so we do not know for sure what is intended. This is English wiki and we should use English sources as much as possible. 6 sources are given and not one supports your allegation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think brewcrewer's point is the phrase in general: lets try not to recreate the debate here, but expose our points to more eyes. I want to see what the people here say, if anything.--Cerejota (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, we won't continue the debate in here. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also you'll find three concrete replies to the 3 "problems" proposed by Brewcrewer in the link he has given. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Take care to avoid recentism, as the terms of the debate are still evolving. It's undeniable that the BBC and Al-Jazeera are reliable sources, but we are left with the question of the equivalence of the Arabic and English terms, and as we know terms in different languages are rarely exact equivalents of each other. The solution would seem to be to pull apart the single statement with many sources and instead to attribute a sentence to each of these sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, but just having the single sentence is a problem for some, I only see it being a bigger problem if we go into any more detail. Could we perhaps source the arabic words to bbc and aljazeera, while the english ones to a google translation? There are many on the talk page who know arabic, on both sides of the discussion, but nobody is disputing that the words in arabic translate to 'gaza massacre'. Nableezy (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's best not to include footnotes in the lead paragraph (that paragraph should summarise sourced statements in there rest of the article). And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and tips. Nableezy (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I think it only fair to include the full paragraph here for context:

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when the Israel Defense Forces launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ???? ????? ?????, Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ????? ???) in the Arab World.

As Cerejota has acknowledged, none of the references refer to "The Gaza Massacre" as the Arabic Name for either the "conflict" or the "operation." Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, we've said the conflict is identified as Gaza Massacre in more than 10 Arabic references, which were just a sample. And I've also said you do not need to find a statement saying: "The Iraq war is also called Occupation of Iraq", but just find a suitable number of references that refer to the events as "Occupation of Iraq". This is exactly what happened in a number of Wikipedia articles like Iraq war and War in Darfur. Please see my "Reply to claim 2" paragraph as I have addressed such claims before. Thank you. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Hamas calls Israel's actions a "Massacre". One of the interesting things about this particular round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fact that both sides are much more media savy than they used to be... and both sides have become more expert at media manipulation. For example, both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups offer automatic "missle strike" counters that you can place on your MySpace page so you can keep track of how bad the "other side" is, and groups from both sides have learned to post videos on Youtube showing the damage that the other side is committing to all those "innocent people" (and not showing the damage their side does). This is a war folks... and media manipulation is just one more front in that war. The key for Wikipedia is to not be duped by either side... I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact that is similar to my revision of the sentence here[36]: "The operation, which Israel says is in legitimate self-defense, [37] has been called a massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in the Arab World." I maintained the references given as they do indeed call it a "massacre" (little "m"). This NPOV edit is consistently reverted within minutes of putting it up. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For the fourth time, on this single subsection. Please read the sample 10 Arabic references which called the events "Gaza Massacre" as we've mentioned. And below Nableezy references which show several Hamas spokesmen calling it "Gazza massacre" and not just "massacre" in English sources. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And what's this babysitting of Israel before the term "massacre" ??? It's not our problem if the Arabs even called it a Holocaust. We just put it without adding a layer of justification or our own sympathy as you did in that edit. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unnecessary (and biased) to include the legitimate self-defence part to excuse Israel's actions. The Israeli government calls all military action it takes legitimate self-defence just as all action taken by Palestinian militants is called legitimate resistance to illegal occupation by them and their supporters. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, your list of references does NOT say what you claim it says. What you are saying constitutes WP:OR. The only time that your sources even capitalize "massacre" is when they use the word in a headline and then capitalize every main word. The Arab speakers are quoted as calling the situation "a massacre" "a terrible massacre" etc. At no time does anyone report that it is referred to as "'The Gaza Massacre" And finally, the context makes it clear that it is not NPOV to accuse Israel of a "massacre" without even allowing a justification from Israel in the same breath. Basically what is being attempted here is to remove all of Israel's justification to the second paragraph, and to manage to call the situation a bolded capitalised Massacre in the first two defining sentences. It goes against wiki WP:NPOV even if there were reliable sources to back it (which there are not).

I'm sure you didn't check the Arab reference or read the debate before writing this. Did you? We've shown 10 Arabic references calling it "Gazza Massacre", literally, as a sample including BBC Arabic, Aljazeera, Jordan News, Egypt News and the English source. Gulf News. We've even shown statements from Egypt's Pope saying "Stop the Gazza Massacre" in one of the Arabic references. I just didn't like to put 10 more references on a statement already referenced by other 6. Please check the debates, first. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And As said by Nableezy:Beyond that, here are some english news sources: SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [38]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [39]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [40]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [41]. That enough english sources? Nableezy (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The term 'The Gaza Massacre' is not simply Hamas's argument, it is the name they have given to this most recent conflict. The name the Israelis have give is also in the lead. The arguments for each side are presented in the body of the article. Every battle that I have checked, where the two side have different languages, reference both sides name of the conflict along with the English title. I dont see why this has to be any different. It is not OR to present what Arabs have called it, there are a number of sources that refer to it as either 'The Massacre' or 'The Gaza Massacre' in Arabic. If you insist on not using Arabic sources to find the Arabic name (which is truly baffling on common-sense grounds in my mind) above are a number of English sources, directly quoting Hamas and Arab officials calling it 'the gaza massacre.' For something as simple as what do both sides call an event to have caused such heated debate seems illogical. I think we can clearly show that it is not OR with sources cited above. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And (even though this is the NOR board) it is not a POV violation to accurately report what the two sides are calling the conflict. It would be a POV violation to censor one of those sides description because you feel that they should not be using the words, not that they are not using those words. The article make no statement that the incident is a massacre, it clearly says that Arabs have called this 'the gaza massacre,' that is not a POV violation it is merely a statement of fact backed by multiple RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Question to All Could this be a translation issue? I don't speak Arabic, but it seems like distinctions between 'the Gaza massacre' 'The Gaza Massacre' or 'a gaza massacre' etc. etc. are the exact sorts of things liable to be translated in different ways by different people. Has anyone considered it from that angle?

Yes there is the matter of translation, Arabic has no capitalization for example. Agree with Nableez above, it is neutral to report not only what the Israeli side is calling the event but also what the Gaza and Arab World side is calling the event. It is not neutral to try to censor one side because your POV is challenged by it. Re: original research accusations re: exact phrasing, note that the article refers to the name being used in Arabic. But anyway here are some more English-language sources that use the exact term "Gaza Massacre":

1. Gulf News
2. Islam Online
3. Uruknet
4. Muslim Matters
5. Iranian
6. Asian Tribune
7. Sri Lankan News

And from the UK and Australia and NA:

1. Tribune UK
2. ABC Australia
3. Indian Country

RomaC (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Yes translation can be an issue, the arabic words that are used مجزرة غزة, can be translated Gaza massacre, or Massacre of Gaza, but most sources, including my best friend, translate it as Gaza massacre. The sources that I provided above are English translations of statements and interviews made by Hamas leadership, the translation they all have used is 'Gaza massacre.' Capitalization to me is a pretty minor issue, just seems odd to say something is a proper noun and not capitalize it. But there are sources for the translation of Gaza massacre, and sources for the arabic words مجزرة غزة. The sources the RomaC posted also refer to the 'Gaza massacre', but they are not attributing that to anything. We do have sources in major Arab media (BBC Arabic and Al-Jazeera) that use the Arabic term, and we do have English sources that translate for us what at least Hamas is calling the conflict. Every single battle that I can think of between 2 entities where there is a language difference between the two have the common English name as the title, and each sides nomenclature in the lead. Nobody can answer why this should be different, rather going from policy to policy, first OR, then NPOV, then UNDUE . . . and all this time the article isnt even calling the events a massacre, it is just saying what one of the involved parties is calling it. Nableezy (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone who has responded here is also deeply involved in editing the page, with the exception of Blueboar and Itsmejudith. I urge my fellow editors to listen to their opinion, as the rest of us have heard each other's opinions ad nauseum. Would anyone care to summarize the position of the two uninvolved editors regarding this? Or will we continue to ignore them? Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tundrabuggy, We've compiled a new list of references that put no room for further debating, including having the full term "Gaza Massacre". Particularly the new set of references are:. Thank you! --Darwish07 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your references do show that many are calling it a massacre. There is no denying that. But it is not a proper name or it would be reflected that way even in translation. "Your friend" (or mine) is not a reliable source on wiki. What you are suggesting is that every source above has mistranslated "The Gaza Massacre" to "the Gaza massacre". It is not a formal and proper name, but rather a description, a view, and a judgment. If you are going to put in the Arab judgment as a "massacre", it must be balanced with the Israeli view. {I guess we need to take this to the NPOV board} I believe the reason you are demanding that it be interpreted as a proper name is to claim "balance" or equality with Israel's proper name for it "Operation Cast Lead." But that isn't balance, that's spin. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and Operation Cast Lead.

The first line of the article begins like this (or some variation thereof):

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, refers to an Israeli military offensive into Gaza which began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[25] when the Israel Defense Forces launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[26][27][28][29]

I am suggesting that it is WP:OR to claim that the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict "refers to an Israeli military offensive." The 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict has been going on since Jan 1 2008 and did not begin with Operation Cast Lead. Many editors have tried to correct this by replacing "began" with "accelerated," "flare-up", "intensified" etc. but we are consistently reverted to "began" or "started." It is also true that there have been attempts to rename the article. It is my contention that the article should not use "began" as long as it named the way it is. Until the name is changed to "Operation Cast Lead" or along those lines, we should use a word like "intensified" in place of "began" for accuracy. Comments please. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, you are confussed as how the article became to have the name it has. A very small minority of the editors agree with your view.

While I won't do a complete recount, the talk archives and the special page on article naming all have the relevant discussions:

• • This article started being named "Operation Cast Lead", it then passed through several variations of 2008 Gaza bombing, a group of editors reverted after an hour of discussion to "Operation Cast Lead" I reverted per SNOWBALL back and a series of edits unfolded, including a move protection, that resulted in the current title when the ground incursion started. There is an active discussion happening on the title issues at this moment. Consensus can change.

• • Almost all editors agree that the conflict that began in Jan 1 2008 is covered by 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict and 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict (which clearly links to this article). The lede Tundra criticizes precisely exist to disambiguate the confusion. Its ackward but it is rough consensus.

• • Almost no editors agree the current title is correct - however not even rough consensus has developed around alternatives. Tundrabuggy is confussing the fact of a stalemate on the title with a re-purpoising of the article topic with which nearly no editors agree besides himself.

• • The WP:MILHIST guys agree that "Operation Cast Lead" should not be the title after a request was made for their comments. They were unanimous and provided copiuos opinion, althoguht they have not so far done any editing in the article or the talk page. Many editors have valued thier opinion on the matter.

How this is relevant to this forum is not clear to me, but I wanted to set the record straight. I challenge Tundra to provide evidence (not opinion) that the facts presented are wrong. --Cerejota (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • The title may be wrong but the article should still reflect it. Either that, or both are wrong. I would like to hear uninvolved comments. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • That makes absolutely no sense at all. Tundrabuggy seems to be saying that because there's an error in the first line of an article the error must be then compounded throughout the article. The article in question is clearly intended to be about the ongoing events that began on 27 December 2008 when Israel began a military offensive/security operation/whatever. We should just be patient about giving the article its 'definitive' title. Next week the Israeli government might withdraw its forces from the Gaza Strip and announce a successful conclusion to 'Operation Cast Lead' and we might find that this is the name that 'sticks' historically... or we might find that Egypt responds to violations of its airspace and these events escalate into a war that goes on for years and gets given a name no-one has even thought of yet. What we're doing at present is like arguing about what the article on the Six Day War should be called when we're only at Day 3! 80.176.88.21 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Lol. Apparently I did not make myself clear. I'm just saying that we have had innumerable discussions about changing the name of the article and the current name is consensus. So I say we should write an article about "the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" if we are going to call it that. You don't name an article "The Doe family", and only talk about one of the Does. What happens when you call something one thing and then focus on another is to somehow define the (2008-2009) conflict in Gaza in terms of only this one episode or incident in it. If you want to talk about that one incident, then be honest, and name your article John Doe, not "The Doe family." Either way, the perspective of both sides of the conflict should be aired 50-50. I don't disagree that we should be patient about giving the article a definitive title. As we know, concensus can change, and as you bring out in your (very amusing) Day 3 argument, wiki is not a crystal ball. In the meantime the name should somehow reflect reality. Since my edit, which was "intensified" instead of "began" was a simple way of reflecting reality, seems to have finally taken hold after numerous reversions, I would consider this resolved for now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Roof knocking

For some days now, I have tried explaining that the name "roof knocking" is a recent invention. I have been told by editors that this is OR. In fact, I cited the line, and the cite was removed with a {{cn}} tag. I have restored, but before it becomes another lame edit war, I wanted a third opinion.

The lien in question:

“ The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006, though the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. ”

Editors have removed the second reference, while leaving the first, alleging the second source doesn't directly support the claim. However, the first one doesn't support the claim either. Both have in common that the date published is the earliest date that can be found online for either phenomenon.

My point is, either both get removed as OR, or both stay. I would prefer both stay, as both pieces of information are important, and can be, using common sense, sourced. Comments?--Cerejota (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If we have a news story about a person that takes a pole, runs, plants it in the ground, and uses it to jump over something, is it OR for us to call it "Pole vaulting"? What if the person did this 1000000 years before the term "pole vaulting" existed? NJGW (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the central question, but you seem to have missed the second part of it: 1,000,000 years later the name "pole vaulting" is first used in a reliable source, is it OR to say so? --Cerejota (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For the third (or is it fifth) time: what source do you have that says explicitly "the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict?" You need a source that says that exact statement. We cannot say "Cerejota couldn't find a mention of the term before X date in the press." Even if the statement is absolutely true, it may be unsourcable. When some academic or journalist prints a statement that the first usage of the term was 'such-and-such', we can include a statement to that effect. NJGW (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, neither does the source say "using this technique as early as 2006". That is the central point. So for one statement, we are allowed to ignore the need for sources, but not for the other? --Cerejota (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the 1st statement, "The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006,[42]..."

Here's the excerpt from the cited 2006 Guardian article that supports the 1st statement, "Mr Deeb was on the receiving end of a new Israeli tactic of using telephone, radio and leaflets to warn Gazans of impending attacks." Note that the 2006 Guardian article specifically states that this is a new tactic so the source supports the first statement.

Re the 2nd statement, "...though the earliest usage of the term 'roof knocking' in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.[43]"

I could not find any excerpt in the cited 2009 Haaretz article that says or implies that the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. So the cited 2009 Haaretz article does not support the 2nd statement. It appears that the editor believes the second statement is true because of all the news that the editor has seen since 2006, the first mention of "roof knocking" that the editor has seen in the press, occurred during the recent 2008-2009 conflict.

Opinion - Keeping the 1st statement and deleting the 2nd statement is consistent with the no original research policy of wikipedia. If the editor wants to keep it in the wiki, the editor may either find a better source or try to get a consensus for its inclusion using the official wikipedia policy WP:IAR, i.e. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the second statement may well be true and there may be a supporting source somewhere, this seems like more of a case of not yet finding the appropriate source for the statement, rather than a violation of WP:NOR. In my opinion, the statement should be restored without the inappropriate citation in that sentence but replaced with a {{fact}} template i.e.,

The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006, though the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

An example of the type of source to look for is one that states that the IDF only released the code name "roof knocking" to the press during the recent conflict.

Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A rewording that may avoid these problems is,

The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006,[44] and it had the code name "roof knocking" during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.[45]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Does conference numbering interpolation = Original Research?

I'm trying to create a table of the National Conferences of a Social Fraternity. Lets say I have 3 sources that say that "The 23rd National Conference of XYZ was held in Boston on July 3-5, 1951", "The XYZ New York National Conference was held on July 1-3, 1952" and "Cleveland hosted the 25th National XYZ Conference in July 1953".

Now I don't have a source that says that the Conference held in New York is the 24th National Conference even though it was proceeded by the 23rd and followed by the 25th, so in the table, would it be considered Original Research to put 24th in the box for the number of that Conference?Naraht (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say in a footnote that this is an assumption made on the basis of the dates of the 23rd and 25th conferences. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age) that add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources

I think this qualifies as a routine calculation. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to go with Itsmejudith's suggestion since it makes clear that this is something that can still be researched. I'm using ref_label and note_label and the note_label is '''b.''' {{Note_label|b|b|none}} Conclave Number [[interpolated]]<br>. I also have one case where the year is being interpolated rather than the number, and I'm using a separate ref_label and note_label for that. Blueboar, if more people support you, I'll just remove it and I won't have lost anything. Thank you both for your comments.

I also think that this qualifies as a routine calculation. However, I question whether it's really, truly important to provide the "anniversary number" in most articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, it isn't really an anniversary number since the Fraternity started out with Annual conventions, stopped for the Duration of WWII, went back to Annual after the war, expanded to every 18 months in the 1950s, expanded to every two years in 1986, but will be going to annual for the 2010-2012 period in order to celebrate their Hundreth. (I've moved it out of the sandbox and it is now at List of Omega Psi Phi Grand Conclaves). I'd say that 38 references is a lot, but there are 246 on another page that I've been the most frequent editor on.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the interpolation is reasonable, but if you want to be exact in attribution yet not attract attention from the deletionists with a footnote about the 24 being interpolated, consider placing the "24" in [square brackets], just like if you were quoting something that needed a grammar fix. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, for now, I'll stay with what I said before. I'll keep watch and see if anyone wants to change it.Naraht (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Naraht, Re Suidfyerchef's remark "...not attract attention from the deletionists..." - Considering the support you've gotten here (and now including mine), I don't think you need to fear anyone with an overly strict interpretation of WP:NOR. Keep in mind the official Wikipedia policy WP:IAR which states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." IMO your edit certainly improves your article(s) and has a consensus here. In fact, the article may be improved further by deleting mention of interpolation, which just seems like needless, and possibly confusing, clutter. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing I should add, if you are uncertain if an interpolation is correct, or if an interpolation can be reasonably questioned for some reason, that's a different situation. The information has to be credible or it's not improving Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but what is the consensus on NOR as it applies to user-created maps? For example, File:Map of USA highlighting Jello Belt.png as used in Jell-O Belt and Mormon Corridor? What source states that those are the boundaries of said regions? Mike R (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps are considered images... so WP:NOR#Original images applies. In brief... a user created map does not need to be specifically referenced, but it should reflect information discussed in the article, which would be referenced. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The map, correlates roughly to a map in a link I just added to Mormon Corridor. It also more-or-less matches the description of the region mentioned in the article. – jaksmata 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you cite WP:RS that this was a heavy Mormon settlement area, you're very probably in the clear. If in doubt about the quality of the source, ask at WP:RSN. Once that's all resolved, include the citation in the image's Description page - along with a description of what the strawberry jam represents. The point of this is that some editors are pushing for a stricter policy on on user-created/-modified images, and some Wikiprojects already have image-review groups. If you do it now, while you have the source handy, it will save you trouble later. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps and diagrams may be images, but a diagram can be OR just like text can be OR. "Original images" was intended to allow photographs of content relevant to the article. I'd say if the map follows naturally from cited information, it should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the procedure for removing/correcting maps that do not accurately reflect their referenced sources? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say just be bold and edit it (upload a corrected version), if you have the ability. WP:IFC mentions that you can tag images for cleanup with {{ifc}}. If it's really inaccurate (unsalvageable), use WP:FFD. – jaksmata 15:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin American images

This has come up before, but is now coming up again. At Talk:Latin_America#Photos.21 there are claims that photos need sources. My understanding is that "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Which is it, photos need a source or no? NJGW (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole image thing is tricky. In principle you're right about wp:OI. But practice is more complicated. For over 6 months now there have been pressures for some degree of citation to go with some types of image, and I've encountered these in paleontology and zoology articles. Breaking it down by types of pic:

• Diagrams, reconstructions etc. (common in paleontology and zoology) probably need a source. Usually easy because the diagram usually illustrates something in the adjacent content, and that should have a citation you can paste into the image Description page. If the text lacks a citation, fix that first!
• Photos of well-known objects, e.g. Pentagon, may not need citations at present because uncontroversial.
• Photos of less-well known objects, e.g. statues or buildings of purely local significance, may be very difficult to back up.
• Photos of species bother me and I think are going to run into trouble. I see in a few Wikiprojects enough questions of the type "Can you identify this creature whose picture I took?" I suggest it's prudent to use a spotter's handbook / field guide / ilustrated book from a reliable publisher to back these up. Even so it's tricky wiht e.g. spiders, where scientists' main method of species identification is ... the exact shapes of their genitalia.
• Photos of non-famous people have at least two problems. One is backing up the statement "this is a ... (Scotsman / diabetes sufferer / village elder / etc.) As with species, the best citation would be a reliable illustrated book - but at least you won't have the spider genitalia problem. The other is to do with privacy rights and you should check Wikipedia:Image use policy.

I'm sorry if that's not as helpful as you hoped, but I think images are becoming a messy issue. --Philcha (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as e.g. things like statues or local buildings, I'd say that it's acceptable to reference a book or other publication that has another picture of the same thing - if the two look the same, I think that's good enough. If someone debates the issue beyond that, I feel that they're being tendentious and are trying to keep an image out of the encyclopedia for other reasons. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of racing simulators

This article has bothered me for awhile now. There are many problems with it. Barely anything is actually sourced, and most of the info is just users' opinions. I don't think an acurate comparison like this is even possible under wikipedia's guidelines, so I'd say it's best if the article were removed. Much like the article on racing games, I think this comparison is more of a "battle" between fans of a specific game, trying to show that their preferred simulation/game is a better simulation/game. I hope I'm putting this in the right place, if not I'm sorry, and hopefully someone will quickly remove this and point me in the right direction. If this is the right place, then please discuss and let me know what you think. --Wes Richards (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)