Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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

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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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

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

Analyzing charts

There is an ongoing dispute at Genetic history of Europe, regarding a specific genetics publication and its [supplementary material. I can get into the details of the dispute, but for the present I will just address a policy issue. One user, User:Small Victory has insisted on analyzing a chart from the supplementary material, and presenting the information as factual. I have disputed his interpretation because I could not find any text in the article or supplementary material that supports his analysis. I have asked him to provide direct quotes per Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-1, indicating that if he does, I will not dispute him. I am requesting input from other Wikipedians as to how much users are allowed to analyze graphs and charts in publications. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not supposed to analyse graphs or charts at all... what we are supposed to do is report on how reliable sources analyse it. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "analyzing" anything. I'm simply reporting on an admixture test (from a peer-reviewed, published source) conducted using the STRUCTURE program, whose results are usually presented in the form of a color-coded chart like this one showing population affinities and admixture proportions for each of the populations tested. In the case in question, as in the example above, there's virtually no Sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans (which enrages the Afrocentrist in Wapondaponda). And since studies tend to discuss admixture when it's present, and not when it's absent, his adamant request for a "direct quote" is rather silly and little more than a ruse to have material he doesn't like removed from the article. The data itself is the "direct quote". ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Take Blueboar's advice. What you are doing is analyzing a chart, If you were not, you would be able to provide a direct quote that supports the statements you are making. Unfortunately you have analyzed a chart independently. There is no text in the article that supports the analysis that you state. I hope wikipedia can develop a policy that directly deals with users analyzing charts and graphs. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the incivility is unnecessary, there is no need to call me an Afrocentrist. Secondly WP:PROVEIT is not silly. It is official wikipedia policy. Any user, should be able to independently verify information that is cited. We are not expected to take any editor for his/her word. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy stating that charts, graphs, diagrams and other forms of visual data cannot be cited. In addition to quotations, WP:PROVEIT mentions "any material" and "any other details" as admissible evidence, as long as they're "attributed to a reliable, published source". ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the edit-warring on this topic? If someone gets a semi-authoritative answer from this talk page, and then uses that as ammunition to fight an edit war, I don't think it serves the community's interests. (Also, see WP:Forum shopping.) Would anyone care to summarize what's going on here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (2nd nomination)
• Talk:Genetic history of Europe
• User talk:Small Victory#Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe
• User talk:Muntuwandi#Your remarks on Sub-Saharan DNA

TheFeds 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• We have a long running content dispute concerning the article, however this particular case focusses on the interpretation of chart, by a Wikipedian, in ways that cannot be traced to the text in the article. There are many other issues, but this thread concerns the specific chart. AFAIK, this is the first time this has been brought to a noticeboard, after extensive discussions on talk pages have not produced a resolution. So I wouldn't characterize this as WP:Forum shoppingWapondaponda (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• These two editors and an editor by the name of SOPHIAN (a.k.a Count of Monte Cristo)(See:Edit Warring are engage in an egocentric edit war on the Genetic history of Europe. I have moved the conflicted edits to the talk page for critique and discussion. Both editors have a (actually repeated) problems with NPOV and refuse to compromise with each other, consequently they are engaged in nitpicky egocentric activities that have propogated off the main page. One user SOPHIAN even went so far as to accuse myself and another contributer of sockpuppetry when we opinioned that SSA page be deleted. The page 'Genetic history of Europe' has suffered badly from the battle of wills that has occurred and it is basically garbage now. I may offer of AfD on the article if the article does not improve soon. The article has been listed over in the wikiproject-human genetic history as an article needing attention, it badly needs expert attention, moderator supervision, and content editors to bring it up to WP stands, much of the content is un-encyclopedic. It is clear that the battle of egos going on is more important to these editors than the quality of the article as a encyclopedic article. Muntawandi, this is more than just a long running dispute, you and other contributors have trashed this article and have resulted in content that is difficult to read and understand. You have acted in ways that discourage compromising.PB666 ^yap 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the problems you've been having, let me just weigh in on some principles, rather than try to provide an opinion on this particular case. I would generally say that if you noted, for example, that a particular peak of a histogram occurred at an x co-ordinate of 123.45 furlongs, the graph would be a sufficient reference for that fact. But if you continued and stated that because the peak was 123.45 furlongs, something should be concluded, you'd need to provide evidence (e.g. from a source with an explanation of how the graph works) that the conclusion still follows directly from reading the graph, and not from a synthesis relying upon your particular expertise or some other source. TheFeds 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This particular graph has no grid lines and the interpretation is entirely based on visual analysis. But even if it had gridlines, the simulation is sufficiently complex, to warrant interpretation by the authors. The authors have not used raw data, but have sanitized the inputs in order to achieve certain results. So in this case, a general statement made by visual inspection of the graph is likely to be misleading. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TheFeds, what you're describing as being acceptable practice is essentially what I did. I concluded that charts like this one produced by the STRUCTURE program show "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans", and I accompanied that with a source published by the creators of the program in which they explain how it works in detecting admixture:

We describe a model-based clustering method for using multilocus genotype data to infer population structure and assign individuals to populations. We assume a model in which there are K populations (where K may be unknown), each of which is characterized by a set of allele frequencies at each locus. Individuals in the sample are assigned (probabilistically) to populations, or jointly to two or more populations if their genotypes indicate that they are admixed. Our model does not assume a particular mutation process, and it can be applied to most of the commonly used genetic markers, provided that they are not closely linked. Applications of our method include demonstrating the presence of population structure, assigning individuals to populations, studying hybrid zones, and identifying migrants and admixed individuals. We show that the method can produce highly accurate assignments using modest numbers of loci.

http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/publications/structure.pdf

--- Small Victory (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

By concluding, you've synthesized a fact not given in the source. Sorry, but that's not going to work here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read carefully what TheFeds wrote:

But if you continued and stated that...something should be concluded, you'd need to provide evidence (e.g. from a source with an explanation of how the graph works) that the conclusion still follows directly from reading the graph.

The evidence that the conclusion of "negligible admixture" follows directly from reading this chart comes from the accompanying source explaining how the chart displays admixture proportions:

Individuals in the sample are assigned (probabilistically) to populations, or jointly to two or more populations if their genotypes indicate that they are admixed.

--- Small Victory (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a very simple proposition, if your interpretation/analysis of the chart is correct, could you direct us to the text in the article that directly supports your interpretation and analysis, per the policies defined at WP:PROVEIT. The article has 8 pages of text and the supplementary material has another 8 pages of text. If your interpretation is correct, then surely in these 16 pages, they would have mentioned something. Otherwise it falls into the category of "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" defined at WP:NOR. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting it, Small Victory. The text you quoted does not say "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans" anywhere. What you've done is looked at the chart, seen that they say "Individuals in the sample are assigned (probabilistically) to populations..." and personally concluded that the levels are "negligible." That's the very heart of WP:OR and WP:SYN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, TheFeds doesn't see it that way. You need to consult with him and come to a consensus. Of course, he's right. It's unreasonable to expect every source that uses the STRUCTURE program to independently re-explain how it works and then make specific statements about nonexistent admixture. That's like asking for a direct quote stating that there's no red coloring on zebras' coats. No such quote exists, but once colors and their labels have been established, anyone can just look at a zebra and see that the statement is true. Quite silly really. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some review of the concept of Statistical significance is in order to understand this debate, I think. I will say, that if you had to pick an alpha level for something, the claim is OR. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider simply quoting a p-value to show 'negligible' rather than using that term. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no figures of any kind given in the study (that's often the case with STRUCTURE), but what I could do is omit mention of admixture altogether and simply describe the chart in terms of cluster memberships, the populations sampled and the colors that represent them. In other words, no conclusion of any kind. Just an objective description of what's displayed in the chart. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically that wouldn't be original research if the chart is used as described in the article. However, given that they do not mention anything to do with Sub-Saharan admixture, then it would still be original research and POV if placed in an article or section concerning Sub-Saharan admixture. STRUCTURE program uses a statistical analysis of variance to assign individuals to different clusters and hybrid zones. STRUCTURE doesn't use the phylogenetic approach which is the most accurate method of determining admixture as it directly assesses the origins of specific DNA segments. Because it is a statistical analysis, it certainly requires interpretation of the information.Wapondaponda (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just my 2¢, but if there was an ANOVA going on, then p-values and alpha values need to be reported. If the chart doesn't have those, it shouldn't be used at all. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

p-values? Alpha values? Must have something to do with Quantum! You are all getting far too subject specific for this page. If the analysis of a chart is being conducted by a Wikipedia editor it is OR. If the analysis is being done by a reliable source it is not (in which case that analysis can be cited to the source to show that it is not OR). Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the people who are supposed to be settling this dispute have different opinions about the issue. Obviously, it's not as clear cut as some here seem to think. There's no policy against citing diagrams, and diagrams often lack explicit explanations, especially when they show an absence of something. This should really be discussed at a higher level so that a consensus can be reached and some kind of rule established. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory is edit warring by inserting his Original research analysis of the chart [1]. I have said to him, a million times, if you can show us text that supports your interpretation, then I won't oppose. Take Blueboar's advice, if the analysis is being done by a reliable source, then we can include it. If it is your own personal interpretation, its OR. Furthermore Small Victory is deleting direct unadulterated quotes from the very same article and replacing them with his own original research. My suggestion is this, STRUCTURE is used frequently, why not find another article that unambiguously supports your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, then other studies should have found similar findings, and stated them unambiguously. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Wapondaponda (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Irbisgreif and Blueboar for weighing in on the matter. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my interpretation". It's what the chart shows (i.e. admixture proportions between populations corresponding to continental regions). The evidence for that from the study itself is presented right here.

And your so-called "direct unadulterated quotes" are in fact nothing of the kind. They're either OR or POV or both, depending on the context you give them. That's all detailed here, where another editor has also spoken out against your dishonest tactics.

Yes, STRUCTURE is indeed used frequently. It's the preeminent method in population genetics right now. And it always works the same way. When it detects admixture, studies talk about that. When it doesn't, they generally don't. That's what the charts are for. Visualizations of data. You have eyes. Use them. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

STRUCTURE is no holy grail population genetics, as Auton et al mention, STRUCTURE is currently limited to using only a few SNPs because of the high computational cost. So STRUCTURE still has a long way to go. Auton et al state.

While the global STRUCTURE analysis reveals broad patterns of population differentiation (SupplementaryFigure S3), the method is limited to using a small fraction of the available SNPs due to high computational cost. Furthermore, as the number of specified clusters is increased, the patterns of population structure become increasingly difficult to interpret page 4

So STRUCTURE isn't a very accurate method, but is useful for determining broad patterns. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Lose the OR debate, then resort to attacking the STRUCTURE method itself. Some studies have used hundreds of thousands of markers, but even a handful is preferable to any single marker like an mtDNA or Y-chromosome haplogroup. Perhaps you've forgotten what Pritchard et al. say about their program:

We show that the method can produce highly accurate assignments using modest numbers of loci.

--- Small Victory (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

← I really don't know how to explain this any more succinctly to you, SV. You are drawing conclusions from the chart, that is OR. There are no figures you can cite to support your thesis. None of what you are doing is accepted procedure on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. I'm simply describing what the chart shows based on what the authors of the study say the chart shows. Your argument that "there are no figures" is both false and irrelevant. Data from STRUCTURE can be presented in either visual or numerical form. When visual, it's showing the exact same thing as when numerical, and it can therefore be cited the same way. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You have arrived at a conclusion that you cannot support with any text. You are aggregating together different pieces of text from different sources to support your conclusion. How would an independent person, determine that your conclusion and analysis is correct, if you cannot point to any unambiguous text supporting your conclusion. This is exactly why the "no original research" policy exists, to handle situations such as these. WP:SYNTH states

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research

In order to reach a conclusion, such as the one you support, you would need a reliable source that explicitly states your conclusion. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no synthesis and no conclusion being drawn. Auton et al. explicitly state what their chart shows, i.e. quantifications of structure and admixture in populations corresponding to continental regions:

In order to quantify patterns of population structure and admixture, we utilized STRUCTURE [Pritchard et al. 2000], a commonly used Bayesian clustering method. [...] Setting the number of clusters (K) to five revealed structure largely corresponding to continental regions (Figure 1A).

They even cite the "different source" you're referring to, as does every study that uses the STRUCTURE program, which makes the argument of "synthesis" all the more ridiculous. ---- (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the problem, SV. The problem is that you're looking at the chart and, without any numbers or citation to back it up, claiming that it shows "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans". Nowhere does the chart say that, nor does the report say that, nor are there numbers made available to support that. Are you just saying, "Look at the chart & it's obvious"? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But the chart does say that. It says it visually, with colored bars instead of numbers. Obviously, one has to both look at the chart and read an explanation of what the chart is showing (see my reply to 'Elen of the Roads' below). ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My Gods!! I've looked at those charts, and it would take someone knowledgeable in the subject to pick any conclusions out of it. For the unenlightened, like me, they look like something Damian Hirst would have produced, and there is no way on earth I could tell whether or not any statement about them was correct. TheFeds was surely making his remarks about charts such as this [2], where I might say "this graph shows the sharp fall in interest rates between 2008 and now", and it wouldn't need interpretive text outside of the chart title and legend. The information is obvious and the chart would be as good evidence for falling interest rates as an accompanying article. But there is no way the charts that Small Victory is attempting to present fall into this category. All but those knowledgeable in the field would need an expert text to make sense of what they are being shown. That I think is the key difference - where the chart is but a graphical representation of a simple table of figures, the chart and the table are interchangeable, and reading the data off the chart is not OR. Data that has been through the processing of the STRUCTURE program cannot be understood by the lay observer just looking at the chart, and anything said about it requires way more synthesis than just reading the chart Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (who has an A level in Pure Maths, so is not entirely innumerate)

Of course, "expert texts" explaining the charts are provided. Anyone who follows the citation links (to the studies themselves or to the paper by the creators of the STRUCTURE program) can easily learn to make sense of the charts. Here's a very clear and concise explanation of what they show from one of the studies in question:

We utilized the unsupervised clustering algorithm implemented in STRUCTURE [12,13] to group individuals into genetic clusters in such a way that each individual is given an estimated membership coefficient for each cluster, corresponding to the fraction of his or her genome inferred to have ancestry in the cluster.

I can also provide a more detailed explanation from another one of the studies if you would like. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I think you just made my point quite nicely. I would have to LEARN how to interpret the charts, and you are offering to "provide a more detailed explanation". I believe that makes the definition of Original research quite nicely. Our policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While I haven't been following this discussion, this last comment is just absurd. Any interpretation of any source requires using a brain, even if it is just a paraphrasing — this last comment, which looks like a refusal to read a chart, doesn't fit with "a reasonable, educated person", as the quotation makes sense to me without any specialist knowledge. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you try following the discussion (I know it's very long) as the quote, which is directly from WP:OR will make more sense. Or at the least, look at the charts (they are linked to at the top). Reading a chart is not the problem, it's reading these charts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shreevatsa is absolutely right. Your "argument", if it can even be called that, is ridiculous. If a peer-reviewed, published study contains a chart, and explains in layman's terms what that chart is showing (as those I'm citing all do), then it's a perfectly valid reference. Your stubborn refusal to examine the chart and read its explanation is completely irrelevant. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that if a source explains in layman's terms what a chart is showing... the proper thing to cite is that explanation of the chart, and not the chart itself. This avoids any potential of OR. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Cite the researchers saying "this chart shows that there is 25% greater clustering of low birthweight babies in areas of high deprivation in Bradford than there is in similar areas in the rest of West Yorkshire" You can't just stick the chart in as a referece, and you can't just stick in a piece of text (whether written by yourself or the researcher) saying "this is all the things you need to know about the project to be able to read this chart"Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What's being cited is the entire study, not just the chart. So the explanation is included. As far as using a direct quote with a percentage, that's the problem. The study is being cited to show an absence of admixture. The authors generally only discuss admixture that's present, and understandably don't go into detail about the places where there's little or no admixture. However, by looking at the STRUCTURE chart and reading the explanation of what it shows, anyone can see where there is and isn't admixture. It's data presented in visual form. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing charts - break

In all this talk I have lost track of the citation in question (are we still talking about "genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/02/12/gr.088898.108.abstract publication" and "genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2009/05/01/19.5.815.DC1/Supp_Figures.pdf supplementary material"? ... would someone provide a link to it here (so we can all see exactly what is being cited), and note which section/paragraph/sentence at Genetic history of Europe it is being used to support? Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The results from several similar studies are being cited (i.e. global admixture proportions all calculated using the STRUCTURE program). They're supporting the statement that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans".

Here's a typical example, including chart and explanation:

We utilized the unsupervised clustering algorithm implemented in STRUCTURE [12,13] to group individuals into genetic clusters in such a way that each individual is given an estimated membership coefficient for each cluster, corresponding to the fraction of his or her genome inferred to have ancestry in the cluster. [...] Each individual is represented by a thin line partitioned into K colored segments that represent the individual's estimated membership fractions in K clusters.

Chart of Genetic Clusters

SOURCE: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

Note also that every single one of the studies being cited, when explaining what the STRUCTURE chart shows, cites this paper published by the program's creators, in which they state the following about their method:

We describe a model-based clustering method for using multilocus genotype data to infer population structure and assign individuals to populations. We assume a model in which there are K populations (where K may be unknown), each of which is characterized by a set of allele frequencies at each locus. Individuals in the sample are assigned (probabilistically) to populations, or jointly to two or more populations if their genotypes indicate that they are admixed. Our model does not assume a particular mutation process, and it can be applied to most of the commonly used genetic markers, provided that they are not closely linked. Applications of our method include demonstrating the presence of population structure, assigning individuals to populations, studying hybrid zones, and identifying migrants and admixed individuals. We show that the method can produce highly accurate assignments using modest numbers of loci.

--- Small Victory (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what the problem is... If you are going to include a blunt statement of fact that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans" you need to cite a source that directly states that conclusion (the conclusion does not need to be that exact wording... but it does need to be substantially similar).

It may be obvious to you that the data in the charts means that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans"... but if no source actually states this conclusion based on the data, then it is you (a wikipedia editor) who are analysing the chart and making the statement. That is what we here at Wikipeida term Original research.

So, the key to resolving this is very simple... Do any of your sources actually state the conclusion that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans" or at least discuss sub-Saharan African admixtures in relation to Europeans? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that Small Victory is totally misrepresenting the study. This is a direct quote from the study. It is not available in the abstract but in the main article.Page 7

Nonetheless, the haplotype sharing between Europe and the YRI are suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit from West Africa and not necessarily North Africa

So it doesn't make sense to write that study states that there are negligible levels of Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe, when in fact the study states that there are certain genes shared by West Africans and Europeans and that the presence of these shared genes could be interpreted as gene flow from West Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that's a different study, not the one I used above as an example. Secondly, you're the one misrepresenting what it says by treating "suggestive of" as if it were definite, and ignoring the other interpretations put forth by the authors. Shared haplotypes are not necessarily equivalent to direct admixture. They could result from both groups being admixed with a third (such as North Africans, who weren't tested in the study) or simply from genetic drift linked to human migrations that ultimately trace back to Africa (hence the Iberian refugium hypothesis). My reference to that study mentioned all of the possible interpretations, plus the results of the STRUCTURE-based admixture analysis, making it far more neutral than yours, which was limited to that one quote (WP:Information suppression). ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, studies almost never go into detail about admixture that's very low or absent altogether. It would be like listing all of the ingredients that are not in a recipe instead of those that are in it. But I strongly disagree that anything is being analyzed. If the explanation of the chart says that it shows different ancestries in the form of colored segments, and Europeans have none of the color that comprises Sub-Saharan African ancestry, then the conclusion is self-evident and in effect being "stated" (visually) without actually being stated (in words). Now, I can see how in theory that might pose a problem, but I'm aware of no policy that requires all evidence to be in text form. And the STRUCTURE method is widely used in population genetics today, so there has to be a way of incorporating it into genetics articles, otherwise it's like disallowing results from carbon-14 dating in articles about archaeology. That's just not an acceptable solution. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point... The problem isn't any flaw the STRUCTURE method or the data... the problem is with who is interpreting the data and reaching a conclusion. We would disallow discussion of the results from carbon-14 dating in articles about archaeology, if the conclusions made are those of Wikipedia editor. It does not matter how "obvious" the conclusion is... if the conclusion originates from a Wikipedia editor it is OR. If you are the first one to notice something about the data presented on a chart, if you are the first person to draw a conclusion from that data, then that is Original Research. It does not matter if your observation about the data is correct, or even "obvious"... what matters is that you were the first person to make that observation. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's analysis is spot on. Even if Small Victory's analysis were correct, it would still be OR, if the analysis is not explicitly mentioned in the publication. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it has been implemented as a quality control measure. Independent editors should be able to verify all sourced content and the references cited should unambiguously support the material in question. I too have noticed information in the article, that seems to have an obvious meaning. But, I have chosen not to use it in the article, because the authors of the study have not made any explicit explanation. For example, there is the chart on supplementary material page 10 Fig B has a European, Middle Eastern/African cluster in the plot of PC4 vs PC3. As there is a single cluster between these three neighboring populations, it can only mean that gene flow has taken place across these populations. However, the authors of the study have made no such explicit observation, though it seems obvious from the Chart. As a result, I have chosen not cite it. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're linking to the wrong document. You mean this one. And that's entirely different because the study doesn't state that that plot shows admixture, whereas it does state that the STRUCTURE chart shows admixture. In fact, it strongly suggests that PCs 3 and 4 aren't showing admixture by the way that it describes PCs 1 and 2 as equivalent to the STRUCTURE chart:

The first two principal components (PCs) of the combined dataset separate individuals into clusters largely determined by geographic origin (Supplementary Figure S1A), which is consistent with a previous analysis of the HGDP dataset [Li et al. 2008].

We repeated the analysis using the 'supervised' STRUCTURE mode, having pre-assigned European and East Asian individuals to their respective populations. A K = 3, we found this method to give similar results to the unsupervised mode, with a European admixture component of 35.0% (standard deviation 16.8%) in Mexican individuals. The first two principal components of the same individuals demonstrates a similar pattern (Figure 1B), with Mexican individuals forming a distinct cluster between the European and East Asian Clusters in the first principal component. However, the second PC further differentiates the Mexican individuals from the East Asian individuals without substantially increasing the separation from Europeans.

--- Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not original research. There is no interpreting being done and no conclusion being drawn. It's simply a citation of data. The chart clearly shows the data, and the study clearly explains what it represents. The only difference is that the data is in a visual format rather than presented as a textual quote or a numerical value. And unless there's a policy I'm not aware of that prohibits citations of visual data, then it's a perfectly valid reference. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is interpretation being done, and a conclusion being drawn... you are the one looking at the chart and reaching the conclusion that there are "negligible levels of Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe". This is a perfect example of the misuse of Primary source material... you are taking raw data (presented in a visual form) and reaching a conclusion about it. The raw data may well clearly indicate that what you say is in fact true... but if you are the first to notice and comment on what the data indicates, then your observation and comment is considered Original research. The key to WP:NOR is that Wikipedia should never be the first place of publication for anything... even if the raw data clearly indicates what you have noticed, until a reliable Secondary source notices the same thing, and comments on it, then Wikiepdia can not, and should do so. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not raw data. This is the raw data that was run through the STRUCTURE program. The chart is the authors' published illustration of that data, presented in the form of colored segments that correspond to admixture proportions, as explained in the study. Therefore, Wikipedia is not its "first place of publication", and I'm not interpreting or concluding anything. ---- Small Victory (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... an illustration of the raw data then... same thing. No matter what you call it, it does not change the fact that you are the one who has noticed something about that illustration (something not noticed or discussed by any reliable source). You are the one who is stating a conclusion. No matter how you twist things... THAT is the very deffinition of OR.

I am not going to continue this discussion... it is obvious that you will simply not accept what I am saying (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and a childish "Is too"/"Is not" argument is pointless. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose to close this discussion. An overwhelming number of editors have agreed that, a wikipedian's independent analysis of a chart constitutes an original idea. There is no need to continue to beat a dead horse. If Small Victory would like to continue with his claims, I suggest he should find a source that unambiguously supports his claims. There are probably thousands of Genetics publications, there is no need to cling to just one publication. If his analysis is correct, he should be able to find another source that agrees with his analysis. I too will no longer comment on this matter. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about "one publication". It's about a method of genetic testing that's used in multiple publications. But of course, you already knew that because you have a deadly fear of this method. You're so transparent. You don't believe your OR allegation for a second. You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex. The evidence, however, shows that they have almost none. So your only recourse is to have it suppressed. That's why you started this thread, to dupe people who know nothing about population genetics into helping you get your way. If the evidence had shown what you wanted, we wouldn't be here right now. You're so dishonest and agenda-driven, it's disgusting. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, a published illustration of data is not the same as raw data. You reveal your ignorance of the subject when you say ridiculous things like that. You can bow out of the debate if you want, but you have not demonstrated that citing STRUCTURE charts is original research. I've answered every feeble argument made in this thread, and no matter what I say, you come back with the same erroneous refrain. So if anything, you're the one guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'll say this one more time: Nothing is being interpreted or concluded that's not made explicit in the study itself through a combination of text and diagram. This has already been proven. There's no difference between the authors writing out "Europeans have very little Sub-Saharan admixture" and drawing up a chart that shows, based on their own unambiguous explanation, that Europeans have very little Sub-Saharan admixture. It's just that you and others have an unfounded bias against visual evidence. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't share that bias in its official policy. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing of the article you want to use the data in. I do know that I could not interpret the charts without having the process by which they were created explained to me in sufficient depth for me to understand what I was seeing. I do believe I am a person of reasonable intelligence, and I have an A level in pure maths. Therefore, I am quite certain that your contention is not supported by WP:OR which is quite clear. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, either you're mistaken about being "a person of reasonable intelligence" or you're just not trying. Because the charts are explained very clearly and even color-coded to make reading them easier. Basically, the colors represent genetic clusters that correspond to ancestry from major geographic regions (e.g. Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia etc.). Populations that have more than one color are mixed, and the amount of the color they have indicates the level of admixture. It's not exactly rocket science. And anyway, difficulty of a subject has nothing to do with WP:OR. I don't know where you got that notion. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NOR:

• Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. (Bolding mine)

Does that answer your question? Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect not, as I've already said this once, higher up the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That applies to sources that provide no explanation or analysis of any kind. But a genetic study is not like a novel that requires interpretation from an external source. It contains within itself both primary source material (data) and secondary source material (what the data means). In this case, as I've said, the data is color-coded and explained in simple English. The fact that the subject matter (population genetics) may be difficult or unfamiliar to some people has no bearing on anything. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place regarding some of the comments made in this thread here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Developing_Situation_with_User:Small_Victory, [3]. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject came up in another discussion, and Elen of the Roads made some comments that were archived before I could respond. So I left a reply on her Talk Page, which she promptly deleted. This pretty much confirms that she knows I'm right. She couldn't refute my arguments here, and she can't refute them there either. Only there she has the power to suppress rather than simply ignore them. I think we can safely disregard her views on this issue, as even she recognizes their untenability. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing charts random break 2

Small Victory has continued with his analysis of STRUCTURE charts while not providing any interpretation from the articles that he has sourced the charts from. diff Wapondaponda (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs to be moved to the next step of dispute resolution. Perhaps an impartial moderator could help. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda is making a false accusation. I've significantly changed the way that data is referenced in the article based on objections raised in this thread. First of all, I've included one of the STRUCTURE charts so people can see the data for themselves without having to dig through the sources. Then, I include an explanation of what the chart is showing from the study it comes from. And finally, I've switched to language that simply describes what's shown in the objective terms established in the study. Go and see for yourself (last paragraph, and be sure to click on "[note 2]" for the explanation). There's no analysis taking place, other than that of the authors. Wapondaponda just doesn't like this perfectly valid evidence and is trying to suppress it, which is absurd and violates Wikipedia policy. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Your issues have gone far beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Either get a neutral third party involved or take it to arbitration. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite simple, if SV can provide direct quotes to back up his assertion, then there is no controversy. If he can't it is his own original idea and original research. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar is right, you need to stop and take this elsewhere, it is not something we can help you with. It may be "really quite simple" to you, but that is your opinion and while I am sympathetic, others may have other opinions making it not sooo simple really.Camelbinky (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should avoid solving problems. The dispute resolution process on wikipedia ground to a halt a few years ago. There just aren't any editors willing to avail themselves for mediation. If they were, I would definitely go that route. This sort of issue is exactly what this noticeboard is meant to address. The subject may appear to be complex, but myself and some of the other counterparties are no specialists. I say it is simple, because if SV can provide a direct quote from the sources that he cites to back up his explanation, I will not dispute them. It is up to him to provide unambiguous text that supports his material, which is a requirement on wikipedia per WP:PROVEIT. A novel analysis of a chart in a way that cannot be identified in the source documents is problematic. I have read through each of the sources several times, and I cannot find any text that is consistent with SV's interpretation. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think mediation will work, then bump it up to arbcom. We here at this noticeboard have already given our opinions and advice on this matter (see above and below). That is all we can do ... offer an opinion and advice... this isn't an enforcement body (hell, most of us are not even admins.) If you wish resolution of the issue, you are going to have to look for it elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My experience so far, is that mediation and arbcom need to be sure that all other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted. So far Small Victory has yet to demonstrate with direct quotes evidence supporting his material. If we get to that point then we have a real dispute. Since we are not yet at that point, I believe the community still has role to play in advising or even enforcing policies and guidelines. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided direct quotes from several studies clearly stating that the charts depict continental ancestry and admixture proportions. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided any quotes that directly concern African admixture in Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because Europeans don't have any African admixture to speak of, and studies rarely discuss what isn't there. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And Small Victory, can I just point out that I believe that you are DEAD WRONG. GOT THAT. DO NOT assume represent that I have agreed with you or accepted your arguments when I manifestly have not. I believe you are violating policy in your attempts to add your original research interpretations of these charts, that your argument is tendentious nonsense, and that your approach to disagreement - which involves fictionalising the view of others - is disruptive to the project. I would support any legitimate action proposed which prevents your further disruption, as this is plainly not going to resolve through any form of mediation. Is that clear enough for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If my arguments were really "tendentious nonsense", you wouldn't be having so much trouble refuting them. By your own admission, you don't understand the charts and are unwilling to learn, so how can you possibly know whether I'm interpreting them or not? You don't even understand the Wikipedia Policy you quote. This is obviously a subject that's way over your head and that you have no interest in whatsoever, so I would suggest that you refrain from weighing in on the matter, because what you "believe" is completely irrelevant. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As I thought - your only response is incivility, coupled with more fantasy representations of what I said. Let me cite AGAIN WP:OR, which is scintillatingly clear. Our policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. I have a maths GCE, a Maths O/A level and a Maths A level, therefore I constitute an educated person. If I have to learn how to interpret the charts, they very clearly do not fall into the category of charts which do not require a secondary source for interpretation. Therefore, rather than showing me the chart and asking me to conclude that it supports your hypothesis (whatever that is), you must show me the secondary source which states your hypothesis. This is the third time of explaining this to you - have you understood yet?Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: That policy applies to primary sources like novels, which provide no interpretation at all. Genetic studies don't fall into that category. They contain both primary source material (charts of data) and secondary source material (interpretations of those charts). I showed you both of these things and your response was "Thanks, but no thanks." That's reader laziness, not editor OR. Learn the difference. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a fatuous argument if ever I saw one. Shall I quote a larger chunk.

Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

I think that neatly disposes of the idea that "it only applies to primary sources like novels."

If what you meant was "it only applies to primary sources, this is a secondary source", then the section that refers is Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.

The key point to note here is that articles may include evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source, and not otherwise.

So your choice, are your charts a primary source or a secondary one. If a primary, you cannot advance an interpretation, if secondary, you cannot advance that interpretation because the source from which the chart is taken does not support that interpretation.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Genetics articles can indeed contain citable interpretations, and not just raw information. But the controversy here is about Small Victory's own interpretation of raw information, not about citing interpretations made by the peer reviewed authors. Therefore it all comes down to whether it is obvious, and the disagreement on the original article talk pages shows that he could not convince people who edit these articles that it was. This is actually a content dispute, because it involves making a judgement about what is obvious in a particular field. What a smoke screen of a discussion!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's what I was saying. The problem is not including raw info, the problem is that SV wants to use the chart to back up some content that he wants to add. And he wants to use the chart because the research paper that the chart comes from says nothing about the content SV wants to add. So to that extent it is a content dispute, but it is also about OR, because SV claims that it is obvious from the chart that the research supports his contention, and everyone else says it is OR that the chart supports his contention - which in any case I gather they don't agree with - my only interest was whether or not the chart was such an obvious thing that it could be used to support content without the research paper as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Humor of the LaRouche movement

• talk:LaRouche movement#Humor

The article about the "LaRouche movement" is an overview of the following of Lyndon LaRouche which comprises many active or defunct organizations. The article contains a section, added over a year ago without discussion and with no secondary sources, that claimed the movement is known for using humor.[4] It was tagged as unreferenced back in October 2008.[5] Due to the lack of secondary sources that identified the anecdotes as humor, the complete lack of any sources in some cases, I recently deleted the section as original research. But the deletion was reverted and even unsourced material was restored. It is the assertion of the LaRouche accounts that the humor sectin should be limited to those items that they find funny, with no regard for secondary sources. That argument has been used to retain some anecdotes while deleting others, even jokes clearly labeled as "humor".[6] I researched the topic and found that the LaRouche movement is not known for using humor: just the opposite. What is the proper standard for a section like this? Should it be based on editors' personal views on what is funny, or on what reliable, 3rd party sources have called "humor" or "jokes"?   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To place material in a section called "Humor", I would certainly agree that you would need an independant third party reliable source that labeled the material as such. I would also say that including a "Humor" section in an article on a polictical movement is essentially WP:TRIVIA. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar; any such section has to be justified by third-party sources devoting attention to this aspect. JN466 19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OR could be avoided if the section was retitled "Pranks", "Theatrics", or something similar. The question of whether it's trivia would still be open. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

With regard to "original images"

The way the section at WP:NOR now reads, if an "original research" violation occurs with regard to the construction of an illustrative image, the suggested fix to the offense is to take the image to ifd. Here's the problem. A knowledgeable Wikipedian who constructs an image is more likely to grant it to public domain or register it under a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike license on Commons. And any deletion discussion on Commons is not going to care if the image is original research.

Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites.

—  COMMONS:Project scope/Neutral point of view

Now walk through this with me. Say I am the creator of this image on Flickr. (Of course, I'm not -- just sayin for the purpose of this hypothetical that I am.) And let's say in addition that each of the images I made this composite out of are free use. And I upload it to Commons, using a license that in turn is completely free use.

Then someone uses it on some Wikipedia page, in a context where the image's aspects of "original imagery" would not be appropriate. How in the world would the following suggestion within the Original Images guideline "Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion" be of any help in this instance? In other words, should an original images be held to convey an editorial opinion inappropriate to the context in which it is used on Wikipedia, wouldn't simply not using the image be the accepted guideline? -- with such unused images deleted if they are orphaned on Wikipedia (or else simply not used on Wikipedia, in the case of images that happen to be hosted on Commons)?

Please do chime in if you've some suggestion, say, to supplement the WP:OI guideline to account for the scenario I present -- or else defend the way the section is worded now -- or whatever else you'd like to address (if anything). ↜Just M E here , now 18:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point (although it is far more likely that the person placing an image in an article is the same person who created it, your senario could happen). I would suggest that the language be restated as: "Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be deleted from the article and a note should posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research. It is also suggested that the file be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion" (suggested change in bold).

Posting the image file at FfD is really secondary to removing it from the article. As long as a note is left on the image file page letting people know that the file contains OR, it does not really matter if it stays in Commons. The key is preventing the file from being misused, not removing it from Wikipedia entirely. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

a) Blueboar is right. The key is to inhibit image misuse, not inhibit image storage. The two are not even necessarily related. After all, even if an image is OR in one context, it is not automatically also OR in another context. It could still have legitimate use.

b) Despite the treatment of images as somehow special, the basic concept of NOR applies to images as well. That is: images, like text, may not represent a novel idea. To put it another way: if someone were to describe a certain picture in words, that description could not violate NOR. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have been BOLD and amended the section with my suggested language... we will see if others approve. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. And in my opinion your additions to WP:OI were most excellent, Blueboar (as Bill or Ted would say!) ↜Just M E here , now 11:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing here for your comments at a deletion discussion on Commons

Note that what follows is what is hoped is an entirely neutrally worded notice per the guidelines at WP:CANVASSING. Hey, people, there is an actual image that happens to be on Commons right now that has, in fact, been described by some as presenting an unacceptable level of original research through its composition. This image has been nominated for deletion from Commons, with its deletion discussion here -- to which any interested editors are invited to contribute. Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 18:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity control theory

Please take a look. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Poss OR on Chabad messianism

Resolved

I believe that the following statement in Chabad messianism: "According to Zalman Shmotkin, director of the non-messianist website chabad.org ...", claiming that chabad.org is non-messianist, is original research, and I've been unable to locate any sources (even from chabad.org) that support this claim. Two other editors disagree with me. Please provide input to help reach consensus. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was initiated on my talkpage, moved to the article's talkpage, and now here. The opinion of Zsero and me is that this is not original research, since it is obvious. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can give you a complete outsider's view... since I know next to nothing about the Lubavitch movement, nor care one way or the other. First, question... what makes the statement obvious? Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusive proof is opening the site, pressing the button for "The Rebbe" and reading "The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson of righteous memory". Messianists don't consider him dead. But actually it is obvious in another way. All the messianist sites necessarily show a yellow flag with the word "Moshiach" and the sentence "Yechi etc." (or its English translation). This site has neither, and is thus marked at once as non-messianist. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are not "obvious" signs to an outsider. And I don't think that is enough to say the website (or rather the organization behind it) is non-messianist. Christianity is messianist, and Christians believe Jesus died... the key is that they believe Jesus was the Messiah. Besides, Judeism in general is messianist (although only the Lubavitchers believe Schneerson was the Messiah... other Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come). Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, In this case, "chabad messianism" means something different than the messianism you're thinking about. Judaism also is "messianist" in the sense that belief in a messiah is a core component of the religion. Chabad messianism refers specifically to the those members of Chabad who believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the messiah. All the more reason that this is "original research". -shirulashem^(talk) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually "chabad messianism" means those who believe the LR was and continues to be the messiah, and that publicising this fact is the core mission of every Lubavitcher. Many non-messianists may privately hope, or even believe, that the LR will return and become the messiah, but they see no need to talk about it to all and sundry. They see Lubavitch's mission as spreading Judaism and Chassidus, and raising awareness of the messiah in general, not the promotion of a specific person's claims to that status. That is the real distinction between messianists and non-messianists, and chabad.org is very obviously non-messianist, just as chabad.info is very obviously messianist. All it takes is two minutes looking at each of them to see the difference. -- Zsero (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

-shirulashem is right about the specific meaning of "messianist" in this context. Now, as to our subject. For any Lubavitcher, both messianist as well as not, as well as for large segments of general Jewry, this is obvious at first glance. Logically, a complete outsider will not see this right away. But that is not yet reason to call this research. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, Let's try this another way. According to WP:OR, "The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category [Original Research] is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." Can you produce a reliable published source that says that chabad.org is not messianist? -shirulashem^(talk) 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Do you need a source before you describe a web site as "English-language" or "Hebrew-language"? Of course not. It is obvious to anyone who looks at it and is capable of recognising the language in question. Someone who doesn't know what the language looks like will not be able to see it, but that doesn't make it need a source. That chabad.org is not messianist is just as obvious, to anyone who knows what Chabad messianism is and what it looks like. -- Zsero (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I just tried, but couldn't find it. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... thanks for the explanation. Given the comment immediately above, my call would be to simply remove the discriptive term (ie have the line read: According to Zalman Shmotkin, director of the website chabad.org ..."). Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think removing it is the only option now. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Debresser (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So done as per consensus here. Feel free to check. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. See above. Nobody who is qualified to form an opinion on the matter can possibly look at the site without concluding that it is non-messianic. Until someone addresses my comments directly, and offers a convincing rebuttal, I disagree with removing that label. -- Zsero (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "qualified to form an opinion"? The whole point of Wikipedia is that EVERYONE is qualified to form an opinion. I'll reiterate my earlier policy quote: "The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category [Original Research] is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." You might think it's "nonsense", but that's the policy, and I think it's a pretty reasonable one. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive2

There are claims of OR on this featured article YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clara Elsene Peck

I'm in the process of reviewing Clara Elsene Peck as a good article. The heavy use of primary sources is a concern for me. I don't see anything approaching original research, but the demarcation between using primary sources appropriately and making novel statements about those sources is very thin. I'm a little too close to the article as a reviewer to remain objective at this point so I would like a second opinion. On the one hand, there is very little material on the subject, and the priamry editor has used these sources to make simple observations about the subject. For example, one statement says, "She continued to work on magazine illustrations until at least 1935." I don't believe we have secondary sources that actually say that, and from what I can tell, the writer simply looked at the artist's oeuvre and made that observation. Could someone take a look at the article and remove anything egregious? I would like to finish cleaning up the prose and MOS and pass it, but I'm concerned about the use of primary sources here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians

I've come across this article several times, and each time it gets worse. Almost 3/4 of the entire article is original research and written as a soapbox/diatribe against those who disagree with the editor's very supportive take on this group. It is almost entirely opinion and original research, with cites in some areas. Can anything be done? The most prevalent editor is an edit-war type. Thank you.68.255.100.149 (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Beatitudes

Beatitudes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Radu Comanescu (talk · contribs) has been adding OR/synthesis to Beatitudes since 2007. I happened upon these edits about four months ago and have been involved in a prolonged revert war with him ever since. I requested outside help at WT:Christianity as I'm sure they have dealt with this type of issue before, and someone from that WP agreed with my position. Over the last week or so he's been back at it, culminating in this edit, which I reverted. As before, I need an outside opinion. Thanks. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SOD/CAT

This AfD discussion link would greatly benefit from people able to explain out NOR policy to the author of this article, which I think is a glaring example of original synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the same information written at WP:OR and WP:NOR in different words? Warrior4321 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If a prisoner makes no demands, due to a fast, other than from God

would the same constitute a "hunger strike" or, not constitute a "hunger strike," per se? Can an excercise of the self-denial of substanance whose intention is one of ascetic theology rather than of worldly protest nonetheless be termed a strike? Do Gitmo prisoners doing so all "hunger strike"? or should some of these "fasters-to-the-point-of-convulsiveness-and-forced-feedings" not be termed to be doing so, depending on if they have made any overt demands?

How about the case of "the Suu Kyi swimmer," John Yettaw, or that of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints prisoner in Arizona, Warren Jeffs?

If there are competing secondary sources, is picking one or the other of them engaging in "original research"? Eg John Yettaw's lawyer says his was no "hunger strike" but a spiritual practice. But news sources are prone to call it a hunger strike. Here are various reports found from googling "hunger strike," "Yettaw".

Likewise, Warren Jeffs' doctor (among others) has said (quote) that Jeffs was "drinking some but is not eating as he is fasting for 'spiritual strength,"' according to a copy of an e-mail made part of a court document (end of quote). Yet, here is the googling of "hunger strike," "Warren Jeffs." Who should we accept as an arbiter of such terms, Jeffs himself or the New York Times? ↜Just M E here , now 13:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Death and Dying

(2003) ...leaves it somewhat vague -- "A true hunger strike represents a competent individual's intentional refusal to eat and or drink for some specific purpose."

Columbia Encyclopedia

(2008) ...specifies the "protest" angle, nonetheless it puts a fine spin on some exemplars: "[...]Mohandas Gandhi in India and Cesar Chavez in California fasted as religious penance during otherwise political or economic disputes." ↜Just M E here , now 16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If we drop our own pose of "neutrality" and at least try to climb into Mr. Yettaw's shoes for just a sec, from his point of view, wouldn't he be involved in a political (and, yes, true, too, criminal) conflict with Myanmar, yet one of the only thing he had fully in his power to do about it was for him to try and seek the mind of God? And would this be essentially or materially any different from what Cesar Chavez and Mohandas Gandhi were doing, again, according to the points of view of these fellow players on the stage of conflict, the progressive icon Chavez and the patriot-and-saint Gandhi? Or, for that matter, the Irish Republican Army martyrs imprisoned in the UK, or mujāhidīn imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, or the "the Prophet" Warren Steed Jeffs imprisoned in the State of Arizona? ↜Just M E here , now 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Heres an interesting quote:

I propose that what is definitive about self-starvation is the changing socio-cultural blueprint: it detemines whether fasting will be construed in religious terms as "holy anorexia," in medical terms as "chlorosis," in psychiatric terms as "anorexia nervosa," or in political terms such as "hunger strike."
Quote of some kind in a paper about Clarissa

↜Just M E here , now 14:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The news sources are irresponsible. Yettaw was not on a hunger strike. He was not doing it for political reasons. He was fasting in hopes of having a visionary experience. Kingturtle (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that such a "visionary experience" would increasingly include images of pizzas and hamburgers. If a fast calls attention to oneself, how is it not politically motivated? A guy could simply tell the prison personnel he's on a self-imposed diet and leave it at that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The NYT seems to call it a self-imposed fast [7]. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! So it does. When I cursored over the link on the NYT page that led to the article, it showed a hed or caption that included a phrase mentioning Jeffs' "hunger strike" -- but you're right, when you go to the article there is no mention of that. Sorry. ↜Just M E here , now 14:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually up to us though to decide, although statements can and should be attributed -- ie "'such and such report' calls it a hungerstrike but Yettaw's lawyer says x and his doctor says Y." Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs. Even if he doesn't announce his intentions, when authorities see he isn't eating, they will probably ask why. Yettaw has a history of visionary experiences, such as he's the defender of the oppressed, that sent on a journey by God to protect Suu Kyi, a premonition of his son's death, and where his estranged father lived. His fast was probably not to call attention to his case, but to receive a message to tell him what to do next. Kingturtle (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Messages from God, eh? Well, we go by reliable sources. Not that God is not reliable, but He doesn't have His own website up and running yet. Problems with the agency He outsourced it to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that God tends to be published in Dead Tree format... or even, for some of his early works, in Clay Tablet or Carved Rock formats (he apparently did try Burning Bush^tm at least once, but as that was not a permanent recording medium, this is unverifiable). Also, please note that there is great debate as to the authenticity of many of the works attributed to Him.

To get back to the issue at hand, however, Bugs has it right... it is not up to us to use "self-imposed fast", "hunger strike" or some other term. We should use whatever terms are used by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a current news quote (wrt Yettaw): "Yettaw went on hunger strike after his arrest, which resulted in a series of epileptic fits that saw him hospitalised in early August, delaying the verdict in his and Suu Kyi's trial." ↜Just M E here , now 14:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible original music theorizing at Hendrix chord

I'm engaged in a discussion over at Hendrix chord and would additional opinions as to whether or not a specific bit of text constitutes original research and should therefore be removed. The sentence in question is

When performing "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" live Hendrix later used the sharpened ninth not only on the tonic pedal, E, but also on C and D as well which would total nine and imply eleven notes, almost the full chromatic scale, rather than only five.

The potential OR is the part in boldface. This clause is uncited, despite a request for a source. That the chord sequence contains nine notes and implies 11 has been suggested to be a routine calculation, but it's a considerably harder calc than the examples cited at that policy page, and requires making some assumptions about the voicings used by Hendrix. And that the chord sequence implies a chromatic scales seems to me to qualify as novel conclusion or synthesis. (And, for what's it's worth, I happen to think this conclusion is incorrect.) In short, no sources have been provided for the assertion that this chord sequence functions as is claimed in the article, therefore, in my view, it is OR and should be removed. Other opinions? Yilloslime ^T_C 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Clearly OR. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The user assumes that fact. Obvious OR. Warrior4321 19:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to guess what I assume from my opponents side of an argument. Hyacinth (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is 11 most of 12? Hyacinth (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is with "and imply eleven notes"... that needs a source. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

When you (Hyacinth) originally calculated 11 notes, you either assumed each chord was fully voiced (i.e. included the 5th) or had a source a that said so and forgot to cite it. As no source has yet shown up, my money is on the first option. My calculation of 9 notes (see Talk:Hendrix chord) assumes the 5th is not voiced, and this borne out playing guitar and knowing that that's how it's usually played and certainly how Hendrix played in on Purple Haze. But going with my calculation or with yours, either way there is an assumption, so either way it's OR and should be deleted. And I also agree with Blueboar that "implying eleven notes" is another instance of OR. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

Right now in Quantum mysticism#Mind/body problem in Newtonian mechanics there is a hypothetical question that I believe is entirely OR. I've argued with the authoring editor to no avail furthermore the editor is not open to modification to the section and is displaying considerable ownership. Right now its a\ dead locked exchange between two editors any outside opinion that moves towards a resolution would be welcome. The current debate is located at Talk:Quantum mysticism#Picking apart this rewrite although there has been considerably more debate in the sections above.--OMCV (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory

A few days ago, I discovered that the title "Fringe theory" was a redirect to our article on Fringe science. However, there are a lot of frigne theories that have nothing to do with Science... there are probably fringe theories in every academic discipline, and there are frigne theories that fall into the realm of pop culture (various conspiracy theories and urban legends). So I undid the redirect and started to try to write at least a stub article on the broader topic. Then I hit a snag...

I can not even find a single source that actually defines the term. It isn't in any of the standard dictionaries I have access to. The closest I can come is to combine the definitions of each word (from the same dictionary so at least I don't combine two different sources) ... for example... using Webster's definitions:

• Fringe - a group with marginal or extremist views
• Theory - a hypothesis or an unproved assumption
• Fringe theory - a hypothesis or an unproved assumption held by a group with marginal or extremist views.

The OR issue, of course, is that I am definitely synthesizing here ... on the other hand, this does seem as simple as adding 1 + 2 and getting 3.

So... OR?... not OR?... acceptable OR? IAR? Thoughts would be appreciated Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's no coverage in reliable sources, is it notable enough for an article? --hippo43 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is coverage. The term is certainly used (but not defined) in a lot of reliable sources ... the problem is finding sources that actually discuss the concept in any depth... It may turn out that there isn't enough quality coverage... but I am not yet prepared to give up hope on the article's potential (I am, however, shifting my work to user space while I search for sources). But, all that is a seperate issue from the one I asked about. I am just starting off here, and need to figure out if certain ideas will work or not.Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise that notability and OR are separate issues, but they are linked in this case. I'm surprised - I would have guessed that fringe theories would be discussed in depth by good sources somewhere, and this would be a good article. For me, there's no OR problem with using dictionary definitions for the noun 'theory' and the adjective 'fringe', and saying that a fringe theory is a 'marginal or extremist hypothesis'. However, that presupposes that the concept of a 'fringe theory' is distinct enough to meet the notability criteria for an article. Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with saying that a 'red tractor' is a farm vehicle which is scarlet, but I would hope that red tractors were covered in the tractor article. --hippo43 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... <musing to myself>... If I can't get enough material to grow the article beyond a stub, I suppose it ''could'' be added as a section within the [[Theory]] article instead.... have to think on that... </muse>. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another 2+2=4 question...

Ok, here we go...I'm working on Arbor Hill, Albany, and since I have sources that state its boundaries would it be ok to use census tract or block data for the various census tracts (or blocks) that cover that area (as long as none spill out of that area) and add the data together to get information I can use for a "demographics" section in the article regarding population, gender and race percentages, etc etc. Obviously I would use the US census information as a source for the numbers and also put the source for the boundaries (which is already sourced in the article).Camelbinky (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am never happy about using census data for anything other than population numbers (and I would be especially wary of using them for something as potentially controvercial as race/ethnicity percentages). That said... As long as the block data is published and available to the general public, I don't see a problem with simply adding the individual block numbers and stating the total.Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point about race/ethnicity being controversial, I think you are right that I should just stick to population totals and adding those. I was just hoping for some way to show this was a predominately African-American neighborhood, though I could probably find that point mentioned in a local newspaper article. Thank you Blueboar.Camelbinky (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Zheng He

We have a new editor here who I think needs help with understanding original research. I think his/her heart is in the right place but there are problems with the new section "Zheng He Disputation". If anyone has the time and inclination to look at this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I took just a quick look, and didnt examine the citations, but there are indeed lots of citations on that particular section. Doug, can you be more specific about the problems? It has indeed been cited in many places that the circumnavigation of the globe by Zheng He is not true and that the particular book mentioned (1421) is a bunch of BS. I must admit that I actually bought and read that book when it first came out, and believed it until I did futher research and used my brain and sat down with some of my history professors to discuss in detail the "research" that author had done. It's a good read, as long as you treat it as fiction, or as an alternate history (a what-if?) book. Doug, are you just wanting better citations for that section or am I missing a more serious problem?Camelbinky (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back, my hand operation was still inhibiting me from taking part much - it's better now. The edits were removed by another editor as WP:SYN and improper use of citations and the editor I was concerned about, Starstylers (talk · contribs), indef blocked for breach of a civility parole. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User Jimmuldrow Is adding Original Research and Synthesis of material to Ezekiel Emanuel

User Jimmuldrow is continually adding Original Research and Synthesis of Material to this article. The section contains several blockquoted sections with his attempt to link them together with his own research. I have told him several times to find some reliable third party sources that make the argument he is trying to prove, that McCaughey either lied or misrepresented Emanuel. As such most of this section is Original Research with the basic goal to attack Sara Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Besty McCaughey. Arzel (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)