Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Palestine and its membership in United Nations organs

Cross-posted from WP:RS/N. Nightw 11:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations Regional Groups is a geopolitical grouping of the United Nations. According to the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, Palestine was accorded full membership in the group on 2 April 1986: "On 2 April 1986, the Asian Group of the U.N. decided to accept the PLO as a full member", (Source).

In 1998, the General Assembly Resolution 52/250, which conferred upon Palestine further rights and privileges in the General Assembly, noted that: "Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia". Other official websites, such as the Conference on Trade and Development website, also make the same statement (source): "At present, the PLO is a full member of the Asian Group of the United Nations, ...". Last year, an article by Jurist (published 27 November 2009), on the prospect of Palestine gaining full membership to the General Assembly, stated: "Palestine is already recognised as a full member of the Asian Group of States in the UN, and often thereby submits and influences UN resolutions. Being a member state would also give the Palestinian representative to the UN the right to vote on General Assembly resolutions, among other UN decisions." This is just one example of a secondary source that supports the resolution.

However, a user has recently called this claim into question, citing the following sources, which exclude Palestine from their lists:

• Document, "Members of the General Assembly are arranged in current Regional Groups"; (uploaded 11 May 2009).
• Document, "Part VII: Statistical Annex", which contains (p 329), according to the footnote, "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups"; (uploaded 13 November 2007).
• Document, "UNAIDS Governance Handbook", which contains (p 28/30), according to the heading, the "composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board"; (published January 2010).

However, I identified these sources as unusable, because none of them contain any explicit statement regarding Palestine's membership in the Regional Groups, and each of them could be argued to be unrelated to the topic. The first two documents, as is stated above, contain lists of Members of the General Assembly, which Palestine is not. The last document, as it says on the above-mentioned page, outlines "the composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board", which "is based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". It does not describe, as is claimed, the UN Regional Groups.

So the questions are: do the second group of sources conflict with the first group, or is further research needed? Are they relevant to Palestine's membership in the Asian Group? Can the first group of source be used in the article as they are, or is further research needed?

A preliminary discussion took place on the article's talk page. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Night w forgot to add a fourth source: a resolution of General Assembly (p. 7, sec. 25) of May 2009, which determines that Palestine's status (in round-table sessions) is identical to that of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group. Additionally, User:Night w ignored other quotations, which are taken from footnotes in these sources, and which prove that Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group. For more details, see the section about Palestine in this old version. The issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations Night w ignored. Eliko (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. I'm assuming you're referring to point 25: "A Member State that is not a member of any of the regional groups may participate in a round-table session to be determined in consultation with the President of the General Assembly. The Holy See, in its capacity as observer State, and Palestine, in its capacity as observer, as well as organizations with observer status in the General Assembly, may also participate in different round-table sessions to be determined also in consultation with the President of the Assembly."

This does not state that Palestine is "not a member of any Regional Group"; it instead makes a note about member states which are not members of any regional group, that they "may participate" in accordance with what the President determines. And then, in a separate sentence, says that entities with observer status (such as Palestine), "may also participate" determined also in consultation with the President. It does not state anything about Palestine's membership in Regional groupings, so it's irrelevant in this context.

And the quotation that supposedly "proves" that "Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group.": "By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates", doesn't say anything about Palestine's membership in a Regional group. You're using that statement and its placement with statements about other states to come to the conclusion that is not backed up by any secondary source or any statement of explicit nature. That is Original research. Nightw 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No original research, because, as I've explained in my last responses on the talk page of the article mentioned above, the limitation against original research refers to claims appearing in articles rather than to claims appearing on talk pages. Additionally, I've already proved, on the relevant talk page mentioned above, that these foonotes consider Palestine to be a non-member, but User:Night w has ignored my proof ibid.

As I stated above, the issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations.

Additionally, next time, when coming to the Noticeboard page, user:Night w should try to present all sources and all quotations about which both parties disagree, what User:Night w hasn't done.

Eliko (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at both types of sources above (those by Eliko and those by Night w) it seems that there is a reliability problems with some of these. The sources that support the statement "PLO/Palestine is a full member of the UN Asia Regional Group" are circumstantial and thus unreliable. They include such statement only in the context that PLO/Palestine: is UN observer; is participating in many UN System organizations and initiatives (but it participates there 'according to' its UN status, e.g. as observer and not as full member); is member of UN ESCWA (the only officially confirmed exception of PLO full membership in UN system body); is member of a few other organizations (NAM, G77, etc.) - thus these circumstantial sources imply/make assumption such as "since PLO is a UN observer that is a member of 'UN ESC Western Asia' then it is a member also of 'UN Asia RG'" - I would not object to this assumption/implying-by-circumstantial-source if it wasn't in contradiction with direct sources and most importantly with the Official UN list of Regional Groups.

So, we have the official list not mentioning PLO/Palestine and we have some circumstantial sources stating such membership, but seemingly pulling this out of another related membership/observerships of the PLO. My personal assumption is that PLO has the status of something like de facto observer/special observer of the UN Asia Regional Group (just as it has such status in many UN System bodies), but because of its UN ESCWA full membership some sources wrongly state that it is also a UN Asia Regional Group member (because of the primarily geographical character of both?).

My bold proposal (reverted by Night w) was to list UN ARG in a section "conflicting or inconclusive sources" - just as we have such section for states about whose recognition of the State of Palestine we have conflicting or inconclusive sources. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

? This is your interpretation from your reading, and it isn't backed up by secondary sources. It also requires some serious mental leaps for another to get to the same conclusion, especially when the statements made in the sources are so plain. You're reading of the second group of sources is also baffling: it isn't an "official UN list of Regional Groups", it is (quoting from the heading): "Members of the General Assembly are arranged in current Regional Groups" (which Palestine doesn't qualify for), so who knows how you came to that conclusion. You're hardly an innocent bystander, though. Nightw 13:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "innocent bystander" - have I claimed to be such?

The "official UN list of Regional Groups" description I gave was taken from the United Nations Regional Groups article. Now that you point out about the file heading - yes PLO is not Member of the General Assembly, but still having no UN non-member in the official list maybe shows that no UN non-members are members of UN regional groups (pretty reasonable assumption).

Also, Eliko has given many other sources not mentioning PLO/Palestine - so we clearly have "conflicting or inconclusive sources" here - so what's the problem with listing it as such? Do you question the validity of all the sources Eliko has given? (I will leave this issue for you two to discuss) Also, you don't give any source that shows regional groups members - the sources you refer to make some statements that PLO/Palestine is member of UN ESCWA and other organizations, and among these it mentions UN Asia group, but this is not convincing enough - since we lack any confirmation. Also, it seems very dubious since the nature of these UN regional groups is such that non-members have nothing to do there. Most probably the circumstantial sources you refer to wrongly use 'United Nations Regional Groups Asia' instead of 'United Nations geoscheme Asia'. Alinor (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Probably": again your assumption, not backed up by secondary sources. I certainly do question the validity of Eliko's sources! Have you read any of my original statement? Because I clearly pointed out what Eliko's list was at the start—where I also pointed out exactly what his "other sources" were, and why they weren't valid here. Please read the introductory. Nightw 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my assumption - I just point out why the sources you refer to are problematic - they apparently mix two different UN grouping concepts.

In your introduction you state about one Eliko source: "is based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". It does not describe, as is claimed, the UN Regional Groups." - what do you mean by that? UN Regional Groups are the UNGA regional groups - "as claimed" - why do you claim they aren't? Also Eliko stated on multiple occasions that he proved the things he claims, but again - I will leave this issue to you two.

Do we have any official source listing PLO as member in UN Regional group Asia? Or even listing any UN non-member as member in any UN Regional group? Lacking such is very suspicious and unexplainable. That's why I propose leaving UN regional group in "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section for the time being - until we find a proper source. Alinor (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems plain to me, as an outside observer, that the arguments against Palestinian membership in the listed groups is based on opinions outside of the sources and reading things into sources that they do not state. The list of GA members by regional group is just that, a list of assembly members organized by regional group. It is not and does not present itself to be a complete membership list of those groups. A UN proclamation and reliable secondary source notes a claim oft-repeated in reliable sources that Palestine is a full member of those groups. A brief search reveals that Palestine's membership is referred to in many reliable sources and disputed by none that I could find. (I found quite a few that decried it, usually in context of Israel's exclusion, but none that denied it.) Even the laziest research could confirm the full membership. The very top result in Google for several related searches is a Google Books result for ISBN 0415939216. It is the Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, published by Taylor & Francis/Routledge, a gold standard academic publisher. It is unquestionably documented in the highest quality sources. These hairsplitting games over the matter are quite obviously disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. What really matters, is not what the Encyclopdias state, but rather what the UN documents state, and these documents seem to be contradictory. There are 5 UN documents in favor of Palestine's membership, against 5 other (more recent) UN documents.
2. For exmaple, this is a GA document of August 2000 (i.e. two years after Palestine was admitted to the Asian Group, according to a previous GA document), and it uses the wording: "United Nations list of reginal groups" (p. 17, sec. 32), which sends the reader to #8 footnote, stating (p. 34): "The unofficial list is used only for General Assembly elections"; Whereas, Palestine has no right to put forward candidates for elections!
3. Further, a recent document of UN-HABITAT (2007) - which classifies countries by explicit lists under the title: "United Nations Regional Groups" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, pp. 329-330), along with a more recent document of UN-AIDS (2010) - which classifies countries by explicit lists according to the "Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly" (See: UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, pp. 28-29), indicate (when referring to the explicit lists of Regional Groups): "The US...is not a member of any regional group, but attends meetings of...WEOG as an observer, and is considered to be a member of that group for electoral purposes...By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, p. 335, 2nd footnote;UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, p. 29, 4th footnote).
4. Additionally, this footnote mentioned above, begins with the following introductory: "All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups". So, the Regional Groups are assigned for "members of the United Nations General Assembly" (in order for them to put forward candidates for electoral purposes, as I proved above), whereas Palestine is not a member of the United Nations General Assembly!
5. Additionaly, that footnote mentioned above, which is attached to the title located above these Regional Group lists, mentions also Holy See (as well as Palestine); This proves that the whole context is not only about UN members but rather about all countries, including non-members, like Holy See (and Palestine), whereas the Regional Group lists to which this footnote refer, do not include Palestine (nor Holy See)!
6. Furthermore: had these UN document assumed that Palestine (or Holy See) is a member of any Regional Group, then the footnote mentioned above, which is attached to the title located above these Regional Group lists, should have stated something like: "The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings...as an observer...In additions to the member states, there is also a non-member state, the Holy See, which - despite its having an observer status in the United Nations - has a member status in the Regional Group [of so and so]. Palestine, which has an observer status in the United Nations, has a member status in the Asian Group, although it does not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates".

Eliko (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, as has been stated, you're reading things in these documents that they do not state, and missing things that they do.

The first document, as it says in section 33: "represent[s] Member States only". The second document lists, as it says on page 335, "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups." The third document simply describes the "composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board", which is "based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". How similar it is to the original groupings and what differences there may be are not specified.

Your last few points are plainly your own interpretation, and you've used unrelated statements and the placement of footnotes alongside others to come to a conclusion that is baffling to any impartial eye. None of the documents say that membership in Regional Groups is exclusively for members of the General Assembly, as you claim. That is, again, original research.

I've humoured you up until now, but to have any kind of standing in this discussion, you need an explicit statement. Something like "Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States" (but the opposite). Nightw 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I've already explained (see #4 above), the statement "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups" - proves the opposite. This could have been my personal interpretation - rather than a proof, only if the footnote hadn't contained the comments about US, Holy See and Palestine: Those comments clearly prove what is meant by the statement "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups", as I've explained already (see #2, #3, #5, #6 above).
• The UNAIDS document (p.28-29), does not list the Programme Coordinating Board, because the PCB comprises 22 representatives only (that are elected from among the Member States of the Consponsoring Organisations). See ibid. p. 18.
• No original research has been made, because, as I've explained in my last responses, the limitation against original research - refers to claims appearing in articles/templates, rather than to claims appearing on talk pages.
• As Alinor has claimed, User:Nightw needs an explicit list which contains Palestine/PLO.

Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note... when someone argues that something should be included because they can "prove" it, that is a red flag that they are engaging in OR. Being able to "prove" something is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We require citation to a reliable source that explicitly reaches same conclusion that the editor is making. Verifiability... not truth. So, to say that these Primary UN documents "prove" something about Palestine, you need to point to a secondary source that explicitly states that the documents "prove" something about Palestine. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note... the limitation against original research refers to claims appearing in articles/templates, rather than to claims appearing on talk pages. Any argument of mine based on a proof, appears here, on the talk pages, whereas what I and Alinor want to add to the article, are citations only, backed by UN sources. No proofs, nor personal interpretations, nor original research. Eliko (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

When you are using said claims in an article to both dispute sourced information and display contrary information, without providing sources that make the claims you do, that is original research. Nightw 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any claim based on an original research, appears on talk pages only. The article itself presents none of such claims, but rather presents quotations only. Additionally, even if any article had presented claims based on OR (really no article does, but if any had done...), that would undoubtedly have been less bad than articles whose current version was obtained by violating the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You harbour grudges against me. We get it. Nightw 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OR is allowed to a limited extent on a talk page. However, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss the article, not the subject. Talk pages are not the place to "prove" things about the subject either. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Was your recent comment referring to any article, or to my comments? Any comment of mine, that was "proved" by me and presented on talk pages, was referring to comments made by other editors, and that's allowed, just as your recent comment is allowed, although it was not referring to any article. Eliko (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? Is it not reasonable to just stick to what the first set of sources say? It doesn't look like the Eliko is willing to accept this, but without sources that directly and explicitly disagree with the first set, there's not much for him to stand on. Unless anyone else objects... Nightw 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Blueboar's comments discuss OR made on talk pages; User:Blueboar hasn't expressed their position about whether the direct quotations, presented by User:Alinor and by me in the article itself, involve OR. Is it not reasonable to stick to simple quotations involving no OR? It doesn't look like User:Nightw is willing to accept this, but without explicit updated full lists containing Palestine as a member (as required by User:Alinor), there's not much for User:Nightw to stand on objecting direct quotations given by User:Alinor and by me. Unless anyone else objects. Eliko (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Would any of the frequent monitors on here care to provide their opinion? We need a consensus for this. Nightw 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• A request for comments on this discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine. Nightw 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• A request for comments on this discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Nations. Nightw 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had comments from only two editors and the discssions seems to have stalled, so I've readded it in the hopes that the other editor has changed his opinion. If not, any ideas about where to get other opinions? RfC? Nightw 12:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted by Eliko. I'm at a loss. The sources support my information, but a user objects. Would anyone else here like to comment? Nightw 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, have you tried to arrange with Eliko to use this formulation that we adopted recently on the other page? - "For the purposes of United Nations Regional Groups arrangement the Palestine Liberation Organization participates in the Asia group since 2 April 1986" - of course this dodges the issue what these purposes are in the case of UN observer (that doesn't participate in voting or elections) - for example Vatican is not shown on the page to participate in any regional group. If some source are found about Vatican or Switzerland in the 20th century it would clarify the issue. Also, it may help if you add this text to "Special cases" and not in the main "Asia Group" section. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand of Wikipedia policy (verifiability, not truth), we can only say what is said in reliable sources. In this case, both primary and secondary sources explicitly state that Palestine is a full member of the Asian Group of States. No sources have been provided that directly disagree with this statement. I'm open to discuss the arrangement of such information within the article, but having a user block the addition of such information with his interpretation of other sources—unless that interpretation is added alongside—is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Nightw 03:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to discuss (with any user who does not violate Wikipedia rules) the arrangement of all relevant information within the article, but having a user who wants to add unilateral quotations only, and who blocks the addition of other quotations (no interpretations but rather quotations) — is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Eliko (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't related. All of the documents you've provided are about Palestine's rights and privileges in the General Assembly, not about membership in its Regional groupings. You're attempting to selectively present unrelated information as though there is a disagreement between sources, when clearly there is not. One group of sources state Palestine is a member of the Asian group, while the other group describes its rights and privileges regarding voting and eligibility, with no reference to its standing in the Regional groups. Describing this latter piece of information as though it contradicts the first is original research, as such a contradiction is not clear from any reading of the sources. Nightw 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• No word like "contradiction", nor any similar wording, is mentioned in the version proposed by me. Contradicting or not, related or not, all of this will be determined by the reader.
• User:Eliko is really doing original research - for proving that the quotations are related, but this original research is not presented in the article, but rather on the talk page - in accordance with Wikipedia policy which has never prohibited original research carried out on talk pages, and please note that most (if not all) of the content of talk pages - consists of arguments - i.e. of original research; While the article itself (under the version proposed by me) contains quotations only, rather than any original research, thus letting the reader determine whether or not those quotations are related.
• Anyway, User:Eliko has already proved that some UN documents do not consider Palestine a member in any UN Regional Group, however user:Nightw chose not to discuss my proof, but rather stated: "I don't have the time to read through...I've only been able to glance through."
• Eliko (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You've been told by numerous editors here that your sources don't "proove" anything of the sort. Moreover, they're completely unrelated to the issue. Which of the UN documents don't consider Palestine a member in any Regional group? Certainly none of the documents you've provided above make such a claim, in fact most make the opposite. The documents provided list (as they describe) members of the General Assembly, organised by Regional groups. Palestine doesn't fit into this category. Nightw 09:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• User:Nightw has been told many times - by both User:Alinor and User:Eliko - that the article should contain all sources, rather than the (selective) sources presented by User:Nightw only.
• No "numerous" editors said that the sources presented by User:Eliko - don't prove. User:Blueboar has just claimed that: "when someone argues that something should be included because they can prove it, that is a red flag that they are engaging in OR". User:Eliko agreed, and added: "Any argument of mine based on a proof, appears here, on the talk pages, whereas what I and Alinor want to add to the article, are citations only, backed by UN sources. No proofs, nor personal interpretations, nor original research". User:Blueboar agreed, saying: "Yes, OR is allowed to a limited extent on a talk page". Anyways, User:Bluboar has never claimed that the sources don't prove, so who are the "numerous" editors who have claimed the sources don't prove?
• As to User:Nightw's claim that "The documents provided list (as they describe) members of the General Assembly, organised by Regional groups": User:Eliko has already referred to this claim here, however user:Nightw chose not to discuss Eliko's long answer, but rather stated: "I don't have the time to read through...I've only been able to glance through".
• Whether the sources - presented by either User:Eliko or User:Nightw - are related or not, all of this will be determined by the readers, rather than by User:Eliko and User:Nightw only.

Eliko (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Commenting here, it looks to me like the notion that Palestine is a full member of the Asian group is well sourced and verifiable. That the lists mentioned don't list Palestine are in my opinion of lesser weight, since they don't positively comment on the issue and Palestine's absence is explainable by error or the fact that it isn't a GA member. Here is another source that states very clearly that "On 2 April 1986, the Asian Group of the U.N. decided to accept the PLO as a full member". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the sources (including your well-known source) which indicate the resolution of 1986. On the other hand, nobody disagrees that other UN sources - of more than 20 years later - which supply the full formal list, don't list Palestine. However, these UN sources - giving the full formal list - do comment on the issue, and do mention Palestine – among other non-Regional Members (like US and Holy See) – in a footnote, indicating that neither Palestine nor Holy See has the electoral right (being the main right of a Regional Member, whereas that footnote indicates also that: although US is not a member of any Regional Group - it's “considered” a WEOG member for electoral purposes). The suggestion proposed by me and by User:Alinor, is to avoid being selective, and to give all citations, including your well-known source, and including the other UN sources mentioned above which give the full formal list and which comment on Palestine - without us giving any external interpretation to those citations, thus letting the readers determine what is meant by all of those citations. Eliko (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

...But you don't have sources that draw the assumptions that you yourself do. So, presenting only what the sources say, what is an appropriate version in your opinion? Nightw 08:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Presenting only what the sources say, is the only legitimate and appropriate way for avoiding OR. Eliko (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't see your sources as relevant, so can you phrase a proposal which would make them so? Nightw 14:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

the readers only, should determine which sources are more relevant: the outdated sources of 1986 and of 1998, or the more updated sources of 2007 and of 2010. Eliko (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking you to draw a draft for what you propose be added... Nightw 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So should we say that Palestine has been formally given full membership, but that it isn´t included in some membership lists? That doesn´t sound optimal, but is it the best text that can now be agreed on? --Dailycare (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem with that is that none of the lists provided by Eliko would include Palestine, as they're all restricted exclusively to members of the General Assembly, which Palestine is not. Nightw 05:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not all of the sources are restricted to GA members; Some of them don't use the expression GA members (nor UN members nor any similar expression) in the title above the full list, while they do state (in a footnote) that the Regional Groups are intended to arrange the GA members; Regarding your claim that none of those sources would list Palesine because it's not a GA member; Well, all of the sources would have listed Palestine - had it been a Regional Member, because they do mention Palestine in a footnote - along with other two non-Regional Members: Holy See and US. Eliko (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliko has attempted to make the same edits to the foreign relations article, aided by another user. I've asked the user to revert himself, so that the discussion here can reach a conclusion beforehand. Nightw 11:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "aided by another user" is me. Night w and I are involved in back and forth editing at the Foreign relations of PNA article. Sequentially each of us puts "his" version of the article. When I do this I take care to copy all intermediate changes by another users (and also Night w changes that I don't object). Eliko added the sources (following deletion/merge of the template). Night w then put "his" version of the article. Then I put "mine" version and I included the Eliko sources.

About reverting - both Night w and I have gone over 1RR and even 3RR in the past on this page, but no administrator/noticeboard was involved. Currently there is a incident noticeboard about Night w; the page is with some kind of protection, etc. I don't know if I can edit it, but I don't intent to do so - if Night w wants to remove these he can do it, I think we have enough AN/Is. I suggest that Night w and I don't make any edits to these two articles, make a list of all changes (compared to the real stable versions - Night w claims that "his" version is the stable one), discuss and hopefully agree (with the involvement of another editors), then implement only what's discussed, then we will know what the "new stable" version is, then we can discuss further changes.

About the Eliko sources themselves - the article has a table of international organizations and it shows how do PLO/SoP/PNA participate there - as member, observer, etc. Initially 'UN Asia regional group' was listed as one of the organizations where PLO is member. Subsequently, in the template, Eliko added the two sources in question here, that show that it isn't a member (and 'UN Asia regional group' was listed twice - as one of the organizations where PLO/SoP/PNA is member, and as one of the organizations where PLO/SoP/PNA is observer).

Afterwards, since 'UN Asia regional group' is not an international organization, but a grouping used for post elections and other purposes inside the UN, it was removed from the table of international organizations altogether and information about it was put as a footnote on the UN line (where PLO is an observer). The footnote is the following: "For the purposes of United Nations Regional Groups arrangement, the Palestine Liberation Organization participates in the Asia group since 2 April 1986" This was backed by two sources (not the Eliko sources). In the last version of the page with the Eliko sources they were just added as 3rd and 4th. With or without these sources the article remains the same. So, unless somebody claims that the Eliko sources are unreliable (and this is unlikely since they are from the UN and other UN-related websites) I don't see any reason not to include them. This is not OR issue, since including or not including the sources doesn't change anything in the article. Alinor (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not unreliable, but they don't very well pertain to the subject. It's attributing a statement to a source describing an entirely different issue. For example, the UNAIDS document doesn't describe the UN regional groupings. It describes what it says it does: it's own groupings, which are "based upon" the groupings used by the UN. The two are not the same.

The footnote that has been added to the article is most definitely OR. Where in the sources does it state that Palestine has "participated" since 1986? The sources only describe its membership. It may well have been an associate before that, yes?

There are 2 things we can take from the sources:

1. Palestine is a full member of the Asian Group of States. This is stated explicitly in the first group of sources. No sources have been provided that state the opposite.
2. That through General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates. Nobody disputes this. I am disputing its relevance to the topic at hand.

There's also an issue of an added "[are]" in quoting the footnotes, which is not what the source says and in fact changes the entire meaning of the statement. That is definitely OR.

It is regrettable that you should not choose to revert your own actions concerning this issue, as, regardless of our respective opinions on the matter, discussion is still ongoing here and consensus has not nearly been achieved. Completely bypassing the discussion on this noticeboard, no matter how "accommodating" your intentions were, is what you've done. And you should correct it. Nightw 06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, when I don't like something in a Wikipedia article - I change it (of course sometimes this results in a revert and in a discussion - if somebody doesn't agree). I don't ask numerous times other people to do it (unless it's in some special format that I'm unfamiliar with and I have seen you do more complicated edits than this). I already re-formatted plenty of citations because you asked so.

Of course I can revert it. I was giving you the chance to do it yourself to show good etiquette towards this discussion. It does not reflect well on you that you should so casually ignore an active ongoing attempt at seeking consensus, and make the very changes that are being discussed without accommodating anything that has been said on here. Nightw 12:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First I didn't knew that this discussion here continued for so long, second as I said multiple times these are Eliko sources and you should reach agreement with him, not me. See [1]. Alinor (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You do now so that is a pisspoor excuse. But I barely expected a self-revert from a user who has been blocked for the exact same stubborness. I'll have to lodge a PER. Nightw 19:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked for such thing, and also you can see the edit over which I was blocked still stands unreverted, because I was right in making it. My block was about 1RR with a user pushing a non-consensus change.

And regarding the sources in question here - I'm neither the first nor the last editor who added these, so please stop speaking with me about adding/removing them. Ask Eliko, somebody else or even better - do it yourself. Alinor (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

About the [are] - I don't see that as a big issue - it can be easily removed if you insist to keep the quote pure.

"It may well have been an associate before that" - and it may well haven't been. When we have a source for earlier participation we can make respective changes. I don't know of any "associate" status in the regional groups, but if we have such source, then OK.

The second point that you give is fine - PLO rights at the UN and UNGA are not directly related to the regional groups. I don't see any harm done by leaving it there and I think Eliko finds it as needed - but maybe he will accept such compromise.

One problem that I see is that this discussion here (and some of the sources) uses phrases like "Palestine...member/non-member of the UN Asian group of states" - this is misleading, since it implies that "Palestine...state", and we all know that "Palestine" in these sources is reference to the PLO, the UN observer entity and not to the State of Palestine. SoP has no relations with the UN.

Anyway, if the [are] is removed and the not directly related source about the PLO rights at UNGA is removed is there any problem with leaving the rest of the sources in the article? If you think it's needed - propose some additional rewording to the text in the reference (besides [are]). Alinor (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the original research being discussed here has been reintroduced to the article without consultation here, I will not be contributing to this discussion until this is undone. Nightw 12:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to insult you, but this is childish stubbornness. Especially if you agree with the proposal above. If you agree - just say so. We need also Eliko's opinion. Alinor (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't. Your assessment of the situation is under-educated and hardly takes any of the issues presented into consideration, not surprisingly. Nightw 19:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your arrogant behavior is appealing. And since you don't agree with this proposal - go speak with Eliko and propose him a better compromise or another solution. I don't want to be contacted about these sources anymore until you agree with Eliko what to do with them. It is useless for me to discuss these with you. Alinor (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tahash

Tahash has largely been written by one user who is opposing removal of material from the article that appears to me to be original research. Some of the material is interesting and relevant, but I really think it would be more suited to a book or research paper rather than encyclopedia as there is too much opinion and synthesis. Not wanting to get into an edit war, it would be great if the whole article could be read and edited as necessary by other editors. I really think it needs to be severely cut down and rebuilt. The Etymology section especially contains a lot of inappropriate material --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with Pontificalibus. The contributing user writing this book-length tome is sarcastic, unresponsive, unwilling to compromise or work out solutions. There are hundreds of external links within the article. Needs administrator attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Out of control article, book-length, one or two contributors,Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary: Tahash article: I have serious concerns about notability, original research, WP:Undue. Here's why:

I did a fairly extensive search of religion-oriented newspapers and magazines in January 2011 (including Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Mormon, others) as well as searching the Internet for just the stand-alone term. As best I can determine, the word "tahash" is a boy's name from the Bible, from Genesis. It is basically mentioned there but with no further coverage -- I did not find any particular Biblical stories relating to this person Tahash (although it's possible that stories exist, somewhere). According to Genesis, Tahash was the nephew of Abraham. One writer in the Jerusalem Post named Shlomo Riskin thought the significance was a contrast between Abraham and his brother Nahor -- while Abraham had trouble conceiving children, his brother didn't, and had twelve -- eight by a wife, and four by a concubine named Reumah (of which Tahash was one of the children). But the focus of this article was on Abraham -- Tahash only got a brief mention, if that. Still, Tahash is a Biblical name. So, what's surprising to me, right off the bat, reading the Wikipedia treatment of Tahash, is that the Tahash-as-Biblical-name information doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article in the lede paragraphs. At the very least, there should be an indication that the name "Tahash" was a brief cameo-mention in the Bible. - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But other than that, I searched numerous publications, religious and secular, for mention of the word "tahash". There was basically nothing. What I can't fathom was that if the term has any cultural or historical importance, why isn't it at least mentioned in any of the countless magazines and newspapers devoted to religious or secular topics? Here are the sources I looked in hunting for the word "tahash": - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious news sources: bbc.co.uk/religion, breakpoint.org, christianbusinessdaily.com, christianitytoday.com, freshoutlookmag.com, theturning.org, commentarymagazine.com, forward.com, jhom.com, jewishworldreview.com, reformjudaismmag.org, eretz.com, khilafah.com, dailymuslims.com, islamic-voice.com, lds.org - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish religion newspapers: beismoshiach.org, chabad.org, commentarymagazine.com, eretz.com, forward.com, innernet.org.il, jpost.com, jewishfamily.com, jhom.com, jewishmag.co.il, jewishpost.com, jewishrenaissance.org.uk, thejewishweek.com, jewishworldreview.com, kabtoday.com, kashrusmagazine.com, freeman.org/MOL, momentmag.com, nkusa.org, reformjudaismmag.org, shma.com, tikkun.org, worldjewishdigest.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

US and worldwide secular sources: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com, baltimoresun.com, herald-mail.com, staradvertiser.com, hawaiitribune-herald.com, westhawaiitoday.com, mauinews.com, gazette.net, fredericknewspost.com, somdnews.com, wsj.com, nytimes.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english, canada.com, cbc.ca, japantimes.co.jp, dailytelegraph.com.au, sunherald.com.au, hongkongherald.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked tertiary sources such as Bible encyclopedias and again found a pattern of very little interest. They picked up the mention in Genesis. A few sources mentioned something to the effect of animal skins. It's possible that these other "Bible encyclopedias" picked up an earlier version of Wikipedia's tahash article and there's a mirroring thing going on, so that they picked up the "animal skins" idea from Wikipedia, and are reporting it back. But basically the term tahash didn't get much more attention than that. What possible confuses matters more is it's possible that there are spelling variants for the word "tahash", such as "ta' hash" (two words) or "tachash". It isn't clear which words derive from which. Regardless, there need to be sources indicating that the two terms are interchangeable, or derived from each other, that is, tahash and tachash.- Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have difficulty understanding is how this appears to be a book-length tome about something that gets very little attention or coverage in so-called Bible encyclopedias or in mainstream media or in religious publications including newspapers or magazines as well as online sources. This suggests that there's original research going on as well as undue influence- .Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• This article is baffling. I'm not sure we have enough alphabetsoup to describe what is going on. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You could start with WP:NOT. Not a dictionary. Jayjg will know if there is anything at all notable to Judaism that can be salvaged. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (seventh generation)

There is a long debate occurring on the video game project page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/RfC_on_video_game_console_grouping) regarding the use of the term "generations" in the History of video games and related articles. Some editors have objected to the term for lacking sources. Other editors have found some sources which use the term (this one talks about generations 1-6: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nakamura/iar515p/gallagher_innovation.pdf) (this one defines generation 7: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=epBIhmdsfxMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA184&dq=wii+seventh+generation&ots=9IbZE7z3EL&sig=AL7od0tw-uzu0EsBXc9cMqo3S_o#v=onepage&q=wii%20seventh%20generation&f=false). It is accepted that many sources can be found to place each console within a certain generation (for example: "The SNES and Genesis dominated the fourth generation of home consoles". However, certain editors have argued that it is original research and/or synthesis unless we can find one source that includes one entire list of every console and names all consoles in every generation. Others feel that as long as sufficient reliable sources can be found to name a certain console in a certain generation, that is sufficient for its inclusion as a member of that generation (and discrepancies should be handled by weighting the minority and majority positions appropriately).

The discussion is somewhat more complicated as some have also argued that the term "generation" must have a standard definition which we then apply ourselves to the consoles. Others have argued applying a definition to the consoles would be original research, especially if it conflicts with the majority of reliable sources.

So, I pose two questions:

1. Is it original research or synthesis to use different sources to create a complete list of consoles' generations?

2. Is it original research or synthesis to apply a definition to consoles in a manner that sources do not?LedRush (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Yes, and Yes. Console "generations" are poorly defined. No two sources really agree on how to delineate them well. Combining sources to determine the criteria is clear OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not surprised by your answer to question 2 (which I, too, believe is clear OR), but I am not sure I was clear on the other question. No one was proposing combining sources to determine any criteria. The criteria are laid out in that first citation above, and virtually every source agrees on which console goes in which generation. The question is whether you need one source that lists every generation and every single console in each, or could you use the second source above to say "this is the seventh generation"?LedRush (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop saying "virtually every source" when its clear that isn't the case. There are some sources that agree, possibly even a majority for some generations, but not "virtually every". Also, there is no clear method that distinquishes how to classify every generation.陣内_Jinnai 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtually every source does agree. I think the Odyssey2 is the only one I've seen that doesn't conform. If you'd like to show me some others, that would be nice, but your last attempt ended up supporting my arguments (and one of the links isused above).LedRush (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you give an example of question 1? I'm not sure I fully understand. Marcus Qwertyus 00:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's say we take the two citations above and assume that they are RSs and otherwise meet all WP criteria for making an article. The first lists major consoles from the first generation to the sixth generation, but doesn't mention the seventh generation as it was published before the seventh generation began. The second source lists some consoles from the sixth and seventh generations. I guess the question is two-fold:

• 1. Can we use the second source (again, assuming it meets all other WP criteria) as a source for the article on the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) (or is it Synth/OR because it doesn't list all seven generations)?
• 2. Can we use the the first source as a source for generations 1-6 on the History of video game consoles article and the second one as a source for generations 6-7 on the same article, or is that Synth/OR?LedRush (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To restate this issue, the problem is that we have several, very reliable sources that give the fact(s) "Console 'A1' is in Generation 'N1'", "Console 'A2' is in Generation 'N2'", and so forth for about 40-50 hardware units (An) and generations (N1-N7). Now, there are a handful of differences in certain assignments, but, say, 80% of the time, they're consistent. Some have suggested that because WP adapted the term Generation, the press has begun using it more, which is certainly a possibility, and avoids the CIRCULAR argument.

But what we're have a problem is here is that there is no source that says "Generation 'N1' is defined by this property". They'll list out the consoles they believe are in those generations (if they do so in the first place), again with the small differences noted above, but there is no single accepted metric of what a "Generation" is.

The way I've tried to compare this is to the paleontology eras (Mesozoic era, Ice age, etc.), or even modern human history ages (Dark Ages, Industrial Era), where there are standard definitions that have been agreed to by experts, which generally say "This era is bounded by the years Y to Z". That means, in those cases, if an event occurred in that range, we can say (if its necessary) that it happened in that era. We cannot say the same thing with the sources we have that outline what belongs in a generation but don't turn around to define what a generation actually is. This leads to speculation and original research when describing anything else that is not specifically defined to be part of a specific generation. Case in point are the next major portable gaming console releases, the Nintendo 3DS and the "NGP" (Next Generation Portable) both due to release this year. We're having edit wars on the various generation articles because people, well naturally, think that because they are new units, the generation number must go up by one, thus starting the yet-to-be defined eighth generation. If the definition of generations was clearer from the existing sources, it might be possible to make stronger assertions on this, but that definition just doesn't exist, and the one-way labeling of consoles to generations just doesn't help enough.

This is why some of us consider it original research and while certainly not getting rid of the term "generation", we want to order our articles by a less speculative metric, specifically through year of release which is indisputable. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly alright. Synthesis would be to use one source that says 6th gen consoles have X, Y, and Z and another that says console A has X, Y, and Z features to assert that Console A is in fact 6th gen.

Another no no: don't find a source that says "all consoles released after x date are x gen" and then cite the release date as a the reason for it being x gen. Marcus Qwertyus 01:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. What about this: Source A defines Generation Y as being characterized by X attributes. Source B says that Console 1 is in Generation Y. Source C says that Console 1 doesn't have X attributes. So, would either the following (1) or (2) by OR/Synth?:

• (1) Editor concludes that Source B is wrong and that Console 1 is not in Generation Y.
• (2) Editor further concludes that applying the definition to Console 1 makes it Part of Generation Y-1(the one previous to Y).LedRush (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked your wording a bit. Both would be synthesis. From what we know so far Console 1 is 7th Gen. It is 7th gen unless more sources explicitly say it is 6th gen than sources explicitly say it is 7th gen. Marcus Qwertyus 04:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, we're completely on the same page, so far. Above, Masem argues that we don't have a definition for generation (we actually do, one based on year of release, competitors, cpu-power and marketing in the citation above), but if we did, we could call the 3DS and NGP a next generation (assuming they fell within this definition). I believe that this is also OR/Synth because you can't use a definition to interpret whether or not something is part of an eighth generation. However, if we have sources that claim that these consoles are in the eighth generation, then we could cite those sources.LedRush (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is 6th gen compared to what? Since there is no clear distinction - and in fact many disagreements as you go back in time to gen1-3, what is gen N, then how can we say that X is gen 6 means that its the gen 6 we have defined? We cannot know what they mean by Gen 6th because enough sources do disagree that without context its impossible to say when they say "Gen 6" are these consoles, and not these. There is a lot of assumption going around. The biggest differences are academic sources, industry sources and press sources. FE: the PlayStation 2 is listed as 5th, 6th and 7th gen depending on who you ask. The differences come because each has their own determination of what a "generation" is. Even those that agree which generation for PS2, may disagree for other systems like the Dreamcast or Nintendo DS.陣内_Jinnai 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are conducting OR with these claims. As stated above, you just use the generation the best/most sources use, and if there is large enough dissenting opinion (which I highly doubt as I've only seen one source contradict the sixth generation (because it conflated generations 1-2) and I've never seen one dispute the Dreamcast's place in it), you can mention the dissenting opinion, making sure not to place undue weight on it. But you can't conduct your own original research to dispute reliable sources, and your insistence on doing that is a bit exasperating.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same. You're talking about essentially cherry picking pieces from various sources to contract a timeline of generations because not many support the current framework and they don't say how they came to it, plus there is some evidence of CIRCULAR, although not central problem. The bottom line is your trying to ram through a timeline that is disputed because its no real effort been shown how each generation is definined and there is not, by any means, a way to say clearly that when the majority of RSes talk about generation N they are meaning the generation division that exists in Wikipedia; indeed for older generations the opposite is the case. It's been clearly shown the curently labeled generation 1 is not supported by "nearly every" source; in fact not one source I came across supported it.

It would be a different matter as not needing a clear way to define "generation" if all the sources agreed, but they don't. Also there are several industry experts who claim that the use of generation model used here is not used in the manner done by Wikipedia, just that people talke about "next generation" all the time which begs the question, is it really as widely supported as you claim?陣内_Jinnai 06:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not cherry picking anything to contract a timeline of generations. Even opponents of the grouping like Masem concede that 80% of the time the sources match (I think this is a conservative estimate). When I have asked you for sources which contradict out generation layout, you have failed to provide more than a couple of outlying nits, which should be discussed in the articles themselves. Also, could you please show sources that say that the industry doesn't use the generation model we have (not that this would be dispositive evidence of anything)? And you are conducting OR for your claims. We have sources that lay out the sixth generation, and they agree with each other, and you say it doesn't count because in your own research you cannot confirm that they are using the term "generation" to mean the same thing.LedRush (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Masem has said 80% are consistant, but that doesn't really say much. It's also just a gestimate on his part and I'd say its actually a bit high. When I have asked you for sources you've produced not even 1 single source that backs up those claims save a few that list X ad a Y generation, but don't define what it is. OR does not have anything to do with claims - it has to do with article content only, which the division of content also is part of. Not all the sources agree about the 6th generation and even the one Masem used above do not agree with the 6th generation as they don't list the Dreamcast as part of it. You are the one conducting OR by assuming that they just left it off because it was an old model of the 6th gen because there is no clear definition of 6th gen. As far as we can verify that source says only 3 consoles were part of the 6th gen. Since they're not the same and there is no clear definition, we cannot simply say that they're leaving the DC out. That is why you're picking sources here and there to construct your argument.

As for showing you what a generation is, you should know that proving a negative is not something that can be done. However, you've not yet proven that it is used by a large consistantly and even if it is, academic sources disagree with you.

Finally even if there are a few that agree on what a "6th generation" is, there are a lot of older consoles where this agreement breaks down and yet you want to use OR to place consoles in various segmenets regimenting all the way back to a 1st generation in a way that RSes disagree with.

Finally, those searches you produced elsewhere to prove you point are not talking mostly about video game generations as we are talking about here by and large, but a group of people known as the "video game generation".陣内_Jinnai 17:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR to use one source to say that a certain console is 6th generation and use another source to say that another console is also 6th generation. However, it is OR to say that Source X lists these three consoles as part of the 6th generation and therefore contradicts any other source that adds a new console to part of the 6th generation. It's not just OR, it doesn't make any logical sense. There is no contradiction here accept for the one you are creating by using illogical assumptions.

And I don't know what you're talking about regarding the "video game generation", please link to it. I also don't know what you're talking about when you say I want "to place consoles in various segmenets regimenting all the way back to a 1st generation in a way that RSes disagree with." All I want to do is say that when a RS calls a console a certain generation, we can call it that generation. You want to investigate whether the definition they used is consistent (OR) or whether that creates problems for listing other generations in your mind (OR).LedRush (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is OR because there is no clear definition of generation and therefore you cannot know what they mean by generation and how their classification of generation goes, unless they spell it out. While there are a few sources that do this, there are RSes that contradict on how they are classified and no there aren't many of those types and most of the more scholarly ones do disagree with those presented above.

"All I want to do is say that when a RS calls a console a certain generation, we can call it that generation." that's the crux of my problem because you have not shown evidence of how most of the sources when they say "X generation" mean the same thing as the majority of other sources.

It's hard to prove a negative (that they aren't using generations differently) which is why WP:V requires the opposite: that those wanting to add contriversial claims - and this certainly qualifies as one - prove otherwise. Neither you nor anyone else has really shown that when as source talks about the 6th generation, they are basing it on the same generation model as everyone else. You get to it largely though combining source A + B to = C which isn't supported by the facts, ie they all agree on the same generation model.陣内_Jinnai 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have tried to show that there are different definitions of generations, you have proven the opposite. Please show sources that prove this position of give up this tired argument. We can clearly show that sources say that a certain console is from a certain generation, so verifiability is not an issue. And there is a clear definition of a generation which is stated above. You may not like it, but it is there and from a RS. Also, if you apply this definition to other consoles, you are conducting OR (as proven above). If several sources say that a certain console if from a certain generation, but you disagree based on your own feelings or definition of generation, that is also OR (also proven above). LedRush (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not. There is no way you can say that because X source says something is 3rd gen and Y source says its 3rd gen they are talking about the 3rd gen. Furthermore, you cannot say when a source omits consoles in a listing its just doing so because it doesn't need to for whatever reason because there is no industry standard for what makes up a generation. You are trying to introduce OR to video game history through synthesis.

That standard you use does not agree with the current model and is not considered an industry standard as far as sources can be shown; indeed there are sources that you have shown that would disagree.That source is a RS, but it is not some overwhelmingly used source that other RSes point to when citing generation. In addition, there is no definition of 7th generation and there are sources. It should be given the weight of every other source otherwise that's a WP:NPOV violation.陣内_Jinnai 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if two different sources say that two things are third generation, it is OR to say that they must be in conflict because of some standard of "generation" you want to apply to them.

And the definition of "generation" used in the RS above works fine with the model...but you cannot use OR to dispute it. And there are many sources for the 7th generation, so I don't know what you're talking about now. You have seen sources for what constitutes the seventh generation above, so you need to be more careful with your statements.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are flawed on a fundimental level because you're assuming that when everyone talks about a generation they all are speaking with one voice. There is no industry standard and that source Masem claims cannot be used to say others agree with it because, again, you'd be assuming without a clear industry standard that when X says something is Y generation they would be using that model. That's the big blantant load of OR.陣内_Jinnai 04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not assuming anything. I merely use the sources and cite what they say. However, your argument involves original research because you are trying to pull outside information to conduct your own investigation into whether or not people are talking about some fake "generation" labeling that we have no evidence even exists. Your argument is entirely based on speculation and the assumption that there is a shadowy underworld of generation labeling that exists outside of our knowledge, and therefor every source that cites a console as being part of a generation can't be trusted unless it lists every single console from generation 1 until now and includes a perfect definition of what constitutes a generation that is so concrete that if you were to conduct your own personal investigation into its validity, it would pass your test. I would like to remind you that the uninvolved editors above have already indicated that it is not original research to use the sources in the way that we currently do, and that it is synthesis to use a definition from one source to impeach another source or to dispute the generation based on an outside definition. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask this board AGAIN about how the generation name is applied in the article and see what the uninvolved editors say. They have already thrown out your arguments and verified the current system, but maybe you don't like the way the questions were asked, so try again. The bickering between you and me will not solve anything. The reason I came here was so that we could clearly label what is and isn't OR so we could discuss things more clearly. But you're simply ignoring others' opinion on the OR issue and dominating the discussion so that no one else would want to give any input.LedRush (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming that when someone says 3rd generation they mean the same thing as someone else. If you didn't, you wouldn't want to cite those sources saying there are plenty of sources saying that there are 3 7th gen systems. You are assuming they all use the same criteria for backing up those claims. Your argument is entirely based on the speculation that when someone says something they mean the same thing as someone else when no industry or standard (and no academic standard) has been shown to exist. Your assuming that it does. I would like to remind you that other univolved editors have also claimed it is very much so original research and that you are the only one who truly thinks there is absolutely no original research and no issues period. You are clearly the minority opinion here. If you don't believe me ask again, making certain to put a notice on everyone who was involved in the RfC that its up again. You are simply ignoring others opinions because you refuse to listen to what has been said here and elsewhere. Yes there are some others who believed you, but it wouldn't have gone to an RfC if I was the only one.

You had one editor here agree with you and one editor disagree and chose to ignore the one who disagreed and focus solely on the one who did. Therefore you cannot claim that there is no OR going on. Even Masem has voiced doubts on the use of the sources being used as they are as OR.陣内_Jinnai 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We are not getting anywhere. When neutral observers come in and tell you you're wrong, but you refuse to listen, I don't know what I can do. I assume from your long diatribe misrepresenting my views, that you've decided once again not to provide any evidence that we should automatically disregard any citation that does not contain within it a complete list of all geneartions of consoles (which appears to be the only source you'll accept, though you've rejected the one that has 6 out of 7 on it). Perhaps it's time for mediation? Is there a simpler solution that we've been ignoring as we argue our points again and again and again?LedRush (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The same could be said about you since you seem to ignore the first editor who came here and said both were OR.

I don't have to provide evidence. You do. That's what WP:BURDEN is about. The burden is on you to show that its not reliable as multiple editors, ie not just me, believe it is OR. The sources aren't directly supporting the claims. Proving a negative is not something that is expected because it is nigh impossible.

As for what I'd accept, I don't need a source stating what every console is. However, If you or someone like Masem - not me - can show me that the source that lists criteria for 1-6 is widely accepted by those 80% you claim are in agreement, then that's good enough for 1-6 generation. If you can show also that if those same sources agree on the 7th gen, that's also good enough. The problem is you haven't done anything to show that the source is widely accepted. Finally, if and when you show that the current history and many of the spinoffs will have to be rewritten it does not have the same generation scheme as Wikipedia's article does.陣内_Jinnai 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken proving a negative (which is sometimes hard, but it is hardly impossible) with disproving a positive. I have shown numerous sources which refer to certain consoles being in the same generation as each other, and simple google searches reveal more. I have easily met and surpassed the burden, and now it is your burden to disprove the hundreds of RSs which almost completely agree with each other. For example:

Wii, PS3 and xbox360 are in the seventh generation: [2]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation: [3]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation: [4]

Book entitled "Seventh Generation Video Game Consoles" lists PS3, Wii and xbox360 in its title [5]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in seventh generation [6]

Wii. PS3 and xbox360 are in seventh generation [7]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in seventh generation [8] This source has a good overview of all the generations, and defines the differences between generations as being marked by, among other things, performance metrics and storage media.

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation [9]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation [10]

If you don't like a couple of these for any reason, don't worry, there are hundreds more that can be given. I now await all the sources that claim that the Xbox 360 is part of a generation other than the seventh. Of course, we would need to find several before we could merely make a mention in the article that some small minority of sources disagree, and dozens before it begins to actually challenge the wall of sources that say it's seventh, but I await your examples regardless.LedRush (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And the problem is they disagree. You are once again cherry picking which items to list here as to what they say should go in the seventh generation. I just had to go down to your 4th example (the first 3 are unreliable sources and thus what they say cannot be used to verify common usage) to find that that one lists more units that you do. I didn't bother with the rest because its clear from those that you're just picking stuff from whatever source you can use, not reliable sources and then cherry picking the results out to match your own view.陣内_Jinnai 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While I would be happy for you to tell me why you think the sources aren't reliable, I can assure you that your personal attack on me is untrue: I am not cherry picking anything. I set out to find sources that list the Wii, PS3 and Xbox360 as part of the seventh generation, and have done so. Please provide some sources which say that the Wii is in some other generation, or merely accept what the vast majority of RSs have noted, that the Wii, PS3 and Xbox360 are seventh generation consoles.LedRush (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No what I'm saying by you cherry picking is that you are just saying that you already have an assumption - only the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3 are 7th gen and then when the source adds more to it then that, you don't go and mention that because it contradicts you claim that there is agreement on what is considered "7th generation". That's how it appears because all I had to do to find that was read down a couple paragraphs, ie it wasn't buried deep within the book.陣内_Jinnai 19:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are misunderstanding me, but it is clear we have a disconnect. I stated that "I have shown numerous sources which refer to certain consoles being in the same generation as each other" and then showed sources that demonstrate that the "Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation." Now I am asking you to please find me some sources that say they are not in the seventh generation.LedRush (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You showed some unreliabel sources that showed that, which cannot be used as proof here, and sources that showed ""Wii, PS3 and xbox 36 and others are 7th generation"; finally you showed some reliable sources that did exactly what you claim. Point being you have shown that there isn't an overwhelming agreement you claim.陣内_Jinnai 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so the reliable sources, (and unspecified unreliable ones) all say that the Wii, the xbox360 and the PS3 are in the seventh generation, right?LedRush (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why I say you're cherry picking. I said some said that - in addition to other units - while others only said those 3. Ignoring that others said more than those 3 and thus saying "everyone agrees" when there is no universally used basis for 7th gen proves my point - there is no clear definition for 7th gen. When X talks about 7th gen they mean something else than Y. If they did, there wouldn't be such disagreements.陣内_Jinnai 17:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you concede that everyone agrees that the Wii, PS3 and the 360 are in the seventh generation, right?LedRush (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Since they don't all agree on which consoles are 7th gen nor which criteria makes up a 7th gen I cannot agree because there is no definition. It's like saying all of them are "bold" consoles. What is "bold"? There's no definition for it. We had this discussion about computer role-playing games and console role-playing games. You are trying to make me say WP:SYNTHESIS can be completely ignored here and I won't agree to that because they don't all agree. You can't simply say "well since they all say X, Y and Z are, but thy don't all say A, B and C are we can just pretend like no one says anything about A, B and C" when there's no clear evidence what makes X, Y and Z the same. That is violating not just OR, its also violating WP:NPOV (you'd be trying to push an agenda that the other consoles some list aren't 7th gen).

If they had ALL said ONLY the PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 were 7th gen, I might be more willing, but its clear they aren't. I'd also though by the same token not allow 3DS and the PSP2 statements to say "next generation" = 8th since that's a buzzword that the industry commonly uses when something new comes out.陣内_Jinnai 23:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this response of yours is a perfect example of why we can't get anything done on this topic. If you are unwilling to concede such a basic point, there is really no point in discussing this with you because you have no basis in reality. All I was saying is that each of the above sources agreed that the Wii, PS3 and the Xbox 360 are in the seventh generation, nothing more. Because each clearly does this, and you deny it, I don't see how we can agree on anything more. I think mediation is the only way forward.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotham City and OR by reference

I was hoping to get some input on Gotham City although all the references appear to be properly source there seems to be a huge OR issue with Gotham being New York (or Chicago depending on your view). There is a very tenuous conclusion put forth in the article using only one linking quote by a writer and the rest being irrelevant to the main point but leading to an unsupported conclusion. Any input either here or on the talk page under the heading I created here is appreciated. cross linked to the previously mentioned thread. Cat-five - talk 01:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing this, see Talk:Gotham City for details. Cat-five - talk 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson and Hemings Possibe OR

Thomas Jefferson on controversy with Hemings: On Jan 25th Gwillhickers claimed in the talk page "there is only a 1 out of 25 chance that it was TJ who was the father" (his link did not support this claim) [11]. On Jan 28 [12] he was told such was in error, but made these same claims again on Jan 29th [13] to justify 3 edits in the main space: "The allegations have not 'survived', they have only been made. Again, DNA results say that the father could also have been any one of 25 people related to Jefferson." & here [14] & here [15].

A different editor removed such edits, pointing to the error [16] and another discussed it in the talk page on Jan 29 [17]. I reviewed the DNA & Gordon-Reed's work on Jan 29: [18]. Neither of those sources discussed "25" others as a possibility [19] DNA study & Gordon-Reed [20]. DNA said "the simplest and most probable explanations for our molecular findings are that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson." It said one of Field Jefferson's male offspring, might have been the parent, but in "the "absence of historical evidence" made this or other "possibilities...unlikely". No mention of any "25 possibilities" or "20", and the editor cannot explain where these numbers come from.

This was quiet for a week. On Feb 6th Gwillhickers wrote in the article main space: "In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children" [21] and "though for one reason or another they prefer to ignore the other possibilities for Hemings' children, prefering rather to believe it was Thomas Jefferson." [22] He added no sources. Those already there did not make these claims. An editor removed his edits [23] The talk page shows this was discussed before both his Jan 29th and Feb 6 claims in the main space [24]. I warned him today [25] and on his talk page [26]; editor defends his edits, and still provides no evidence [27]. Looks like WP:OR and fringe theories to me, but I defer that to the noticeboard to decide.

I should say, since accusations of bias have been made, that I should mention the article does not claim that Jefferson was the father of the Hemings children; it reports the controversy, and what historians/scientists say.Ebanony (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mutya

Several editors keep adding unsourced (and redlinked and even blacklinked) actors' names to the cast list at Mutya. I'm no being castigated by one of them for reverting the insertions. How should I proceed? Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not castigated for deleting per se. I am complaining for you are not giving me some warning. I know that there unscrupulous editors who just add unscrupulous data. and you think i am one of those? o come on. if there are unscrupulous data, i correct it as soon as i can. I gave you some references from the broadcasting network's youtube channel and from its news website and you didnt accept that. Dinispachadoro_talk

2011 Alexandria bombing

2011 Alexandria bombing has an edit which needs input.[28] Discussion is Talk:2011 Alexandria bombing#Rape.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is inappropriate and SYNTH. It was added to the background section but the source does not discuss the subject. This is often a sign of SYNTH. And I believe it could lead the reader. It appears to be condoning a shooting. The shooting itself was discussed as background in the sources. Shooting random people is obviously not an appropriate response to allegations that someone who shared their faith raped someone but the general tone of the article at times has leaned towards vilifying the Copts in response to some of the being blown up. Since the source does not even discuss the subject of the article (the bombing and not the shooting) then I see no reason why we should risk leading the reader to draw a conclusion. Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User Cptnono (talk · contribs) added in the Background section of the article a description on a previous shooting incident that killed 7 people. I added a statement that expanded on the incident and mentioned the motivations behind the attack, which the shooter and the Egyptian officials state it was in retaliation for the rape of a Muslim girl by a local Christian man. User Cptnono quickly removes the material and claims that including this bit of information, which is part of any incident story, "might be leading the reader to condone the shooting" and would change the article's tone to imply that the victims deserved it. Since when has stating the motivations and looking into the root causes became justification for the attack ?

Cptnono also argued that my material cannot be included since the source he provided for his part does not go into the details of the incident that I added. I responded by saying that Wikipedia does not rely on one source and that my sources met the reliability policies.

IMO, Cptnono's arguments and decisions regarding this particular dispute are based on emotions. Speaking of SYNTH: apparently, the paragraph he included was explicit in stating the faith of the attacker, Islam. Isn't that SYNTH ? That gives the impression that it was religiously motivated when the attacker and the police stated otherwise. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please address the SYNTH argument and not assumptions of emotions. Is the info in a source discussing the subject? No. Is there potential to lead (speaking of emotions)? Yes. Is the info I added in the background section discussed as background in RS? Yes. There really is no argument to be had here unless you provide another source. Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the argument here. I see a "Background" section in the article, which is probably too long, and gives an opportunity for adding material that could justify one position or the other, thus making balance a problem. The solution is to cut the Background section back as far as possible. The point about the 2010 bombing being in retaliation to a rape is in the AP source. If you mention that other bombing it makes sense to mention the perceived cause, per AP. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

I have been invited to take a content dispute on the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike to the No original research Noticeboard by User:Iqinn [29] so I submit this for your attention. IQinn states that the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike was "3 separate incidents". I have repeatedly asked him for a source that declares this to be "3 separate incidents" or mentions that it was "3 separate incidents" in any way and he has not provided one. The delineation of this into 3 separate incidents is arbitrary and un-sourced, it is original research. Thanks for your time and consideration. V7-sport (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no original research at all here. There are 3 incidents:

• Attack on personnel
• Attack on a van
• Attack on a building

We do not need a source that tells us how many contet we can cover in one article.

This is an long standing article and the devision makes sense.

All 3 incidents are verified through multiple sources.

It is a undisputed fact that all these 3 attacks happed on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad.

We cover all 3 attacks in one article and this is not OR and it is not OR that the article that covers 3 attacks says that there were 3 attacks. This is not OR at all. IQinn (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that it was 3 separate incidents. It wasn't investigated as such, it wasn't covered by the press as such. The videos don't refer to "separate incidents" Even the title of the article refers to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad "airstrike", not strikes. It all happened around the same place, on the same day, indeed within a couple of hours. Calling it 3 separate incidents is completely arbitrary and, more importantly, not supported by any references. If you want to call it 3 separate incidents please come up with a citation that calls them 3 separate incidents. V7-sport (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"I dispute that it was 3 separate incidents."

1) Attack on personnel

2) Attack on a van

3) Attack on a building

These are 3 incidents and we have tons of sources for each of them and for all of them. They are seen as separated incidents what is reflected in the sources. It is an undisputed fact that all this 3 incidents happed July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Just follow the basic rules of logic. Incident 1) and 2) and 3) happed on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad follows 3 incidents happed. I guess we need some input from other editors. IQinn (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

irrelevant bickering II

Which one of those tons of sources calls them "3 separate incidents". That's the one I've been asking to see. The ones I've seen don't make the same breakdown. It isn't disputed that this happened on 12 July 07, what is disputed is whether or not they were "3 separate incidents" rather then a progression of events that happened within an of hour. V7-sport (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry i think that needs an clarifications the article says "The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were a series of three air-to-ground attacks" That what i am always referring to is "three air-to-ground attacks". You really dispute that there were 3 "air-to-ground attacks"? We have verified 3 "air-to-ground attacks" through multiple sources. Do you have any source that dispute that there were 3 attacks on that day? IQinn (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, the article says "three air-to-ground attacks" but that and the other references to 3 separate events are un-sourced which is the reason why we are here. Calling it 3 separate events is not backed by a reliable source. Indeed, what you call the "Attack on personnel" and the "Attack on a van" happened at the same place, during the same time, involved the same people, etc. Calling it a separate event is not backed by any source and the delineation's are completely arbitrary. So please, where is the source that calls this "3 separate events" that you state exists. V7-sport (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC) It is NOT "completely arbitrary" and it is surely not OR. This separation is reflected in the sources. There were "three air-to-ground attacks" in one day. That is verified in the sources. The article explains these three events as reflected in the secondary sources. No OR involved. IQinn (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC) You wrote: " Do you have any source that dispute that there were 3 attacks on that day?", The sources in the article refer to the event as a singular: "The video from Iraq shows a US helicopter strike in July 2007 in which about 12 people died." "Army released the findings of its official inquiry into Operation ILAAJ (CURE)—a military action in Baghdad documented by a video camera in an Apache helicopter" "Classified U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack" " investigation of [[ http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 |the incident]] "" the incident ", " five days after the incident," I could go on..they refer to it in the singular. So which source refers to the incident as "3 separate attacks"? Please... V7-sport (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Your partial quotes or out of context quotes do not prove anything. None of these sources dispute that there were 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Most of them do not refer to all the events and all the 3 attacks that our article covers and as they to not refer to all the content we cover in the article. They often not even mention the 3th attack. "The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were a series of three air-to-ground attacks" All these 3 attacks are verified in the article. The information is presented in a NPOV and no OR is involved. IQinn (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Well yes, it disputes the "fact" that there were "3 separate attacks", they refer to the events of that day in the singular. A US helicopter strike or A military action, etc. And yes, those were the first 5 sources in the article. Simply repeating that it's a "fact" over and over isn't a reference to "3 separate attacks", even if you put it in bold type. V7-sport (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) As explained to you all 3 attacks are verified by tons of sources. The article has been written by many. You are welcome to challenge established content but there is no OR involved here and your arguments are not compelling concerning this and the way sources divide up the incidences. Even your own sources presented here often cover only one or two of the attacks and we have other sources that verify the others. All these attacks took place on 12 July 2007 in Baghdad. No OR involved. 06:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Post these "tons of sources" that refer to the events as "3 separate attacks". It should be quite easy for you if there are "tons of sources". If not then it's original research. And please, don't just write the same thing again in the next post. that's not posting a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Want me to copy and paste a hundred refs from the article to this page here? You can find them in the article and specially in these sections of the article where they verify these attacks: Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building IQinn (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Repeating the same thing that brought this dispute to this notice board over and over is not a response. Post a link to a reliable source that states that it was "3 separate attacks" as you claim or it's original research. V7-sport (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) I have just posted you the links tho these sources and i have explained to you that this is not OR at all. This claim is false and the discussion has show that your claim false. The article is well sourced presented in NOPV and no OR is involved. IQinn (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Well I guess you don't understand what a reliable source is. Look at this WP:RS and you will see that what you have posted, over and over is not a reliable source. I am looking for a reliable source that backs your, and at this point it is solely your claim that the this was "3 separate events". Wikipedia articles, especially the very same one that is in dispute are not reliable sources. So please, stop wasting everyones time and post a reliable source that backs your claim or stop adding original research WP:NOR to Wikipedia.V7-sport (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC) What you are posting is, without a doubt, original research. Read this passage; "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." OK? So since you have tons of sources lets see one. V7-sport (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Repeating and shouting the same staff over and over again does not help and you are wasting our time with that. I know the policies as most of the people around here. No need to put them again here in bold. You mean the sources that i have pointed you to are not WP:RS? They surely are. "stop adding original research WP:NOR to Wikipedia." I have never done so. Please be careful with such statements. I fully understand the policies i have never added any OR to the article. Also all the sources that verify these 3 attacks are indeed WP:RS: Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building\ Your claim of OR is false and by now i do get the impression that you do not fully understand this policy. Please stop wasting our time their is no OR and the sources are indeed reliable. IQinn (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Stating that it was 3 separate attacks without any reference for that assertion is original research. Full stop. Cutting and pasting the Wiki article itself as a reference indicates that you have no understanding of what reliable sources are or even n understanding of the argument at hand, despite the fact that I have copied and pasted the relevant sections from WP:NOR and WP:RS. Not much more I can do here if you can't understand what has been laid out for you. V7-sport (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC) All 3 attacks are verified and no OR is involved. Full stop. It seems to me that you are not even reading my replies carefully. The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks: Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building All these references included in these 3 sections are indeed WP:RS and no OR is involved. Not much more I can do here if you can't understand what has been laid out for you. IQinn (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC) You wrote: "The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks", Which one, because you are mischaracterizing what they say and mischaracterizing what references say can get you banned from Wikipedia. Which reference says that they were "3 separate attacks"? I have asked a dozen times now. Which reference. V7-sport (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC) No, i am not mischaracterizing what the references say and i have never done so and i am surely not getting banned for something i am not doing. :) I have provided you a dozen times now with the references that verify all these attacks that happen July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Not much i can do more. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Stating that you have provided me with references that call this 3 separate attacks is false. It is flat out untrue and that is obvious to anyone who cares to look at what you have posted above. You have simply posted links back to the Wikpedia page that you wrote that calls them 3 separate attacks That isn't a reliable source. There is no clearer way of saying that. You must get it by now because any sentient thing would get it at this point. What other conclusion can I come to other then you are being Wikipedia:Disruptive in order to preserve your POV? What you are posting, over and over rather then providing a reference is an example of Tendentious editing. "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation.... repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors continue to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia". I have come to this noticeboard as a measure of good faith but anyone looking at this in an ANI could plainly see what is going on. So post the link that calls this "3 separate incidents", here's a hint, posting the Wiki page is not going to do it. V7-sport (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Did you read my last replies carefully? It seems to me you did not. I have put you the important words in bold. The references in these 3 sections verify that there were 3 attacks. Your continues misrepresentation of this fact and your continues refusal to get the point is disruptive. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC) "Did you read my last replies carefully? It seems to me you did not." Where is the link, where is the reference. Where is the reliable source. Where is the thing that I can click on that says that these were "3 separate attacks"? Post that. All that you have posted are links back to the same wiki page that is in dispute which is disruptive at this point. ""I have put you the important words in bold. The references in these 3 sections verify that there were 3 attacks." No they do not. That is untrue. All you have to do to verify that it is true is post a reference from a reliable source, something that you have repeatedly failed to do. "Your continues misrepresentation of this fact and your continues refusal to get the point is disruptive" Why not just say "I'm rubber, you're glue over and over." That would be about as effective a counterargument. "There is no OR. " Yes, your posting information that isn't backed by a reference is original research. You simply stating that there "is no OR" over and over again IS NOT A REFERENCE TO A RELIABLE SOURCE.V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC) As said before shouting is uncivil and does not change anything. You may consider taking a break. I have posted you the links to the reliable sources. Your continues misrepresentation of this fact and your continues refusal to get the point has become increasingly disruptive. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Disruptive editing is uncivil and wont change anything. You have not posted links to a reliable source, stating so is either a demonstration that you don't know what a reliable source is (Hint hint, a wiki article that you wrote isn't a reliable source.) or you are deliberately being disruptive to keep your article from being edited. Either way, I'm not even going to ask you to post a link to a reliable source anymore; clearly you can't because clearly you are wrong. Repeating that there is no "OR" is not a reference and is just an insult to peoples intelligence at this point.V7-sport (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) I have replied in a civil manner and my editing is not disruptive. Your claim is false. I did not write the article. Your claim is false. I have posted you the links to the reliable sources. Your claim is false. Your continues misrepresentation of these facts is disruptive. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Your lack of civility has been outlined on the articles talk page. You have contributed to the article so my claim is verifiable. You have absolutely NOT posted the links to a reliable source, that is simply untrue. Either you don't understand or you are lying. I have not misrepresented any facts, it is all there for anyone to see and is patently obvious to anyone that you haven't posted a link to a reliable source that backs your claim. Therefore it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. V7-sport (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC) My contribution to the article are negligible. Your claim that i wrote the article is false. I have been civil all the time. Please do not waste our time with ad hominum attacks. I have posted you the links to the reliable sources. Your claim is false. It is not OR at all. And your refusal to get the point is disruptive. As said shouting and personal attack do not help. Please stop this uncivil behavior. You might consider taking a break. Thank you IQinn (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Should we take your laughable claim that this; Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building Is a reliable source for anything much less the statement that there were "3 separate attacks" to the reliable sources noticeboard as well? V7-sport (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks. As it was clearly stated multiple times. :) This reply is the ultimate proof of your continues disruptive behavior on refusal to get the point. All 3 attacks are veryfied by multiple reliable sources. No OR involved. IQinn (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Which reference in those sections. Again, you haven't posted a specific reference. Which one. V7-sport (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC) We have this already discussed. All these references are WP:RS and they verify the given information. What makes 1+1+1 = 3 attacks. We could for example decide to cover one of these attacks in a separate article but as it all happens on July 12, 2007 it makes a lot of sense to cover them in one article. IQinn (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC) So where do they verify that the action that occurred in one day, within one hour and a within a city block "3 separate attacks". That is what you are claiming the sources say and it is untrue to claim that. You HAVE NOT been able to post a SPECIFIC SOURCE that says that they were "3 separate attacks". Yes, it should be covered in one article, but your breaking it up into 3 separate instances is artificial and ORIGINAL RESEARCH as you can't provide a source that says they were 3 different events. So where is the reliable source? 3100 words on this page dedicated to trying to get you to post a source to back your claim... V7-sport (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Not i am breaking it up as i have not written the article and i have not written the sources. It was written by a large number of editors and is based on tons of WP:RS. It is a undisputed fact that all these 3 attacks happed on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Verified by the given sources and without any OR. You are shouting again but that does not help and is disruptive. Ever considered that people are getting frustrated with your behavior? 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC) You write "It is a undisputed fact that all these[sic] 3 attacks happed[sic] on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad." and you are wrong. I DISPUTE that there were "3 separate attacks" You wrote that was "Verified by the given sources" WHICH SOURCES CLAIM THAT IT WAS 3 SEPARATE ATTACKS? If you can't cite one of them it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. "If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."V7-sport (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC) No matter how loud you shout it is not OR. We have this already discussed. All these references are WP:RS and they verify the given information. What makes 1+1+1 = 3 attacks represented in a NPOV in the article without any OR. I am telling you the last time to be civil and not to shout at me. Go for a walk or drink what ever might calm you down. IQinn (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC) When you write "all these references are WP:RS", which reference are you referring to that states that they were 3 separate attacks? If it exists why can't you post it? If you can't post it you are mis-characterizing what the sources say. Once again, should I take this to the reliable sources notice board as well? Or should we just go to the ANI about your disruptive editing. Provide a source or drop this. V7-sport (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC) As said 1+1+1 = 3 attacks. The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks. Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building Reliable sources noticeboard? You doubt that any of these sources in these 3 sections is unreliable? My editing is not disruptive. That is rediculous and just one of the multiple ad hominum attacks that piles up with your extensive shouting and refusal to get the point. Regards IQinn (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Just because the page was structured that way doesn't mean that quote is reliably sourced. What I doubt is that any of those "reliable sources" state that this was "3 separate attacks". And that's what you needed to prove here and that's what you haven't. V7-sport (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The structuring follows the WP:RS. 1+1+1 = three verified attacks. The sources are in the article and the sources divided the incidents on that day into 3 attacks. The article follows exactly the sources and presents the information in NPOV without any OR. IQinn (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I can't be called an impartial source (see below), but I completely agree with V7-sport. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Teaming up in an ad hominem attack with another user? Be assured that can only leads that you get blocked from Wikipedia. Nothing else. You are still welcome to continue the discussion about the content issue. Shall we? IQinn (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks Mnnlaxer, and there was nothing even remotely ad hominem about that, obviously. V7-sport (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC) It is obviously concerning the post below. He is obviously not neutral and he calls himself an impartial source. He agrees on what concerning the content issue of this post? IQinn (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC) You write: "He is obviously not neutral and he calls himself an impartial source" yet he didn't call himself an impartial source. Indeed he declared at the at the onset that "I can't be called an impartial source"... Another example of you willfully mischaracterizing what someone else wrote. He doesn't need to be "neutral" here, all he needs to do is understand a very simple premise; If you can't find a source for what you have posted in Wikipedia you probably shouldn't post it. And we are "still welcome to continue the discussion about the content issue"? OK; Find a reliable source for your assertion or it is original research. That's the cliffs notes of the above abomination. V7-sport (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC) No there is no single source needed to that is a false interpretation of the OR policy. All 3 attacks are verified by multiple reliable sources and we do not need a secondary source to tell us the obvious. The article follows exactly the sources that verify 3 attacks. 1+1+1 = three attacks. We do not need to verify the rules of logic. IQinn (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC) As it has been outlined for you over and over and over YOU NEED AS SOURCE FOR ANY INFORMATION THAT IS CHALLENGED OR ELSE IT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It is not "logic" that an airstrike that occured in 1 place over the course of an hour be divided up into "3 Separate attacks" so you are going to need to find a source for that. You say the article "follows exactly the sources that verify 3 attacks". Post a link to this source that verify 3 separate attacks. OR ELSE IT"S ORIGINAL RESEARCH. V7-sport (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Shouting again? I must say i am fed up with your shouting by now. There are not divided into 3 separate they are put together from 3 verified attacks according to the WP:RS. The article presents this in a NPOV and the article describes clearly the events as they happen. This incident has been described as 3 separate attacks form the beginning. So by now there should be some reliable sources that claim that this would be wrong. You have one? IQinn (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I'm fed up with your pointless disruptive editing. I am not making the claim that they are "3 separate attacks" therefore I don't need to come up with a source to verify it. The sources listed refer to the events of tht day in the singular, that has been shown to you. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 seperate attacks or it's original research. That should be good enough to reply whatever stalling tactic you come up with next. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 seperate attacks or it's original research. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'. V7-sport (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Shouting again, refusal to take the the point ad hominem arguments... You are showing here a long list of disruptive editing and behavior. I have ask you multiple time to stop this. The reliable source have been provided to you and things have been explained to you. Did you even read my last post? Why don't you answer my question? IQinn (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research' V7-sport (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The references have been provided to you and things have been explained to you. There is not OR. Your shouting, refusal to take the the point, edit warring, out of context quotes and ad hominem arguments do not change that. You are disrupting our work here. IQinn (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC) No references were provided, to state otherwise at this point is a lie. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 seperate attacks or it's original research.V7-sport (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Shouting, refusal to take the the point, edit warring, out of context quotes and ad hominem arguments plus now calling other editors liars. Stop it. The reliable references have been provided to you and things have been explained to you. This is an well established article written by many people and there is no OR. IQinn (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Well it's obvious to anyone reading that you haven't provided a reliable reference to support your claim that this was 3 seperate attacks. Repeating that you have over and over indicates that you don't have a clue what a reliable reference is. (as I have explained to you several times now, it isn't Wikipedia,) So at this point either you don't understand basic English and shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia or you are not telling the truth when you state that you have provided a reliable reference to support your claim that this was 3 Separate attacks. Either way, you shouldn't be editing until you get a familiarity with what words mean or a familiarity with the truth as it corresponds to reality. Once again, Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'V7-sport (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Well it is obvious to anyone reading that i have provided the reliable references that support that there were 3 attacks. No doubt about that. For everyone reading this here it is also clear that after continues shouting, refusal to take the the point, edit warring, out of context quotes and ad hominem arguments you are now turning to insults. Therefore you have almost broken every rule we have about civility. That is very troublesome. IQinn (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC) So off to the reliable references noticeboard we go. V7-sport (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Could you please explain your edit summary that comes with this edit. "Too bad there isn't an idiot noticeboard". IQinn (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Just_to_confirm_the_obvious.V7-sport (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I already replied there. It is a gross misrepresentation of what has been discussed here what is also troublesome. It would also be good if you explain your edit summary: "Too bad there isn't an idiot noticeboard" Thank you. IQinn (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Ok, we have had some progress, IQinn has acknowleged that the only thing he has posted on this forum as a reply is not a vaid source. "Nobody ever has claimed that Wikipedia can be used as an reliable source" so, unless you can come up with a specific, non Wiki source to back your assertion that it was 3 separate attacks then even you acknowledge that to say so is original research.V7-sport (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) That is absolute nonsense and an mis presentation of the discussion and out of context quoting what is considered as uncivil under our policies. Please do not do this. The 3 attacks are verified and that cut it. I am not going to copy and paste about 50 references that can be easily found under each of the sections. 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. There is no OR there is no misrepresentation and all is described in the article in a NPOV. IQinn (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC) You don't need to cut and paste "50 references". All you need is 1. Otherwise it's Original research. V7-sport (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC) You are not listening, 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. There is no OR and we do not need to verify the rules of logic as they are universal. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original researchV7-sport (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) As said we do not need to verify the rules of logic. 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. One and two and three is verified therefore it is verified that there where 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. There is no OR. Your may have a look at this WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4) in the lede. There is described what you keep doing here. IQinn (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, IQinn has just been advised that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Period." on the reliable sources noticeboard, so referring back to it isn't going to work. IQinn, you need to provide another source other then Wikipedia itself that states that the action on that day was "3 separate attacks" or else that assertion is original research and needs to be removed. Stating "As said we do not need to verify the rules of logic" is not a source to back your claim. V7-sport (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1) I have never made the claim that Wikipedia would be a reliable source. 2) I have told you multiple times that i have never made this claim.

3) All three attacks are verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources and we do not need to verify the rules of logic. 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All three attacks are verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. One and two and three is verified therefore it is verified that there where 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. There is no OR. Your may have a look at this WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4) in the lede. There is described what you are doing here. IQinn (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Every time I have asked you for a source you have referred back to the Wikipedia page itself, which you now know is not a reliable source. The "rules of logic" (and I dispute that Logic is what you have employed here, it's actually WP:SYNTHESIS) are not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, Verifiability is. And that is done with reliable sources. So you need to post a reliable source that states the incident was "3 separate attacks" as you have insisted on in the article or drop the insistence that it was "3 separate attacks". There is no need to waste more bytes here, just post a reliable source that backs your claim.V7-sport (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is false. I have never done so and i have explicitly told many times that this is not the case. I have always refereed to "the sources" that are included in 3 sections of the article. All three attacks are verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. One and two and three is verified therefore it is verified that there where 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS involved in that. You either do not understand our policies or you misinterprets them knowingly. There is no OR and there is no WP:SYNTHESIS involved. Did you have a look at WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4)? You might also check Wikipedia:Policy shopping at the same time. IQinn (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"That is false. I have never done so"...Well anyone who tilts their head up can clearly see that the only source that you have posted is the wiki article in question and you have been told that isn't good enough on the other message board.

" I have always refereed to "the sources" that are included in 3 sections of the article." But you have never cited a source that calls the events of that day "3 separate attacks" as you insist they be labeled. That's original research, no matter how you try to confuse the issue. Post a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this is false again. I have never said that Wikipedia is a reliable source. And have been told nothing on the other message board. I have never made this claim and i have told you that many times. Please do not quote out of contest as you has done it here. Thank you.

It seems to me that you have not read WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4) yet. We with no doubt verified through reliable sources 3 attacks. An attack on personnel, an attack on the van and the attack on the house. 1+1+1 makes three attacks. How would you define "separate"? As far as i know our article does not say there were 3 separate attacks. IQinn (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well anyone can see that it's not false by the above links to the article you posted and if they want to follow the link in the above irrelevant bickering they can see that it was confirmed that Wikipedia is not a reliable source which is the only thing you have posted to back your assertion that there were "3 separate attacks".

" 1+1+1 makes three attacks" No, that is challenged; the delineation between the action is arbitrary and it was a progression of events, not 3 specific attacks. In order for you to keep the reference to "3 separate attacks" you are going to need to post a reliable secondary source, not just link to Wikipedia. Otherwise it is original research. V7-sport (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No that is false again and everybody can see that i have never said that Wikipedia is a reliable source. I have told you that many times and it is irrelevant as nobody here has ever made this claim. Stop bickering again. The attack on personnel, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are all verified through multiple secondary sources and no OR is involved. Full Stop.

1) You want really challenge that 1+1+1 = 3? 2) The separation is not arbitrary is not it follows along the sources. 3) You have not answered my questions what makes a debate almost impossible. 4) How would you define "separate"? 5) You behave like in WP:LAWYERING lede section 2, 3 and 4. described. 6) The article does not say that there were "3 separate attacks". IQinn (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your link to the article is the only link you have provided. It isn't lawyering to insist that you provide a reliable source for your assertion. Insisting on verifiability is one of the foundations of the Wiki project. You have insisted that the events were 3 separate attacks, so please, give me a link or stop your disruptive editing. V7-sport (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not reply to any of my previous points what is uncivil and disruptive and what makes an constructive discussion impossible, it comes with incivility and edit warring. Despite the fact that you have been warned you continue your disruptive behavior. Have a look at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Civility and WP:LAWYERING lede section 2, 3 and 4. described and expect to be blocked if this continues and you do not engages in an constructive dialog. So lets continue: 1) You want really challenge that 1+1+1 = 3? 2) The separation is not arbitrary it follows along the sources. 3) You have not answered my previous questions, please do so. 4) How would you define "separate"? 5) The article does not say that there were "3 separate attacks". Thank you. IQinn (talk)

That's still not a reliable source for your assertion. V7-sport (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion: 1) The claim that Wikipedia would be a reliable source has never been made and is irrelevant for this discussion. 2) The attack on the the personal, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are verified through multiple reliable sources. 3) The term "separate" is not defined. 3) The article does not say "3 separate attacks" and therefore does not make this assertion. 4) There is no OR involved in the way the article presents this information in it's current form. IQinn (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re.1)It has been shown to you that you cannot cite a Wikipedia article as a reliable source, which is the only thing you have done here to back your claim.

Re.2)You haven't been able to source the delineation of the days events into 3 attacks. Indeed, you haven't posted a single source. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

Re.3)Understanding basic English is a prerequisite to editing here.

Re.your second number 3... The article claims the events of that day were "three attacks" and is broken up as such. The delineation of these into 3 units is arbitrary and un-sourced. You have steadfastly maintained that they were "3 separate" attacks/incidents here and at the articles talk page. That is un-sourced and original research.

4)It is original research because you cannot provide a source to confirm it. That much is abundantly clear after days of asking for one. According to Wikipedia "The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for... anything challenged or likely to be challenged"...If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

In conclusion, The only other person to post on this subject stated "I completely agree with V7-sport". (Mnnlaxeryou) You have had more then enough time to provide a source for your contention and you have not done so. No source = original research. V7-sport (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rere.1) That is false: The attack on the personnel, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are verified through multiple reliable sources.

Rere.2) The attack on the personnel, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are verified through multiple reliable sources. The references are easily accessible in the article.

Rere.3) The events are not broken up arbitrarily. The sources do so and there is no OR involved. Yes the article verifies 3 attacks. Let me ask you again how do you define "separate"? That would be important to know.

Rere.4) You seems to agree now that the article does not claim that there were "3 separate attacks". There is no OR involved in the way the article presents this information in it's current form. Have also a look at WP:LAWYERING lede section 2, 3 and 4.

In conclusion: Do not Quote other people out of contest you are welcome to invide Mnnlaxer to come back and state to what he agrees on or not. There is no OR involved here. All the 3 attacks are verified through multiple secondary sources easily found. 1+1+1 = 3. That is a fact as your continues WP:LAWYERING is is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting close to calling this "resolved" if you can't provide a source to back your claim. If you are just going to continue to repeat the same thing over and over without providing a source there isn't much point in carrying on. V7-sport (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Each of these three attacks is verified by multiple secondary sources and there are descriptions and commentaries on each of these incidents by reliable secondary sources. You know where the sources are. Stop WP:LAWYERING. The article presents the information in a NPOV with no OR involved. The article does not say that there were "3 separate attacks". You are not even giving us a definition how you define "separate" in this context even people have ask you for that. Please do so. IQinn (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If the days events are "verified by multiple reliable sources" as 3 different attacks then you could have posted one of them days ago. You have failed to do so. They aren't by the way. Stop parroting the the same accusations over and over. It's not clever and it's not a reliable source. The article claims there were "3 attacks" and that is original research. Was every trigger pull a different attack? You shouldn't be editing the English version of this encyclopedia if you don't know this:

Definition of SEPARATE adj \ˈse-p(ə-)rət

1a : set or kept apart : detached b archaic : solitary, secluded c : immaterial, disembodied

2a : not shared with another : individual <separate rooms>

3a : existing by itself : autonomous <a separate country> b : dissimilar in nature or identity <consulted five separate authorities>

Time is growing short, if you have a reliable source that these were 3 separate attacks post it. If not it's original research.V7-sport (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

3 attacks are verified through multiple reliable secondary sources. So tell us how you define "separate"? We ask you more that enough for that.

Huuuh...uncivil ad hominem attack again. "You shouldn't be editing the English version of this encyclopedia if you don't know this:" :)) Surely i know that and i could have also copied and pasted that down from the internet. But that does not answer the question that was ask. Let me here bold the important part for you as you obviously misunderstood the question.

Please define "separate" attacks in the context of this article. You know what counts still at the same attack. Different targets? Five minutes delay between different targets. Different places and different Helicopters? Or is everything what happened on one day is one attack. Take your position on that and stop posting nonsense ad hominem comments. IQinn (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

User:Iqinn has placed an Original Research tag on the article Mohamedou Ould Slahi, without stating what sentences or sections are original research.Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that a similar case of non-specific argumentation from Iqinn on the discussion immediately above, although on the side of claiming his edits are not Original Research, rather than claiming a whole article is Original Research. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What would be similar between the case above and this one here? IQinn (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, from reading a fair amount of your writing, I have seen that your reading comprehension is not very good. The similarity is "non-specific argumentation". Above you keep saying the same thing over and over, without once providing a reliable source to the disputed sentence. In regard to the Slahi article, you cannot provide a single example of any OR in the article. You non-specifically repeat your claim over and over. That's quite similar. Another similarity is your ignorance of what ad hominem (note the spelling) means. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Be assured that i know what ad hominem means. Looks like you are teaming up with other editors. Your claims here are obviously wrong. Just have a look a look at the articles talk page where these things are explained. Talk:Mohamedou Ould Slahi. You keep removing the tag without consensus. Want me to rewrite the article and taking out all the instances where information is not properly sourced? Writing large chunks of BLP's based on primary sources is a no no as you know and as it has been discussed. Writing large chunks of BLP based on redacted government papers like this one are also a no no. And i am going to replace these instances with a tag. If you claim not to understand things that have been explained to you. IQinn (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't just state "your claims are wrong" and expect people to say, oh well then, you carry on. You have to provide evidence in the form of reliable sources to back your assertion. Otherwise you are just left with the fallback tactic of repeating yourself over and over until whomever you are subjecting this to gets fed up. V7-sport (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you are teaming up in an ad hominem attack against me. What content issue are you discussion here? Have you ever worked on Mohamedou Ould Slahi. I seems absolute unclear to me what specific content issue your are addressing? IQinn (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well a quick review of the talk page there shows that you have followed your pattern of just not listening or understanding whomever you happen to be engaged in your editing dispute. Repeating the same thing over and over without regard to whatever counterargument is presented to you. V7-sport (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That is false and the article has been improved. Nothing in your reply concerns any of the content issues of this article. Your reply consist solely of ad hominem arguments in an attempt to team up with Mnnlaxer against me. Please be aware that this is strictly prohibited under the rules of our community and you might could get blocked for this undesirable behavior. There is absolute nothing in your post here concerning any of the content issues. IQinn (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's some content issues with that article, andyworthington,co is not a reliable source and the heritage foundation has details on him swearing allegiance to al Qaeda. Funny how your days are spent purging information on jihadists. V7-sport (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think Andy Worthington would not be a reliable source?

Yes he swore allegiance to al Qaeda. I think we verified that. The interesting point is that he ended his relationship with al-Qaeda almost 20 years ago and that he did nothing for them after 1992. He won his habeas corpus but Obama appealed. So it is going to be interesting to see how the case will continues.

And could you possibly comment on this source here? The source has been redacted. Can it still be used to verify large chunks of BLP informations?

IQinn (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

1. "You keep removing the tag without consensus." So whoever acts first, in adding or deleting, is automatically assumed to be right, and a consensus is needed to revert? Is that what you're saying? 2. "Want me to rewrite the article and taking [sic] out all the instances where information is not properly sourced?" Yes, taking out specific instances where information is not properly sourced is exactly what I want you to do. 3. "Writing large chunks of BLP's based on primary sources is a no no as you know and as it has been discussed." Yes, we discussed primary sources, which may be used in BLP. You have currently removed the large chunks based on primary sources (CSRT and ARB only - not Federal Court issued opinions). I will add information back using these sources very carefully. 4. "Writing large chunks of BLP based on redacted government papers like this one are also a no no." This is dead wrong, and you've never backed this statement up with any Wiki policy. See the article's talk page for the redacted issue. I can quote the two other editors if you like. 5. "That is false and the article has been improved." I disagree. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I will disagree with V7-sport on one thing. Andy Worthington is a reliable source. FYI, many of his posts on his personal website are posted at The Public Record or Common Dreams. I could go back and find the posts cited on another website if that makes a difference to you. And "Funny how your days are spent purging information on jihadists" is a perfect example of what ad hominem actually is.

IQinn, "he ended his relationship with al-Qaeda almost 20 years ago and that he did nothing for them after 1992." That is the position of Slahi's defense (obviously a POV), but the habeas court has to (re-)determine that in its findings of fact. It is an interesting case, I agree. It's why I first got involved in editing this article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on Andy Worthington as his book is surely RS and many of his other writings can be used as they have been republished as you said.

I thought it comes from the Judge? Anyway i will check on that later when i get more time. Yes the Obama administration appealed so lets wait and see. IQinn (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, another thing you've demonstrated is your lack of knowledge of the habeas and Circuit Court opinions - which again, are secondary sources and can be used even if they have redactions as long as any statement taken from them could not have a distorted meaning due to nearby redactions. If you wanted to end the use of these court documents, it would help if you understood them first. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, please stop using ad hominem arguments. There is almost nobody here who has more understanding about the Guantanamo detainees and there habeas corpus procedures procedures than i have.

I fully agree with you and that is the whole point here. There would not be a problem if we could ensure that statements taken from these documents do not have a distorted meaning due to the redactions. How could that be possible ensured? Redacted information in the same document could well contradict any other information we take from it. IQinn (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My comment is that the tags you are putting on the page are inappropriate. V7-sport (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems POV. Why is that inappropriate? And could you please answer my questions. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Seems POV." This is a discussion board. It is supposed to be POV. You added the tag without specifically identifying the original research, which is without justification, which is inappropriate. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on we had extensive discussion on the talk page about that and the problems are listed there. To simply claim i would have placed it without explanation is wrong.

As i said i am ok for the moment without the tag and i will mark individual problems instead as i agreed on the talk page page and i am fine with any mediation. I had never a problem with that and it is not my fault that the 3th opinion did not get started the last time. I have written about that on the talk page and i will write more there once i get some time. Actually i have no doubt we can sort out things and improve the article as we have done in the past. Anything else to discuss on this board here? Otherwise i suggest we close this discussion here and go back to the talk page. Thank you IQinn (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say without explanation, but without justification. You constantly try to explain your edits, but these explanations are weak, often consisting of references back to earlier weak explanations (and sometimes repeating the exact same explanations). For instance, on Slahi, the most recent time you placed an OR tag on the article (and I'm glad you are agreeing not to re-post it), it was without mentioning any particular instance of OR. I never blamed you for a lack of a 3rd opinion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, please stop using ad hominem arguments. What i have agreed on is that i mark particular instances instead of the tag on the top of the page. I might re-add the tag later depending on the outcome of the outstanding issue concerning the problematic use of redacted material please see my reply above. IQinn (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, I have made no ad hominem arguments against you. If you think I have, please quote the offending passage. You have linked to that article many times, but have you read it? Do you understand it? "An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man") [argument] ... is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." What personal characteristic or belief of yours have I used against your premises or arguments? Being wrong and offering weak explanations are not personal characteristics or beliefs of yours. A good test would be to ask if it was possible to change the item criticized. You could have been right about the Judge or the defense being the source of your statement and you could have provided a strong explanation (or even a justification) of your edits. Thus, they are not ad hominem. If I criticized your premises or arguments because you were Hindu, then that would be ad hominem. As far as redaction goes, you say "Redacted information in the same document could well contradict any other information we take from it." That's true. Now show me which redactions could plausibly contradict specific information in the article. In this case, remember that the District Court opinions are written by one judge, and Circuit Court opinions are in the singular institutional voice of the Court. If there is contradictory information, it is likely between the claims of the two sides, which the court is supposed to adjudicate and decide what is fact and what is not. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's stay focused. You have not answered my question that i ask you above. I said: There would not be a problem if we could ensure that statements taken from these documents do not have a distorted meaning due to the redactions. How could that be possible ensured? Redacted information in these documents could well contradict any information we take from it. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, you are here to get views from uninvolved editors. The question was about a tag, which has been removed now. However, looking at the article, I see it contains a timeline in the form of a table, which I consider to be poor article layout. Is the whole timeline from one source, in which case it should be made crystal clear in an inline reference which source? Or has it been put together from several sources? Articles can contain timelines, but they should be in a section headed Timeline. And I would put it towards the end of the article, not in the middle. And I wouldn't lay it out in the form of a table. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

primary sources as secondary sources in medieval Irish Sea articles

It is claimed here [30][31][32][33][34][35] that medieval Irish annals are secondary sources and can be used in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've tried to tag there articles (unfortunately the user in question has dozens more), but am being reverted by the user. I asked for assistance at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Medieval_annals_are_to_be_treated_as_secondary_sources (didn't realise there was a noticeboard). I have blocked the user in question in the past and have gained his enmity. It would not be ideal for me to block him again, but I'm getting no assistance and don't see how else I can address this if no-one else intervenes. I appreciate that the topics may seem obscure, but the problem is clear. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This editor, Deacon, has been following me for months and is now officially hounding me, by targeting articles I have created and leaving them full of OR tags. He has been around Wikipedia for some years, even being an administrator, and has been exposed to countless similar articles full of the identical practice of citing the Irish annals and has done nothing. Examples of articles full of this practice: Sigtrygg Silkbeard (good article), Battle of Glenmama (good article). Wait for many, many more. They're coming. DinDraithou (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(any chronicles and so on): Eric Bloodaxe, Eadred (Deacon is a fairly recent contributor), Edmund I of England (here too). More to come. DinDraithou (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(more using the Irish annals): Amlaíb Conung (written by User:Angusmclellan, a respected admin), Sihtric Cáech (Deacon has been a contributor), Gofraid ua Ímair (again largely written by Angus, plus Deacon has been a contributor). More to come. DinDraithou (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

From [36] Deacon has also been the author of the monstrous Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick. Here he makes good use of primary sources! See where he cites Anderson. DinDraithou (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Domhnall mac Raghnaill (Deacon is the creator and author), Oslac of York (yes), Ruaidhri mac Raghnaill (yes), Donnchadh of Argyll (Annals of Loch Cé yet again). More to come. DinDraithou (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ok. see note #4: John of Argyll (guess the author). DinDraithou (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in all those cases primary sources used are also used by the secondary sources cited and themselves are cited only for convenience or because the editor summarises the source as it is quoted, though in some cases that could be more obvious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• All examples given above are Original research. The editors involved have acted as amateur historians and not as encyclopedists. Tag and delete offending content. Cite from scholarly secondary sources. As a hint: non-nationalist historians post-Ranke. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And you are a professional historian? In defense of both myself and Deacon, and all of us, get lost. You don't belong in this discussion. DinDraithou (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest you immediately retract the personal attacks in the above. Care to demonstrate post-Ranke historiographers who treat Irish annals as fully equivalent to modern scholarly peer reviewed practice? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Setting aside any personal comments, I agree that we should be using modern scholarly sources and not building articles based on these primary sources. We can judiciously attribute material to the annals of course so long as we are not relying on them for most of the content of an article. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • What Dougweller said. I also just commented along those lines at the other discussion (would be good to keep discussion in one place...) Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Fifelfoo, indeed Irish annals are full of problems not obvious to the amateur, frequently consisting of interpolations and copyist confusions. It is not only our policy but good practice to discourage editors citing them directly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The discussion at the main NOR talk page has identified the underlying problem here. It isn't the use of the Annals... it's the overuse (or misuse) of the Annals. The problem is that the articles in question use the annals as their basic source, instead of relying on secondary sources that, in turn, examine and discuss the Annals and other historical evidence). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. As an example look at my article Ivar of Waterford. Those with knowledge of the subject know that I wrote this article primarily following Clare Downham, who in her book gives a mostly complete prosopography containing those annal entries mentioning the Norse of the period by name. Likewise James Henthorn Todd and many others frequently refer to these in footnotes. None of these scholars would expect a Wikipedia author to cite them for the annal entries in 95% or greater of cases because these have been used by generations in their fields for two centuries. Only when the meaning of an entry is uncertain or it has somehow gone unnoticed until recently are more explanation and citations required.

Some recognition of the fact that I have obviously been hounded by Deacon, who has been dishonest with the community, would be nice. Surely there must be some way I can get an injunction against him, but I'm not familiar with the system. Help here would be nice. DinDraithou (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Annals are always primary sources. Ivar of Waterford references Clare Downham's book and some other recent historical texts. Those are the secondary sources that the article has been written up from, and inline references need to be added in some places. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. References to the annals can go in alongside the references to secondary sources. If you believe a Wikipedia editor has treated you badly, you can take out a wikiquette alert or even a notification on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Annals are not always primary sources, especially in the Irish case. That's the application of another definition of a primary source: one that is just old or medieval. And it very much depends on what they record. What have come down to us are either abbreviated or interpolated redactions and translations, or in the case of the Annals of the Four Masters a very late compilation, but all for the most part reporting events they were not usually close to. Many are simply short death notices and the like. As far as Ivar of Waterford Downham just lists the entries, but if you want to force me to do what most editors don't then I'm happy to cite her list where appropriate.

I don't really know what to say at the noticeboard. Despite my angry words here and there, I don't seek out other editors or initiate interaction or leave warnings on their pages or any of that. I consider it below me. Nor do I so-called war with any frequency, and am very nice to whoever is nice to me. Deacon has been initiating our interaction wherever it may be. A few months ago he even reported me here using a falsehood, namely that I was following him around, when our histories proved the opposite was the case. I have told him again and again to stay away from my talk page and yet he can't. Now he's targeting my articles when I haven't targeted his, and forced me to do what I didn't want to do and start going through his contributions to find examples of what he's accusing me of doing: a little hypocrisy. But this all assumes that any of the articles mentioned or listed in this discussion have major problems, which they really don't. The problem here is Deacon selecting three of my articles for his new definition of original research, not intended to apply to his own work or that of other respected contributors. DinDraithou (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dougweller, Blueboar, and Itsmejudith have it right. The annals may not be primary sources in the way they were compiled, but they are being used as primary sources here, in that they're old documents that require evaluation and interpretation by modern scholars. However, it's worth pointing out that in many of the cited cases it looks like an issue of citation rather than real original research. For example the tagged sections of Ottir Iarla do include cites to the secondary sources along with the cites to the annals; fixing this is just a matter of rearranging the citations, rather than removing OR.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the point being made, but it must also be remembered that the entries I and others are using have already been edited and translated by modern scholars from various manuscripts, so there is another process the information has been through. Next, they have been put up by University College Cork in sometimes further edited or even completely new versions at the CELT Project. So for example we have the fragmentary and lacunose Annals of Tigernach edited and partially translated by Whitley Stokes over a century ago and now a new complete translation at CELT by Gearóid Mac Niocaill. DinDraithou (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Leading by example, in Ivar of Waterford I have added the following note (currently #6): Those entries in the Irish annals in which Ivar is mentioned by name can be found collected by Clare Downham in her prosopography of the Norse of the period in her 2007 Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ívarr to A.D. 1014, in the back following the main text, where she presents them in an abbreviated and condensed format for convenience. The full entries themselves, edited and translated by different scholars, can be further compared and examined by following the links provided in the references section of this article. Originally I cited Downham for each, but as I got more interested in this period of Irish history and became more familiar with the annals, I thought I would share that and strongly encourage readers to look at what Downham is looking at. She very nicely condenses them but that is mainly for the readers of her book and other popular modern academic secondary sources. Scholars in the "English tradition" even have difficultly with the annals and the characters in them, still to this day getting personalities and events mentioned in them confused. In Ivar's particular case he is surprising well documented for a regional sea-king who died in the year 1000 living on the edge of the Western World, a classic menace undoubtedly disliked by many contemporaries but a pleasure for me to write about. DinDraithou (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that in the case of the Bissett family (Ireland) I have a number of modern secondary sources listed in the references, and altogether these make reference to most of the annal entries and plenty of what the English sources report. More will be used as the article grows, which you will see in the currently empty and near-empty sections. It should eventually be a very nice article but the family are elusive, having been forgotten by the Irish, the result of false MacDonnell claims which eventually became truths. The source which Deacon tagged as possibly unreliable is in fact the website of the castle of the lordship descended from the one founded by the Bissetts in the 13th century,[37] owned by their descendants in the female line, the modern Earl of Antrim and his family. They possess fairly vast archives so I think we can consider their website a reliable source.[38] DinDraithou (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried about Bissett family (Ireland). You really do seem to be using Wikipedia to present your own research findings, which isn't allowed. Source research is allowed - that means going to recent secondary sources, not back to original texts. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce

There's currently an edit war on Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce of which I, admittedly, am a part of. The article is about a Macedonian-language song. Over the article's history, one user found a source in which the writer and composer of the song states that he adapted the text from an obscure folk song. Some other users then found an archive of folk songs of which two are similar to subject of the article. Be warned, this dispute is within the realm of Balkan POVs: it's my view that the users TodorBozhinov and Jingiby are attempting to present this song as one with a Bulgarian origin (actually, quite blatantly), however, the source (a link to said archive) is not directly related to the topic of the article, nor does it directly support their claim. Please also see this discussion. --124.150.40.224 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)