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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Out-of-context materials in "Battle of Ia Drang"

I want to report about user:Tnguyen4321's out-of-context use of materials from RS:

• In section Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley, he has written as follow

There were two battlefronts at the Chu Pong massif areas: a ground force operation, code-named "Operation Long Reach", conducted by the 1st Air Cavalry and an air force operation, code-named "Plei Me-Chu Pong Campaign", conducted by the B-52 bombers. The code name "Plei Me-Chu Pong Campaign" implies the B-52 bombing over Chu Pong operation that was on the planning since September 1965 entered in action at Pleime on October 20, was carried out with the support of the 1st Air Cavalry Division that set up and fix the targets with Operations All the Way and Silver Bayonet I for Arc Light strikes. The 5-day Arc Light operation was subsequently supported by the 2nd Air Cavalry Brigade conducting Operation Silver Bayonet II in conjunction with the ARVN Airborne Group conducting Operation Than Phong 7, which was conducted after the fighting at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany had been over.

In fact, when I read the RS that are cited in the above section, I found no words indicating that the air operations were supported by the Air Cav units. I also failed to find any indication about the relation between the real air strikes in October 1965 and the planning for a B-52 strike in September.

• Your concern has been addressed with following editing since [1]:

"The original plan to employ strategic bombers in support of the division was presented by the Assistant Division Commander (ADC-A) through Field Force Vietnam Commanding General to the J-3 of US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam."

The B-52 bombing operation and the Air Cavalry ground operation were so interconnected that the wording of the McChristian's text and of Kinnard's pertaining to activities from 23 October to 20 November is quasi word-for-word with minors editing regarding difference in intelligence and general staff matters. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• So it's even clearer: the bombers were "in support of the division", not the opposite as you've written. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• That's exactly what I'm about to say. The sentence "The B-52 bombing operation and the Air Cavalry ground operation were so interconnected that the wording of the McChristian's text and of Kinnard's pertaining to activities from 23 October to 20 November is quasi word-for-word with minors editing regarding difference in intelligence and general staff matters." was obviously a self-made conclusion derived from two separate RS, which is a violation of the WP:NOR regulation. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Look, we are discussing about the ranking of the two air and ground operation, which one come first and which one come second, which one is the main and which on is the secondary, which on is giving support/facilitating the other. "The original plan" that Knowles is talking about is the one hatched out since September 1965, prior to the advent of Pleime and the involvment of the Air Cavalry. It was initially supposed to have only one component: Arc Light Chu Pong operation. When the B3 Field Front decided to attack Pleim with only two instead of three regiments, it was modified to include a second component, with that it became: Arc Light Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign. The entire McChristian's report describes the group preparation work done by the Air Cavalry in assisting the creation of available targets for the B-52 strike. Note that the RS are given not in one page, but in multiple pages: (McChristian, pp. 9-62), and (Kinnard, pp. 18-103).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• That's what you said, not what McChristian said. He said that the area was planned as "a possible target for a B-52 strike" in September, and no more. Can you point out any particular quote in which he claimed that the air strike in October actually rooted from the September plan? Can you point out any in which he claimed the the Cavalry units performed on the field 'in order to support the air strike? If you just derived such conclusion from such 53 pages, then you've conducted an OR again.
• You've still failed to explained what did he mean when he said that the bombers were "in support of the division" 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• As we see the history of the article, we can find out several versions in the past edited by this user claiming that the ARVN was one of the belligerents, and that its commander was a commander of the battle, which are distorted info derived from the book Why Pleime. He even used to claim that such commanding power was exercised in terms of "OPCON" or "operational control", [2] which are terminologies that are not even mentioned in the book for a single time.117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly, you mistakenly equate "OPCON" and "operational control"; It is rather OPCON=operation concept=concept of operation. Secondly, the term had been removed from the info-box of the article subsequent to my realization of your misinterpretation.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please read again what you wrote in that version.[3]
• Please read the definition again to see what OPCON means.[4]
• By the way your idea to insert South Vietnam as an active belligerent is still an OR.117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's no more there, no?
• I thought we are done discussing this OPCON thing starting here
• It pertains to the RS you put there re: supported by ARVN>Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Find any quote from the source that directly shows such pertaining. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I hereby rest my case and let other members and administrators express their opinions. I can no more dialogue with someone that insists eastern foot of in "at the foot of the Chu Pong Massif" - a verbatim quote - means east of as in "east of the Chu Pong Massif".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

At the "eastern foot" actually. You distort stuff even in a noticeboard. And in addition, I don't have to explain for something that only blind people fail to see like this map. [5] The WP:NOR doesn't require RS explanation for such a thing. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As a second thought, I cannot resist responding to this one.

So then why did you pin a tag on this paragraph here?

Isn't obvious that: 5 days > 2 days; Chupong-Iadrang complex > the LZ X-Ray; the 3AC's B-52 fleet > 1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions; and 3 NVA 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments > 2 NVA 7th and 9th battalions ? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears clear now why you make use of the tag indiscriminately: whenever you are not capable to "see it" in a statement without or even with a RS, you make use of the tag.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• From what source have you come up with the idea that the significance of a military operation is judged through its duration, the area it covers, or the number of units participate in it?
• What source says that the Air Cav operation was on 14–15 November only? 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had rest my case once. After me having a second thought, it is definite starting now.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work, now everybody can see you've conducted OR without explanation. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

request for comments on following bogus tags

1. tag#1 line 219
2. tag#2 line 225
3. [6]

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Some facts about my "opponent":

1. He is a non registered editor using multiple IPs such as 113.190.172.153, 180.148.2.189, 113.190.165.78, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116.
2. He is an editor with a political agenda: North Vietnam versus South Vietnam
3. He is indiscriminately using the OR tool that he had learned to wield after failing in the use of a much less sophisticate and primitive deletion tool like shown here.

4. He is uncompromising as shown here

5. He is the sole editor, besides me, that is involved in this editing war.

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• case #1 here
• case #2 here

 Done I have fixed the issue of OR of case #1 here and case #2 here.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• In case #1, I have removed statement containing "words indicating that the air operations were supported by the Air Cav units",and "indication about the relation between the real air strikes in October 1965 and the planning for a B-52 strike in September" (correction of wrong air strikes date: November 1965).
• In case #2, I have rephrased the paragraph so as it contains only statements that are "attributed" or "attributable".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You've done much but I think more should be done:

• About the suspected OR in the 1st para, I think you should point out the exact page[s] which say[s] that the Air Cav Division "set up and fixed the targets" or something like that instead of deriving a conclusion from 53 pages like that. Nobody can see which page indicate that point.
• The last para is still 100% OR. You've failed to point out which page says that it's "more significant", or which academic standard makes it "more significant" just due to the number of days or number of units involved. Moreover the info you've given that the ground operation took place in only 2 days was totally wrong and supported by no source 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are unreasonable in requiring a verbatim quote. It is not "noboby", only "you". You should request for comments on this. You even fail to recognize and admit an attributable statement such as in 2+2=4 in insisting for a RS.
• The statement is attributable, like the statement that says 2+2=4.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• It is obvious that you have no clue what "original research" means in Wikipedia. You should try to have a better and correct understanding of this notion with all its subtleties. You are applying it in a improper manner. At the meantime, you should seek for advices from more knowledgeable editors on this noticeboard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're the one who totally misunderstand what does "attributable" means. If you says those things are attributable just like "2+2=4" then what is an example of unattributable thing? There must be a threshold, right? Yes, I think only "you" find it not attributable, because you are the one who derive it from the source. I can't see something attributable that is not even mentioned by a single document in this world like that the Ia Drang ground operation occured in 2 days. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Will somebody please stop this abusive OR-tagging: In comparison, the air action was much more significant than the ground action in terms

1. of time (5 days>2 days),
2. of space (100 square kilometers > 100 square meters),
3. of units committed (96 sorties>3 battalions),
4. and of enemy forces attacked (9 battalions > 2 battalions).

This editor has no clue these are attributable facts in invoking the OR tag. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Belligerent info box

Re: RS that is cited in the "Belligerent info box, I found no words indicating that the US was supported by the ARVN.

It is the other way around. In the conflict, the two belligerents were the NVA (aggressor) and the ARVN (aggressee)The ARVN was supported by the US.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's totally attributable, just like 1+1=2. Can I say like that?

p/s: In fact I do have RS proof of that. But I want to see how you define your concept of "attributable". It sounds like you have the tendency to define anything that you've failed to explain by RS as "attributable". 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't you realize you have been given the chance to taste your own medicine? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's for you, yet you haven't realized it. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist influences on Christianity

Article is about theories that Buddhism influenced early Christianity (by way of Alexander the Great's conquests in Asia, then into Judaism through the Septuagint, and then into Christianity. A revision in dispute contains the following: It is agreed by most scholars that Buddhism was known in the pre-Christian Greek world through the campaigns of Alexander the Great (see Greco-Buddhism and Greco-Buddhist monasticism), and several prominent early Christian fathers (Clement of Alexandria and St. Jerome) were certainly aware of the Buddha, even mentioning him in their works. In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests. Is this synthesis? Particularly concerning the mention of the Septuagint "being written in Koine Greek" (!) but perhaps the entire paragraph as well? Geogene (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure, I made the edit in question. I feel it all ties in rather nicely, since this is an article about the possibility, or not, of Buddhist influences on Christianity. I certainly do not feel I was pushing WP:SYN since the common language, Koine Greek, is what ties everything together. Even early Christian Saints were aware of Buddhism through their own writings, which also just happen to be in Koine Greek. To say Koine Greek is total OR or synthesis to the topic is a stretch. Lipsquid (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The word Bible is Koine Greek as is the word Christ. Lipsquid (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The citations aren't specific enough to let me see what's in the sources and what's not. "Most" is a quantifier that would be OR unless a RS makes that generalization. "Certainly" and "even" look like WP:EDITORIALIZING. The second sentence would be synthesis unless it reports what a RS says about the relevance of the Septuagint to the subject. Eperoton (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I only edited one sentence: "In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests" I have no idea what second sentence you are talking about, unless you are considering my response, which I assume you realize is of course editorializing, I was offering an opinion on a noticeboard, I did not offer my opinion in the article. We are reviewing what is written in the article, are we not? Lipsquid (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with your edit history. My comment referred to the two sentences quoted above in italics. Eperoton (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

From Lipsquid's post, it sounds like he's using the Koine Green language to tie together Buddhism and Christianity. It's OR unless a reliable source specifically makes those claims. WP editors are not allowed to formulate their own theories and put them into articles by combining multiple sources. So Lipsquid, do you have a quote from a specific source that makes the claims in question? The first source is not specific enough information to locate the source and is unverifiable. The next 2 sources don't mention the word "Christianity" once, and the final source doesn't mention "Kione" once. So it doesn't appear that these sources support adding this information into the article because the inherent implication is that this influenced Christianity. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention "Christianity" in my article edit either. ""In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests" so my sources are going to be about Koine Greek, the Sepuagint and the spread of the language through Alexander the Great. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• It sounds like you want the article to trace a series of linguistic and religious connections, to demonstrate a conclusion. To do this, you need at least one reliable source that outlines all the linguistic and religious connections, and reaches the same conclusions that you want to present. If this source exists, then it isn't Original Research... If not (if you are the one making the connections) it is Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The language of the Septuagint is coatracked information - it's relevance to the article not indicated by the sources. It's apparently included to suggest a conclusion, but the conclusion is not stated, so it is not synthesis. That's just splitting hairs though; it should not go in the article as-is. Rhoark (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH also covers implied conclusions. Eperoton (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In a stronger sense of "imply". If its not clear what the conclusion is supposed to be, its just coatracking. (Again, splitting hairs that should not impact handling of the page.) Rhoark (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not here to mislead anyone or to provide original research, so if most people think it is improper, I concede that it should remain out. I appreciate Geogene handling the topic in a professional manner! Best to all of you and thank you for your time.... Lipsquid (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Causality of 1978 Ford Pinto recall

Article History of Ford Motor Company, section Ford Pinto, contended content:

Public outcry related to the controversy and the Mother Jones article resulted in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issuing a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. This resulted in Ford issuing the largest automotive recall to date.

Events contributing to the causality of the largest auto recall in history were many, including but not limited to:

1. crashes with fires
2. deaths
3. disabilities
4. 117 product liability lawsuits
5. 30 December 1976 Jack Anderson column The Washington Post on the fire safety of Ford automobiles
6. the start of the Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. trial
7. consumer complaints to Ford and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration
8. two petitions filed with the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration by the Center for Auto Safety
9. press conference in Washington attended by Ralph Nader, covered by The New York Times and The Washington Post
10. the Pinto was found to have a design defect by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration
11. National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration scheduling a public hearing at which Ford documents were to be made public
12. 60 Minutes and 20/20 television segments in production and pending airing

All supported by vast noteworthy reliable sources.

References
References

The causality of historical events is fraught with difficulty, the motivations of organizations even more so, and best avoided in Wikipedia voice; let the facts speak. We are asked to summarize, not to over simplify, and certainly not to over-simplify in service of a minority point of view. This is pretty basic, sorry to bother, but a strident local consensus of Ford Pinto fanboyz is pursuing, in Wikipedia voice, that the whole Pinto thingy was a dust-up created by rabble-rousing by a tiny new low-circulation anti-corporate hippie magazine from San Francisco. The current article text says that:

1. public outcry and
2. an article in Mother Jones magazine

...caused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find that the Ford Pinto had a design defect; and that

1. public outcry,
2. an article in Mother Jones magazine, and
3. the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finding of defect

...caused Ford to recall the Pinto.

These claims, presented in Wikipedia voice, are well beyond any reasonable summarization of the consensus of reliable sources and so are original research. As represented in numerous reliable sources, and as with most attempts to characterize the causality of historical events, the actual causality is much more complex.

Comments from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research are respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - Please notify editors involved in a discussion on an article talkpage that you are moving that discussion to a noticeboard. Not doing so may be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD, you have been rightly asked by William M. Connolley to not significantly edit/change your text after others have replied to it. This can give later readers a false sense of the conversation. Also, please do not refer to other editors as, "A strident local consensus of Ford Pinto fanboyz" (WP:TPNO) Springee (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on original research in the above excerpt? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - I love how HughD seems to be completely oblivious to the endless torrent of criticism over his behavior. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• 13:43 29 April 2016 inline OR tags reverted in 10 minutes without discussion.
• 13:53 29 April 2016 edit with summary "remove original research oversimplification of the causality of historical events and the motivations of historical organizations exceeding the consensus of reliable sources":

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a determination that the Pinto and related Mercury Bobcat were defective. Ford issued the largest automotive recall to date.

• 13:56 29 April 2016 edit reverted in 3 minutes without discussion.

Assistance from colleagues with experience with original research issues is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You might have better luck in your dispute if you didn't refer to your fellow interlocutors as "Ford Pinto fanboyz." Safehaven86 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement, in Wikipedia's voice, seems a reasonable summary of some of the sources. This needs to go to WP:NPOVN, not WP:NORN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: HughD, Why didn't you include the references in your original question? The material in both the Pinto and Ford History article was supported by peer reviewed sources. I also would note that you left Lee and Ermann left off the list of references above. Schwartz is perhaps the most significant reference with respect to the Pinto cases. Lee and Ermann are perhaps the second most significant after Schwartz. You failed to show how those references were used in the Pinto article (the Ford History article references the Pinto article). You also failed to link to the relevant talk page discussions. Here is what was said in the Pinto article... with references.

Lee and Ermann note that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." The Mother Jones article included a clip out "coupon" that readers could mail to the NHTSA.

References

This is clearly supported material and not OR. Springee (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Why is this topic being raised here vs on the article talk pages first? This was discussed on the Pinto talk page but not discussed on the History of Ford Motor Company page. Springee (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A reasonable model of the causes of a recall

Two noteworthy reliable sources provide guidance to us on what a reasonable treatment of the causes of major automobile recalls, and the historic Ford Pinto recall in particular:

• Clinard, Marshall; Yeager, Peter (2011). Corporate Crime; Volume 1 of Law, Culture, and Society. Transaction Publishers. p. 85. ISBN 9781412815253.

The process in the more serious voluntary recalls generally starts with consumer complaints and news stories, then proceeds to government investigation and testing, consumer group pressuring, resistance from the auto manufacturer, and an official finding of safety defect. The story of the Ford Motor Company's decision to recall 1.5 million of its 1971-1976 subcompact Pinto cars is illustrative.

Clinard and Yeager then excerpt the The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978):

Ford made the decision this June, but the seed of the decision was planted a year ago. it was in August 1977 that Mother Jones, a magazine published in California, printed an article titled "Pinto Madness"; it portrayed the car as particularly susceptible to fires in rear-end crashes. The article was ballyhooed at a Washington press conference by Ralph Nader and its author, Mark Dowie. A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which opened an investigation that was to last eight months. The agency first ran an engineering analysis of the Pinto, finding that the fuel tank's location and the structural parts around it permitted easy crashing or puncturing of the tank in a crash. Officials also found that the short fuel-tank filler pipe could easily pull away from the tank. There was "real potential for trouble," says Howard Dugoff, the agency's deputy administrator. "The design looked fishy." Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.

Conspicuously omitted from our article are accidents, deaths, lawsuits, consumer complaints, numerous news stories, consumer groups, the NHTSA investigation, NHTSA testing, and the pending public hearing. The point being that the current article text explicitly states in Wikipedia voice a grossly oversimplified small set of reasons for the recall. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, there weren't any deaths reasonably attributed to the (alleged) defect. If you want to go into more details as to the cause of the recall, that fact also needs to be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment The above doesn't actually contradict the material in the article. Springee (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The reasons given by the NHTSA itself behind its finding of defect

As further evidence of the non-neutral nature of the statement in Wikipedia voice currently in our article History of Ford Motor Company regarding the causes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finding of defect, colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the NHTSA's own reasons given for its finding.

• Investigative Report: Alleged Fuel Tank and Filler Neck Damage in Rear-end Collisions of Subcompact Cars Passenger Cars, 1971-1976 Ford Pinto, 1975-1976 Mercury Bobcat (PDF) (Report). Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. May 1978. Retrieved March 5, 2016.

The NHTSA suggests that the Washington press conference and the Mother Jones magazine article were among the factors contributed to initiating the investigation, not that a magazine article resulted in the finding of defect:

A formal defect investigation case was initiated on September 13, 1977, based upon allegations that the design and location of the fuel tank in the Ford Pinto make it highly susceptible to damage on rear impact at low to moderate closing speeds. On August 10, 1977, a press conference was held in Washington D.C., to announce the release of an article entitled "Pinto Madness", which was published in the September/October issue of Mother Jones magazine...Following public release of the article, the NHTSA initiated, on August 11, 1977, a preliminary evaluation of the alleged safety defect, and on September 13, a formal defect investigation case.

The NHTSA said it conducted numerous activities in the course of its investigation beyond reading the Mother Jones article, including

• compiling letters from consumers
• compiling letters from congressmen
• compiling reports from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis Fatality Analysis Reporting System
• subpoenaed documents from the Ford Motor Company
• collaboration with the Canadian Ministry of Transportation
• crash testing

The NHTSA compiled reports from the US, Canada, and Ford, and summarized:

In total the NHTSA is aware of 38 cases in which rear-end collisions of Pinto vehicles have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel system leakage and/or ensuing fire. These cases have resulted in a total of 27 fatalities sustained by Pinto occupants, of which one is reported to have resulted from impact injuries. In addition, 24 occupants of these Pinto vehicles have sustained non-fatal burn injuries

The NHTSA summarized its crash testing:

...in two Pinto tests with the full size vehicle travelling at 35 miles per hour, fires resulted.

The NHTSA summarized the litigation history:

In the history of product liability actions filed against Ford and other co-defendants involving rear impact of Pintos with fuel tank damage/fuel leakage/fire occurrences, nine cases have been settled. Of these, the plaintiffs have been compensated in 8 cases, either by jury award or out of court settlements.

The NHTSA said its finding of defect was based on its investigation:

Based upon the information either developed or acquired during this investigation, the following conclusions have been reached: 1971-1976 Ford Pintos have experienced moderate speed, rear-end collisions that have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel leakage, and fire occurrences that have resulted in fatalities and non-fatal burn injuries.

Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that "public outcry" and a magazine article "resulted" in the NHTSA finding of defect is grossly pointed. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The reasons given by the Ford itself behind its recall

Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider Ford's own reasons given for its recall. Ford said the recall was unrelated to the NHTSA finding of defect.

• Jones, William H. (June 10, 1978). "Ford Recalls 1.5 Million Small Cars. Ford Recalls 1.5 Million Pintos, Bobcats, Pintos, Bolcats Face Alteration To Cut Fire Risk". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 4, 2016.

But NHYSA, a Department of Transportation agency, informed Ford on May 8 about results of the new investigation, which concluded that Pintos had a safety defect. A public hearing was scheduled for next week, at which time internal Ford documents related to the fuel tank situation were to be made public...In a prepared statement, Ford vice President Herbet L. Misch said: "Ford informed NHTSA that it does not agree with the agency's initial determination of May 8 that an unreasonable risk of safety is involved in the design of these cars..." Misch said Ford decided to offer the modifications "so as to end public concern that has resulted from criticism of the fuel systems in these vehicles".

Colleagues concerned with neutrality may wish to consider the diversity of reliable sources in giving reasons for the recall. The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1978) said Ford recalled to scuttle a scheduled public hearing and to avoid adverse publicity:

A flood of calls and letters from outraged or terrified Pinto owners descended on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...Then came crash-testing; a letter-writing tug-of-war; the issuance of an initial defect finding that cited reports of 38 such accidents, 27 deaths and 29 lawsuits or liability claims against Ford; the setting of a public hearing for last June 14; and, finally, two meetings between agency and Ford officials. On the basis of the two meetings, the safety officials deduced that Ford was willing to recall the Pinto and that it wanted to do so before a public hearing could generate additional damaging publicity.

Danley concurs with the Ford Motor Company, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal in citing the Ford Motor Company's agency in their choice to recall:

• Danley, John R. (April 2005). "Polishing up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk". Business Ethics Quarterly. 15 (2): 205–236.

Ford could have refused to recall and have chosen instead to defend the Pinto's design in the formal recall hearings at NHTSA. While this tactic could easily have delayed any forced recall for months, if not for more than a year, the cost of the publicized hearings to Ford's reputation could have been substantial, even if Ford had been successful in the end. Ford agreed to "voluntarily recall" the Pinto in June 1978.

Our project, saying in Wikipedia voice, that the NHTSA finding "resulted" in the recall is non-neutral, oversimplified, and grossly pointed original research. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Complicated unreferenced example for Cutting stock problem

Please see the dispute in Talk:Cutting stock problem#Example. The opposite party and their sock ignore to discuss the issue in talk page, so my request for third opinion was rejected for burocratical reasons, hence I have to bother a larger community.

My point is that per WP:V, a complicated example of a computational problem accompanied with claims difficult to verify, must be supplied with references. While small, easy to verify examples are OK - üser:Altenmann >t 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that in an older version, the text read: it is believed that in this case the minimum number of patterns with this level of waste is 10, which suggests that it isn't OR (at least not from the editor who added the example). I found the problem listed as an exercise in "Case Studies in Operations Research: Applications of Optimal Decision Making" page 419. The example in the article prompted a question on stackexchange. It's also mentioned here, a Visual basic solver is discussed/demonstrated here. The problem and the figure showing the solution is included in this lecture, same for these lecture notes (did these lectures get the picture from wikipedia?), also used in the dataset of this paper. Another source listing the problem: http://www.ijiee.org/vol5/518-F0013.pdf

So for the problem itself, at least one reliable source is available (the book mentioned). Verifying that the given solution is indeed a minimum-waste solution is easy enough, the sum of the widths of the 219 rolls needed is 407160, which can't be cut from 72 master rolls since 72*5600 is only 403200, so any solution using 73 rolls will be minimum waste. Other claims (minimum patterns is 10, 19 different solutions..) are harder to check and would probably require a reference.

I'm not familiar with MATLAB; the code listed doesn't look for a minimum-waste solution, since the "c" array already contains the total width for the patterns in the given solution, but what that code is supposed to do with that, I have no idea... Prevalence 08:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope of Category:Sports festivals

Please comment at Talk:Multi-sport_event#RfC:_Can_an_acceptable_definition_be_written_for_Category:Sports_festivals? – Fayenatic London 16:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Trying to understand SYNTH

Is the below paragraph SYNTH? (part after the last comma in particular)

Although some scholars have claimed that the fustanella was introduced into Greece by Albanians in the 15th century, archaeological evidence shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greece as early as the 12th century, predating the arrival of Albanian-speakers on Greek lands by several centuries. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)