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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Clockwork universe theory

Upon Talk:Clockwork universe theory we had a very sophisticated discussion about whether the scientific consensus is that the world in itself would be indeterministic. Since the other party objected to quoting Interpretations of quantum mechanics#Comparison of interpretations and an article by a Nobel prizewinner in physics as evidence that there is no such scientific consensus upon this matter and has produced no reliable sources to substantiate his/her view, I ask for an objective review of this claim in respect to being original research and/or original synthesis. If there are no reliable sources which affirm with utmost certainty that the scientists have consensually agreed upon the world in itself being indeterministic, I ask for either stating that there is no scientific consensus upon this issue or to the total deletion of any claims about present-day scientific consensus in respect to this issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The mentioned article is Gerard 't Hooft (2006) "The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics" in Beyond the Quantum, World Scientific, Th. M. Nieuwenhuizen et al, ed., pp.3-19; ITP-UU-06/14, SPIN-06/12, quant-ph/0604008, at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604008 . Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork Universe

The point at issue was not whether 't Hooft was a nobel prize winner and especially not on any of the issues in the Wikipedia page on scientific consensus which did not in any way discuss a clockwork universe or determinism or 't Hooft but rather discussed how science evolves in general. This obfuscation is fustrating and contributes to a smoke screen of indirection about the fact, in my opinion, that 't Hooft doesn't claim annything like what the other correspondent claims he says. I put in several references to 't Hooft's papers and to other works in a similar vein to try to clarify the issue. That these references support my position is not my fault because I had nothing to do with them whatever. I do however recommend reading them and welcome an informed critique. Best wishes...

Why not submit the issue to 't Hooft himself or one of his gratuate students? Couldn't hurt to ask, not so?JudgementSummary (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockworks

Well, it is you who has to substantiate the big sweeping claim that scientists have established the scientific fact that the world in itself is indeterministic. Do offer quotes, stating expressly this. Till now, you have not presented any source which expressly claims that this would be the scientific consensus. Namely that it would be the consensus, an informed view of a number of physicists does not establish consensus. I have presented four of five names of post-Bell physicists who think that the world in itself is deterministic. They have read Bell's paper, they know what the equations of quantum mechanics are about and they still disagree with the idea that the world is indeterministic. It is not me who has to prove something, you have to prove your claim by backing it with reliable sources. Till now, you have not quoted anything even remotely saying what the consensus is in this matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can read below, the issue of determinism has not been decided.

Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. This was the subject of the famous Bohr–Einstein debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr and there is still no consensus.

— Determinism#Quantum realm

In his last writing on the topic, Einstein further refined his position, making it completely clear that what really disturbed him about the quantum theory was the problem of the total renunciation of all minimal standards of realism, even at the microscopic level, that the acceptance of the completeness of the theory implied. Although the majority of experts in the field agree that Einstein was wrong, the current understanding is still not complete (see Interpretation of quantum mechanics).

— Bohr–Einstein debates#Post-Revolution: Fourth stage

(Einstein was wrong does not imply determinism is wrong.)

So, I'm far from being the only editor who thinks that the interpretations of quantum mechanics show that the matter has not been consensually decided. The quoted articles are less marginal than the article about the clockwork universe, they have been reviewed by many informed editors, who had a chance to object to the idea that there is no scientific consensus in this matter. I don't claim that Wikipedia would be a reliable source for Wikipedia, I only claim that the discussion belongs in the talk page of these articles rather than in the talk page of a marginal article. It may even be an abuse to quote 't Hooft and his reviewers in an article which does not even refer to quantum mechanics, but presents a mechanical understanding of the Universe dating from Newton's time. And, again: show me the sources. I mean sources expressly stating that the matter has been consensually decided. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase it: if there is no consensus, it ain't a fact! As simple as this. The consensus of scientists forges facts. How do you know that water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade? Because it is written in physics manuals. Why it is written there? Because scientists have consensually agreed upon it. The consensus of historians forges historical facts, the consensus of medics forges medical facts, the consensus of physicists forges physical facts. Don't tell me about experiments, engineers don't experiment to find the boiling point of mercury but find it in handbooks. Handbooks are a source for Wikipedia, not original (unpublished) experiments. Physicists do perform experiments and if they agree, they tell others that is is a fact. I do acknowledge that consensus isn't unanimity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Forge" is used as explained by Merriam-Webster: "3 : to form or bring into being especially by an expenditure of effort <working to forge party unity>". Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus

Look at the references I gave you. We have good scientific evidence via Bell's theorem for indeterminism. You can't deny the evidence just because you can't seem to understand it. And your criticism "Criticism of the claim that Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism" is unscientific and factually WRONG. And you keep quoting and re-quoting the wikipedia page on scientific consensus which does not discuss t'Hooft or quantum mechanics or indeterminism or Bell as if you had such consensus. Why you want to supress the findings of a major branch of physics is beyond me. JudgementSummary (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And you seem to be requiring a scientific consensus on the subject which will NEVER happen especially given the many uninformed/uneducated opinions on ALL aspects of quantum mechanics... From your writings I see you have a strong religious requirement for your point of view but that is not a reason to supress mention of literally hundreds [maybe a thousand] of peer-reviewed references to the validity of the indeterministic findings of quantum mechanics experiments based on Bell's experiments... JudgementSummary (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

scientific consensus revisited

The scientific consensus is a scientists-only club, no popular press or public opinion included. Again: show me the sources. Either they have to say "it is a scientific fact that the world is indeterministic" or "the consensus among physicists is that the world is indeterministic". Lacking such sources, your opinion, however informed, amounts to a big, flat zero. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being slightly off-track, I would remark (I do not have time to chase up sources for this but they exist) that reliable sources say that the Schroedinger equation is deterministic, though single particular measurements based on it are not. It is the Schroedinger equation that describes the evolution of the defined system, not the single particular measurements. The mention of a 'Schroedinger equation for the whole world' makes the mind boggle.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you an example: the consensus of biologists is that evolution is true. This had been shown with reliable sources to the point that every creationist theory and even intelligent design are treated by default like WP:FRINGE/PS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, evolution is a fact of biology, not a theory. Or evolution is the paradigm of biology, if you prefer fussy language. E.g.:

Two offshoots of creationism—[[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]]—have been characterized as [[pseudoscience]] by the mainstream [[scientific community]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/science|title=Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations |publisher=National Center for Science Education|accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>

— Creationism

There is no church involved in such consensus and no popular press. A public opinion survey was not required to say that creation science and intelligent design are pseudoscience. This is what I meant by "scientists-only club". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I require sources like "Determinism has been definitively refuted. This is a scientific fact./It is agreed by all physicists who live by publish or perish." I need to know who said it, when he/she said it, in which scientific journal has said it, if it was published with peer-review and so on. What I do not demand at all is chatter about Bell's theorem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there should be lots of reputable 2nd party sources discussing a variety of view of what the current consensus is and where it is going. (Hopefully towards indeterminism, being my POV.) Search books google for "scientific consensus on indeterminism" and [https://www.google.com/search?num=40&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbo=d&tbm=bks&q=scientific+consensus+on+determinism&btnG= "scientific consensus on indeterminism". CarolMooreDC 01:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not something definitively solved and dealt with, as the quote below shows. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The key question is whether to understand the nature of this probability as epistemic or ontic. Along epistemic lines, one possibility is that there is some additional factor (i.e., a hidden mechanism) such that once we discover and understand this factor, we would be able to predict the observed behavior of the quantum stoplight with certainty (physicists call this approach a "hidden variable theory"; see, e.g., Bell 1987, 1-13, 29-39; Bohm 1952a, 1952b; Bohm and Hiley 1993; Bub 1997, 40-114, Holland 1993; see also the preceding essay in this volume by Hodgson). Or perhaps there is an interaction with the broader environment (e.g., neighboring buildings, trees) that we have not taken into account in our observations that explains how these probabilities arise (physicists call this approach decoherence or consistent histories¹⁵). Under either of these approaches, we would interpret the observed indeterminism in the behavior of stoplights as an expression of our ignorance about the actual workings. Under an ignorance interpretation, indeterminism would not be a fundamental feature of quantum stoplights, but merely epistemic in nature due to our lack of knowledge about the system. Quantum stoplights would turn to be deterministic after all.

— Robert C. Bishop in Robert Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition, OUP, 2011, p. 90

Another quote below. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, was Einstein wrong? In the sense that the EPR paper argued in favour of an objective reality for each quantum particle in an entangled pair independent of the other and of the measuring device, the answer must be yes. But if we take a wider view and ask instead if Einstein was wrong to hold to the realist's belief that the physics of the universe should be objective and deterministic, we must acknowledge that we cannot answer such a question. It is in the nature of theoretical science that there can be no such thing as certainty. A theory is only 'true' for as long as the majority of the scientific community maintain a consensus view that the theory is the one best able to explain the observations. And the story of quantum theory is not over yet.

— J.E. Baggott, Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy, and the Meaning of Quantum Theory, OUP, 2004, p. 203

once more into the breach

Please read the references I gave you and read why Bell's theorem is exceptionally strong experimental evidence the world is indeterministic. It really isn't that hard to understand... and no you still misquote Schroedinger's equation... what you said is wrong... and your section on "criticism of the claim quantum mechanics is indeterministic" is not only off point, mistates what the references say, and in more than one area completely wrong.... the question seems to be why you want to write on the subject anyway... just curious...

JudgementSummary (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) For reference, it is the wavefunction itself which is probabilistic/indeterministic. Schroedinger's equation, given precise initial conditions, describes with great accuracy how the wavefunction evolves in time; but this is not determinism. The consequences of a probability wave are that we cannot predict individual microscopic events and we get such things as tunneling thru energy barriers. Now is the wavefunction real or just a mathematical construct. Bell derived an equation that allows us to TEST EXPERIMENTALLY whether the wavefunction is real or not.

Quite a suprise that this is possible. Experiments all indicate the wavefunction is real, that nature is indeterministic, and that God plays dice. And like Einstein said when the Nazi's got 2000+ German physicists to sign a paper saying Relativity was nonsense... something to the effect, that "all the opinion in the world was meaningless if the theory gave correct predicitions, but that a single predictive failure would destroy it entirely" I would have thought you understood that.... but in any event you might think about it a little.... and again read the references on Bell's theorem I gave when I first wrote the section Objections due to Quantum Mechanics.... please... JudgementSummary (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

breach revisited

Show me your sources with precise quotes stating expressly what I have demanded. I don't need chatter about Bell's theorem, I need exact quotes. I have given above two quotes from reliable sources (both published by Oxford University Press) that the matter has not been decided. So there is definitely no such thing as scientific consensus upon determinism having been refuted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, please do not split this topic again, it all should remain under a single NORN notice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can challenge the reliability of the quotes from Kane/Bishop and Baggott, I consider this matter solved and the notice should be closed. In this case the verdict should remain that there is no scientific consensus upon determinism having been definitively refuted. I hope you cannot seriously claim that I have misunderstood Kane/Bishop and Baggott. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me draw a sketch of your case:

• you have to show that the hidden variables approach has been definitively refuted;
• you have to show that the decoherence approach has been definitively refuted;
• even if you show both of the above using reliable sources, it still amounts to a case of WP:SYNTH, since you are drawing your own conclusion rather that letting reliable sources speak. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

breech revisited yet again

Hopefully we are beyond your name calling and religious objections in Talk:Clockwork universe theory. Tgeorgescu and Tgeorgescu.

You demand a simpler explanation for Bell's Theorem than given in the references I quoted when I wrote Clockwork Universe:Objections due to Quantum Mechanics which provides well accepted experimental evidence for the indeterminism of quantum particles. I for one would like to see an error free version of your submission of the paragraph you wrote in Clockwork Universe::Criticism of the Claim Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism. You make grandiose claims for determinism, misunderstand Bell's theorm, and even quote results which provide definitive experimental proof for INdeterminism as doing exactly the opposite.

Why can't you simply read the wikipedia page on Bell's theorem and the conclusion which flatly refutes your assertions.

The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics [which for the uninitiated means hidden variables and its inherent determinism unlike quantum mechanics]

And just exactly what loopholes remain... not non-locality (over 18 km already tested).... not efficiency (over 90% and even one at 100% but not non-local).... ? see the wikipedia page on Bell's experiments....

AND THEN you say that "even if you show both of the above using reliable sources, it still amounts to a case of WP:SYNTH, since you are drawing your own conclusion rather that letting reliable sources speak".... Even if I reference/quote RELIABLE SOURCES, that is not good enough for you??? Really??? Without further comment, I think I will let that rest on its own merits. Thank you.

And please remove your unfounded opinions in your section which really is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Really and thanks JudgementSummary (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

once again

I have provided two reliable sources and offered quotes from them, quotes which do support my point. One of the quotes even quotes Bell's paper, so it did not arise out of ignorance of Bell's theorem. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, so if your source is Wikipedia, you have zero sources. Again: show me your sources which say that determinism has been definitively vanquished. What you've done till now is bragging and idle chatter about Bell's theorem. Wikipedia needs sources, not chatter or bragging. I do acknowledge that Bell's theorem says that there are consequences for determinism and consequences for indeterminism, but to this date there is no perfect experimental validation of Bell's maths and of his assumptions, see the quote below. And applied maths remains applied maths, it only becomes physics if experimentally validated.

Experimenters have repeatedly stated that loophole-free tests can be expected in the near future (García-Patrón, 2004). On the other hand, some researchers point out that it is a logical possibility that quantum physics itself prevents a loophole-free test from ever being implemented (Gill, 2003, [1]; Santos, 2005, [2] ).

— Bell test experiments

By sources I mean García-Patrón, Gill and Santos, not Bell test experiments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The gist is: I have shown two reliable sources which state precisely what I claim, you have no sources stating precisely what you claim. You only have musings about Bell's theorem and its elusive experimental validation. So, unless you can show that my sources would be unreliable, discussion is over. It is no longer a NORN case, but my claim has been verified according to Wikipedia's policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Another quote from Wikipedia: Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In 1964, [[John Stewart Bell|John Bell]] showed through [[Bell's theorem|his famous theorem]] that if local hidden variables exist, certain experiments could be performed where the result would satisfy a [[Bell's theorem|Bell inequality]]. If, on the other hand, [[quantum entanglement]] is correct the Bell inequality would be violated. Another [[no-go theorem]] concerning hidden variable theories is the [[Kochen-Specker theorem]]. Physicists such as [[Alain Aspect]] and Paul Kwiat have performed [[Bell test experiments|experiments]] that have found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations<ref>Kwiat, P. G., ''et al.'' (1999) [http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003 Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons], ''Physical Review A'' '''60''', R773-R776</ref> (excellent scientific certainty). This rules out local hidden variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones (which would refute [[quantum entanglement]]). Theoretically, there could be [[Bell test loopholes|experimental problems]] that affect the validity of the experimental findings. [[Gerard 't Hooft]] has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the [[superdeterminism]] loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models.<ref>G 't Hooft, ''The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701097]; ''Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408]</ref>

— Hidden variable theory#Bell's theorem

The view from the Right Field bleachers

I've read the Clockwork universe theory article and was struck by vast amounts of religious material included. Only the first paragraph deals with the theory, the rest of the article is rubbish. Serious, God created the Big Bang, you can get your head cut off saying that in some countries. Whatever you two are fighting over, it looks like it's about who can destroy the article the quickest.

• I recommend dropping everything regarding QM and GR (and religion) ... at least until the theory is fully explained in Classical Physics.
• Combine all the `opposition`, `counter-opposition, and `counter-counter-opposition` information into one or two sentences ... the average reader just doesn't care.
• Focus your attention on upgrading the article to Start grade. There's WAY too much basic information missing to even begin talking about the advanced details.

You two need to work cooperatively, or move on to other (and separate) articles. More important, you two need to move your fight to another site, these web pages here at Wikipedia are for discussions to improve articles. This is NOT a debate club. - Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. My point was that the newly introduced stuff properly belongs in the article Determinism and we cannot just throw our own opinion, but we have to quote reliable sources for everything we write in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the POV essay/OR does not belong in the Determinism article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then it does not belong in Clockwork universe theory either. My point was to introduce some deeper insights about quantum mechanics in determinism, I did not say I agree with all what is written there. So, the more is deleted from it, the merrier. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't belong at this stage of development. Start with how clocks work, then advance the material to things like Kepler's Laws, etc etc etc. Just remember, if you decide not to write this article, please leave your references behind ... in the years and decades to come, someone may be able to use them. - Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV/OR issues

This hasn't stopped. User Talk:JudgementSummary is writing an WP:OR essay in this article under the guise of Considerations. I've tried explaining that's his work is OR, and at best WP:SYN, but he hasn't desisted. In his "sourced" contributions, zero sources even mention the Clockwork universe theory. In every paragraph, he develops arguments about clockwork universe theory not found in any of the sourced material. Taken together, his contributions make the article a WP:COATRACK for his personal views on philosophy and life in general. I've tried explaining, but he persists. —Wing gundam (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

One difficulty is that Clockwork Universe isn't really a "theory" per se but rather a paradigm that was based largely on Newton's laws/gravity which unified the heavens and earth. So issues related to mathematical predictability of physical systems and especially on new insights into Newtonian mechanics are relevant.... The book referenced clockwork universe returns time and again to these multiple themes all interwoven into the paradigm.... hope this helps clarify the issue... thanks....JudgementSummary (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Not to mention the fact that the clockwork universe was used by various religious groups to support various philosophical stands... so traditional religions and new ones like Deism are also tightly interwoven. What is not relevant is a discussion of watches/clocks or celestial mechanics... or even philosophical issues not directly related to mathematical predictability of mechanical systems JudgementSummary (talk)

No one disagrees the WP:TITLE is wrong, so moving the article to clockwork universe and redirecting clockwork universe theory to Newton's theory of gravity, per WP:PRIMARY, seems uncontroversial. However, the philosophy, ethos or "paradigm" to which a "clockwork universe" euphemistically refers, is Mechanism (philosophy). The most extensive philosophical treatment of topics such as predictability and determinism, (which any "paradigm" must address), can be found in the Determinism article.

Wing gundam was not referring to a single book. Some, though certainly not all of the ostensible sources, have occasion to use the popular phrase "clockwork universe"... though rarely where cited (and further, I'll just note the conspicuous absence of From Clockwork to Crapshoot). You're opposed to the Mechanism (philosophy) redirect, so it's WP:TENDENTIOUS to keep arguing that something so grand as those "multiple themes all interwoven" constitute a single paradigm called "clockwork universe" that was heretofore missing form the encyclopedia.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't hear?[3] —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia

Heterophobia has existed for some time as a redirect to Homophobia#"Heterophobia", but has recently had some content added that reads very much to me as original research/original synth. A single user has cobbled together a few isolated incidents (ie, a single faked hate crime), some unsourced statements (heterophobia started during the sexual revolution) and some less than ideal sources (a YouTube video, lifesitenews.com) into an article about "Heterophobia" that differs wildly from the sourced "Heterophobia" section of the Homophobia article. I and two other editor have reverted it back to being a redirect, but User:3abos is reverting us all, so I thought maybe there should be a few more people keeping an eye on the situation. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like Homophobia Heterophobia began as a term started out in the media. I do not see how Heterophobia having its own page is different to say when Homophobia had its own page when research about the specific issue had not begun. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. User:3abos (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is more with the content of the article. While the referenced sources outline events which could be construed as Heterophobia, only the blog posts seem to make that assertion. To me, making this leap constitutes Original Research, WP:NPOV, or at least WP:PRIMARY. In addition, blog posts are generally unacceptable for WP:Verifiability.Josh3580_talk/hist 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(From: User talk:Josh3580#12 Feb 2013)There does not seem to be any "blog posts". Everything is sourced from actual, registered organisations.3abos (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[[4]] is definitely a blog post. I could not find anything about the "Degradation of Religious Liberty" in the article[[5]] you referenced for that. You defined heterosexuality as people who support the traditional definition of marriage. While I support that, I'm afraid that isn't what makes me a heterosexual. Also, the first sentence in the history says that "Heterophobia began during the sexual revolution in the 1960s and takes many forms." Where does that information come from? Again, the events are documented, but not the opinions. That is the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion site.Josh3580_talk/hist 01:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, 3abos. I brought this issue here to the Original Research board beacuse it is my belief that your edits violate WP:SYNTH, which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." You have sourced your article with 5 different articles but only one of those articles even mentions the word heterophobia, which makes it seem very much like you might be, as I said above, cobbling together a bunch of sources and coming to your own conclusions. I believe you are editing in good faith, but that you are in violation of the no original research policy nonetheless. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Heterophobia", based on "hetero" opposite and "phobia" fear, should simply mean an irrational and unnatural fear of the opposite gender. For instance, men who are afraid of women, or women who are afraid of men. Which apparently hits the nail on the head, for most of those so described. 71.246.158.83 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dawn Bard thanks for your reply. As you can see from the Heterophobia page. this is certainly not the case. I have cross-referenced and provided scholarly sources. 3abos (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (3rd nomination), no new information that suggests this fringe topic is now notable has appeared in the few months since this discussion. Or has something been published that is noteworthy? 05:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs) ^{Hit an extra tilde there?}

yes there have been, many. Please see the Heterophobia page itself 3abos (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• May I direct y'all's attention here? Wasn't aware that this discussion was ongoing, but I don't think I would've done anything differently. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is still paying attention to this, the content in question has now been repeatedly re-added to the homophobia article since Heterophobia was fully protected. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been agreed upon on the Talk page for Homophobia that the content was sourced-well and should have its own page. I believe THIS was a neutral discussion! 3abos (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It has not been "agreed" at all. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed (that it has not been agreed). –TCN7JM 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So are not proper sources? 3abos (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We weren't even discussing that in this thread, we were just saying there is no agreement on the Homophobia talk page. I suggest we keep the discussion there going forward, in steadying of splitting it and having some of it here. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes

Resolved

 – Unsourced text has been removed.Trystan (talk)

Additional opinions would be welcomed on Prophecy of the Popes, specifically on whether the final paragraph of the lead (as of this version) contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. A related talk page thread is here.--Trystan (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions based on primary sources

Can someone comment here: Talk:Continuation_War#Original_research_in_this_article
We need more comments.
Basically, reliable sources say that an event occurred, but a user says that primary sources he looked at show no evidence of it and implies a conclusion in the article text... -YMB29 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to the event which you conclude that took place based on a claim from personal diary type primary source which you consider non-biased and fully reliable source? And once over conclusion that it didn't take place is from secondary sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is your own conclusion... No source makes that conclusion.

The source that I used explicitly mentions the event. -YMB29 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The primary source does, and even notes that it was hearsay, event of which the author had not witnessed, or rather just a detail which the author of the diary became aware of. From which you conclude that it was a fact (which happens to be a conclusion drawn from a primary source, i.e. OR). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source I used, unlike yours, directly says that it happened, and there is another source that is secondary.

Stop with the ridiculous claims and let others comment. -YMB29 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a primary source which notes that the account you refer to was a second hand information. Which you have so far presented as if the source would have been a secondary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that it was a secondary source. Again, whether it is primary or secondary does not matter since it directly states what happened, unlike yours. Please try to make sense... -YMB29 (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a personal diary of an involved person describing an event that he never witnessed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He was a famous war correspondent and his accounts were published in a book, which I cite. The point here is your OR; don't try to accuse me when you are the one guilty of OR. -YMB29 (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Boys, boys! Or maybe, girls, girls! Take a WP:Wikibreak if you have to. Come back in a week. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am not going to post any comments here anymore, but can you give a third opinion to help resolve the dispute? -YMB29 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Calappa calappa

Hello, all. I had a few discussions recently with User:Paul venter and checked out some of his other recent contributions. Calappa calappa had an inuse tag on it, so I waited a few hours and then edited to remove several sources: one to a gallery, one to flickr, and two to videos. The sources have their own WP:RS issues, but those aside, the photo and video sources seemed to be supporting statements that are Paul's own observations derived from the photos and videos. For example, the gallery says nothing similar to "Except for the front, the carapace curves down on all sides, covering the eight ambulatory legs in a design similar to that of Horseshoe crabs" but that is the statement it is anchoring. However, the gallery itself does contain an image that does look an awful lot like a horseshoe crab.

Anyway, Paul reverted, suggesting there is no original research. I'm bringing this here without first discussing it further with Paul since he clearly has an issue with me, accusing me of stalking on a few occasions. I'm not sure one-on-one discussion would have been productive so I'm bringing the possible OR issue to the noticeboard's attention. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bayard Rustin

I've taken a look at the Wikipedia article on Civil Rights Movement Leader, Bayard Rustin, and what I've found is that a large chunk of the content is not sourced. For the sourced material, it does not constitute as a reliable but yet mainstream source of which some of the content, particularly relating to homosexuality, is rather scandalous. I am creating this notification in hope to get a person to take a look at it; I don't want to be deleting an entire article with information unless it's by consensus. Publius Valerius Poplicola (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of older articles were created and developed without the extensive referencing and high quality sources one would expect today. However I do not see anything wrong with the information, and WP:BLP does not apply. Any attempt to delete the article would fail because Rustin meets notability. It would be helpful if someone would work to improve referencing. TFD (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Shokrollahi digraph

It appears that the author, Amin Shokrollahi, of some mathematical work that is available over the internet, is aggressively attempting to put his article and links to it into Wikipedia using sock puppetry. At this point, I do not want to get into an edit war with this person, so I would like to turn this issue over to more experienced editors to decide what to do. Please see the edit history of List of matrices and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shokrollahi digraph. — Anita5192 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about possible incidents of original research.

There's an article that has some uncited statements that I find troublesome.

An example of a uncited conditional statement: Albeit that these early 'native' Irish were Catholic upon arrival, their descendants today, [are] predominantly Protestant as it would have been practically impossible to retain their Catholicity in such a hostile environment.

An example of an uncited, non sequitur: Many Americans descended from the early Irish retain their surnames through the male line. Thus traditional Irish-Celtic surnames are common throughout America.

Am I correct in thinking that these examples violate Wikipedia:No original research by intimating conclusions that are not supported within that section of the article? If not, why not? I'm not questioning the truthfulness of the statements as I just don't know about Irish immigrants and Catholicism in North America during the colonial / Federal eras, the subject of that section of the article. The missing verb is another, more obvious, matter that even I can identify. Thanks for your input in helping me understand this concept of original research, Wordreader (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we get a link to the article in question? Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What Mangoe said. It's impossible to decide if something is likely to be original research without knowing the full context of the passages, as well as the sources that allegedly support them. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dog breed identification

Editors of the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States are debating a question of dog breed identification. The case in point is a fatal dog attack that occurred on April 20, 2012, which The Post and Courier, a newspaper published in Charleston, South Carolina, reported as follows: [[6]]:

"The boy, Aiden McGrew, was apparently pulled from an infant's swing and his legs torn off by the golden retriever-Labrador mix inside the family's mobile home on Sandpit Road, authorities said."

In the context of the report, "the authorities" included the County Sheriff and animal control officers. The report included photographs of the dog that killed the victim.

The article identified the dog's breed as golden retriever-Labrador retriever mix, but two Wikipedia editors, User:Chrisrus and User:Mantion, discussed the photographs in the article and decided the authorities were incorrect based on a review photographs of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers and changed the identification. This has led to a couple of edit reversions follwed by a rather lengthy discussion at Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Clear Case of misIdentification. about whether to keep the identification from the original citation or leave the identification as determined by the Wikipedia editors.

Question: Is changing the breed identification justified by the editor's arguments, or is the change supported only by WP:OR? Astro$01 (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also a discussion on this matter on Jimbo Wales talk page, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Verifiability_vs._Truth. What should we do when someone comes to us and points out an error in the sources? Is there any way to fix it without violating WP:OR? Chrisrus (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" actually get lots of details wrong in most articles.

Sometimes we notice such a problem through original research and cannot support our findings with formally reliable sources. If the misreported item has itself become notable it can't be suppressed. In this case, the usual recourse is proper attribution of the incorrect claim, though we can't say that it's incorrect. This is not satisfactory, and it's best to look for a creative solution in such a case. (Even reporting the misreporting without explicitly saying it's wrong can be a BLP violation, and in that case we have to look for a creative solution or leave out the claim even though it's notable.) But often it's just a relatively minor detail that can simply be dropped. I think your case is one of these.

Sometimes 'original research' is actually obvious or borderline obvious. In your example, no editor should disagree with identifying the dog based on an image just for the sake of following a formal rule. Wikipedia's ultimate goal is accuracy. WP:NOR is just a means to this end, and it arose in the context of disputes. Where there is no dispute to begin with, it should not be manufactured for pedantic reasons. That said, I would not trust that a bunch of Wikipedia readers necessarily get a relatively rare dog breed right based on just a photo, so it appears to be a bona fide dispute, and therefore it is correct not to allow the original research. Then again, I would change my opinion if there were a strong consensus in a large and active WikiProject on dog breeds that generally does excellent work in the area. Hans Adler 07:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to occasionally completely work out a borderline case from first principles, so allow me to do this here.

Our policies are descriptive (of actual practice in articles) not prescriptive. Without written or unwritten policies, every dispute would potentially draw in more and more editors until finally the entire community would come to the ultimate consensus, in the worst case by a narrow vote. The purpose of policies is to properly approximate that outcome, so that everybody saves time and energy by going to it right away. As a result, policies are biased towards the case where there is an actual conflict. This must be kept in mind when interpreting them. In particular:

• The existence of a formal verifiability policy at WP:V does not imply that we claim things that we know to be false simply because they are formally verifiable. (Any disputes in such cases normally don't reach the point where they would begin to influence written policy.)
• The existence of a prohibition of original research at WP:NOR does not imply that Wikipedia can never offer new insights that are not present in any single reliable source. Only an article that is a complete copyvio from a single source would be consistent with such a fundamentalist reading of the policy. However, for claims not in reliable sources we require a very strong consensus that they are actually accurate and unbiased with a very high probability. (This is because for a global consensus, one needs to convince editors who are not experts on the subject, who don't necessarily trust other editors who are experts, and who are aware of the various pitfalls of original research in their own expertise.)
• In cases of doubt, there is a bias towards reporting it as a controversy or saying nothing at all. (This reflects the fact that where the community is split, there will neither be consensus for one version nor for its opposite.)

The restriction of policy scopes to actual disputes is implicit, and editors are increasingly (mis)applying policies to cases of an a priori uncontroversial nature, which were never thought of when the policies were written. In such cases, direct application of a literal reading of a policy typically comes to a result that is incompatible with what a wide global consensus would be. In that sense such a result is wrong.

As an important though possibly unwritten general principle, the (un)certainty with which we report something must reflect the (un)certainty with which we know it.

In this case, it appears to be established that reliable sources identified the breed only as a Golden/Labrador Retriever mix, and that this identification was obviously wrong though only blogs (correctly) pointed this out.

We cannot report the breed to be a Golden/Labrador Retriever mix because we know this to be true. (The question of formal reliability does not even arise for this.)

If we just report that the breed was "reportedly" a Golden/Labrador Retriever mix, then that is still problematic as it only implies doubt where we actually know the information to be false.

Also, blogs say it was actually a Duck Tolling Retriever, and comparison between photos of the actual dog in reliable sources and photos of tollers show that they have an excellent point. The problem: Blogs are not reliable sources, and we can't be really sure as there is still some interpretation left and some uncertainties, e.g. it could be an atypical Duck Tolling/Golden Retriever mix.

So we cannot report that the breed is a Duck Tolling Retriever, not even "apparently".

We also can't say that the breed is "unknown" because it's so much not the full truth that it's almost a lie. Everybody including the reliable sources ultimately agrees it's some kind of Retriever.

What we can do, however, is break the weakest of the NOR rules; the one that is already broken to some extent in almost every article because it's impossible to follow it completely: WP:SYNC. Or we can just shut up about the breed. That's the most elegant solution but unfortunately unstable in practice.

I propose two possible solutions in this case:

1. "Reportedly Retriever mix". This is formally correct as reliable sources reported it to be a mix of specific Retriever breeds. It doesn't report the full extent of what the reliable sources said, but only leaves out the part that is wrong. The only problem is that we have reason to believe it might be pure-breed Duck Tolling Retriever rather than a mix. But we can't be sure, and after all we have hatched the statement with "reportedly".
2. "Reportedly Golden Retriever / Labrador Retriever Mix; resembles Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever". This gives the full facts on what is reported. This could be misleading, but in this context it is not because (a) other entries don't have "reportedly", so readers will take it seriously, (b) the links and references invite readers to make their own research, and (c) we explicitly give a better version. The part about the Duck Tolling Retriever is the mildest form of original research. I think nobody will deny that the dog resembles typical photos of that breed. By putting this here in the article, we are committing a WP:SYN, but due to the principles of policy interpretation I gave above that seems to be appropriate. We are doing this synthesis in order to present our original research with the lowest degree of confidence possible.

I personally prefer 1 to 2. A compromise would be the following:

• "Reportedly Retriever mix [footnote: Reported as a Golden Retriever / Labrador Retriever Mix, but more similar in appearance to a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever.]"

Moving the SYN to a footnote that explains our editorial decision to leave out some detail from the sources makes it even more harmless. Hans Adler 09:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course...this is all based on the assumption that no further reliable sources can be found. Are we ready to say, this is it, there are no more, so we have to deal with just what we have?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And one other point. Are we saying that the two editors that challenged the description are correct? Becuase I am not seeing the same thing they are. This image of the dog does not seem to match up with the images of the Duck Tolling Retriever to me enough to begin to mention the other breed. I believe the use of "retriever mix" to be accurate and anything else would not be an improvement.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of photos of Duck Tolling Retrievers where they have a slightly creepy facial impression that seems to be identical with that of this particular dog. I haven't seen this in other dogs, but I know next to nothing about dogs myself. In particular, I can't judge how relevant this and the very similar body shapes are. The colouring does seem to be quite different, and again I don't know how relevant that is. So I guess "retriever mix" or "reportedly retriever mix" it is? Hans Adler 10:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a textbook example of what WP:NOR forbids. The identification just isn't certain enough to invoke an exception, it is just an editor's opinion based on a tiny photograph. Zero^talk 11:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who are calling this OR... Ir is fine for to challenge the accuracy of a source - to question whether that source is reliable about a specific fact. We do this with news sources all the time. That is not OR... The OR occurs once you substitute your own opinion into the article. What this means is that we can reach a consensus to omit mentioning that authorities identified the dog as a Golden-Lab mix, but we can not replace that sourced information with our own opinion that it was a Duck Trolling Retriever. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have approached this from the original "verifiability vs. truth" context at Jimbo's talk page, so was more concerned with principles than with the individual case. I tend to agree that option 2 is too risqué, but surely there is nothing wrong with option 1??? Hans Adler 14:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I think that's not true. There are several photos of that dog in reliable sources, and the resolutions of these are fine. The issue is not the quality of the photos but the fact that the colour and possibly some details that I, as a layman, wouldn't know to look for, don't match the photos of Duck Tolling Retrievers. And that there are likely to be other similar breeds that I don't know about.

In almost every case it's not original research to say that an animal on a photo is a dog, or a cat, or a bird, as the case may be. In almost every case it's original research to say that an animal on a photo is a specific individual cat, dog, bird or elephant. These are the textbook examples. Identifying dog breeds is an activity in the grey area in between and is definitely not a textbook example. Most people are perfectly competent to judge whether a particular dog looks roughly like a pitbull, roughly like a dachshound or roughly like a Dalmatian. Only the exact identification as one of these breeds is problematic, and of course more so for less recognisable and rarer breeds.

"The identification just isn't certain enough to invoke an exception". It actually works the other way round. If the identification were certain enough, which it isn't, then there it would not be justified to invoke the policy in the first place. It wasn't made for clear cases; clear cases are not exceptions, they are outside the scope and they are the vast majority of cases that arise on Wikipedia every day.

But I take it that you can agree with "retriever mix" as well? Hans Adler 14:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the dog you will see if you Google Images "Aiden McGrew", and then also Google pictures of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever images you trust, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nova_Scotia_Duck_Tolling_Retriever.

Please view videos like this one of the dog in question, http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP4dGgl516Qf7vp0P, vs. this Best of Breed competition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4YAdmUQK

And also Google up "Golden/Labrador Retriever mix" images and have a look at a bunch of them for comparison, and some videos such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNyCB-ts8I.

If you do this, and combine it with the knowledge that, while the ability to recognize breeds is not all that hard to come by, the ability to recognize a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever is quite rare, then you will like me agree with the author of the edit, User:Mantion, who called it "A clear case of misidentification" and like me want to get it right.

I am trying to find a way to use images to cite it to satisfy likely challenges, but don't know how to cite an image. I am thinking about offering Astro and the WP:OR patrol a compromise that might say "Breed: Reportedly a Golden/Labrador Retriever Mix, but apparently a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (cite images of the dog, cite images of NSDTR). I'm open to other ideas.Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I have to say this explicitly: I certainly disagree with the "apparently" identification. Looks similar to a toller, no problem for me. But not "apparently" a toller. Maybe it is, but not with the required certainty for saying it without a reliable source. Hans Adler 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

When I google labrador golden retriever mix these are the images that come up:

https://www.google.com/search?q=labrador+golden+retriever+mix&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9rAzUfL6HMbpiwKilIG4DQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=879

It really doesn't change my opinion that this very likely could be an accurate description as the length of hair on the dog could be the result of the mix with a golden retriever. It is possible. I also noticed that Lucky comes up in that search but that is because of the mention in the article. I am just not prepared to makes claims of a Duck tolling retriever based on the views of editors that I feel have not been properly demonstrated.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In similar situations I have supported making no identification at all. But to make a different, positive breed ID, we need a formally reliable source which does so. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe. If we have a good reason to believe that a source is wrong on some point, then maybe we could omit that point; but to contradict that point without another stronger source is a step too far. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. I mentioned this on Jimbo's talkpage. While I am still am not convinced that the claim of misidentification is accurate, I very much would support a consensus to simply not mention the breed at all at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, it all boils down to "How much weight do we give to original research given that it is itself prohibited under WP:OR?" I can see omitting or compromising on the text in an article if two WP:RS sources are in disagreement, but if we do this because WP:OR disagrees with WP:RS then we have made WP:OR and WP:RS equivalent. I think that sets an extraordinarily bad precedent with capacity for nearly infinite mischief. In the case at hand, the operative element in the citation is:

authorities said

The question for us is therefore,

"What is the relevant weighting between the photo-interpretive skills of J. Random Wikipedian and edit-checked reporting where the reporters interviewed law enforcement authorities who

1. Physically interacted with the dog and
2. Questioned the dog's owners?"

Unless the WP:RS source (The Post and Courier) prints a retraction, I don't think this one is even close. Astro$01 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

GTLDrive.h and GTLDrive_Sources.m from the Source/Services/Drive/General/direct/app/ project.sys

Computer generated images (CGI) for plane crashes

• Regarding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#CGI-type_images

Members of the aviation task force believe that by making CGI computer graphics images of plane crashes and posting the images in the articles, it could be against the Wikipedia rules against original research. Some accident reports show diagrams of how the plane crash occurred. This may not be true for every accident. If anyone would like to weigh in, please add your comments WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede section: Culture of India

Additional opinions would be welcome on the 2nd para of the lede section, Culture of India.

The user Dravidianhero has injected into the lede, "why" and how many such cultural variations exist. The sources he has cited, do not support the sweeping conclusions such as "evolved mainly..." and "largely independent of foreign...". The cited sources additionally do not support the claim in the lede's 2nd para of "two major subcultural variations".

I would appreciate if the community members can check the sources in the 2nd para of the lede, and advise if the following contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India [2] Why these variations "mainly evolved" [3] Whether the culture of South India developed largely independent of foreign influences

A related talk page thread is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Culture_of_India#OR:_subcultural_variations_evolved_mainly_by_contact_with_Muslim_powers

Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)