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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Image used in Murder of Meredith Kercher

There's an interesting discussion here about whether File:Kercher Knox house Perugia Italy.gif constitutes original research. My own view is that it does; the point has also been made that the notes on the diagram seem contradictory. Responses there or here would be equally welcome. --John (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's some history on this image in the discussion. Apparently it's been deleted at least once, maybe twice, as being too close in dimensions to a published map of the flat. Wikid77 then created this version, basing it on that diagram. From their description, it's supposed to reflect the general layout of the flat, but does not accurately reflect the scale or true shape of the various rooms. The article has some incredibly (overly?) detailed description of events which can overwhelm some readers. I think this image adds useful information to the article by providing some reference for those descriptions. As currently depicted, it is only labeled with the names of each room plus the location of one piece of physical evidence (glass). It does not reference any WP:RS for the information used to create the image (the FOA advocacy site is NOT reliable).

My view would be to keep the image in the article but in the image description add links to reliable sources used to create the image and remove the FOA link. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:OI "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Can anyone explain how this diagram promotes unpublished ideas or arguments? --Footwarrior (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the exact nature of the image somewhat strange. On the file page, Wikid77 describes it as "merely a rough concept of the area", and a note in the image itself states that "positions are approximate". It is said to be a "conceptual diagram" as opposed to a "map" due to the absence of a scale legend. With regard to WP:OI: there is perhaps no blatant illustration of "unpublished ideas or arguments", but the fact that the file has been user-generated is a possible concern in light of the description's emphasis on the word "rough". I also don't really understand why the rooms have to "narrowed ~16%" when the actual rooms were "nearly square" - it rather distorts a user's visualisation of the apartment and leaves room for potential misrepresentation of the crime scene. On the file talk page, in response to the suggestion of using an actual scale diagram, Wikid77 states, "then the exact wall dimensions and locations of all furniture would be subject to endless debate, as questioning the accuracy to scale" - but that would seem to be a greater problem with this "rough concept of the area", which allows no room for scale. If the image were to incorporate accurate proportions, it would be far less problematic. It would be a great help if fresher eyes at this board were to make their own conclusions. SuperMarioMan 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the image could be improved, but the article or image talk page is the correct forum for such a discussion. And as I have already pointed out, Wikipedia policy allows creation of original images. The editor who opened this noticeboard incident apparently didn't understand WP:OI policy. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional sourcing would seem to be one method through which the image could be improved and made to appear authoritative - Grifomaniacs makes some recommendations at the file talk page SuperMarioMan 02:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian

In the article Lesbian there is a sentence in the third paragraph that I want to verify is not original synthesis/research.

Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality.

We've been discussing this for weeks and it badly needs resolution. I read through the article myself, and I believe it to be original research. However, User:Moni3 is adamantly defending the statement and believes that the sources say it. I've had more than my share of this discussion and I want to move on to other things.

You can find the discussion at Talk:Lesbian#Men have historically shaped, Talk:Lesbian#Break, and Talk:Lesbian#Break II. --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what you consider OR in that sentence? Without looking at the sources, I'm skeptical that "people have often thought that lesbianism didn't exist" wouldn't be supported. To what sources is the statement cited? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement is not directly cited. It is in the summary of the article, and I assume it should be supported or somehow stated in the article. The passages cited by Moni3 support a similar statement, but not exactly this one. e.g., women played a huge role in defining Islamic tradition (supported in Talk:Lesbian#Break II), so men did not completely define "standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships" (and that's a gross understatement for the example I gave).

Moni3 was correct that the larger context of the source I used (Women and Gender in Islam) supports the notion that in the Abyssinian era (and in certain times and places afterwards) Muslim scholars and Islamists (mostly men) interpreted the Qu'ran and Hadith in ways that undermined womens' rights. The statement is plainly wrong, and will undoubtedly cause future conflicts, if it is interpreted to mean women never defined such standards.

The statement also asserts, without cited evidence, that "[men] often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality" because "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships". Moni3 has not pointed out, and I have not yet found, a cited statement in the article that states this specific causal relationship.

--Fennasnogothrim (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, move on then already.

The discussion has dragged on since March 17. I posted in the talk page discussion 14 examples of cited passages or sections that support the statement. I've asked for input in rewriting the sentence to summarize the same points but have received no sufficient reply to this. The talk page discussion is quite clear, in my opinion, that to remove the sentence, which seems to be Fennasnogothrim's goal, Fennasnogothrim needs to provide sources to make his/her point. While a source was introduced to alter the wording of the sentence, the source in totality seems to support the sentence staying in its current form. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please let's come to some sort of compromise. Please agree to a compromise wording which would encyclopedically say basically "Early sexologists viewed it thusly, and then predominant lesbian sources reacted in this way", and then move on, as opposed to doing it the other way around? That way, it'd be chronological and phrase it as the points of view of others, not that of Wikipedia.

I should clarify that it's not just the tagged sentence, but also its immediate context which I am referring to. I thought about ways of generalizing the placement of the tag (I didn't tag it) but I don't know how. I don't know that I should tag the whole section. Chrisrus (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the definition be derived from the source that does not contain it?

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974

Whereas the page 19 of this book On Google Books contains the following words:

"Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing economic and political system through the use of terrorism in the hope that the violence will inspire the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system.

no definition of "Communist terrorism" as a separate category is found on this page and in the book as whole. In connection to that, can the following text (taken from the Communist terrorism article:

"Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system.[ref name="C. J. M. Drake 1"]C. J. M. Drake page 19[/ref]"

use the Drake's book as a source, and, generally speaking, can the definition of some phenomenon be derived from the text that does not contain it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a consensus on the RSN board over this sources usage, and on the article talk page. This is really beating the carcass. Everything in the content is also found on page 19 of the Book. There is no original research here. I have also added the full quote from the book. Tentontunic (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If the definition in the article is based solely on that one single sentence from Drake, then it clearly goes beyond the source, and would be considered OR. However, it sounds like this is not the case. It sounds like the article's definition is a summary of what Drake is saying throughout that page (and perhaps on other pages near it). If it accurately summarizes Drake's views, then it is acceptable as far as OR is concerned. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Drake's views (expressed on this and adjacent pages) is that terrorism (a generic term) is associated with different ideologies, including liberal, anarchist, communist, nationalist, etc. However, I found no confirmation that Drake proposed the term "Communist terrorism" (or "liberal terrorism", "anarchist terrorism", "nationalist terrorism", etc) to describe a separate category of terrorism. Therefore, I do not think that the text we discuss accurately summarises the Drake's views: Drake speaks about the aims of terrorists who subscribe to some concrete ideology, however, he proposes no typology of terrorism, and no subcategories of terrorism. In addition, whereas I have nothing against summarizing the author's view, the text is written in such a way that it creates a wrong impression that Drake proposed a definition for this type of terrorism (which is obviously not the case). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To demonstrate my point, this:

"Communist terrorist groups are the groups that subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

is a correct and adequate summary of what Drake says, and it contains no views he did not express.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The original was far better, and it did not misquote Drake either. You really ought not have changed it when it has a consensus. Tentontunic (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The original text creates a false impression that the term "Communist terrorism" has been used by Drake, whereas he neither proposed nor used it[1]. By writing this text you did misquote the source. BTW, there was no consensus for the first version either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course there was a consensus, both on the RS board and on the talk page, an admin also agreed there was a consensus when he did the edit protect request. And the term communist terrorism was used by drake, it is right there in the quoted passage above. Tentontunic (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The RSN consensus was that the source is reliable for communist terrorists. In addition, as you probably know, consensus can change. At least three users (TFD, Zloyvolsheb and I) expressed a concern about this fragment. And, in addition, if I don't miss anything, Drake proposed no definition of the term Communist terrorism", and speak about the goals of Communist terrorists (along with other terrorists), so the word "Communist" is clearly an adjective, and no new terms is defined by Drake. If I am wrong (I, as well as everybody else, can be wrong), please, provide the quote from Drake where he defines the term. Otherwise we will have to conclude that my version transmits his opinion more adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask who this "We" is? Thus far one uninvolved editor says it is fine as is. Your singular opinion on what you think drake has written carries little weight i`m afraid, the source says what it says and is quite clear and unless a consensus forms to support what you have written we shall go back to the consensus version. Tentontunic (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Under "we" I meant myself, you, and all other reasonable persons working on this article. Regarding the uninvolved user, they wrote "If it accurately summarizes Drake's views, then it is acceptable as far as OR is concerned." The question is still open, however if this condition has been met in actuality. Please, provide the fragment from the Drake's book that demonstrates that it has.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

But it does accurately portray what drake has written, and given he wrote it the nI would have to assume is in fact his view. This is why there was a consensus for the content inclusion in the first place, first at the RSN board, and then on the article talk page. I do not think it is for us to "Know" what drake meant. Tentontunic (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If one does not "know" what a source says then one cannot report it accurately. Anyway, see WP:CONSENSUS. It changes. TFD (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "But it does accurately portray what drake has written" Good. Could you please provide the quotes that demonstrate that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Original image

File:Jafr alien invasion.jpg

Besides being incorrectly licensed, the image is total baloney and is apparently not even based on an actual account of the event. Marcus Qwertyus 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what is the problem with the license. I used this image that is released in public domain by its author, and released my photo-shop image with the same license.

Of course the event was just April Fools' Day prank, but all the sources I used had some images. So I decided that wikipedia's article will benefit from an image too.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the picture used in the article is accompanied by the caption: "An artist's impression of the Jafr alien invasion" and that it bears a clear resemblance to the picture used in the BBC article. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ)

I am looking for third-party guidance on clarifying a minor point related to a specific definition used in this article and the source which is cited for that definition. It relates to NOR as it involves the creation of a definition which does not closely match the sources cited.

In the initial sentence of the current SAQ Overview section, the term "anti-Stratfordian" is defined as follows: "a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories".

The actual first sentence of that lead source ("The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms" 2008) defines anti-Stratfordian using the phrase: "Reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the true author of plays and poems published in his name".

In light of the above definition, I felt that current reconstruction of the definition was inappropriate and offered this definition: "a collective term for those reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the canon published in his name."

I offered detailed reasons which led to a LOT of rigorous discussion, but no resolution in addressing the direct point as to why a dictionary definition is preferable in this case or not. This can be viewed here: [2] under the final section entitled "Loose ends".

My simple summary of my own reasons in asking for the edit are as follows:

1) It is axiomatic that a definition should follow closely the source which is cited as a reference for that definition, especially if that source is an actual dictionary.

2) The current definition involves a combination of thoughts and ideas not represented in the source, and possibly crosses the line on WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS.

3) The definition as currently written also happens to be factually incorrect, as there are recognized "anti-Stratfordians" who express generic doubt without adhering to any specific "alternate authorship theory" or candidate. The most media-notable group of these, featured Time a 2007 story in TIME magazine (and others as it contains several high profile Shakespearean actors and the former artistic director of the Globe Theater) is known as "Doubt About Will". There were also historical anti-Stratfordians including Henry James, Sir George Greenwood, and Mark Twain who demurred as to choosing a specific candidate or authorship theory, but who met the definition as cited in the dictionary used as the source.

Advice please...

Note: This entire SAQ page was subject to an arb com a few months ago. I was not involved in this in any way, and had never commented on the SAQ before that decision or after until this specific issue. I do recognize, however, that past history may have made the remaining editors very wary of even the slightest suggestion of change. I respect that wariness and I do not view this wariness as any sort of negative reflection on any editor, but rather as understand-able and reasonable in light of the past history of this article.Rogala (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Original article[3]

I think this has been adequately discussed but feel obliged to add a note here, just to assure Rogala that this issue has been given comprehensive attention also on the original talk page.

We have:-

(1) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories.

You proposed:-

(3) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who doubt that the Shakespeare canon was written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

• The first definition is positive, focusing on the aspect of alternative authorship inexorably (logically) consequent upon a denialist position.
• The second is negative, restricting the definition purely to the denial of WS of Stratford as author.

• It follows that (1) is comprehensive of all positions whereas (3) is partial, even if underpinned by a convenient source (about which more presently).

• It is implicit in (1) that WS's authorship is denied, for that is the premise sine qua non for asserting an alternative author.
• It is not implicit in (3) that sceptics have invariably offered (Wadsworth), alongside their dismissal of WS, an alternative proposal.

• I might add that, probably inadvertently, (3) is more or less the 'official' position of the authors of the Declaration of Doubt' (i.e. the neo-Oxfordian tactical orthodoxy). That at least is what editors long familiar with the material see, i.e., an edit that would recast the authenticated WP:NPOV cast of the article towards a nuanced, subtly so, set definition preferred these days by only one of the parties whose ideas are analysed.

The present formulation, (1), is multi-sourced to Baldick 2008, pp. 17–18; Bate 1998, pp. 68–70; Wadsworth 1958, pp. 2, 6–7.

What you have done is take one sentence from Baldick, discuss Bate, and ignore Wadsworth who is, to date, the most comprehensive historian of Anti-Stratfordianism. You replace a multi-sourced formulation with just one of the RS, ignoring what the others say.

• You cited Chris Baldick's The Oxford dictionary of literary terms, (p.17) in support of your edit. 'Anti-Stratfordian Reluctant to accept William Shakespeare (1564–1616) of Stratford-upon-Avon as the true author of the plays and poems published in his name.'

• Just as Steinburg, higher up on that page was shown to have omitted the full context of Gibson's book, suppressing by some curious lapsus that decisive 'may' which undid his interpretation, so you did not apparently read to the end the whole of the definition given in Baldick (terrible name to wear, though eminently Shakespearean in its bawdy ambiguity! It gives the many Richard Cocks of this world a run for the money.)

'a succession of amateur scholars and conspiracy theorists in the 19th and 20th centuries proposed various alternatives as the 'true' author. Although disagreing among themselves on the central point of attribution, they shared common ground in their refusal to accept that a provincial glover's son . .could have written such magnificent works himself: all anti-Stratfordian theories attribute the poems and plays to a better-educated or more socially distingushed contemporary, and most of them propose that William Shakespeare was used as a front-man to disguise the true identity of the hidden genius.'(2008 pp.17-8)

• In making his laconic definition Baldick seems to support (3). In expatiating on what he means by that terse summary, it is clear that he underwrites (1).
• Even Greenwood, who had no alternative candidate specifically to propose, believed subscribed to a theory that someone else did write the play. His theory was both negative and positive, since, in addition to shellacking Arden's buffoon, he determined that the author was 'a courtly cultured aristocrat', on thoroughly at home in the Inns of Court. He has an alternative candidate theory, at least in profile. He just didn't find evidence allowing him to finger exactly who in the court was responsible.
• I might add also, as an editor who feels discretionary judgement is often required when one is overwhelmed by many sources, in order to ensure precision and avoid the kind of flood of quibbling complications that instrumental citation can produce, that Baldick's 'reluctant' strikes me as an unfortunate epithet, and 'historically' imprecise. He seems to have the extreme minority position of a Henry James uppermost in his mind, and not the vastly majoritarian drift of positive proposal in anti-Stratfordian literature. 'Reluctance' is certainly not what other historians, amply surveyed in the article detect as the basso ostinato of anti-Stratfordianism. Rather it is an alacrity at catching after 'true' candidates to replace the upstart. Every sceptic has had no doubt that someone else wrote Shakespeare. That is not clear in Baldick's definition. It is pellucid in Paul Prescott's definition:

Anti-Stratfordian' is the collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him.’ Paul Prescott, ‘Shakespeare in Popular Culture,’ in Margreta De Grazia, Stanley Wells (eds.) The New Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press, 2010 pp.269-284, p. 273)

Like our definition Prescott accentuates the point that the Anti-Stratfordian is someone who 'adheres to a theory of an authorship alternative to Shakespeare's'. In Prescott's words, paraphrased: someone who believes someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is certainly therefore misleading to simply put over that the issue is simply doubt about Will, and not also a strong conviction that someone else, most often identified, fits the author's imagined profile better.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I thank you for the volume of background material and extremely thoughtful response. I can state for the record that you have been an extremely helpful resource in this entire matter.

That being said, I truly want to see how "disinterested third parties" see this matter. If they say I am somehow "out to lunch" I respect that fully and this will be resolved quickly with their added inputs to the consensus.

My viewpoint is that when one contrasts the need to parse a) the 'complex in nature' and 'volumetric in size' background material presented here by Nishidani (which I agree is excellent material) vs. b) the simplicity of using the definition as clearly written in the DICTIONARY source already cited and approved by the FA process, it makes a prima facie case for simply using the dictionary definition.

To put it a simpler way: Why not use it ?

To digest and SYNTHESIZE all of the material above, and then create a new definition is IMHO not needed and probably treads close to WP:OR and begs the question of some sort of obscure POV issue as well. That was my entire point, but I leave the matter to other commentators to judge.

Rogala (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"To put it a simpler way: Why not use it ?" Because if you'll take the time to read past that first sentence you'll see the information that is actually used for the statement, as is obvious by reading the cite: "… anti-Stratfordian theories attribute the poems and plays to a better-educated or more socially distinguished contemporary, and most of them propose that William Shakespeare was used as a front-an to disguise the true identity of the hidden genius." That statement is partially on page 17 of the source and partially on page 18. Coincidentally, the cite actually contains that range of page numbers. There is nothing inaccurate about the edit at all, and this is a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be brief. There were 7al sources for the sentence, you chose just one. The definition we have also reflects points made by Wadsworth (I have added Prescott, and if needed, several other new sources can be added if you wish, to show that the formulation we have is rather standard) to show why that formulation was correct, and not a matter of WP:OR. Of course, I endorse your request that third eyes (no ambiguity intended) put into their tuppence worth. I'd be interested myself to hear from them, after they work comprehensively through the relevant debate on the talk page, and check all sources there. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There were three sources originally under #20 on the SAQ talk page. I commented on the first two, neither of which support the current definition and both of which were also the most timely (2008 and 1998). Let's please just let other editors view this and comment and stop re-hashing it here.

Warning for Viewers - Source #20 for this definition (as originally entered in the SAQ) has just been altered to demote Baldick from the lead source and inserting a different source by Prescott. Please take note of the original [4].Rogala (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for an alarmist warning. I noted on the talk page and here, and Tom has now seconded the fact by quoting the key section, that you engaged in a selective citation from your source. We are having problems with editors who trim and selectively misuse sources here, and then complain that those who note these things are engaged in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or both. This is rather tiring, to have to deal constantly with new editors who use the same techniques, and often, the same prose style, to make points that everyone else on the page appears to dismiss.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(An aside): I am glad you brought this up, rather than me. The term for this in the business world is "group think" and I am well familiar with it. The SAQ world does seem to show some of the classic symptoms of this phenomenon. Once this "definition issue" is disposed of, one way or another, I plan to exit (for little awhile) from the SAQ page and work on a page which is less "tiring"...to quote you. After the past few days, I have come to the conclusion that it is still too contentious an atmosphere despite the arb com and FA status.

Since you have been with wikipedia from its inception, dear Rogala, you should have acquired more of an inkling of the fact that the very mechanisms of the encyclopedia militate against 'groupthink', since there is such a thing as collegial review. At FA it is strenuous, and delightfully sceptical. It means that people who have vast experience of reading between and behind the lines of every word on an extraordinary variety of articles, experienced NPOV proof-readers, put the 'group' through the wringer, and until every tittle and jot of suspicious slanting is expunged, the prospective article won't get past GO. What your remark about Groupthink tells me is that you consider (a) the baker's dozen of editors who have raked over the page these last months are a cohesive coterie of the like-minded and (b) the gunslinging wikihands who shot through residual oversights, flaws, tendentious phrasing and then approved it as a neutral, comprehensive and eminently good example of wikipedia's work were gudgeons (well that's a nice period word) taken in by our groupist conspiracy of the unlikeable like-minded. A just-so story, very much like the just-so stories the article discusses. Personally, I welcome anything from anyone out there, Oxfordians, Marlovians, if it (1) shows a command of the scholarship and (2) is not a gambit for endless talking past the community of editors here in order to insinuate that the encyclopedia is unfair or provide the 'small but highly visible and diverse assortment' of Oxfordians who watch these pages with further proof that their grievances are a fair response to the cruelties of the world's infamous indifference to 'truth'. So don't give up, but please focus on issues that have a good grounding in both policy and the relevant scholarship. Your willingness to argue this in terms of RS was, whatever the merits of the point, commendable.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rogala, I believe I qualify as a "disinterested third party" having had some disagreements and some agreements with Tom and Nish. I certainly do not think you are "out to lunch" and I can see your point but I think you are making a mountain out of anthill. Your version is too long and cumbersome in the context. I don't think it is an OR issue since the wording has the same meaning as that in the cited ref. Poujeaux (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Poujeaux. For the record, I actually cannot quite figure out why there was such serious objection to my edit proposal to begin with. On the surface, this should just not be a "big deal" at all in terms of a proposed edit. Out of an abundance of caution, I explored it on the talk page at length after the conversation flowed this direction due TR originally bringing up a question on the sentence following it...and, well, here we are. I must admit to a tiny bit of curiosity as to exactly why a change this small is so strenuously opposed, but I am much more interested in CONTENT than guessing at the unknown.

Why am I persevering in exploring it ? Just a stickler for "precision of language" I guess...due to a background in engineering I suppose, or serious masochistic tendencies...some "couch time" probably needed for that on my part.

You wrote: "I don't think it is an OR issue since the wording has the same meaning as that in the cited ref." May I ask the question to you in this manner (sort of a "yes, no or maybe"), considering that you think that the paraphrased dictionary wording has the same meaning as the current definition in the SAQ: Do you see any reason NOT to use the closely paraphrased dictionary definition from the actual source originally cited instead ? Thanks for the feedback.Rogala (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to respond to the points raised, rather than repeat yourself. It has been pointed out several times that the simple statement currently in the article is in total agreement with the several sources cited. Further, in the above comments, you were supplied with a link to the full text cited rather than the one sentence you have chosen. The text shown at the link (on page 17 of the source and partially on page 18) fully justifies the current wording. A definition of a word like "triangle" can be precise, but it is pointless to look for a precise definition of the intrinsically vague term "anti Stratfordian". Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, this is a long post, but, at the end, I propose a final resolution which adopts Nishidani's latest suggestion, so I hope it will be worth it to anyone who endures my long-winded text. (BTW, I was desperately trying not to take up valuable space here as I was hoping for third party feedback and guidance on this point regarding WP:OR, but, so as not to be perceived as ignoring YOUR specific request as an admin, I am going to FULLY respond before I propose the resolution inspired by Nishidani.

1) In the Oxford Literary Dictionary, the first sentence in every entry is the definition as is clear even from a cursory look at a few entries. The rest is background explication but is definitely not part of the formal definition which is invariably the very first sentence. Please feel free to a) examine every single definition in the book to verify that pattern, if need be, or b) look at the first 20 pages which should prove ample, or c) perhaps just check one representative example. The first full entry on page 126 is relevant.

I pointed out SPECIFICALLY that this was the lead sentence of the lead source as follows in the SAQ talk page. Here is the quote: "The first sentence of the SAQ Overview should use the definition of "anti-Stratfordian" as provided in the first sentence of the lead source which was cited - 'The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms'. That's it."

2) Regarding the second source (Bate), I already pointed out the following on the SAQ talk page: "BTW, the second source (Bate from 1998) does not define "anti-Stratfordian" on the pages cited. He does use the phrase "the theory that William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the works of Shakespeare" in that section though, and he relates it to anti-Stratfordians a few lines down."

3) The third (of three) sources originally listed is Wadsworth 1958, pp. 2, 6–7. I do not happen to own that one, and my online check of the source using this tool [5]indicated that it did not actually use the phrase "anti-Stratfordian" at all on page 2, 6 or 7. The first time it DOES use a close phrase, per the online tool at least, it is "Stratfordian" on page 111. The tool may have a problem, so I cannot provide a guarantee on that one.

But I provided you with the full transcription of the relevant text 2 days ago on the talk page here. As you can see, Wadsworth's definition of anti-Stratfordians chimes in perfectly, it thoroughly supports, the edit you contest:

'Paradoxically, the sceptics invarably offer as a substitute for the easily explained lack of evidence concerning William Shakespeare, the more troublesome picture of a vast conspiracy of silence about the real author . . .In addition, they are all strong believers in the wonders of class distinctions . .Almost invariably this violent dislike of the man of Stratford is balanced by a frenzied worship of the sceptic's own candidate . . .'Wadsworth (1958:6)

Much of this extensive argumentation could have been avoided if you took full cognizance of all of the data provided by your interlocutors, instead of seizing on what interests you as evidence for what you propose. Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

4) Today, an editor plopped another source into the mix for the first time. This is Prescott as provided by Nishidani (note I have NOT looked at the original source for this, but I accept Nishidani's word for it): "Anti-Stratfordian' is the collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him". On this I have no comment to make other than these points:

a) If it permissible propose new sources that better support one's viewpoint than the original sources, ex post facto, in an article which was just FA approved, I was indeed unaware of it. That is my ignorance. I will remain mindful of this standard if I ever choose to re-engage on the SAQ article or talk page in the future, and

b) I think examining the current definition (#1 below) versus the three I suggested earlier on the SAQ talk page (#2-4) versus Prescott (#5) is the best way to see which one is the "odd man out".

1) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories,

2) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works long attributed to him,

3) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who doubt that the Shakespeare canon was written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon,

4) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the canon published in his name.

5) anti-Stratfordians-a collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him

I therefore formally propose a resolution to this whole issue: Let's use the definition Nishidani termed "pellucid" in his own analysis (#5 above from Prescott) with this simple (close) paraphrase which I am listing as #6:

6) "anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who believe that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays and poems commonly attributed to him".

Rogala (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the current text, or are you merely attempting to improve it?

Content is based on reliable sources, however, when discussing an issue such as whether a particular explanation is adequate, it is perfectly acceptable to point to reliable sources that are not cited in the article. Re your new proposal, the phrase "man from Stratford" is a synonym for "Shakespeare" and is too informal by comparison with the rest of the article (and the generally accepted style for all articles). What that leaves are these two alternatives for a quick definition of "anti-Stratfordians" (first the current article, then the proposal):

1. a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories
2. a collective term for those who believe that someone other than the Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems commonly attributed to him

In the context of the article, the second is just a long-winded way of saying the first. Apparently there is something about the second that appeals to you, but the distinction is not worth making, and it is entirely pointless looking for a precise and rigorous definition of a vague term like "anti-Stratfordian". A definition of "triangle" can exclude things like squares, but "anti-Stratfordian" means what the speaker wants it to mean. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Is there something wrong with the current text, or are you merely attempting to improve it?"

It is factually incorrect as there are those who do not ascribe to any of the alternate authorship theories, but do "doubt" or "question" or are "reluctant to accept/believe" that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the canon. The single most notable anti-Stratfordian group in terms of recent media coverage ("The Doubt About Will" group) are the prime current example. There are also other historical examples as well...including several of the most prominent skeptics of the past.

The consensus of the other editors against correcting this factual error, and the unwillingness to simply use any one of the actual definitions in the sources cited (one of which is a DICTIONARY for terms such as this) is incredibly odd to my mind. Others can decide that for themselves...

If no one else sees it that way, I suppose it is a "dead issue" for now....until such time as others might care/take notice of such things.Rogala (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Others cannot see a "factual error" at all. And in any case, your most recent post clearly indicates that the claim of "original research" was just a way for you to promote what you consider to be The Truth. Vague doubts about Shakespeare do not constitute "anti-Stratfordianism" any more than mere doubts about American culture or policies constitute "anti-Americanism". Imagine that someone put up a petition asking people to sign a statement that one had reasonable doubts about American foreign policy. Do you really think that the signatories could legitimately all be labeled "anti-American". Now that would be OR indeed. One has to reach at least a certain point of serious scepticism before the "anti" prefix becomes meaningful. We have already dealt with the point that the current phrasing does not require that an anti-Statfordian must "ascribe to any of the alternate authorship theories." The phasing allows the "anti-Stratfordian" to deny W.S. without affirming anyone else. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@Paul B, you wrote "We have already dealt with the point that the current phrasing does not require that an anti-Statfordian must "ascribe to any of the alternate authorship theories." The phasing allows the "anti-Stratfordian" to deny W.S. without affirming anyone else."

I acknowledge your viewpoint, but ask: To what then, are these people "adherents" (as in the SAQ phrase "adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories"? Can you explain that one word if your contention is correct? If they are "adherents" they must be "adhering " to something, right?

It is my contention that an original theory has crept into the article via a technically incorrect (and ORIGINAL) group definition (as in "not supported directly by the definitions in the sources cited") which has been used to facilitate generalizations about that group. That, in my HONEST OPINION, crosses the line into synthesis. I did not claim that it was intentional and I do say it can EASILY be corrected by merely using the definition provided by the sources ORIGINALLY cited plus some simple changes to the following sentences (the use of "often" and "usually" as proposed by TR).

If the current cohort of editors and the third parties who view this page think I am wrong, so be it....then the issue will die of its own accord, as I will not pursue it further at this time. Please be aware that I well understand the need for consensus.

@Paul B, you also wrote: "your most recent post clearly indicates that the claim of "original research" was just a way for you to promote what you consider to be The Truth."

My most recent post was an answer to a DIRECT question from Johnuniq in the post immediately preceding it. Please read the sequence again if that is unclear. Johnuniq queried "Is there something wrong with the current text, or are you merely attempting to improve it?" Please know that I would not have started this entire notice board thread if I was merely trying to improve it. I am trying to point out a case of OR while also citing a factual error.

Please also be aware that I "promote" nothing other than RIGOROUS standards of word choice consistent with being 100% accurate.

The fact that you just called me a liar or at least ascribed me guilty of some sort of calculated misrepresentation is offensive. In my opinion, you are being personally pejorative as opposed to commenting substantively, and I regret that you have taken that approach. Please be aware that I am requesting that you retract that statement as a matter of both fact and civility and that I do intend to seek redress through the appropriate WP avenues for dealing with this sort of ad hominem if you do not.Rogala (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You are crossing into difficult territory since you have just claimed that an editor "called [you] a liar or at least ascribed [you] guilty of some sort of calculated misrepresentation". Please fully retract that before making any further comments. The alternative is to make a report at WP:WQA where you quote the exact text that you find to be a problem, and explain why it justifies your description. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification - @Paul B: Am I somehow misinterpreting this comment by you: "your most recent post clearly indicates that the claim of "original research" was just a way for you to promote what you consider to be The Truth" ? Are you, or are you not stating that I misrepresented myself by posting in the NOR notice board? Please remember, it was you who encouraged me to do so here. If not, may I ask what you are saying? I am asking this per the "try and talk it out" advice of the WP:DR Dispute Resolution guidelines.Rogala (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My explanation of that statement is simple. I meant that you personally believe that a particular wording is more accurate, and that you came to this board because you hoped that NOR rules would support your aspiration. I am not the only person who has said this. I don't think any editor can reasonably accept that you do not have a personal investment in this wording given the vast amount of time and space you have devoted to what everyone else considers to be a non-issue. No other editor - pro or anti Stratfordian - has had a problem with this. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that this discussion has devolved into what all SAQ discussion devolve into, and that most of it belongs on the SAQ talk page. Would an administrator please make the appropriate edit? As I said earlier, this is a sad waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It is becoming more obvious what a waste of time this is, but I suppose there's no help for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dark Ages

Can someone explain: "Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making great advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed anything significant to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E.[ref name="History of Science"]"History of Science"[/ref] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking."

The comment made on the talk page, which was then erased and I had to go through history to find it was:

Your reference doesn't actually contain the claim you made in the article, and it reads more as an opinion piece than as encyclopedic content. See the policy against original research or synthesis

We are allowed to add things aren't we? If you review the history you only find 5 Latin Europeans that made significant (other than rewriting others works) contributions, while there were multiple original discoveries/advancements in science and engineering by others during this period. That is neither Original research or synthesis, any more than saying there are 5 red apples in a multitude of red and yellow apples and oranges. The statement of a simple truth is not research or synthesis, if it was then Wikipedia could be nothing other than a collection of quotes from people who have been published!

As far as the translation of the Arabic texts, this is common knowledge for anyone who has ever dealt with the sciences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 April 20 (UTC)

"The statement of a simple truth is not research or synthesis, if it was then Wikipedia could be nothing other than a collection of quotes from people who have been published!" - Wikipedia is meant to be a summary of "quotes from people who have been published" (see WP:NOR, WP:V etc.). The assertion in question is not really supported by the source given (it says nothing about the period as such), thus it is original research - and, may I add, bad original research (how would one even count "people [...] that contributed anything significant to science"?). I'd say the text should be deleted and forgotten. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is original research. We shouldn't be writing things that people haven't written about. If you can provide citation saying something like that then yes it sounds like it might be worthwhile including but not otherwise. Personally I feel the statement worrying as a proper source would quantify what they meant by 'significant' for instance rather than going by gut feel. Dmcq (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• A minor remark: the talk page (Talk:Dark Ages) was never cleared - I just moved the comment to the bottom of the page, where it belongs, and added my response to it. Others also commented on the addition. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"to be a summary of" -

Summary #1 "Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark,"

Summary #2 "they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making great advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed anything significant to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E."

What is wrong with these two summaries, or why are they not summaries? Am I not just reducing what has been quoted and summarized by the other parts of the article?

Such as, if I go to the discussion about electrons, is it not proper to state - "Scientists have not yet been able to quantify the size of electrons except that they are smaller than the classical electron radius"?

Changing significant to original would make it a better statement and as such I will change significant to original.

Lets look at an entry in the article for comparison:

"He spent much of his time travelling through Europe rediscovering and republishing classic Latin and Greek texts." - No source, but accepted

"He wanted to restore the classical Latin language to its former purity." - No source and purely speculative as to his intentions.

"Humanists saw the preceding 900-year period as a time of stagnation."- No source and I would challenge anyone to say they can actually tell us what the world view of all the Humanists were at that point in time. An extremely speculative statement, and yet accepted.

"They saw history unfolding, not along the religious outline of Saint Augustine's Six Ages of the World, but in cultural (or secular) terms through the progressive developments of classical ideals, literature, and art." - No source and I would challenge anyone to say they can actually tell us what the world view of all the Humanists were at that point in time. An extremely speculative statement, and yet accepted.

"However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[8][9]" and Quoting 2 (two) scholars in history is not MANY scholars of history - it is actually a very minor number. And yet this blatantly obvious misdirection is accepted.

"bad original research (how would one even count "people [...] that contributed anything significant to science"?)" - Ad hominid wording?

"how would one even count "people [...] that contributed anything significant to science"?" - Look at the list of known scientific accomplishments and then count.

"We shouldn't be writing things that people haven't written about." - I didn't, I simply summarized and counted, kind of like the other millions of entries in Wikipedia.

I could understand how this would be original research if I had taken entries from various authors, did statistical analysis, and showed that there was a relationship between the number of original contributions and the spread of a religion to different regions. I did not do that. I simply brought forward the fact that there were few original contributions from Latin Europe during this period by adding them up, and noting that the cited authors had not quantified that. No original research, just a summery of what the article had already stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument for increasing the amount of crap. I will not waste my time looking at your list of possible other problems but look at the one that has been brought here explicitly and people have explicitly complained about. Counting things you found with your criteria is original research, if it is interesting enough to include somebody else would have written something similar and you could cite it. As it is there are lot of ways to view what happened during the Dark Ages in Europe, it could also be seen as a spread of knowledge around Europe, the Golden Age in Ireland for instance was right in the middle of it and they sent missionaries around Europe to set up schools some of which later became important universities. Would I be entitled to say it was a flowering of knowledge throughout Europe, no not without some citations saying so. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with what had been said above - apparently, you looked at a particular list of people who contributed to the development of science (with no clear criteria for inclusion), found out that it only listed five Europeans during the period of 250 CE - 1200 CE, and added it as a statement of fact to the article. I am afraid this is a textbook example of original synthesis, which is outside of scope of Wikipedia. Some other material already in the article may not be properly referenced, either, but that isn't really relevant on whether or not your section is appropriate for inclusion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And I now better understand what is going on. You will prevent any idea you do not like to nit-picked to death, and yet those false ideas you agree with are perfectly acceptable. And I know this because you have not removed or annotated any of the items I have listed, just used the old excuse, well other people did it but I'm not going to say anything because deep down in my heart I believe them to be right.

Lets look at the quote - "However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[8][9]" You have let this be part of the article for quite some time now, and I can analyze it this way:

This is not a good argument for increasing the amount of crap. I will not waste my time researching all the authors who may or may not have said they are avoiding the term. Counting things (and to say many you must count) you found with your criteria is original research, if it is interesting enough to include somebody else would have written something similar and you could cite it, but you cited nobody so nobody must have said it before. As it is there are lot of ways to view what happened during the Dark Ages in Europe, it could also be seen as a spread of knowledge around Europe, the Golden Age in Ireland for instance was right in the middle of it and they sent missionaries around Europe to set up schools some of which later became important universities. Would I be entitled to say it was a flowering of knowledge throughout Europe, no not without some citations saying so, and the original research you left about how "many" modern scholars tend to avoid the term.

This same analysis can can be applied to statement after statement in Wikipedia. As a matter of fact youre analysis can be applied to any non directly quoted statement anywhere in Wikipedia. My statement of facts meets the same criteria as other statements made, and as such should be accepted if Wikipedia is an even handed organization. The rules must be followed, but they must be applied equally to all.

And my source is as reliable and probably less biased one way or the other than many of the sources quoted in this article. Their criteria may be, since they are basically Latin European, slightly biased in favor of Latin Europeans. I thought one of the criteria for Wikipedia was not "Truth" but rather accuracy in who said/did what?

After reading my original statement over again, I think I would change it to read: Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E. And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking.

To make it more of statement of the facts. I changed "they can not", implying that I know what they can do, to "they have not" a statement of fact. And, I realize it is impossible to sight all possible works to prove a negative, but the negative is still valid. Then anyone who knows of them quantifying this can site a source as a counter argument.

Interesting quote right below this entry space; "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk • contribs)

Look, everyone else who has weighed in finds your edit to be inappropriate, and have explained why. There's really nothing more to say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then look at things like:
"Baronius's "dark age" seems to have struck historians as something they could use, for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages, with his original Latin term, "saeculum obscurum", being reserved for the period he had applied it to. But while some historians, following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records, others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians."

Really - who says "for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages" - No source.
And - "being reserved for the period he had applied it to" - Who reserved this? The author of this article?
And - "But while some historians" - Again, how would I verify this?
And - "following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records" - Who said this is so, there are no sources. Is this also original research?
And - "others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians." this statement is so full of original research and down right falsehoods it is laughable.

This is only from one paragraph in the article, imagine what can be done if the entire article is analyzed. How can anyone with any sense of fairness say that what I have put forth is not acceptable when that same person has accepted this. Fair application of the rules is not being used here, but rather a hidden agenda.

And just because you (Cuchullain) say quit or you will not be liked by "everybody" else is an answer? Who ever thinks that getting closer to the truth is best handled by the FEELINGS of the majority is either not aware of reality or not mature enough to understand that one cannot allow blatant half truths to be left standing.

Mr Mike Rosoft:
Your statement -
"apparently, you looked at a particular list of people who contributed to the development of science (with no clear criteria for inclusion), found out that it only listed five Europeans during the period of 250 CE - 1200 CE, and added it as a statement of fact to the article. I am afraid this is a textbook example of original synthesis, which is outside of scope of Wikipedia"
The wording from Wikipedia on this manner is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I have not reached or implied any conclusions. I have simply stated a set of facts. Those facts are; and they are not in any way a conclusion on my part:
1. Only about 5 Latin Europeans provided original research during this 1000yr period - Not my research, just a fact that is published.
2. None of the cited authors that I could find said anything about this dearth of advancement in the Latin European region during the Dark ages.
I did not make any conclusions as to what caused this dearth of advancement as in Wiki's example:
" A simple example of original synthesis:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

• Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace.
  
• If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the
  
• same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."

You will notice that in the first example, an analysis of their performance is implied by the use of the word but to IMPLY that they were not doing their job, and in the second example they use the word only to imply that they had done a good job.
A true none synthesized statement would be:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

My statement makes no such analysis. I do not say anything about the dark ages themselves, only that the authors of today have not quantified the dearth of contributions. I drew no conclusions what so ever, and I did not imply any conclusions either!

And anyone who follows the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure with any fairness would just point out what they think any analysis in my statment was. Just stating - ITS ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND NOT ALLOWED is not following Wiki's procedures and is not in any sense part of dispute resolution, so I am assuming that the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of the opposing arguments are just that - wastes of time and energy. If anyone has valid arguments about possible synthesis I would be more than happy to read and consider them. Otherwise I think we should stick to Wiki's general rules - offer proof of your arguments and avoid the personal and emotional attacks.

Interminable rants like this will win you no friends. It is barely possible to decipher what you are saying. If you want to argue a point be concise. You will just put off editors with long rambling pronouncements to which they cannot respond usefully. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"If you want to argue a point be concise" - Please inform the editors who have responded with the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of this. Without multiple illogical responses I could be concise, with a lot fewer words.

Concise point #1 - Several editors attack using ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals - I do not respond. Editor says - No more discussion everyone agrees and you have not said otherwise. Like I'm going to let that happen!

As far as I can see your edit was derived from a book of scientific innovators. You then attempted to link this to the concept of the "dark ages". Well, was that connection made in the book? I get the impression it was not. In any case, the term "dark ages" has never referred specifically to science. One might say that if there had been artistic or scholarly achievements of other kinds it would not have been called dark. It's also not clear what you are trying to say. You appear to be criticising scholars who have said that the "dark ages" were not so dark after all. You imply that the evidence about science demonstrates they are wrong. But why? Do they say there were great scientific inovations? Not as far as I can see. And why do you characterise these scholars as "religious"? Paul B (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Point #2 - No - It was not mentioned in ANY book - that is my point! Nobody has quantified that.
Point #3 - What words imply that I think they (the authors) are wrong? [I see this as a truly possible synthesis problem.]
Point #4 - Some authors were - Dwyer, John C., Church history: twenty centuries of Catholic Christianity, (1998);Syed Ziaur Rahman, Were the “Dark Ages” Really Dark?, Grey Matter (The Co-curricular Journal of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College), Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 2003;Daileader, Philip (2001). The High Middle Ages. The Teaching Company. ISBN 1-56585-827-1. "Catholics living during the Protestant Reformation were not going to take this assault lying down. They, too, turned to the study of the Middle Ages, going back to prove that, far from being a period of religious corruption, the Middle Ages were superior to the era of the Protestant Reformation, because the Middle Ages were free of the religious schisms and religious wars that were plaguing the 16th and 17th centuries."; etc.
In addition there are enough religious references in the article to choke the proverbial horse. The article itself seems to imply it was all Religions fault some how and someone is trying to apologize for it.

point 2 - then it's OR, if it is not a point made in "any book"! point 3: The expression "they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian... etc" seems to be a criticism of the scholars who "cannot quantify", but admitedly your English is rather to confusing to know exactly what you are trying to say. Also comparing western Europe with the rest of the entire world is almost intevitably going to mean that more will come out of the latter than the former. That tells us nothing about whether or not the term "dark ages" is useful. point 3. The sources you cit are not "religious". The point about Catholics is that Catholics were reacting to the equation of scientific innovation with the Protestant reformation, a point often argued by Protestant writers. But the modern historians quoted are not "religious", so again it is not at all clear what you are trying to engage with. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Point #2 - OR is drawing a conclusion based on 2 different sources. I did not draw any conclusions. To quote Wiki's own requirements - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion". What conclusion have I reached? None. I have simply stated that no authors have quantified that. A statement of fact, not a conclusion.
Point #3 - You missed my revision. I changed "they cannot quantify" to "they have not".
Point #4 - Because I am not willing to spend my time to quote everything about these authors, I will remove the religious from the statement and make it.
Although scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E. And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking.
Beyond this, this point has nothing to do with synthases and as such I will no longer discuss it.

On a personal note Mr. Paul Barlow - the statement "but admitedly your English is rather to confusing to know exactly what you are trying to say." is just an antagonizing ad hominem attack which may well indicate you are running out of logical arguments against my statement. That is often, but not always, the route these things take when one side is loosing.

Why not include this reference - admitedly it is only about mathematicians. It took me less time to find that to read through all the discussion about OR. Martinvl (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent source. Will use it and then when this finished, add the science part.

So your preferred version is "Although scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E." This is still ungrammatical and barely intelligible. The phrase "they have not quantified the fact" makes no clear sense, but is apparently an implied criticism of these "scholars". I think you mean to say that they haven't taken it into account. Also, there shouldn't be an apostrophe in "Muslims". Since none of the scholars quoted in the article say anything about scientific advances, this is irrelevant. It is clearly WP:SYN as it is expressly intended to counter the views of scholars by using a questionable piece of information from a source that does not even address the topic. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Objectivist Party

I've been debating with another editor at Talk:Objectivist Party#Synthesis concerns about material pulled from a primary source that pre-dates the party's existence. Decades ago, Ayn Rand made comments in a Q&A session to the effect that she did not want a political party to be created based on her ideas. Fast forward to 2008, and a small political party was founded claiming to be based on her ideas. My take is that referencing Rand's earlier comment from primary sources is original research, because there is no source that connects those comments to the specific subject of the article, which formed long after her death. The other editor doesn't see a problem. Given the low traffic of the article, there is a lack of other input, so feedback from outside editors would be appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem as well. I think you're correct that having the assertions bound in a single statement is a violation of synth, and the use of a primary source is to be avoided in this case. If no 2ndary sources can be found that support the notion that Rand was opposed to formation of political groups based on her view of things, probably best to avoid it altogether as a interesting fact that is not significant enough for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and abortion

Please intervene to settle an overlong unresolved discussion about the legitimacy, in Christianity and abortion#Early Christian thought on abortion, of using A Companion to Bioethics by Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer in support of the statement that early Christians "believed, as the Greeks did, in delayed ensoulment, or that a fetus does not have a soul until quickening, and therefore early abortion was not murder".

The source states: "Following Aristotle, various thinkers—including Thomas Aquinas—thought that only the abortion of an animated fetus constituted homicide. ... By and large, this view remained dominant until 1869". A defender of using this source has stated that it "says the view was held from Aristotle through 1869, which more than encompasses the period we're talking about. Why would we assume early Christians were exempted if the source doesn't say so?" and "to assume that their (the early Christians') view was different, in the absence of a source that says so, contravenes WP:V." The opposite view has been expressed thus: "(The source) does not state that the dominant view was shared by that minority who were Christians. It's their view, not the dominant one, that's in question. ... To assume that their view was the same, in the absence of a source that 'directly and explicitly' (WP:OR), 'clearly and directly' (WP:V) says so, contravenes WP:OR."

Discussion of the question is found in the last third of Talk:Christianity and abortion#"Catholic Answers" and "Facts of Life", starting at 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC). Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and balanced description of the disagreement (though I would add the sentence contained in your ellipsis, "Animation was presumed to occur at forty days for male fetuses, and ninety days for female fetuses," for the benefit of users less familiar with the discussion). I also liked my comment about Texas though. :) ("If we had a source that said 'Texas was an independent nation from 1836 to 1846,' we wouldn't ask for a source that said it was an independent nation in 1840.") Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the source as evidence about Early Christians, nor do I see a useful analogy with the independence of Texas. A nation is or isn't independent. The range 1836-1846 nececitates 1840, so the source inevitably asserts that it was independent in 1840. The quoted source about abortion says, "Following Aristotle, various thinkers—including Thomas Aquinas—thought that only the abortion of an animated fetus constituted homicide. ... By and large, this view remained dominant until 1869." So "various thinkers" believed something, implying that others disagreed. The existence of a "dominant" view also implies the existence of a minority view. If the source said "all commentators believed X until 1869...", then one would have a case for including "early Christians", but I see none here. Obviously Aquinas was a Christian, but not an "early Christian". Of course it's equally true that "to assume that their (the early Christians') view was different, in the absence of a source that says so, contravenes WP:V." We can't assume that their view was different, but neither can we assume that their view was the same. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas was probably the most influential theologian of his day... and if he followed Aristotle's thinking on this, it is likely that the majority of Christians did as well (especially those who came after Aquinas and were influenced by him). While there is a possibility that a few Christians held opposing views (Splitters!), we would need sources that talk about them to explicitly say so. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Aquinas is later than the period in question. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed "his day" was about a thousand years later! He was certainly no early Christian. The disputed source says nothing whatever of the attitude of early Christians, neither that they adopted the majority view nor that they rejected it. But the source is nevertheless cited to support a claim that they held the majority view. Esoglou (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Spartacus: Blood and Sand

On the possible use of original research in the article. Been open for two weeks but only two users have participated. Need more participation in order that a consensus become clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

White Latin American

Could someone weigh in on the discussion at Talk:White_Latin_American#Pictures_have_got_to_go regarding the image gallery here and the WP:EGRS policy. None of the people in the image gallery are sourced as self-identifying as "White Latin Americans" so the inclusion is basically OR.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2011

There's a dispute at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2011 over a section of the article "Contentious Ridings", listing in table form the constituencies that meet one of three criteria (e.g. slim margin of victory in the previous election) thought to make the district a swing riding. The source given in the current version of the article is "Data adapted from Elections Canada Official results". There have been edits deleting this section which were promptly reverted: [6] [7] [8] [9]. I'm not asking for enforcement; rather, I'm posting here in hopes that users experienced with the NOR policy can make useful suggestions to preserve this section of the article. —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Y Solved (hopefully) see talk page of article --Obsolete.fax (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Patria

The article on the Patria case reads like original research. One section for instance, "European Union Art. 346 and Arms Trade", not only provides hypotheses for corruption allegations, but also decides for the reader how likely each hypothesis is. The Background section reads like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kawi family

This template suggests there is such a thing as a "Kawi family" of scripts. I do not know of any publication that mentions this concept. Without reliable source, this is OR. Martijn ^→!?← 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Peak oil

Are the last two paragraphs in Peak_oil#Effects_of_rising_oil_prices original research? 206.188.60.1 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)