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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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}}.

Outernet and Odyssey

The third book in the Outernet series of humorous science fiction books for children, by Steve Barlow and Steve Skidmore, is titled "Odyssey". One of the characters explicitly references Odyssey of Homer, and is inspired by it to disguise himself and his friends the same way Odysseus and his crew disguised themselves by hiding under sheep. It is clear, then, that the plot deliberately pays homage to that work.

However, there are more elements of the plot that allude to the Odyssey. The protagonists' aim is to seek an blind alien named Tiresias, presumably named after the mythological prophet of the same name. A race of aliens gives them sweetening foods and wipes their memory (cf Lotophagi), a beautiful song leads them into a trap, a monster called a silla attacks them, and they eventually fall into a black hole (cf Charybdis) after escaping the silla. To me, these seem like humorous but obvious allusions to the Odyssey, and perhaps worthy of mention in the Outernet article. But would that be considered original research, as it's not explicitly stated? (Or appropriate allusions, and I'm just being dense?)

Thank you very much. --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR. Go to it :D Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi

Large chunks of the Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi article appear to be the product of original research. Specifically, the ethnicity section speculates on the possible ethnic background of Ahmad without any of the sources it cites once directly and explicitly mentioning his ethnicity. This section of the article also contradicts the consensus among most scholars and historians that al-Ghazi was a Somali, and according to Wiki policies, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Here are the offending passages:

His ethnicity is never explicitly mentioned in the Futuh al-Habasha of Sihab ad-Din Ahmad bin 'Abd al-Qader (otherwise known as 'Arab Faqih), the primary source for his conquests, possibly because it was not important or because the author assumed it was known to his readers. There are a number of clues in the Futuh worth considering.

• Many of Imam Ahmdad's relatives are identified. His sister Fardusa is said to have been married to the chieftain Mattan, who is identified as a Somali unlike her. Imam Ahmdad's brother was Muhammad bin Ibrahim, chieftain of the tribes of Shewa and Hargaya before joining the Imam against Ethiopia. He had a cousin Muhammad bin Ali, whose mother was the Imam's aunt; Muhammad was the Sultan of the Somali tribe of Zarba. Last is his cousin Emir Zeharbui Muhammad, of whose background the Futuh has little to say.
• The Futuh mentions one Ibrahim bin Ahmad as a ruler of the Adal Sultanate for three months, whose name suggests that he may be the Imam's father. This Ibrahim is described as one of the Belew and previously having been the ruler of the town of Hubat. The possible connection between the two is strengthened by the fact that Hubat is later mentioned as one of the power bases of Imam Ahmad (the other being Za'ka). Today Hubat (or Hubata) is located in the district of Haramaya/Alemaya, and Ulrich Braukamper has noted that the Belew name in the region has only survived amongst the Nole Oromo.
• Then there are numerous occasions where the Futuh supplies evidence for an argument from silence. There are numerous passages in the Futuh where Imam Ahmad and the Somali people are mentioned together, and never once does 'Arab Faqih mention the ethnic connection. Further, the Somali warriors are described as having fled during the Battle of Shimbra Kure; had the Imam been Somali, would the Futuh which otherwise praises the Imam at every turn, mention this embarrassing detail?
• So far these argue against the Imam being descended from Somali ancestors (although in any case there are undeniably Somali families who can claim to be his descendants). But in favor of Imam Ahmad's having been a Somali is the fact that, after disagreeing with Sultan Umar Din over the alms tax, he retired to live amongst the Somali.

References:

Please note how almost all of the above statements cite the Futuh source, which, by the article's own admission, never mentions Ahmad's ethnicity. The above statements literally piece together information from the Futuh and other sources to arrive at a conclusion that none of the aforementioned sources themselves reach i.e. synthesis.

Let me know what you think. Causteau (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly clear example of original research. It even deviates into obvious editorial analysis , with statements such as: "Then there are numerous occasions where the Futuh supplies evidence for an argument from silence. There are numerous passages in the Futuh where Imam Ahmad and the Somali people are mentioned together, and never once does 'Arab Faqih mention the ethnic connection. Further, the Somali warriors are described as having fled during the Battle of Shimbra Kure; had the Imam been Somali, would the Futuh which otherwise praises the Imam at every turn, mention this embarrassing detail?" Vassyana (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like I suspected. Thanks for the feedback, Causteau (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, I beg to differ. First, I wish that I had been informed of this discussion at the time, since I would have been happy to explain this material & make any necessary changes. Next, I believe it is germane to point out that it is a point of Somali nationalistic ideology to assert that Imam Ahmad Gragn was a Somali; this is why I felt it necessary to use the primary source, rather than to compile a list all of the authorities who dissent from this belief. However, I am puzzled at how this passage is considered "original research" -- as far as I can see it is simply the paraphrasing of verifiable details from a primary source, with the minimum of interpretation possible. As for the "editorial analysis", I believe this falls under the category of an obvious logical inference, that is argument from silence; not to mention this possible reading of the source would be, I feel, dishonest. (As I pointed out on the Talk page, this form of argument is the weakest that can be made -- which is why I linked to the article. Lastly, the Imam's possible non-Somali origins is not a novel or original conclusion: as the Talk page mentions, both Morin & Lewis have suggested other ethnic origins for this person. -- llywrch (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not "Somali nationalistic ideology" to assert that Imam Ahmad was Somali: It is the consensus among most scholars to assert that he was Somali, as clearly indicated by the not one, not two, but six different sources cited above (note the non-Somali last names: Groves, Chatterji, Almeida, Castanhoso). I could easily produce more if space allowed it. Again, the entire passage above is original research because it speculates on the possible ethnic background of Ahmad without any of the sources it cites once directly and explicitly mentioning his ethnicity. The edit even admits point blank that "his ethnicity is never explicitly mentioned in the Futuh al-Habasha" -- it doesn't get more blatant than that. Causteau (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your list of experts is misleading: first compiling a list of experts is not the same as counting votes -- although listing 3 or 4 can be used to indicate what the majority opinion could be. I could compile a list of authorities who point out that his ethnic background is not known. For example Almeida is a 17th century author, who did not have direct knowledge of the Imam. While Castanhoso is another primary source, the citation in the article is to the introductory pages -- which is written by R.S. Whiteway, who writes, "Nothing is said to his nationality. He was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis." Castanhoso, in his own words, calls Ahmad Gragn "a Moor" & "the King of Zeila", which are clearly in error. The title of Groves' book is The Planting of Christianity in Africa, which suggests that he might not write authoritatively about the Imam's nationality. This leaves only Chatterji (to whom I would add the professor Said S. Samatar, who was born in Somalia) arguing that Ahmad Gragn was a Somali. -- llywrch (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not interpret for reading parties what the sources say; that's the exact sort of thing that started this whole mess in the first place. Here's what the above references actually state, and with no spin attached:

1)Chatterji: A Somali chief of Adel, a Muslim state on the Gulf of Aden, named Ahmed ibn Ibrahim by using the new weapon completely overthrew the Ethiopian kingdom...

2)Beckingham: Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al Ghazi, called 'the left-handed' by the Somali, (gran in Amharic), was a Somali in the service of the ruler of Zeila.

3)Groves: The leader was a Somali chief, Ahmad ibn Muhammad Gran, Muslim ruler of a border state, who with great energy and resource pressed home the invasion of Abyssinia.

4)Castanhoso: He was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis.

5)Langer: Ethiopia was overrun by the Moslem Somali chief, Ahmed Gran, who used firearms.

Please note that the I.M. Lewis source above which asserts that Imam Ahmad was a Somali was, in fact, submitted by none other than Llywrch himself almost exactly two years ago. As for the Samatar gentleman, he indeed represents the lone Somali scholar in the list of references in the article proper. However, what Llywrch yet again fails to mention is that it was he (not me) that listed Samatar among the sources. I therefore see no point in why he felt the need to mention that Samatar was "born in Somalia" -- how is Samatar's being Somali all of a sudden a problem now when it wasn't before? Causteau (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it falls under the prohibition on original research, because it goes beyond reporting the content of the source and does so in a fashion intended to put forward an argument (both of which are clear identifying characteristics of NOR violations IMO). Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PS to the above: I think it is relevant to point out what Causteau did with Vassyana's opinion: he deleted most of the passagediff, & made it appear that it was the unanimous opinion of the relevant experts that the Imam was of an Somali ethnic background -- despite that there are experts (who are, by no means, fringe opinions) with dissenting views. Also note this set of edits where he removed all mention of dissenting opinions concerning the Imam's ethnic origins. He even removed the passage that states the major primary source (the Futuh al-Habasha) omits all mention of his ethnicity, a fact that is pointed out in numerous secondary sources. Vassyana, would you consider these edits to be the proper way to not only to correct any possible original research, but to achieve NPOV in this article? -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that is the correct way to address the issue at all (the fashion the other editor chose). Rather, it would be best to include the dissenting opinions using reliable scholarly sources, since they exist and are relatively easy to access. Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of dissenting opinions regarding the ethnicity of Imam Ahmad provided that they are directly and explicity supported by reliable sources, rather than being the product of one editor's speculations on what -- by his own admission -- is not once mentioned in the source he does actually cite. Causteau (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana--find the best quality secondary modern two sources on each side--and cite them, including a correct in context one sentence wquote either in the text or part or the footnote.. DGG (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. Causteau (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, when I am able to gain access to my books (I am currently attending a funeral some 2400 miles away) I will provide a more full recounting of the authorities who point out that his nationality is not known, despite the claims of Somalis. -- llywrch (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I suppose the scholars Nikshoy C. Chatterji, I.M. Lewis, Manuel de Almeida, Charles Pelham Groves, Miguel de Castanhoso, and William Leonard Langer cited in the footnotes above are all Somali, huh? Llywrch's consistent attempts at insinuating that Imam Ahmad was only Somali in the minds of Somalis is beyond laughable, since the overwhelming majority of the literature unreservedly identifies the man as such. Even Llywrch's Ethiopian pal Yom himself admitted as much when the latter inserted the following line into the article way back in June of 2006: Imam Ahmad has traditionally sometimes been interpreted as being an Arab in Ethiopia, though he is more often represented as Somali. Note that that line lasted a good two years without Llywrch, in his many repeat visits to the page, once feeling the need to remove or even so much as modify it. I think that, in and of itself, is very telling. Moreover, historical Christian Portuguese sources that actually fought against the Muslim Imam Ahmad also identify him as Somali: "In Portuguese sources he is called King of Adal and Emir of Zeila, and they conjecture that he was Somali" -- from Ethiopia Through Russian Eyes: Country in Transition, 1896-1898 by Alexander Bulatovich. But oh yeah; Mr. Bulatovich's testimony, like apparently that of the bulk of other scholars out there, doesn't count either since he too -- as his last name and the title of his book clearly indicate -- is Somali *eye roll*. Causteau (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought you folks would like to know that on August 4th, Llywrch solicited input from another regular visitor to this noticeboard regarding the discussion we are presently having. Here is the question Llywrch asked and the responses he received:

Someguy, I noticed that you frequently comment on questions in WP:NOR/N. Would you kindly take a look at the thread Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, & offer your opinion? Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the comments are already in and consensus appears to have formed, so my particpation in the discussion would probably not help much. But to place my opinion in case you still want it, the offending section violated OR because it contains an analysis that was not present in any of the cited sources. This is prohibited, in fact, by the nutshell itself: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you want another opinion, I can say that it is very obvious OR, unless you can cite reliable sources that actually carry out the same analysis, in which case the issue might involve WP:UNDUE instead. --Philosophus ^T 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a pattern is beginning to emerge here, wouldn't you say? Causteau (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

First, let me admit that I have responded to this matter with a clear amount of anger: insasmuch as I have contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years -- & receiving compliments for my work in the process -- I would hope that anyone who has a concern with one of my edits would begin with the assumption that I might have made a mistake either in my presentation, or in being out of date with the current version of a given policy. Such problems can be handled quite quickly with a discussion on the editors' Talk pages. Had Causteau raised his concerns with this passage, and explained what the problem was instead of brusquely telling me to RTFM, I would have been more than happy to have worked with him. More to the point, had he explained that I had assumed that it was obvious that the Imam's ethnic background was unclear, I would have removed the section in question until I could have completed the necessary research to show that, provably, there is doubt about this person's ethnic background amongst the experts.

Let me repeat this in brief: I know what is permitted on Wikipedia; Causteau objected to what I had written, but refused to help me understand what I had done wrong; only thru further discussion in this thread did I finally understand what the problem was, & said I would fix this.

And allow me to add that this incident made me angry enough that I seriously contemplated addressing one & all involved with some intemperate language, & definite misuse of my Admin privileges. I hope this was not what anyone intended to happen; but push anyone, no matter how experienced or patient, far enough, & they will decide "Fuck all of this shit; I don't need this hassle & pain when I'm trying hard to be a good guy. I'm outta here, & I'm going to make sure that people know why!"

End of my rant. Now to the reasoning behind my contributions to this article.

This is what the article said when I first encountered it. Note that an anonymous editor had provided an unsubstantiated claim to his ethnic background, as far as which sub-clan the Imam belonged to. Since my focus in Wikipedia is on Ethiopian topics, I obviously wanted to verify the details in this stub -- as well as improve on it. Due to difficulty in properly finding reliable sources for many details of Ethiopian (& Somali) history & culture, I tend to be permissive in what is added to these articles, & conservative in removing most of this information -- even though it is often unsourced. This is how it came to be that Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi was asserted to be of Somali ethnicity.

About this time, I started to read Paul B. Henze's Layers of Time, wherein he wrote (rather arrogantly, IMHO): "Though some modern Somali nationalists have attempted to make him a national hero, the case is unconvincing. Somali tribes had not developed a sense of common identity in his time. they were still in the process of expanding into the territories they eventually occupied. Gragn's forces were composed of Afars, Hararis, Somalis and Arabs and were augmented by a few Turks.Their common language was Arabic and their sense of purpose lay in their loyalty to Islam." (p. 90) Not long after this, I encountered the passage from Whiteway's introduction to The Portuguese Expedition to Abyssinia in 1541-1543, which I quoted above. At this point I concluded that the Imam's ethnic background was in dispute -- although I did not take the time to thoroughly research the secondary literature to verify this conclusion.

Now I have to say that when it comes to Ethiopian history & culture, I am in the paradoxical situation where it is far easier to access the primary sources than the secondary ones, & that some of the secondary sources I have used are not reliable -- such as the work of E.A. Wallis Budge. I am constantly aware that I can at any moment slip, without knowing, into violating the original research policy. That is why a number of Ethiopia-related articles still remain stubs: I would rather wait to find a reliable secondary source to improve on a stub than to boldly work with primary sources. But there are times when I judge it safe to present the primary sources, with the minimum possible interpretation, for the reader to draw her or his own conclusions. The ethnicity of Imam Ahmad Gragn was one of these.

Lacking access to the secondary literature, I made the decision in this revision to provide a summary of the relevant information from the primary source: it is obvious that the Futuh al-Habashi does not provide the Imam's ethnic identity; I beleive this is even stated in a secondary source, which I have been unable to rediscover. If the Futuh is silent about Imam Ahmad Gragn's ethnicity, then the least unusual place to look for clues would be to look at his relatives.

I spent a large chunk of this Sunday afternoon examining reliable authorities for proof that this is a topic for which there is no consensus -- beyond, of course, the Somali nationalists Henze alludes to in the passage quoted. And the results surprised me.

First, there is the footnote in the article to the book Some Records of Ethiopia 1593-1646: Being Extracts from the History of High Ethiopia or Abassia By Manoel De Almeida, Together with Bahrey's History of the Galla, to give its complete title (which, IMHO, is unnecessarily verbose). On page 105, Almeida's text reads "the Moor Granh": while I may be again committing the crime Causteau accuses me of above -- interpreting for reading parties what the sources say -- I only think it is proper to point out that for Almeida & his contemporaries, "Moor" did not necessarily mean an inhabitant of North Africa, but a Moslem who was not of Arab or Persian ancestry; it does not prove or disprove that Almeida thought the Imam was a Somali. However in a footnote on that page, the editors/translators of that book (which is credited to both Beckingham & Huntingford) "Granh" is identified as "a Somali in the service of the ruler of Zeila". Now it can be shown that part of that statement is incorrect: Ahmad Gragn was not in anyone's service; he was a Moslem religious -- an Imam -- whom not only the Futuh, but numerous secondary sources (mentioned below) state appointed the ruler of the city of Harar, who was his puppet ruler. I regret to say this -- because in many other regards, both Beckingham & Huntingford are reliable sources -- but this does not make their claim that Ahmad Gragn was a Somali reliable.

Now for what truly surprised me: after reviewing eight reliable or authoritative sources, only one gave an ethnic origin for the Imam. These sources are as follows:

• Richard Pankhurst, who is considered by many as the most authoritative writer on Ethiopia, while consistently calling Ahmad Gragn an Imam, only in one work provides an ethnic identity for the Imam -- belonging to Adal -- but for the most part, in his 3 books -- Ethiopian Borderlands, The Ethiopians, & The Ethiopian Royal Chronicles -- he does not supply an ethnic identity.
• Edward Ullendorff, in his The Ethiopians, likewise identifies Ahmad Gragn as an Imam but is silent about his ethnic identity.
• Tadesse Tamrat, professor of Ethiopian history at Addis Ababa University, in his article for the Cambridge History of Africa, and his monograph Church and State in Ethiopia, consistently calls Ahmad Gragn an Imam but avoids giving him an ethnic identity, although in his Cambridge History chapter, "Ethiopia, the Red Sea, and the Horn", he has at least one opportunity to say he was a Somali -- if he thought this were the case.
• E. Haberland, writing an article on 16th century Ethiopia for the UNESCO series General History of Africa (vol. 3), simply states that "the brilliant Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (Ahmad Grañ) who emerged from obscurity to become the charismatic leader of the djihad" (p. 712). In another passage, where he writes about origins of the Somali people & could be expected to say that Ahmad Gragn was a Somali, Haberland also fails to make this identification, or any ethnic identification -- although he, too, identifies him as an Imam.
• J. Spencer Trimingham, in his Islam in Ethiopia, which is frequently cited as an authoritative source for its topic in the secondary literature, while calling him an "Imam" (& noting that its expression at one point -- "The Imam of the Last Days" -- could be understood as suggesting that some of his followers thought of him as the Mahdi) only states that Ahmad Gragn spent his earliest years in Habat "the region between Gildessa and Harar" (p. 85). He, too, avoids the question.

In short, all of these avoid providing an ethnic identity for Ahmad Gragn -- which I find remarkable. Had his Somali identity been uncontroversial, most if not all of them would have asserted that he was Somali.

I think it is fair to say that all of these works are reliable sources, some of which are of the highest quality: peer-reviewed, appearing under the name of prestigious publishing houses. Let me compare their statements to the quotations Causteau provides above:

• Chatterji: "A Somali chief of Adel, a Muslim state on the Gulf of Aden, named Ahmed ibn Ibrahim by using the new weapon completely overthrew the Ethiopian kingdom..." Ahmad Gragn was not a chief, but a religious leader. Having made that mistake, can he be considered to be a reliable source about his ethnic identity?
• Beckingham: "Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al Ghazi, called 'the left-handed' by the Somali, (gran in Amharic), was a Somali in the service of the ruler of Zeila." (Where does this quotation come from? It is not in the book cited in the article under discussion.) Refuted above as unreliable.
• Groves: "The leader was a Somali chief, Ahmad ibn Muhammad Gran, Muslim ruler of a border state, who with great energy and resource pressed home the invasion of Abyssinia." Ahmad Gragn was not a chief, but a religious leader. Having made that mistake, can he be trusted to be a reliable source about his ethnic identity?
• Castanhoso: "He was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis." Incomplete quotation, & out of context. See my quotation above, which shows his ethnicity was not certain to R.S. Whiteway. Castanhoso calls him "a Moor."
• Langer: "Ethiopia was overrun by the Moslem Somali chief, Ahmed Gran, who used firearms." Ahmad Gragn was not a chief, but a religious leader. Having made that mistake, can Langer be trusted to be reliable about his ethnic identity?

I apologize for writing such a long response, & hope everyone interested in this issue was able to read my statement with a minimum of difficulty. However, Causteau's snideness in his last comment -- & his uncalled for quoting from a user's talk page -- has compelled me to defend my reputation at length. From the above, I believe it is clear that if I am guilty of promoting any novel conclusion, it is that the question of Imam Ahmad Gragn's ethnic background is still sub juridice, & not a settled issue. I hope that it is understandable to all Wikipedians who understand the goals of this project that it is better to err by assuming that there are more POVs to an issue than that there are none. -- llywrch (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your listing of sources and short analyses, Llywrch. I've avoided commenting on this subject for the past week due to a lack of historical sources on hand (I don't currently have access to my university library), and I did not want to make false assertions. One of the important issues here is of reliability. As Llywrch has noted, many have written about Ahmad Gragn, him being an extremely important figure in East African history, but few have done so authoritatively. You noted that you weren't sure if you had a source stating that his ethnicity has never been stated outright by the Futuh. You can find one on the talk page of the article where I cite Franz-Cristoph Muth's article on Adal in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. First, regarding the issue of OR, I made a comment regarding the passages added by Llywrch back when they were first added. The few passages that imply arguments from silence and the exact meaning of the connections noted in the Futuh seem to be OR to me. This does not mean the whole of his additions are OR, however. Much of the information is clear by itself, however, and does not require secondary sources stating or interpreting them (while they would certainly be appreciated, things like who his sisters married &c are pretty clear in themselves).

Going back to the reliability of certain sources, I do think Causteau has incorrectly attributed some opinions to authors that made no such claims. While Almeida is an important source for Ethiopian historiography (though he often makes clear mistakes, so he shouldn't be regarded as infallible by any means), I very much doubt he identified Ahmad as Somali. I don't have access to this source atm, so I cannot be positive in this regard, but Llywrch's citation seems to support that. Can you cite the exact passage where he makes this claim, please, Causteau? Moreover, there are a lot of modern authors who have written on Gragn who are not experts of the period that have, without analysis, adopted the interpretation that he was Somali simply on the basis that it is the most "loudly" expressed opinion. Somali nationalism has had an important influence on many authors (not because they believe in it, but because their fierce claims and traditions seem to them to be evidence that he was Somali), without there actually being significant contemporary (16th c.) evidence supporting their claims. Chatterji, Adejumobi, Groves, and Langer/Bruun clearly fall under this category, their works being general ones. Moreover, Esposito's claim that the Imam's army was mostly comprised of Somalis is, in fact, refuted by the Futuh itself (which must be his source for the claim), which, although makes clear it included many Somalis at the beginning of his activities, states clearly that very early in his conquests his army was divided three ways - 1 Somali contingent, another Harla (possibly an early Afar group, but not Somali), and another Malasai (another ambiguous Muslim group, but also unambiguously non-Somali).

Anyway, in short, while I agree that we should be careful in avoiding OR, and some of those statements do seem to do so, IMO, much of it is fine as it is. We should be just as careful in choosing our sources. There's a lot that's been written about Gragn, much of it untrue or simply unfounded. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Furry Dance

Hi, a similar story on the article Furry Dance. A claim in the article states that it is one of the oldest customs still carried out in the British Isles. There does not appear to be any references that backs up this claim. There are many references that show it is one of the oldest customs in Cornwall/England/Britain.

The references for stating it is a custom in British Isles: A reference from an amateur Friends of Cornwall group [1] A reference from a book on teaching Physical Education [2]

"Even in the British Isles, there are still a few remnants of ancient dragon processions for good spring weather. At one time there were a great many such festivals. Most of the significance has been lost because of extreme propaganda by the church. In Britain many of the dragon figures carried in the processions have been destroyed. One of the few remaining is carried each May as part of the Helston Furry Dance." Dancing with Dragons by D. J. Conway (p176). Published 1995

The references for stating it is one of the oldest in Cornwall/England/Britain are too numerous to list, but include: Curious Survivals by George C. Williamson, Pg 148 [3] Cornwall Holiday Guide [4] Cornish customs and festivals [5] BBC Report states "oldest in the country" [6]

I'd appreciate an outside neutral opinion on the validity of the references, especially if an opinion exists to support using the term "British Isles". Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The references look good. I don't understand your question about "British Isles." Isn't for example Cornwall in the British Isles?Calamitybrook (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response. The term "British Isles" is contentious and for articles like this the general opinion of many editors is that the largest significant geographical unit that has relevance to a Cornish/English/British custom is the obviously the largest Cornish/English/British geographical unit. This is not the "British Isles" since Ireland is not British.

But leave all of that argument aside. It is not relevant. More importantly, regardless of POV of editors, and whether editors are trying to push the term into articles or remove it, this question is about references. The references against using the term "British Isles" are numerous, yet one editor regards the single "Friend of Cornwall" reference as being good. My position is that a self-published reference like this does not meet the standards, but it would be great if a more experienced editor could take a look and give their opinion. Thank you again. --HighKing (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of which of the references are used, if this dance is only practiced in Cornwall and England, then only one island is involved, Britain, and it should say "British", not "British Isles" Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Help me understand this

Okay, as I understand it, WP operates solely upon research, information and sources not origination from the editors here. The editors are primary sources of info, and the citable references are secondary sources - WP uses secondary sources only. For many reasons, one of them liability shielding from inaccurate or damaging information introduced without citation.
Now, using this understanding, how do we write articles so as to note these statements? Citing this notable information, and sticking to what it says (using quotation marks for specific quotes and paraphrasing elsewhere) would seem to be plagiarism at worst and derivative work at best. Can I get a range of replies? I am trying to understand this better. - 207.181.237.191 (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't plagerism to quote someone, especially when you provide a citation to where you got the quote from. it is only plagerism if you try to pass someone else's words as your own.

The best advice I can give you is to look at articles on topics that are similar to the one you wish to write about. Note how they are structured and how they use citations. The next advice would be to find an experienced editor that can work with you... essentially a mentor. He/She does not need to be experts on the subject matter, just someone who writes well and is familiar with out rules and guidelines. Finally, be bold. Do the best you can and just write the article without overly worrying about the "rules". But at the same time, don't get upset if someone points out that something you wrote violates some policy or guideline ... instead take the comment as constructive criticism and a learning experience. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. Wikipedia editors are very close to the origin of the article, not the particular topic. Wikipedia relies on third-party published sources per WP:SOURCES, which are secondary sources rather than tertiary sources. (OK, now I'm confused.) Third-party published sources can be summarized or quoted from, neither of which is plagerism. Derivative works are more complex, but I think you need a big chunk of the original to be in the ball park of a derivative work. Wikipedia articles are constantly being edited so if there initially was a big chunk of the original, it probably has been chipped away. Suntag (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic section on evidence basis

Does Chiropractic #Evidence basis have a significant synthesis problem?

In the opinion of the section's critics, the section is a WP:SYN violation when it presents specific research on spinal manipulation (SM) as evidence of effectiveness of chiropractic care as opposed to the whole range of treatments performed by chiropractors (not just SM), because the reader may confuse the assertions about spinal manipulation specifically as being assertions about chiropractic treatment in general.

In the opinion of the section's proponents, the section clearly distinguishes SM research from other research, every claim in the section is directly supported by a reliable source, standard practice in evidence-based chiropractic relies on SM research, and excluding highly-relevant mainstream research would raise serious WP:WEIGHT problems.

See also Syn tag, SYN and implicit conclusions, and Proposed wording for NOR/N. Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Levine2112 edited the above comment; I am taking the liberty of restoring my comment as written, and moving Levine2112's easily separable additions to the following paragraph. He is of course welcome to make further changes and additions to his comments. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

In the opinion of the section's critics, the section is a WP:SYN violation when it presents specific research about non-chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) as evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic care. The proponents justify such a presentation by citing that other researchers have synthesized similar presentations about chiropractic from non-chiropractic SM research, thus we should be able to do the same sort of synthesis here at Wikipedia. Even though the non-chiropractic SM research makes no conclusions whatsoever about chiropractic specifically, the proponents still want to use such research to make conclusions about chiropractic in the Wikipedia article. Their justification is that such synthesis is "standard practice" (even though this is actually a matter of contention in the chiropractic research world and not standard practice at all). Levine2112 ^discuss 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could boil this down to a simpler question so that one could more quickly respond.Calamitybrook (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! Let me try. The question is whether it's original research for Chiropractic #Effectiveness to summarize and cite scientific studies on the effectiveness of treatments used by chiropractors, even when those studies focus on the treatments, not on chiropractic. An example study is Bronfort et al. 2008, PMID 18164469. (Is that short enough?) Eubulides (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a misleading summary as it misses the point. Let's just clarify here and expand- rather than shorten - so we can explain the whole story for clarity. Spinal manipulation (SM) is a treatment used by many kinds of practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists, etc.) Chiropractors employ a specialized form of spinal manipulations with specialized techniques which differ from other practitioners. Despite the difference in techniques, some researchers have applied the findings from studies of spinal manipulation as performed by non-chiropractors (non-chiropractic SM) to the efficacy of chiropractic SM. Those few studies are not being questioned here.

What is being questioned is the use of other studies of non-chiropractic SM which in themselves make no conclusions about the efficacy of chiropractic manipulation specifically nor are there any researchers out there applying the findings from these non-chiropractic SM studies to the efficacy of chiropractic SM. Though these studies are about spinal manipulation, they are not making any conclusions whatsoever about chiropractic spinal manipulation specifically. However, currently we are using these non-chiropractic SM studies to draw our own conclusions about chiropractic SM at Chiropractic #Effectiveness. Herein lies the WP:SYN violation.

What's more, there is much debate in the scientific community about whether it is okay to apply non-chiropractic SM studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic SM. In some cases, chiropractic researchers came under heavy fire from the scientific community after they used positive efficacy studies of non-chiropractic SM to declare that "chiropractic works". In these cases, the scientific community actually said that it is not all right to apply non-chiropractic SM studies to make conclusions about chiropractic SM specifically.

So to distill it down to one simple question: If one study applies general SM research to make conclusions about chiropractic SM, does that give us at Wikipedia license to draw the same conclusions about chiropractic SM from other non-chiropractic SM studies? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Okay, I may understand it a little better. I don't think Eubulide's summary was misleading, but perhaps a little unclear. Thanks Levine, for revising your initial inquiry. Taking the latest version of the question again at face value, one simple test might be whether anybody in the real (non-Wikipedia) world is actually using these various other studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic therapy. You might seem to be implying above that the answer is that yes, somebody is (who and for what purpose?), because otherwise, perhaps there wouldn't be a "debate." If the answer is no, defending the disputed material as non-SYN becomes slightly more complicated, but I'd still be inclined to do so, given the "one study" to which you refer.

A cursory reading of the article (all you can reasonably expect from a reader) doesn't make the issues you've described sufficiently clear. Perhaps it would be useful to precede the material in question with a very brief summary of the research and an equally brief statement of what you've described as the "debate" about its interpretation. (By the way, I'm not certain that the level of detail now included is necessary, but maybe I am just insufficiently curious.)

Also, when you say "chiropractic researchers," and "scientific community," are any of these people chiropractors? Also, what about the editors? Optimally, chiropractors would not be involved in this article, due to conflicts of interest. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some non-chiropractic SM studies which some researchers have applied as evidence (for or against) chiropractic SM efficacy. There are many other non-chiropractic SM studies which no researcher has applied as evidence (for or against) chiropractic SM efficacy. It is this latter group of non-chiropractic SM studies with which this post is concerned. Though no researchers have applied these non-chiropractic studies to chiropractic, some editors are attempting to make such an application based on the rationale: "Some researchers have made the same application with some studies, so why can't we make the same application with some other studies?"

To answer your questions from above: "Chiropractic researchers" in this case could be chiropractors researching chiropractic, non-chiropractors researching chiropractic, or the chiropractic community in general. "Scientific community" refers to the vague body of all scientific-minded researchers. Some of our editors are chiropractors, some are outspoken chiropractic skeptics, some are chiropractic proponents, and some are neutral editors. As for myself, I am not a chiropractor. I am not a doctor or health practitioner of any kind. I see no COI issue with chiropractors editing the chiropractic article, nor do I see any issue with chiropractic skeptics editing the article. That is, provided that the individual editor can put their biases and POV in check when it comes time to edit the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• one simple test might be whether anybody in the real (non-Wikipedia) world is actually using these various other studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic therapy There's little question that these studies are used in that reason. The example source I cited (Bronfort et al. 2008, PMID 18164469) is too recent to be cited by other sources, but it's quite clear who its authors and audience are. It is a review of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain. It has five authors, all chiropractors, and it says "The vast majority of SMT (previously estimated at 94%) in North America is provided by Doctors of Chiropractic (DCs)". The older sources being cited along the same lines (e.g., Assendelft et al. 2004, PMID 14973958) are explicitly cited in later chiropractic guidelines such as this 2007 guideline. Eubulides (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the issue here is not only whether chiropractors use 94% of spinal manipulation (SMT), but that SMT is not "the only thing" that chiropractors do. When editors cite conclusions from research on SMT, the reader thinks we are talking about "chiropractic care" - which obviously includes other things as well. It would be like writing about all the research around Vioxx in the Medicine article. While a mention of the research on spinal manipulation is appropriate on Chiropractic, the details and nitty gritty need to go in the Spinal manipulation article where it can be discussed NPOV. To try and word research on SMT as if it is talking about chiropractic and putting it under a heading about chiropractic is misleading the reader to conclude that the results of the research on SMT can be equated with chiropractic as a profession and we suggest is really a synthesis error. BTW, I am a chiropractor, so do consider that in your thinking. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The analogy with Vioxx is flawed. Spinal manipulation (SM) is identified with chiropractic; the overwhelming majority of chiropractic patients are treated with SM. This close relationship does not exist with Vioxx and mainstream medicine.
• The text in Chiropractic clearly states when it is discussing SM, and distinguishes it from other treatments used by chiropractors, which are also discussed briefly.
• This noticeboard is about original research, not about which articles text should go into; if the text in question were original research in Chiropractic, it would equally be original research in Spinal manipulation.

Eubulides (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Same name

My 2c is that wikipedians do not have the authority or expertise to make the judgement that a paper studying a technique with the same name as a chiropractic technique is actually studying the chiropractic technique, unless the paper explicitly states it. Another reliable source would be required to make the connection. As an analogy, two papers on Induction for example, are not necessarily related - you could be talking about mathematical induction or inductive reasoning. --Surturz (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case differs from your 2c, for two reasons. First, chiropractors prefer to call the technique "chiropractic adjustment" or "spinal adjustment"; "spinal manipulation" is the mainstream name for the treatment technique. Second, we have reliable sources saying that the various names are aliases, and that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation, even if the latter research includes some data from non-chiropractic sources. Sorry, I don't follow the analogy; it seems to be saying that one can't rely on the words used by reliable sources, which is surely not what was intended. Taken to an extreme, the analogy would mean that one could not trust a paper on mathematical induction as a source for Mathematical induction, since the paper's "mathematical induction" might be something other than the "mathematical induction" of Mathematical induction. Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

* I think you misread my post. My analogy is that if a paper talked about "Induction", wikipedians would not be able to use it in either the Mathematical induction or Inductive reasoning articles, unless another RS could be found linking it to one or the other. I don't know about the international experience, but in my country a chiropractor would never use a 'spinal manipulation' because 'manipulation' is a chiropractor-jargon word meaning 'non-chiropractic technique'. I cannot see how a wikipedian can draw the conclusion that the study of a technique, that is not explicitly stated to be a chiropractic technique, somehow relates to chiropractic. I am sure there are a wealth of studies of actual chiropractic techniques that can be cited, no need to draw a long bow. --Surturz (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• No such confusion exists in the sources in question. They use "spinal manipulation" to refer to the techniques that many chiropractors prefer to call "spinal adjustment". We have reliable sources saying the two terms are synonymous in this context. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Eubulides says that "we have reliable sources saying that... it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation, even if the latter research includes some data from non-chiropractic sources". Neglecting the fact that we also have reliable sources saying just the opposite, while it may be valid for researchers to draw such conclusions, when editors do so here at Wikipedia, it is a clear OR violation. And that you are basing your rationale to draw such a conclusion by pointing out that some researchers do it (so why can't we do the same?) is what makes this a SYN violation. You are taking (A) non-chiropractic research and taking (B) some researchers' opinions about how it was okay for them to apply other non-chiropractic research to chiropractic, then combining A and B together to make (C) an original statement about chiropractic. Again, there would be no issue with you using (in context) a specific piece of non-chiropractic research at Chiropractic when there is a reliable source applying that specific piece of non-chiropractic research to chiropractic. However, to do the same when there is no reliable source making such an application is problematic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Every claim in Chiropractic #Evidence basis is directly supported by on-point citations; no one is disputing this. Surturz's comment "Another reliable source would be required to make the connection" directly disagrees with your analysis; not that this is relevant, since the kind of (A)-(B)-(C) statement you're talking about does not appear in the section in question. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Either you don't understand my analysis or you don't understand Surturz's comment, because it seems he/she completely agrees with me. You are joining A and B to make point C. This is a SYN. When Surturz says "Another reliable source would be required to make the connection", he/she means that you would need a source which directly connects A and B (and thus makes the conclusion C itself), rather than you doing the connecting of A and B and making the conclusion C yourself.

Essentially, you are trying to use non-chiropractic source A to make a conclusion C about chiropractic. And you are using source B - which though is not directly about the research in source A - does tell the story how the researchers used some other non-chiropractic research to make some other chiropractic conclusion. You are just trying to follow their lead by doing the same with other non-chiropractic research. However, in doing so, you are violating OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with that analysis of my comments. Furthermore, this noticeboard is about articles, not about comments in talk pages. Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not have the (A)-(B)-(C) pattern that you describe. Again, every claim in Chiropractic #Evidence basis is directly supported by on-point citations; no one is disputing this. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's clear things up. Do you agree that Chiropractic #Evidence basis contains material derived from and sourced to references which - on their own - state nothing specifically about chiropractic? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some references state something specifically about chiropractic; others state something specifically about spinal manipulation, chiropractic's primary treatment modality; others state something specifically about treatment guidelines for low back pain, the problem that most people go to a chiropractor to see for; others state something specifically about other topics highly relevant to chiropractic.
• This thread is repeating a long discussion that's already been held in Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #Syn tag, Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #SYN and implicit conclusions, and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25 #Proposed wording for NOR/N. As far as I can tell, no new points have been raised in this thread. I see little point in repeating it here; this section is already too long. I suggest re-raising the issue, if there's interest, in Talk:Chiropractic.

Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, so it does sound like you agree that Chiropractic #Evidence basis contains material derived from and sourced to references which - on their own - state nothing specifically about chiropractic. As you point out, some of these non-chiropractic studies are actually studying spinal manipulation as performed by non-chiropractors (osteopaths, physical therapists, etc.) My next clarifying question: Do you agree that there is disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" for chiropractors and others to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not point that out. All the studies in question rely on chiropractic data. Some also included data derived from non-chiropractors but this data is in the minority, as the vast majority of spinal manipulation is performed by chiropractors. I see no evidence of any disagreement in the scientific community about this standard research practice. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that all the studies in question rely on chiropractic data and I have shown you several accounts where that is false. Further, regardless if the studies used chiropractic data mixed with non-chiropractic, if in their conclusion they don't say anything specific about chiropractic, we shouldn't be using it at article Chiropractic, but rather at article Spinal manipulation. I am astounded that after months of me showing you quite the opposite, you still are claiming that there is " no evidence of any disagreement in the scientific community" about confounding non-chiropractic research with chiropractic effectiveness. For instance, there was a RAND study on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation which came out quite favorable for spinal manipulation. When chiropractors jumped on that research to proclaim things such as "Chiropractic works!", the chiropractors were in turn jumped on by the researchers who said that these studies were not about chiropractic specifically, but rather spinal manipulation in general and that chiropractors were in effect misusing these studies. RAND spokesperson Dr. Paul Shekelle, released this statement:

::::::::::::: "...we have become aware of numerous instances where our results have been seriously misrepresented by chiropractors writing for their local paper or writing letters to the editor... RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic... Comparative efficacy of chiropractic and other treatments was not explicitly dealt with."

I showed you this and other evidence many times so I honestly don't think that you should claim that you haven't seen such evidence. Please acknowledge (either publicly or privately) that this evidence exists and that confounding general spinal manipulation studies with chiropractic effectiveness is not standard research practice at all. It is frowned upon by many. And for us to continue such a practice here ourselves - doing the confounding ourselves in an article - is a clearcut case of original research regardless. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which study cited in Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not rely on chiropractic data? This is a new claim that I don't recall seeing before. (The rest of this discussion is merely rehashing old arguments.)
• None of the studies are summarized inaccurately or misleadingly in Chiropractic. If a study is about spinal manipulation, it is clearly summarized that way, and only the conclusions drawn by that study are summarized.
• Shekelle's 1993 letter warns about confusing SM and chiropractic. No such confusion exists in Chiropractic #Evidence basis. The two notions are clearly distinguished, and evidence about the one is not presented as if it were evidence about the other.
• More recent studies make a regular practice of combining chiropractic and non-chiropractic data to study SM. They are careful to not confuse chiropractic with SM, just as Shekelle warned against. Leading mainstream chiropractic researchers have said that this current common practice is normal and acceptable. We should not exclude mainstream chiropractic research on the fringe grounds that it is tainted by non-chiropractic data; that would be substituting our own judgment for that of the mainstream experts.

Eubulides (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For months now, I have pointed out several studies which either make no mention of chiropractic in any meaningful way in terms of the research conclusions and/or do not rely on any chiropractic data. Even if we explain that these studies are about spinal manipulation and not about chiropractic, it still doesn't justify including it at an article entitled Chiropractic. It misleads the reader. (Could we include research about astronomy if we make it clear that it isn't about chiropractic?) And the only way you are justifying the relevance of this non-chiropractic research is by original research. Move these pieces to Spinal manipulation where they are more appropriate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If some editor wrote about research about astronomy in Chiropractic, it would soon be removed as irrelevant, just as any vandalism would be removed. That would not be a WP:OR issue, and this is not a WP:OR issue either. Eubulides (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If those editors supporting the inclusion of astronomy research at Chiropractic were basing their rationale on the fact that some researched have applied other astronomy research to Chiropractic (so why can't we as editors apply other astronomy research?) then that would be OR. And that is exactly what is happening here. Now I am a person of the world and I recognize that spinal manipulation is more relevant to chiropractic than astronomy is. But that doesn't mean that spinal manipulation is the same as chiropractic. Hence the two distinct articles chiropractic and spinal manipulation. But because they are somewhat related is why confounding spinal manipulation with chiropractic is more dangerous than confounding astronomy with chiropractic. It is harder for the reader to know the difference. I mean really read the section in question. It is very confusing. The way it is written, it feels as though it has nothing to do with chiropractic and only to do with spinal manipulation. That's why this info is more apropos at the spinal manipulation article. And remember, chiropractors perform a specialized version of spinal manipulation, distinct in technique, diagnosis and philosophy than spinal manipulation performed by osteopaths, PTs and even MDs. That why their specialized techniques are referred to as spinal adjustment. That's why scientific researchers (chiropractors and non-chiropractors alike) dispute using spinal manipulation research to say anything specific about chiropractic spinal manipulation. Note that even at Wikipedia, we have distinct article for the general spinal manipulation and the specific chiropractic spinal adjustment. Clearly, a Wikipedian who applies non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research to a section about the evidence basis of chiropractic specifically has violated the basic principle of OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the section is confusing, then it would be helpful to point out the confusing wording; confusion can be addressed by clearer writing. But that is a style issue, not an original-research issue, and it does not belong in this noticeboeard. As for "a Wikipedian who applies non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research to a section about the evidence basis of chiropractic", this noticeboard is supposed to be about what's in Chiropractic #Evidence basis, not about Wikipedians; and every claim in that section is supported directly by a reliable source. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty misleading way to put it when you write: "Do you agree that there is disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" for chiropractors and others to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation?" Something similar happened, but fundamentally different. Spinal manipulation was studied, and when the results were favorable, chiropractors immediately trumpeted the results as vindication for the profession of chiropractic, NOT of "the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation", as you put it. That incensed the researchers so much that they had to write in a chiropractic source and scold the profession for doing that. They made it clear that their study was only about spinal manipulation (which included 94 or so percent chiropractic manipulation), not about the profession and all of its other methods, odd ideas, and unscientific practices, etc.. They weren't about to legitimize the profession with all its baggage, and they made that clear.

As to the use of spinal manipulation research that happens to include some few other professional practitioners, the studies are nearly always of 94 or so percent chiropractic manipulation plus a smidgin of others, IOW its conclusions still say more about chiropractic manipulation than anything else.

Now if a study specifically uses manipulation exclusively performed by non-DCs like PTs (such as a famous Dutch study), then specifically that study should be disallowed. Otherwise, by far most studies are about chiropractic manipulation with a near homeopathic dose of others, not enough to alter anything.

As far as safety studies go, the most notable and best study of this type ever done specifically revealed that chiropractors are implicated in far more injuries and deaths than other professions: "Manipulation of the Cervical Spine: Risks and Benefits", by Richard P Di Fabio, Phys Ther, Vol. 79, No. 1, January 1999, pp. 50-65. It was a very thorough analysis, and none since has topped it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think your last paragraph adds much to this particular conversation (and is a can of worms I don't we should open here), I do note that you agree that non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research should not be used at Chiropractic and that there is in fact disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation (semantic debate aside :-). Therefore, would I be correct to assume that you agree that to use non-chiropractic research (performed by non-chiros and makes no specific conclusion about chiropractic) in the Chiropractic article violates OR? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Please don't put words into my mouth ("I do note that you agree..."). That's a QG trick. Only research (it matters little who performed it) that explicitly mentions that none or only a small minority of the performers of the spinal manipulation were chiropractors (such studies exist), should be excluded. The Dutch study is one. On a case by case basis I'd need to see the research to be absolutely certain, since we are speaking hypothetically here. Exceptions to my reasoning might occur if I see a definite case that deserves making an exception. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Only trying to make sure we are on the same page. I just did a poor job explaining it, it would seem. Because what I was trying to say that you agree about is that research about spinal manipulation not performed by chiropractors (such as the Dutch one) should not be used at Chiropractic. This is what you explain just above, yes? If so, I am in agreement with you. I think I had a dangling participle or something further above, so I understand the misunderstanding and I apologize to you for it. So, would you say that the use of such non-chiropractic research (like the Dutch one) at Chiropractic would constitute OR, or would you disallow it based on some other policy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problemo

[outdent]

No problemo. I too have difficulty making myself clear at times, especially when dealing with these complex matters. Here are a few thoughts:

1. If you can find a single study or more about SM (which we have cited) that specifically mentions that none of the participants were chiropractors, it should be disallowed from edits regarding SM at the chiropractic article, but could still be used at the general SM article. So far such a disallowance wouldn't change any conclusions we have written, if I recall correctly. Until now (quite a few months, or is it more than a year now?) you have been trying to disallow all SM research that was not conducted by chiropractors and/or SM research that included others than chiropractors, ostensibly because of concerns about how such allowances could affect the "concerns about safety" discussions we have had. Have you changed your position?
2. Above you write about "...confounding general spinal manipulation studies with chiropractic effectiveness..." and you cite Paul Shekelle, who scolded chiropractors for doing that. Here you are attempting to use that reasoning when you scold us for doing the opposite, when that hopefully is not the case. Of course "chiropractic effectiveness" is so vague a term that no one on earth should touch the subject with a ten foot pole. Only specific methods can accurately be studied in that manner. (The success of the general chiropractic encounter is another matter, and it should not be used as evidence of the effectiveness of specific chiropractic techniques or specific claims, as it often is. Some chiropractors still haven't learned from Shekelle and try to argue both ways.)
3. Speaking about the "can of worms" you mention above, any research that reveals facts about chiropractic effectiveness or safety issues is potentially fair game. The di Fabio mega metaanalysis above certainly does that, and so far we aren't using it. We should do so.

-- Fyslee / talk 07:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides states "Second, we have reliable sources saying that the various names are aliases, and that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation". Where is this reliable source that says it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation? I have seen a reliable source state that it was valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from CERTAIN STUDIES on spinal manipulation, but never such a blanket statement. This seems to be a BLATANT misrepresentation of the truth. - DigitalC (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly legitimate to ask for a source, but there's no need for such strong words. AGF. Now your words lead me to think of something (which will bring us back to what you state about Eubulides' words). It has often been claimed by chiropractors (and certain editors here) that a spinal adjustment is much more "specific" than a spinal manipulation, but where is the evidence for that claim? Of course the intent is different, in that it is claimed that the adjustment is "specifically" directed at the correction of vertebral subluxations. (IOW what mainstream scientists and skeptics would call manipulating an illusion.) Well, that's the intent, but what about any proven "physical" differences in the specific performance of the techniques? They would normally affect the same structures. (Let's not get bogged down in the obvious differences between widely different adjustment and SM techniques. Adjustment techniques exist which don't even touch the body, yet claim to effect changes in it.)

When directed at the same structure in a specific and identically well-performed manner, is there really any "physical" difference that the body will "notice"? Where is the proof for any "physical" difference, besides what the chiropractor or mainstream performer (and their respective patients) believes? I strongly suspect that only straight chiropractors will maintain that there is a physical difference, hence Eubulides' statement of an equatability between research results, if I am not mistaken. If there is no physical difference in performance and results, and most research deals with that, then the results should normally be comparable and interchangeable, IOW it would be "valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation." An exception is JVSR research, which deals with proposed philosophical and metaphysical differences that are purported to make an (unproven) physical difference. It's a journal that claims to perform "scientific research" on what amounts to an illusion... Well, what is the "physical" difference? -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Meeker & Haldeman (2002) wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine 137 (8), p. 702, "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point. Chiropractors use all forms of manipulation. In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it." The course of mainstream research since then has followed this principle, without dissent by any reliable source that I know of. Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what I thought. I'll make some emphasis here. "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point...". The statement that research on spinal manipulation is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it does not state that it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation. Again, where is this source that states that it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation"? - DigitalC (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Meeker & Haldeman are among the most senior and respected DC researchers; it's not our place to second-guess their expert opinion (unless, of course, we have found just-as-reliable sources who disagree; but such is not the case here).
• The emphasis on the phrase "we described" is misplaced; Meeker & Haldeman's argument is about the principle in general, and although they mention their study their point is not limited to their study. Obviously if research is equally of value regardless of the practitioner, then there's no scientific reason to ignore or discount research simply because of the types of practitioner studied. This point is not controversial among reliable sources these days.
• The question about "draw conclusions about spinal adjustment" is irrelevant here, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not draw conclusions about spinal adjustment. It doesn't even mention spinal adjustment.

Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was a scientific reason to ignore research because of the type of practitioner. However, there is no reason for Chiropractic to cite research that does not mention Chiropractic. Again, where is the source that YOU stated says "that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation". It isn't irrelevant here, because it was a misrepresentation of the facts about the dispute which is being discussed at this noticeboard. - DigitalC (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• If there's no scientific reason to ignore such research, then why ignore it? Certainly spinal manipulation is highly relevant to chiropractic; it's chiropractic's core treatment.
• The dispute seems to be over research that incorporates data from non-chiropractic practitioners along with data from chiropractic practitioners; this is not the same thing as "research that does not mention Chiropractic".
• I don't see misrepresentation of the facts either in Chiropractic or here.
• Certainly reliable sources say that "spinal adjustment" and "spinal manipulation" are two names for what is essentially the same thing. For example, Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498) say, 'The core clinical action that all chiropractors agree upon is spinal manipulation. Chiropractors much prefer the term spinal “adjustment,” reflecting their belief in the therapeutic and health-enhancing effect of correcting spinal joint abnormalities.' This is a difference in terminology, not in substance.

Eubulides (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The reason to ignore such research is the exact reason we are here at WP:NORN. It is original research/a SYN violation to mention general spinal manipulation research under the heading "Chiropractic effectiveness". It is implying a conclusion that this research is related to chiropractic effectiveness, which we DO NOT HAVE A SOURCE FOR.
• If the source specifically mentions chiropractic, I don't know how there can be dispute.
• The misrepresentation of the facts here is clear. You stated that we have sources that say ""that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation"", when no such sources have been presented. I have repeatedly asked for such a source, with none being presented. Is this a case of WP:IDHT? Please either present such a source, or strike your comments above.

DigitalC (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I've quoted a reliable source saying spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation are different terms for the same thing. It is certainly valid to draw conclusions about X from research about X; it happens all the time. There is no misrepresentation, either here or in Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I've quoted sources that say just the opposite. Clearly there is no agreement about this in the scientific community, therefore us drawing conclusions on our own here about chiropractic spinal adjustments from research about non-chiropractic spinal manipulations is OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what quotes you're talking about. I just now checked the comments in this section, and found no quote in any of your comments that contain the phrase "spinal adjustment". There is a consensus in the mainstream scientific and mainstream chiropractic communities that spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation are two names for the same thing. Again, please see Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498), which I quoted above. And again, the question about "drawing conclusions on our own here about chiropractic spinal adjustments" is irrelevant here, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not draw any conclusions about, or even mention, "chiropractic spinal adjustment", "spinal adjustment", or "chiropractic adjustment". Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See the quote from RAND above which makes it clear that those researchers believe there is a difference between spinal manipulation and chiropractic. There is no scientific consensus as you claim. So yes, by presenting research conclusions about non-chiropractic spinal adjustments in the "Evidence basis" section of the "Chiropractic" article, you are drawing your own conclusions about chiropractic; and thus the OR violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue by creating a distracting straw man when you state "believe there is a difference between spinal manipulation and chiropractic". We're talking about the difference between "spinal manipulation" and "chiropractic adjustments", not chiropracic itself. You keep switching back and forth when it suits your whim. Please stick to one issue. -- Fyslee / talk 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The RAND quote distinguishes chiropractic from spinal manipulation, but that's a quite different thing. Chiropractic includes many treatment forms, not just spinal manipulation (or if you prefer, "spinal adjustment"). Even if the RAND quote did dispute the mainstream consensus that spinal manipulation and spinal adjustment are two names for the same thing (which it doesn't), that would not affect Chiropractic #Evidence basis, a section that never uses the words "spinal adjustment". Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're dancing around the obvious here. RAND made the distinction, Terrett made the distinction in JMPT's "Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury" and DiFabio notes the difference. It's more than semantics, it's more than philosophical. There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors. But you have found one source which says it was okay for them to confound the two in the particular studies that they looked at and then you claim there must be scientific consensus and therefore we can violate OR by do the same confound with completely different studies. A merely presenting the non-chiropractic studies in the chiropractic article creates the original research violation, no matter if you are careful to call it "manipulation" and not "adjustment". They are not the same thing. However, you are presenting the non-chiropractic manipulation studies as though they were directly relevant to chiropractic. Consider this, in closing, if there isn't a difference between Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment, then why have we had the to two distinct articles here at Wikipedia for so long? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are still confusing the issue. You keep switching back and forth when it suits your whim. Please stick to one issue. RAND wasn't making a comparison between spinal manipulation and chiropractic adjustments.

When you write: "There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors.", you seem to be ignoring my comments above about a physical difference for comparable techniques. You claim there is a mechanical (IOW physical) difference, when the only proven difference is one of belief, philosophy, and intent. When the same technique that is called "spinal manipulation" by non-DCs, and "spinal adjustment" by DCs are compared, just what is the mechanical/physical difference? We are of course talking about HVLA manips/adjustments directed at the same structure in a specific and identically well-performed manner. Is there really any "physical" difference that the body will "notice"? Is there a proven physical difference? I think not. Please provide a RS that proves there is. The WCA, ICA, and F.A.C.E. will of course confirm that there is a difference in intent, and maybe even claim there is a mechanical difference, but where is their proof? -- Fyslee / talk 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This comment mentions two older sources not previously discussed here. The first (Terrett 1995, PMID 7636409) is like the RAND quote: it says that "the words chiropractic and chiropractor commonly appear in the literature to describe SMT, or practitioner of SMT", which is not the dispute here. The dispute here is about "spinal adjustment" versus "spinal manipulation". The second source, Di Fabio 1999 (PMID 9920191) agrees with the mainstream consensus: it analyzes the same data with non-chiropractors both included and excluded, and shows that only a slight difference between the two results and that the overall pattern is the same (see Figure 2, page 54). I expect that Di Fabio's results helped to contribute to the modern mainstream consensus that there's no significant difference between "spinal manipulation" and "spinal adjustment" as far as the evidence basis goes. The presence of a POV fork in Wikipedia, which is what Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment are, is not a reliable source for this discussion; Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. Eubulides (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, you are quite correct. There is no true physical difference. I want to mention a couple points about the two articles comprising the POVFORK. I believe they have a legitimate basis for their existence, since there truly is a significant difference in POV, as well as other important differences. The Spinal adjustment article can go into detail about the philosophical, metaphysical, spiritual, and intent differences, all of which have no relevance to scientific spinal manipulation. Adjustments include many widely varied techniques, many of which have no similarity to HVLA spinal manipulation, some of which don't even use enough force to affect a vertebra or the spinal nerves, or even to touch the body. Adjustments include anything which a chiropractor claims will remove vertebral subluxations, and studying these claims often brings us into the vast and sometimes uncharted territory known as woo woo land, which many scientifically oriented chiropractors abhor and criticize, but which nevertheless are things their colleagues believe and practice, because they inhabit or frequent that land. The "adjustment" article can deal with those issues. If the two articles were to be merged, they would need their own separate sections. BTW, I notice that the Spinal adjustment article needs some serious cleaning up. There are improperly formatted refs and use of simple numbers as refs, as well as cites of studies that include spinal manipulation. -- Fyslee / talk 04:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis continues to be flawed and you have yet to support your claim that there is "scientific consensus" that there is a 1:1 comparison between chiropractic spinal adjustments and non-chiropractic spinal manipulation. Just because you repeat that there is a "scientific consensus" over and over and over again, does not make it so. Thus far, you have found one source which says it is okay for those researchers to confound specific non-chiropractic research with a chiropractic conclusion. I see no consensus, only continued original research on your part. Here are a few other sources: This one discusses the practical differences between chiropractors, osteopaths and PTSs [7]. This one discussed the efficacy difference between chiropractic and physical therapy [8]. Remember the obvious here, chiropractors use a whole range of specialized techniques, diagnosis, and instruments to adjust the spine which non-chiropractic spinal manipulators do not employ. How can there be a 1:1 comparison? Finally, if you think Spinal adjustment is a POVFork of Spinal manipulation then you should nominate for deletion. However, in terms of Wikipedia consensus, there is currently a recognized difference between spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation which warrants the need for two distinct articles. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, there is a 1:1 comparison between the two terms as used in most research. Terminology is the point. Any claimed physical differences are not the point. (You haven't yet provided proof of such a physical difference, but given time ((since I have just asked for it above)) I hope you will enlighten us.) The terminology is used interchangeably by chiropractic and non-chiropractic researchers for HVLA manips/adjustments, regardless of the performer, or what the performer calls them. That's the point.

Exceptions to the general rule will be found in ultra-straight literature. That's the only place where there is any consistency, since they make it a point of pride to identify themselves by the "purity" of their adherance to doctrine. They are known as "principled" chiropractors. If your belief and point is about "who" performs it, then you will likely concede that a "manipulation", if performed by a chiropractor, is an "adjustment". In that case, di Fabio and others have proven that "adjustments" can and do injure and kill people. -- Fyslee / talk 04:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have provided so many examples of how there is no consensus that there is a 1:1 comparison now, that it is disheartening that you are choosing to ignore these. How about two more? The first comes from your beloved Ernst who points out the inherent weakness of using non-chiropractic RCTs to conclude anything about chiropractic spinal adjustments. [9] The second comes from the renowned Manga report which stated that there is evidence that "spinal manipulations are less safe and less effective when performed by non-chiropractic professionals".[10] If there is a 1:1 comparison, why are they less safe and less effective when performed by non-chirorpactors... such as PTs? The point here is not whether I'm right and You're wrong, or vice-versa. At this point in history, there is no definitive answer and thus there certainly is no consensus about there being a 1:1 relationship between chiropractic spinal adjustments and non-chiropractic spinal manipulation in terms of efficacy. Some researchers say there is, some say there is not. We just don't know definitively for sure at this point. And since we at Wikipedia cannot take sides, we therefore cannot take non-chiropractic spinal manipulation RCTs and use their data to draw our own conclusions about chiropractic. Doing so is a textbook violation of WP:OR. We can, however, use non-chiropractic studies which researchers have specifically applied to make some statement about chiropractic, provided that we put it in context for our readers. (P.S. I agree with you that the Spinal adjustment article is in need of some serious clean-up, though I am trepidatious about moving in there at this point, if you can understand.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology is the point here, not efficacy or safety. Save that for another day.

I did ask for sources that prove a physical difference, ergo an anatomical and physiological difference, or as you worded it, a "mechanical" difference. I'd like to see an anatomical analysis of such differences. Would the body know the difference? Is there any way to measure the difference? -- Fyslee / talk 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious. If efficacy and safety differs, there must be a physical difference. Unless you want to attribute the different effect on the human body to the intention of the practitioner. :-) Not a very scientific way of thinking though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not so obvious, without engaging in OR. If we actually had some blinded studies that directly compared (in the same study) physical differences, we'd be a bit closer, but it still wouldn't be good enough since it would measure outcomes, not solely any physical differences. Actual studies which examine the anatomical and biomechanical factors involved, showing actual measurable differences in the performance, not the outcomes, is what's needed here. Different people doing studies in different ways will come up with different outcome results, and they have, not all of which are as favorable as the one you have cherry picked. And yes, the well-known "chiropractic encounter", often involving the use of what they call "scripts" (which among experienced practice builders amounts to mental manipulation), will indeed affect the perceived outcomes, independently of the actual technique, or rather as an added factor that affects those perceptions. I have asked for sources that prove a physical/mechanical difference, and I'd like to see them without any OR. You claim there is a mechanical difference, and I'd like to see the sources you are using to make such a claim without any backward-pointing inferences. I'm sure that straight chiropractic sources make such claims, and I wouldn't mind seeing them as well. -- Fyslee / talk 13:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think that the outcome being different means that the manipulation itself must have been different. I'm surprised you don't agree, being - like me - a scientific skeptic. Anyhow, the one making the claim is the one who stated that there is always a direct 1:1 comparison between chiropractic adjustments and non-chiropractic manipulation in terms of research. Yet, he has provided just one source in which the chiropractic researchers said it was okay for those researchers to use the results of just a couple of specific non-chiropractic studies in order for them to draw a conclusion about chiropractic. Despite only having this one source, this proponent has declared that there is a scientific consensus to confound chiropractic and non-chiropractic research in this manner. On the other hand, I have provided several sources now which discuss the differences in chiropractic and non-chiropractic manipulation and why we should not confound research about the two. Clearly, there is no consensus. Thus, if we confound in the article, we would be (and are) engaging in OR. As for Fyslee's claim that I am engaging in OR by claiming that non-chiropractic and chiropractic are not comparable - well, you are right - but only just as right as me stating that Eubulides is engaging in OR by claiming that non-chiropractic and chiropractic are directly comparable. The point is: we don't know for sure because there is no consensus out there, and in fact, there is much disagreement. Thus, we can't choose a side without engaging in OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting the sources I asked for to back up Levine2112's claim that there is a "mechanical" difference:

• "There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors." - Levine2112

So much for asking for evidence to back up such an unusual claim. Even straight chiropractic sources should be available to back up that one! I wonder what Marcello Truzzi would say about this failure to back up a claim? I give up. Let's move on. -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are abundant sources which I have provided now. Still no sources stating that there is no physical difference. So the failure to back up the claim is all yours, I am afraid. Pity really. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

??? Don't reverse the burden of proof. The burden is on you, not me. Your statement is a combination of straw man and red herring logical fallacy. I have not asked for a source "stating that there is no physical difference", but a source stating that there is a physical difference in an anatomical and biomechanical sense as regards the performance of the manipulation/adjustment. Your refusal to provide even one source is beginning to make me wonder about my memory. I'm pretty sure I've read straight chiropractic sources that make such claims, but if you can't or won't find them, then we're left with nothing to back up your claim at all, not even a poor source. Hmmm .... maybe the only place I've heard such a claim was from you. Are we really on a wild goose chase, searching for a non-existent source to back up your personal belief? -- Fyslee / talk 06:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing this thread in the next section. Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vickers & Zollman etc.

Levine2112 now brings up more sources, but these new sources support the mainstream position, not the fringe position that there is an important distinction between spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation from the point of view of the evidence basis.

• Vickers and Zollman 1999 (PMID 10541511) use, in their evidence basis section for chiropractic and osteopathy, the same sort of systematic reviews that Chiropractic is using now. For example, they cite Koes, Assendelft et al. 1996 (PMID 9112710). Chiropractic cites an updated version of that review, namely Assendelft et al. 2004 (PMID 14973958).
• Skargren et al. 1998 (PMID 9762745) studied chiropractic care versus physiotherapy, not chiropractic spinal manipulation versus physiotherapeutic spinal manipulation, so their comparison is not directly relevant to our dispute about SM versus SA. That being said, their main conclusion was that the two types of care showed "equal health improvement and total cost between the two groups 12 months after initial treatment". There were some relatively minor differences in some subgroups, but overall this study has helped to lead to the modern mainstream consensus that the difference between the two types of practitioners is not important when studying the evidence basis for spinal manipulation. and that is how Skargren et al. is cited in many later reviews (e.g., Assendelft et al. 2003, PMID 12779297).
• Ernst 2003 (PMID 12782542) does say that recent (as of 2003) assessment of the data indicate some benefit for spinal manipulation for back pain (which is what Chiropractic #Evidence basis says now), but that if we limit ourselves to older studies, back when the "spinal manipulation" versus "spinal adjustment" issue was still a live one, then 'The only systematic review of exclusively chiropractic spinal manipulation concluded that "the available RCTs provided no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic for acute or chronic low back pain".' Here Ernst is referring to Assendelft et al. 1996 (PMID 8902660), which I suspect is the latest systematic review available under the old assumption that the distinction between chiropractic and non-chiropractic spinal manipulation was an important one.
• It would be interesting to see what ancient source the Manga report (1993) is citing when it says "There is also some evidence in the literature to suggest that spinal manipulations are less safe and less effective when performed by non-chiropractic professionals." Certainly more-recent and presumably higher-quality studies, such as Skargren et al., have failed to confirm any such broad conclusion.
• Given these old citations, I am willing to concede that there was some concern about chiropractic versus non-chiropractic data among reliable sources until the mid 1990s. However, the results by di Fabio and others appear to have allayed that concern. The modern mainstream consensus, as expressed Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498), is that any differences between "spinal manipulation" and "spinal adjustment" are not significant from an evidence basis viewpoint.
• Levine writes that Fyslee stated "there is always a direct 1:1 comparison between chiropractic adjustments and non-chiropractic manipulation in terms of research". Fyslee didn't write that; he added qualifiers. I have also added qualifiers; the point is that there's no important difference between the two, as far as evidence basis goes.
• The "just one source" I have provided, namely Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498), was written by two of the most-respected DC researchers today, and we know of no reliable source that has seriously disputed their claim. And it's not just this source: modern reviews and guidelines, written by mainstream chiropractors, also employ this assumption. Just one example: the 2007 CCGPP literature synthesis of chiropractic management of low back pain, a document written by and for chiropractors, cites sources derived from non-chiropractic data. For example, it cites Aure et al. 2003 (PMID 12642755) to support manual therapy for low back pain, even though Aure et al. specifically disallowed chiropractic manipulation! Surely you remember that example? We discussed it in Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #Syn tag, a discussion that we are mostly just repeating here, albeit with the added entertainment of dusting off obsolescent 1990s sources.
• In short, these old citations underscore the fact that any serious doubt about this issue was resolved a decade or more among reliable sources; Chiropractic should reflect the current mainstream consensus.

Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Vickers & Zollman are not bound by the same policies Wikipedia editors are, such as WP:OR & WP:SYN. What they do has no relevance here.
• The source that you have provided (Meeker & Haldeman 2002), does NOT make a blanket statement that it is valid to use research on spinal manipulation that does not discuss chiropractors, when discussing chiropractic spinal manipulation. Again, modern researchers are not bound by WP:OR, in fact they are supposed to be performing original research—Wikipedia editors are not.
• Chiropractic needs to use verifiable sources that state this concensus. None have been presented. It is again original research to state that this concensus exists, without having a source to back that up.

DigitalC (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I mentioned Vickers & Zollman only because Levine2112 brought it up. I expect Levine2112 thought it was relevant.
• I have provided sources other than Meeker & Haldeman. The sources I have provided are recent and establish the modern consensus. Chiropractic should not be edited according to the standards of 1993, back when there were still serious questions about this issue among reliable sources.
• No evidence has been presented here that Chiropractic #Evidence basis uses "research on spinal manipulation that does not discuss chiropractors, when discussing chiropractic spinal manipulation". It would be difficult to present such evidence, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis never mentions the phrase "chiropractic spinal manipulation". It consistently uses the phrase "spinal manipulation" to describe spinal manipulation.
• Again, Meeker & Haldeman are a reliable source on this point, and we know of no reliable source disputing their basic point, which is that spinal manipulation and spinal adjustment are two names for what is the same thing, as far as the evidence basis goes.

Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That just about says it all. I think it is time to weed out all of the OR from this section in the article and see if it is a version which we can all live with. Agreed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Far from it. There is no shadow of a consensus, only plenty of stonewalling, albeit no doubt in good faith. Even good faith discussions can constitute a considerable disruption to editing the chiropractic article. -- Fyslee / talk 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the stonewalling is from the tiny minority of editors who refuse to recognize their WP:OR violation. It's time to end this by removing the violating text. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There never was any OR violation and it is time for the SYN tag to be removed. Every sentence is well sourced and accurate. QuackGuru 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with QuackGuru that the SYN tag should be removed. All that's happened here is that the same dispute is being reaired, with the same editors. Calamitybrook, the one uninvolved editor who weighed in, said that the WP:SYN objection "is far too narrow to be reasonable, and even taken at its face value, is invalid." Coppertwig, a relatively-neutral editor, also thought the SYN tag should go. It's time to move on. Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's time to remove the tag and move on. (and please, QuackGuru, don't do it yourself...) -- Fyslee / talk 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation by Eubulides when he states "Calamitybrook, the one uninvolved editor who weighed in". Surturz could hardly be called an involved editor when he "weighed in" here. He had no prior involvement in the dispute, and had only 3 edits recently to Talk:Chiropractic#Vaccination section must go. - DigitalC (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Levine2121. . . there is a SYNthesize violation. . . unless source state that they are talking about chiropractic then they should not be used at chiropractic article. . . 3 editors are gaming system trying to avoid this rule. . . while the bulk of editors disagree with them.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic editors (who's "gaming the system"?!) have created this straw man diversion to help whitewash the article of legitimate information they find uncomfortable. Mainstream editors see no problem with using reliable sources. As stated above, there is no shadow of a consensus, only plenty of stonewalling, albeit no doubt in good faith. Even good faith discussions can constitute a considerable disruption to editing the chiropractic article. -- Fyslee / talk 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, you yourself have stated that the material does not belong in this article, but belongs in the article devoted to that topic. That is why I see it as an OR violation. An editor is making the OR violation by including research on "topic X", (which doesn't mention Chiropractic) in a section of Effectiveness of Chiropractic, when there is an article devoted to "topic X". There is a SYN violation because it is implying a conclusion that it is related to Effectiveness of Chiropractic, when the source does not state that it is. Spinal manipulation research that does not mention Chiropractic should be covered at Spinal manipulation. Ultrasound research that doesn't mention Chiropractic likewise should be covered at Ultrasound. Dry needling research that does not mention Chiropractic should be covered at Dry needling. Wikipedia editors need to follow the sources, and in this case they aren't. - DigitalC (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I follow you part of the way. We are agreed that all the specifics about each technique should go in their own articles, but that's not the only issue in this discussion, and I haven't addressed that here. So far my POV on where the information should go hasn't been convincing enough. So I say yes and no to your comment, but that's a different topic, and we need to avoid getting sidetracked, or we need to split this topic so as to avoid confusion. -- Fyslee / talk 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can stay focused best by simply sticking to the question: Does Chiropractic #Evidence basis have an Original Research problem? (And if so, what are they and how an we fix them?) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CAM and DeVocht

I agree that there has been confabulation with respect to spinal manipulation studies as a means of either attacking or supporting chiropractic therapy. What is most troubling to me is how loosely some editing Chiropractic are with the rules with a lot of circular logic occuring. Specifically drawing conclusions of papers that do not mention Chiropractic (for example citing CAM) and extrapolating it and applying its conclusions to chiropractic. Also, there has been egregious misuse of reliable sources in the sense of taking a passage out of context and implying that the either the a) main topic of the paper or b) the conclusions of the paper. This is also occuring in the LEAD as well. For example, DeVocht ("History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint". Clin Orthop Relat Res 444: 243–9) is cited to support this sentence (Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment) when the source is essentially an opinion piece on chiropractic theories and not at all a review of the efficacy of 'chiropractic'. This type of editing is academically frowned upon and given that the article is being edited per WP:MEDRS it has a standard of inclusion and referencing than non-medical articles. I had asked for a reply to my query, but it has not been addressed so perhaps this is a more appropriate venue. Soyuz113 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know of any use in Chiropractic #Evidence basis of a CAM-only source that does not mention chiropractic; could you be specific about that?
• The only specific instance you cite, DeVocht 2005 (PMID 16523145) is not an "opinion piece on chiropractic theories". As its title says, it's about chiropractic methods as well as about theory. And it devotes considerably more space to evidence-basis issues ("methods") than to theory, with sections titled "Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction", "Safety", "Independent Studies of Chiropractic", and "Basic and Clinical Research" for the evidence basis, but only one section "Theory" about theory. The author, James W. DeVocht, is an associate professor at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic at Palmer College of Chiropractic, and his research centers on biomechanics; his piece is a reliable source for the claim "Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment". This claim, which is an important one to make, is not controversial among reliable sources; if you'd prefer citing a different source to citing DeVocht, please suggest one.

Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Improbable claims in brochures

You're probably right. It used to be that chiropractors wrecked havoc on their own credibility with various consumer brochures that made many improbable claims. I hear they've cleaned up their act in more recent years. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:38, August 5, 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that chiropractors make unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures; see Grod et al. 2001 (PMID 11677551). I'm unaware of reliable sources saying they've cleaned up their act recently. Eubulides (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think the basic objection (as I understand it) is far too narrow to be reasonable, and even taken at its face value, is invalid. The cited material is relevant and useful. But I think the article could benefit from a general revision, shortening it with an eye towarad the general reader.Calamitybrook (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in speculative fiction #Comics and Manga

Is the following, from Homosexuality in speculative fiction #Comics and Manga, original research? It looks like it to me, but given it may be a sensitive article I would like further input.

“ DC feature a number of LGBT characters as superheroes in their comics.

Firebrand is an early example: A superhero published by Quality Comics, premiering in Police Comics no. 1 (August, 1941), Firebrand's costume included a transparent or pink shirt over bare chest. In All-Star Squadron #5 (1981) writer Roy Thomas penned thought balloons for that suggested Firebrand had been involved in a gay relationship with his sidekick and bodyguard Slugger Dunn. "Good old Slugger! He's been Rod's bodyguard -- and his friend -- for years now -- though what a confirmed bachelor playboy like my brother needed with a bodyguard I've never understood!" Gay topics were still largely taboo in mass-circulation comic books in 1981, and words such as "confirmed bachelor" and references to a closeted identity were as close as a writer could come to actually saying that a character was gay.

”

Thanks for your time. Hiding T 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Added citation added calling him gay, and mentioning his "friend".Yobmod (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My issues are more with the following:

• "Roy Thomas penned thought balloons for that suggested Firebrand had been involved in a gay relationship".
• 'Gay topics were still largely taboo in mass-circulation comic books in 1981, and words such as "confirmed bachelor" and references to a closeted identity were as close as a writer could come to actually saying that a character was gay.'

The first is speculation on the part of a wikipedia editor and the second is synthesis. Hiding T 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the quibble. The quoted paragraph passes the "sniff" test," for me at least, and in my view, should stand. At the same time, however, the two objections raised immediately above are reasonable on their face. I admit to being uncertain when mere common sense becomes opinion and "original research." Surely there is a difference.

The main difference is that the first statement has no sources other than uncited thought balloons, leaving the reader with no way to verify it. The second simply states that "confirmed bachelor" was used as a code phrase here, with no source to back it up. Calling it common sense doesn't really help if we aren't 100% sure of the author's intent; people have a habit of reading too much into a work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea Item?

In the article Wilderness Diarrhea and editor removed the following paragraph below because he said they constitute original research. I am asking here if the material is indeed "original research."

Gastrointestinal distress unrelated to microbial infection is extremely common as a result of strenuous excercise [[11]] and may potentially be confused with Wilderness Diarrhea. A study of 155 men and women who walked an average of 26 miles a day for four days, found 24% of the subjects experienced gastrointestinal symptoms. No relationship was established between symptoms and age, gender, previous training, or walking speed. [[12]]

Factors in diarrhea related to exercise may include dehydration, the diversion of blood from the bowel to the working muscles (gut ischemia), certain foods and fluids, the use of tobacco and alcohol, or medications, heat strain and heat exhaustion. [[13]][[14]]

The reverting editor's comment is "Compared to the number of cases of diarrhea from pathogens, the existence of any significant number of cases of non-infective diarrhea among people entering the wilderness has not been supported by any reference presented here so far, and appears to be only your speculative idea. You might want to pursue your idea in another setting since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research that hasn't been published elsewhere."

So, is it original research? Other problems? Synthesis? Calamitybrook (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that something along these lines should be included in the article, and that the sources largely back it up. However, there may be a bit of a problem with conflation of general GI symptoms and diarrhea specifically, especially in the MS&SE ref. In order to allay the concerns of the other editor and improve the article, there will also need to be some information (just a statement, probably) contextualizing the prevalence of diarrhea caused by strenuous activity relative to the prevalence of diarrhea caused by pathogens. If we can improve it along these lines, I'll be happy to help argue for its inclusion in the article. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hundred Days' Reform

The Hundred Days' Reform page references Lei Chiasheng as having a new (2004) theory explaining motives for the Empress Dowager's response to the Reform. I have a suspicion that this is OR, but I don't know much so I want to defer to more experienced editors. A google search for "Lei Chia sheng" returns only 5 hits, all in Chinese (searching "Lei Chiasheng" similarly returns 6 hits).

Google Street View

I added the following to this article: "In Australia Google pledged to not to identify faces or number plates. However, it is still possible to view both." Another editor claims that the second and third citations are WP:OR.[15] The links are direct links to the actual Google Street View images which are primary sources. WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." The cites I used seem to comply with that. I felt it was more appropriate to use a primary source in this case because it allows the reader to move the images around and verify, beyond all doubt, the claim themselves, in accordance with what WP:PRIMARY says.

So, my obvious question is, is this WP:OR? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

but adding However, it is still possible to view both. with just the google street view images is original research. I found Google takes a risky road with privacy which isn't original research and is a third party and is less likely to change unlike the google street view images so it's better suited to the article. Bidgee (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it original research? It's no different to writing anything in Wikipedia and using a source to support it. You find a source, you add something to an article and then use that source to support the claim. Standard practice. Interestingly, your source doesn't support the claim. Face blurring is obvious in most of the pictures in the gallery. The only face that is anything close to recognisable is the one of the Google driver and that's because he's got his head next to the camera so that one doesn't count. No number plates are readable which seems to support Google's claim that "the low resolution of images would prevent vehicle number plates from being identifiable." This is the reason why the actual images from Google Street View were used. They're more appropriate in this case. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's most likely that the images on Google street view will be blurred. I've seen some number plates and faces better then the once sourced and even the onces in the gallery on the new source but I will not add it since it's original research and will likely be removed or blurred making the source not vaild however the Sydney Morning Herald states whats said even if it doesn't show faces and number plates as clearly as Google itself. Why I think it's original research is that it's an image and doesn't back-up the words stated within the article.

Interestingly, your source doesn't support the claim.

"Various unblurred images of faces and number plates have been removed from Street View following complaints from users"

"Google Australia spokesman Rob Shilkin said private roads and unblurred number plates and faces were removed from Street View as soon as they were brought to Google's attention via the reporting mechanism in "Street View Help"."[16]. Bidgee (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's most likely that the images on Google street view will be blurred." - That's WP:OR itself. The important point is that right now they aren't blurred. The claim in the newspaper article was "the low resolution of images would prevent vehicle number plates from being identifiable." That is clearly not true in light of the evidence which you acknowledge exists. We don't write Wikipedia articles so they'll be correct in the future. We write them so that they're correct now. If the images are blurred in the future then the citations, and possibly the claim, can be changed or deleted then but, right now, they're correct and appropriate.

"Why I think it's original research is that it's an image and doesn't back-up the words stated within the article." - How do the images not support the article? The article states "In Australia Google pledged to not to identify faces or number plates. However, it is still possible to view both." The first citation clearly identifies a face and the second identifies a number plate. Both are clear demonstrations of the statement "However, it is still possible to view both."

"Various unblurred images of faces and number plates have been removed from Street View following complaints from users" - Various images may have but it is still possible to view both faces and number plates. That's a fact. "Vaious unblurred images etc" does not support that claim.

"Google Australia spokesman Rob Shilkin said private roads and unblurred number plates and faces were removed from Street View as soon as they were brought to Google's attention via the reporting mechanism in "Street View Help" - Again, this does not support the claim that it is still possible to view both faces and number plates. The images from Google Street View do. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

""It's most likely that the images on Google street view will be blurred." - That's WP:OR itself." No its not it's a fact[17] and it's a talkpage comment not content in an article. "Vaious unblurred images etc" does support the claim and "We don't write Wikipedia articles so they'll be correct in the future. We write them so that they're correct now." Incorrect. "That is clearly not true in light of the evidence which you acknowledge exists." Think what ever you want on the other source but it's still OR. Bidgee (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"No its not it's a fact" - No it isn't. The reference you provided says "Various unblurred images of faces and number plates have been removed from Street View following complaints from users' but the other reference[18] says "Google said last year its Street View service would not identify faces or license plates in Australia." (emphasis added) So last year Google said that faces and number plates would not be identifiable but this year, ie quite some time later, we find that Google's claim from last year doesn't match reality. That makes it notable enough to mention it in the article in the privacy section, which is a notable section itself because of the wide coverage that the privacy issue has had. If what you said was a fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"Incorrect" - What do you mean incorrect? I showed exactly how the "various images etc" claim doesn't support the statement. How can "Various images have been removed" possibly support the claim that "it is still possible to view both [faces and number plates]"?

"Incorrect" - Is it your argument that we do write articles so they'll be correct in the future? If so, perhaps we should rewrite the Space Shuttle article so that it states the shuttles were retired in 2010.

"Think what ever you want on the other source but it's still OR." - No it isn't. Google Street View is a published source and the citations directly support the claim. Are you arguing that you can't see that man's face or read the number plate? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's so much an "original research" issue as it is an issue of "undue weight", or even of privacy. I think the first statement, "In Australia Google pledged to not to identify faces or number plates" can be read that Google is in the process of removing those images. Even if some of those images are still out there, that doesn't contradict the first statement. Also it really isn't encyclopedic to be cherry-picking images out of possible thousands to prove a point, and the non-blurred images might be blurred at any moment in the future. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But the images do contradict the claim. Google promised last year (ie not recently) that faces and number plates would not be readable. The images that I linked to clearly show that the claim made by Google at least 8 months ago is not true. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Bidgee has now added a citation that actually supports the claim, ironically at the same time as I was doing the same (he got in first by a few seconds) so that side track in this is now resolved but my question still stands. Are Google Street View images WP:OR? Bidgee's arguments still haven't convinced me. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. OR policy makes clear that a photograph from a reliable source can be a primary source. GSV is a reliable source. OR policy also makes clear that if the primary source unambiguously backs up the passage written in the article — to any reader, inarguably, and without specialized knowledge — then it is acceptable for use as a source. I would say that your example meets all of these criteria. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Schrodinger's cat

We need more opinions for a minor issue at Talk:Schrödinger's cat#Original research (August 2008). I believe that the statement in question is synthesizing a conclusion and therefore constitutes original research. The other editors believe that the statement is not a conclusion because of the words "probably" and "possibly" and therefore is not original research. I believe that the error is trivial and that it serves no purpose to point it out. The other editors believe that it is important to point out the error in order to keep readers from getting confused. If you wish to comment, please centralize the discussion on that talk page. — OranL (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis question in college football article

NOTE: I've summarized the issue here. Additional discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Hmmm... is this original research?. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Directional Michigan article, I believe the following sections should be considered synthesis:

• "While staying competitive in their own conference and against non-BCS conference opponents, all three have traditionally been unsuccessful against BCS conference opponents."
• "The Directional Michigan schools have lower attendance numbers than most other Division I-FBS schools. Their athletic budgets for football are smaller than larger, BCS programs; according to the Office of Postsecondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education, the budgets of the Directional Michigan programs are significantly smaller than those of the two BCS conference programs within the state of Michigan."

The references in the article show that CMU, EMU and WMU have had "traditionally unsuccessful" (ambiguous term in itself) records vs. Bowl Championship Series conference teams, that the budgets and attendance of the schools are lower than those of UM and MSU. However, none of the references that have to do with the article make mention of any of these facts that were pulled from other places. I don't believe they can be included in the article because no other references came to the same conclusion. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

There is an ongoing dispute in Illegal immigration to the United States regarding whether the current section on U.S. Code Title 8 Section 1253 is a proper summary of the code or constitutes original research. The current section states, "Under U.S. Code Title 8 Section 1253, Penalties related to removal, any alien against who is either

inadmissable, present in violation of law in violation of nonimmigrant status or condition of entry has had his conditional permanent residence terminated is guilty of smuggling is guilty of marriage fraud has not received a waiver for inadmissability and who

willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States within a period of 90 days from the date of the final order of removal under administrative processes, or if judicial review is had, then from the date of the final order of the court willfully fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's departure connives or conspires, or takes any other action, designed to prevent or hamper or with the purpose of preventing or hampering the alien's departure pursuant to such, or willfully fails or refuses to present himself or herself for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General pursuant to such order shall be fined under title 18,Crimes and Criminal Offenses, or imprisoned for not more than four years (or ten years if the alien has been found guilty of smuggling, other criminal behavior, failure to register falsification of documents, or criminal behavior which creates a security risk) or both. In addition, they may receive civil penalties under U.S. Code Title 8 Section 1231" Is this a proper summary or is it original research? An outsider's opinion would be helpful.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It reads as if it was simply quoting from the code. Not so? If so, there is no OR involved. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether the claim that visa overstays are a crime under section 1253 is original research. The claim is made by the anonymous editor sometimes using the handle 198.97.67.56 without citing other sources than the US code, and despite other reliable sources saying that overstaying a visa is not a crime but a civil infraction. Terjen (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The "reliable sources" Terjen is talking about are journalists and news editors. As per discussion on the Wikiproject Law discussion page, journalists and news editors are not reliable sources on immigration law. In other words, the consensus is that Terjen has no reliable sources to the contrary. The dispute is whether or not pointing out that title 8 section 1253 states, "shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than four years". Terjen insists that pointing out that section 1253 says that constitutes original research.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Even merely quoting from a statute could still count as OR if the statute is convoluted enough to make it difficult to determine exactly what in the world it's trying to say. 8 USC 1253 is, in my opinion, so long and complicated that I wouldn't want to see it in the body of a Wikipedia article; and because it's so complicated, I would fear that any readable one-line summary supplied by a WP editor would probably constitute OR.

In any case, though, I think the most we can really say on the basis of a recitation of 8 USC 1253 is that some (not necessarily all, just some) activities relating to illegal immigration to (or presence in) the US do constitute criminal offenses under US federal law. This (and other sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act or its restatement in 8 USC) would contradict — or, at least, show to be an overgeneralization — a blanket claim that "illegal immigration is not a crime". However, the opposite (and equally broad) claim that illegal immigration is a crime is also not sufficiently established by these sorts of quotes from the statute books, because there may be (and, I imagine, probably are) some other activities relating to illegal immigration/presence that are not defined as crimes. Richwales (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the extensive quoting from 8 USC 1253 is so long and convoluted that it shouldn't be in the body of the Wikipedia article. If somebody want to know what the code says, they can just follow the link. Most should talk to a lawyer instead - interpreting the law requires expertise and familiarity not only with the specialized vocabulary, but also with the ruling of previous cases. Terjen (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The immigration laws section with the content above is not merely a quote from the US code, but also makes a point out of that the mentioned title 18 is Crimes and Criminal Offenses, inserting and emphasizing the name of this title in the text. This slight synthesis may create a false impression that illegal immigration is a crime, despite reliable secondary sources to the contrary.Terjen (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like there is disagreement about what the code means... not what it says. Thus, I think this is more of a POV dispute than an OR issue. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors and other laymen are indeed not experts in interpreting the laws. That's why we have lawyers and judges to figure out what the code means. Terjen (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of gothic rock bands

Resolved

Just a warning, this has a possibility of opening a HUGE can of worms. I came across this article while RC patrolling. From what I could tell, three editors have WP:OWNERSHIP issues. They argued and bullied with another editor about unreferenced and OR tags. I reviewed the edit history and the talk page, and it appears to me that these three editors only allow bands to be listed that they believe to belong without any citations either way. I'm curious as to whether or not this constitutes OR. I also understand this can have a ripple effect on a number of similar articles. Ndenison ^talk 04:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly if they are insisting that bands can only be included on the basis of their own judgment (specialized knowledge), instead of seeking to establish a system based on references which describe bands as gothic, that would be OR in practice. They will eventually need to rely on a system of references. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

The following addition has been made to the article in a section about collusion:

There are allegations of Republicans joining the UDR; one example involved William Bogle of 6 UDR who was ambushed and killed on 5th December 1972 at Killeter near the Tyrone/Donegal border. At least one book includes the allegation that he was killed by a former member of his own company possessed of strong Republican views. After the shooting the suspect moved across the border and is not known to have returned to Northern Ireland.

What the source actually says is this:

His [Willie Bogle] assassin was believed to be a former member of the Castlederg Company. He was known for his Republican views and after a year he resigned from the UDR. Following the shooting he moved across the Border into Donegal and never returned.

So while some of the facts may be correct, there are conclusions being drawn which are not in the source. The source does not say the alleged individual concerned joined the UDR in order to "collude" (ie, gather information, steal weapons or similar activities), merely that he was a former member of the UDR. Was he "colluding" while he was a UDR member, or did he merely pass on information after he had left? As the source does not say it, it should not be left up to editors to fill in the blanks to suit their own position, that is correct I assume? The source doesn't use the word "collude" or "collusion", it doesn't say he took part in any such activites while he was a UDR member, so mentioning this with regards to "collusion" is OR in my opinion. Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

W. C. Fields

I'm requesting comments on the lead section of the article W. C. Fields. I've already added a section to the talk page, so please add any discussion there. I think that the lead section, while well-written, is not encyclopedic, because it is not sourced. Only one other editor has commented, so I'd like to see some more opinions on this before we go changing anything in the article. — OranL (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[Copied from talk page] I would say that this meets the standard for working from primary sources. The Fields character is well-defined and consistent, and this characterization would be instantly understood as correct by any non-expert who were to view the source material. As numerous secondary sources can confirm the information here, we should include some, but in the meantime, any removal or rewriting of the section would impoverish the article. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Catch 22 Synopsis section

The Catch 22 article has been listed as a B article until just recently, after I added some synopsis to the stub synopsis section. Someone decided it was original research and deleted it. i don't think it is but that is for you do decide. The Catch 22 article has long been suffering from a difficulty to sum it up. The story is told through jokes that are out of order, and nonsense happens all the time, all of which ultimately make points that are not stated by the author, but instead are shown. Because of the way Catch 22 is written, it's difficult to write a synopsis or plot outline; in order to do so, someone would have to tell the causation in the book (which requires thought to solve the order-of-events-puzzle) and a description of the plot requires an understanding of the resolution of the novel. The understanding of these stem directly from the novel and what it says. yet is it original research to understand it? If so, the Catch 22 article will remain without a synopsis that explains much of anything.

I suppose it doesn't matter either way--I'd be honored to think that what i wrote is original research, but i just think it's too obvious. here it is:

**Spoiler Alert**

- - By the time the reader gets near the end of the book s/he is able to piece together the chronology of events, and thus the causation that had been hitherto obscured by the complex structure. The pictures presented throughout the book of Yossarian's personal code of ethics are diverse, ranging from a duty-bound cadet to a devoted anti-hero. By the end of the book and perhaps not until after finishing it does the reader understand why Yossarian behaved in those ways, whose chronology reveals what he was struggling to come to terms with. At the true beginning of Yossarian's war experience, he was just like all the other soldiers: duty-bound, patriotic, and believing all the things he was told by those he was told he should believe. He was a good bombardier who cared about hitting his targets and sacrificing for his side, and he flew many missions in this mindset until the day he flew over Ferrera twice. Traumatized by the carnage of war and the death in his arms, he immediately afterwards systematically disregarded all of society's mores, ideas of morality, courage, patriotism, duty, shame and you name it--he disregarded it. He even showed up naked to receive his medal just after flying over Ferrera twice.

- - Presumably, Yossarian was so shaken, yet convinced that the tragedies of war should not be happening, that he, considering the lot of it tainted, dumped all of his previously held ideas. The ideas held by people in society curtail our ability to achieve or avoid certain outcomes, and Yossarian had concluded that the outcome and thus the ideas that enabled it, though held by everybody, were wrong. He then regarded everyone he had ever known; including family, pastors, legislators, teachers, neighbors and newspapers; as liars. The portrayal of Yossarian is one of a man dedicated to starting from scratch. The bulk of the book shows how far he has jovially gone in throwing off society's mores and ideas, to the degree of relishing behaving anti-heroically.

- - By the end of the book, Yossarian is following his own newly-built moral compass, which leads him to walk backwards in circles with his hand on his gun at his hip. This behavior precipitates his commanders to put him in the dilemma of whether to sell out the rest of the enlisted men or to suffer greatly. Heller brilliantly constructs here a subtle archetype of the prisoner's dilemma, where the rewards and the punishments for selling out and not selling out others, respectively, are each tremendous, but the collective gain to others is very slight or intangible; yet it still remains a prisoner's dilemma/moral dilemma. Yossarian can either live a life of luxury and honor, or he can continue walking backwards and refusing to fly more missions, making his commanders look foolish until he's jailed; which will nevertheless put some small pressure on the commanders to send home the enlisted men who have done their duty. He decides not to sell them out, and, opting for a dangerous third action (to run away), he thus proves himself to be the opposite of an anti-hero after all. The extreme subtleness of this prisoner's dilemma, the fact that Yossarian sees it so clearly, has so much to lose, and the fact that he recognizes all moral answers to prisoner's dilemmas to be the same basic choice, which must be chosen; together demonstrate Yossarian to be a great hero with an incredibly strong moral bearing. At the very end of the story, long after having dumped his ideas of patriotism, duty, and obeying authorities, he has apparently concluded that society's ideas of shame, cowardice, honor, and the rest of them, really should be disregarded as simplistic or worthless; and that the only valuable aspect of those societal ideas that we should actually hold on to is the choosing of the moral choice in moral/social/prisoner's dilemmas.

If I understand the problem, the book can not be summarized without analyzing it. But I find it difficult to believe that there isn't an RS anayisis of the book out there that can be cited. If the article discusses what is said by others about the book, then you avoid the NOR issue completely. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible hoax section in Abjection article

This unsourced section on the concept of the "abject" in theory is unfamiliar to myself and another person familiar with the subject, and appears very likely to be a hoax intended to ridicule the concept or the encyclopedia. I would remove it summarily, but I am posting the matter here in order to ensure consensus beforehand. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I stripped this section entirely, pending discussion here. As it appears to be a pure hoax and has no sources whatsoever, it may bring discredit to the project if it remains up. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And on further review, the information was added and expanded by an SPA and an anon editor whose only other contributions were either of dubious value or straight-up vandalism. This section persisted in the article from November of 2007 - wow. In light of the post-Sokal popularity of theory-based hoaxes, we should be watching these articles with extra care. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

F. Henry Edwards - acceptable research plan?

Could someone have glance at this proposal at User talk:Mountdrayton re F. Henry Edwards?

It looks to be skating very close to conducting original research on grounds of unpublished personal communications, then legitimising it as a Wikipedia source by getting a correspondent to put it online.

A bit of advice would be helpful. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The key to WP:NOR is that Wikipedia should not be the original point of publication for information. Information needs to be published elsewhere (in a reliable source) to be included in Wikipedia. If a Wikipedian has unpublished information on a topic (such as previously unpublished personal communications) he/she can not discuss it on Wikipedia. However, there is nothing wrong with the Wikipedian contacting someone else for publication outside of Wikipedia. Once the information is published elsewhere, it no longer is considered Original Research by our standards, as Wikipedia is no longer the original point of publication. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

John Lott

New to wikipedia, andI request advice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

The following is written in the article: "our analysis should show a few definite indicators" That is first personal plural and I believe it should be, at the very least, rephrased. I posted that in the discussion but noone replied. Any advice would be appreciated.

It's clearly OR, I've deleted the section. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And it's been replaced, with an edit summary saying Lott is known for this -- it is still OR and I removed it again, asking the editor to explain what makes it not OR. Doug Weller (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jehkque and Perpetual motion machines

User:Jehkque has opened a single-purpose account to promote his (or her?) original theory that perpetual motion machines are possible. See user contributions. He has been describing this theory in some detail on Talk:Perpetual motion#Laws of Perpetual Motion (Proposed) OPEN FOR DISCUSSION and on his own user page, though not yet (to his credit) in any actual articles. He is of the opinion that by posting the ideas on a talk page and receiving "peer review" feedback from other editors, and also by citing all the individual claims that he synthesizes to form this theory, the theory will then be consistent with WP:RS. See, for example, this edit.

Anyway, I haven't spent too much time debating this editor (the debate is all on his talk page and also the article talk page), nor do I want to, but I can already see signs that the debate isn't going anywhere, and that my appeals to wikipedia policy are being ignored (or, at best, misunderstood). Can some administrator help out? Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just can't find support in WP:FRINGE for what you're saying. Rather than giving special quarter to fringe theories, the policy actually insists on particularly good sourcing as a prerequisite for inclusion. It does allow that even theories which are demonstrably untrue (as opponents of your ideas would hold) are allowed inclusion — but if and only if their notability outside of their immediate adherents can be proven though reliable sources. If you could put together a good, sourced section on the fringe views of advocates of perpetual motion, Wikipedia might well be the richer fot it (though, given your strong opinions here, you might want to recruit someone who disagrees with you to help put together something balanced). However, trying to argue your point directly, with no sources, won't achieve much for anyone. Wikipedia in general is not the "one open avenue" to new theories seeking support. The internet as a whole may be that avenue, but Wikipedia specifically is not a proving ground for new theories. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehkque you are wrong from top to bottom and have a mistaken idea what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not the kind of forum you need for brainstorming revolutionary ideas. It's an encyclopedia, that's all, and no viable perpetual motion machine will never come to be simply by "what iffing" about subject on web pages. If you want to champion radical and sweeping advances in science you need to understand that neither you nor anyone else is allowed to engage in this at wikipedia.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're really excited about the possibilities and I wish you much success with this. However, this website is only for writing the encyclopedia, and wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, not an open forum for advocating new concepts, ideas, possibilities or inventions. You've been encouraged to read wikipedia's policies and guidelines already so I won't urge you again. But if you persist in trying to talk about the future possibilities of perpetual motion machines rather about how to edit an encyclopedia other editors will likely start removing your commentary and urging you to stop the misuse of talk pages. It's important that you understand what wikipedia is not and why the goals you have expressed so far don't qualify here.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you all wish to make a big issue out of my use of talk to discuss thing that some day may find their way into Wikipedia, and in the process give valuable information that can be cited on the page as it exists to improve the page. I have taken my information down. Be advised in writting, If I ever find any reference to my Laws of Perpetual motion other than what was left by me I will seek to have it removed from this site as you are expressly denied access to this infomation in public print or other wise. As you were not concerned enough to have the opportunity to have an historical record account of a discussion as to how the Laws of Perpetual Motion came into being and the data that supported their development. You lost a golden opportunity to be in possession of this information. What a value it could have been for wikipedia. No good deed goes unpunished. LOL You wish to scold me for making an attempt to improve, suffer the consequences. I did not expect for the Laws I wrote to take presidence in main stream science during my lifetime, historical record shows that is usually the case. But I could have left Wikipedia with a legacy no one else had and that was a complete discussion of them in a first hand account, which is rare and extremely valuable if they exist. That does not exist for you anymore. LOL Jehkque (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything posted at wikipedia is irrevocably released under the GFDL license. However wikipedia cannot use wikipedia itself as a source either so it would be unlikely to find this website taking or using your claims or arguments left on the talk pages. I hope you find a suitable venue for sharing these ideas, best wishes. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats ok, I will not seek another avenue to share them. I can already see that mankind is intent on being lead blindly into the abiss of global climate change. When the answer was right in front of them. Seriously I only wanted to improve a page here a wikipedia but I am not going to wage a war of words to make that happen. But since that war was brought to my door step just because I posted the something in talk that was not published but is most likely, (in my view because I know the extent I went through to verify every statements) I'll give you the win on the battle and let you lose the greater war with out trying to stop that loss. Good Luck LOL when the blind leads the blind they both shall fall into the ditch! You all better open your eyes, but of course your not going to so your doomed to a fate of your own making. Jehkque (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehkque, we will all be happy to embrace your ideas if/when they receive validation from persons besides yourself, or find expression in new technologies, but in the mean time, we cannot include them in an encyclopedia which limits itself to things which are already known. It's nothing personal, and not meant as a condemnation of your efforts. It's just that this is not a venue for research, but rather a compendium of things which are already well-established. Best of luck, Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

B.S.!!!!! I demonstrated existing technology that supports my claim!!!!! That is established and is known to work !!!!! Trouble is it is not classified as over unity for the sake that if it had been classified at its inseption as such it probably would not be in existance !!!!!! My idea did not arise out of information about them it but it directly applies to them which was clearly evident after it arose !!!!! Those are established but no one wanted to make that association and consider what I was saying that it is ture. Only IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET OVER UNITY ENERGY OR PERPETUAL MOTION!!!!! IF YOU CLAIM OTHER WISE WE WON'T LISTEN!!!!!!!! If we do listen it is only to the extent to state it is impossible (bias) and post some lame excuse that it can not be and I'm not going to listen to your supporting evidence, this is preexisting, to refute my claim(refusal to give fair consideration). Their claim is always it violates the first or second law of thermodynamics, and then refuse to listen to valid evidence to the contrary !!!!!!! Do you think they were recently established? Do you think I have not already tried other avenues? Do you think I do not know what I am saying? Do you think that I can not show evidence to what I have just stated here as well???

I don't have a PH.D so I must be self taught, as such I can be ignored???? Wrong assumption, but I was labeled that by someone at this site. Who posted a comment afterwords about force not being energy which I had already posted a valid argument supported by Einstein, Motte, Newton and mathematics and pointed to each of the items to be cross referenced, but he still claimed it was not energy. This is what I have faced over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, do you get the point? I even showed existing proof that the claim that force is energy had a practical application and was in use beyond the equation and even that was ignored!!!!! You do not have to use my Laws to see the proof of what is claimed against them is demonstrately false!!!!! There are enough instances to make the claim they are valid and even with out them the existing information which is in print can be used. If and only if people would just open their freaken eyes and have an open mind!!!!!! Which in the case of perpetual motion that is seriously suspect to occur based on past demonstrations by the scientific community and the general perception of every one else from a long history of science saying to them it is impossible oh and if we are wrong about this then every thing we know about science is wrong and would have to be rewritten and not just science but math too.

As for those that represent Wikipedia, just because I stated something NEW the rest of the information was deemed OR and thus wrong or improper even though I showed existing proof of it and pointed to that proof and most of that pointing was to things already readly accepted in articles here at wikipedia. But Because I stated perpteual motion was possible it was original research!!!!!!!! It was not stated this particular item is an Original Statement that is not in print thus we can't use this, which I can understand and would not quibble about that, but the rest is very good and usable and that can some day lead to use of your original statement that is supported by all this very good information. It all is Original Research and rejected even called unorthodox such that it could be stigmatized and rejected. B freaken S that you would publish it if it was published somewhere else. You would not even consider what I showed that is already in print and consider adjusting the page with that information only because I stated perpetual motion is possible and that is an original statement? I am not the first to claim that!!!!! I am only the first to be able to state it correctly with absolute supporting evidence!!!!!!! OOOPS we can't refute this so lets squash it!!!!!!!!!!! Make it go away so we can preserve our LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you fell right into the damn trap, sucker! It's not original research when you show existing proof to how the information came about!!!!!!!!!! It is only Original Interpurtation of existing information already in print and accepted as such!!!!!!!!! Interpuratation of existing data in print and showing how that inturperatation came about is not Original Research rather a valid expression of the data. But we must claim it is original research instead of looking at the interpurtation in order to squash it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fool! Open your Eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has it occured to you yet that the purpose of the talk entry was to expose the bias present by the editors of the page? If that has not occurred to you yet, consider the title of the talk section. Laws of Perpetual Motion (Proposed) OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. I identified that the Laws of Perpetual Motion were proposed and did not expect their use in the article as they are new and unsupported. But in stating them to a bunch of editors that are biased that makes them have an immediate bias towards me. That is clearly evident in the way I and the whole of the information I presented was treated. The first posting in talk was clearly Original Reasearch, I even admitted to that and urged that it be refered to an administrator with utmost urgency. It was only after I began posting proof in the discussion that could be used against their claims in the article that the complaint against original research was filed. It was not deemed so necessary to immediately make complaint even after I urged them to do so and admitted the inital portion of the talk section was Original. Yet only after I was demonstrating proof. That calls into question the motive behind the complaint. If not biased why wait until there is additional information that which can be used in the article because it is supported by references? It was a clear cut case for the very beginning and they were urged to take action. My intent was and still is to improve the page with accurate information. In order to do that I had to expose the bias of the other editors. That is why when this complaint was filed The very first sentence I wrote was a Thank you. Because the delay, until after I had posted information that was supported by reference and could call into question the information on the page, can show bias. The page is safe against the Laws of Perpetual Motion because they are Original Research, not a threat, most likely not going to be on the atricle page any time soon. Other information though that can challenge the atrice page as it currently is a different story and can't be allowed unless there is an open minded atmosphere among the editors. In waiting to make objection they lose all credibility in regards to the rules because the first objection to the rule and admission to it being Original Research should have prompted the lodging of a complaint. Not waiting until information that had acceptable supporting evidence appeared. Check the time line you will see this statement is true. The wait exposed the editors of the page to have their ethics called into question as to bias. That is the point I am trying to get across, not that I want the laws posted, just end the bias and post accurate information on the page that can be supported by outside reference. In ending the bias of the editors of that page the page can be improved. With out exposing the bias and forcing the editors to stop that bias or stop them from editing the page, the page will never reflect accurate information that is contrary to their opinion. I willing gave opportunity for them to object immediately, they chose to wait until there was something there to could challenge their article directly and immediately, not simply because it was Original Research, because of the other information that they could not keep from the article because it has acceptable supporting references. That is about all I have to say on the matter. Except I also wanted to see if the admin could pick up on the time line issue and question why there was a delay in filing the complaint when it was clear from the start and there was admission. But evidently in your review of the entire postings in all locations if you review the entire postings, you did not question the time line or did not make the connection to the urging. Reference "Jehkque(talk) 04:23 24 August (UTC)"

Then reference the time in which the complaint was filed. Personally if I had been told by someone what I said in the reference I just gave, my very first action after viewing that comment would have been to make the complaint as that would have been the proper course of action to not have any doubt as to motive. Instead there is a response at 17:51 24 August then another at 18:24 24 August (UTC) then at 21:06 the complaint was filed. These delays call into question motive! I cite this delay as pointing towards bias against the additional information that had acceptable supporting reference and not to the posting of the Laws of Perpetual Motion themselves. Motivated by the fact that the additional information could refute claims made in the article and it was the desire of the editor to protect that information against a challenge to the validity of the information in the article. Which the additional information made such a challenge possible.

206.251.24.120 (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If people have been rude or dismissive, that's unfortunate. Just remember not to reply in kind. Throwing about words like "fool" and "sucker" is unlikely to get anyone anywhere — and please keep in mind that I have not used any such words against you. Remember, also, that there is no deadline - any delays you have faced are more likely related to the fact that this is a volunteer project with limited resources than to some sort of organized effort against you. Further, it must be understood that novel interpretations of existing data are likely to run afoul of OR policy.

Who, exactly, are the editors you feel are acting unfairly here? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the information in talk you will see SteveB making such a reference. Also Please note that the request I made for citations were removed with out citation. This is clearly an attempt to squash my voice. I can cite that there is a particular instance of natural phenomana that is not addresses in all of the articles that detail that perpetual motion is impossible. By not having this phenomana addressed there is a valid question to validity of the statement. There must be a citation to an examination to a study of this phenomana in order to validate the claim as it is written on the page and if there is not a citation to the phenomama then the statement is original research. You applaud original research in the article as it is written but you condem me for original research that I confined to the talk pages only. Even you by not listening to my objection of the original research on the article page is prejudical against me and what i am saying.

The phenomama I am refering to is the fact that in a gravity environment, gases trapped under the surface of a liquid will raise to the surface and in such will impart energy to the liquid in which they raise in and that energy is derived from the force of gravity. Now I can cite where varied boyancy has been attempted in the past and that the idea is flawed. I would agree with that statement, but that is not the statement I made in the first sentence of theis paragraph. Second the motion energy imparted to the liquid which has the gas trapped in it can be transformed into other forms of energy, allowed by the Law of conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws. This gives a plausible opportunity to gain energy in a system and achieve over unity energy. One in which has not been specifically addressed in any attempt to refute over unity energy. Additionally, the fact that instances of microsystems in the isolated energy system of earth that can achieve over unity energy outputs is also not addressed properly.

But I can almost assure that what I just said will again fall on deaf ears and closed eyes. I would be totally astounded if it actually caused someone to actually listen and look. This is because of the fact that it has so far not been accepted as a valid argument by any person in the scientific field. Only by persons who do not have a preconceived notion based on an extensive scientific education. Also, I would like to point out, this phenomama is the only instance that I can point to that has not been explored in known and conventional energies. I have previously pointed to solar and wind and geothermal and hydropower as existing over unity devices. That also falls on deaf ears though in fact they are. They use no fuel what so ever that is directly applied to them by man. Thus for man they are over unity, simple microsystem analysis. yet you will not listen and you will not look. When will you open your eyes? Never? When will you stop keeping your mind closed and open it to something that has yet to be explored to determin if it is possible or not possible? When will you associated that microsystems can exist using energy from the envionment of the greater system surrounding it, for that is not prohibited in the laws of science. WHEN?

A last note, if you think that I am a perpetual motion person, you would be wrong. I am a supporter of what is listed on the page that was forced to reevaluate and found an instance that has yet to be explored. I can point to that one specific instance and show that my opinion as well as the opinion on the prepetual motion article page may be flawed. It is from that that I investigated further, and tried my best to get others to also explore it. Every one else has decided to refuse to explore it which is wrong. Beginning in April of 2007 is when I was tasked to prove what I stated to the board of a research orginazation or disprove my statement. I had to examine every possibility it was not my choice unless I declined to be the principle investigator of the research project and in doing I would have had to resign my position. I was surprised at what I found that would not allow me to prove the statement made on the perpetual motion page. I investigated that and that is what lead me to what I claim here. I found something that has not been explored. Excited about perpetual motion? NO!!!! I am excited that new information has been found and it needs to be explored against the theory!!!! For god's sake, explore and investigate what i said. It has not been explored by anyone other than myself as far as I know. But until someone else explores it my theory will not be show valid or invalid. Please explore it. Please listen. Please open your eyes. If you will not do that, you and every other scientist is guilty of bias and orginal research regardless of how many opinions you have and cite that say the same thing. You failed to explore all possibilities and thus formed an opinion not based on fact, ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!! 206.251.7.60 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to review the talk page and the article over the next few days to make sure that nothing untoward is going on, to investigate your side of the argument here, and to see if it can be improved with further citations and such. In the meantime, some notes and questions:

• I will find this out shortly on review, but which part of the article did you ask for citations in and get refused? (If it was in the lead section, remember that information stated there which is repeated later needs no cites.)
• Even if the statement currently in place in the article were to be invalid because it fails to refute the possibility you discuss, remember that that wouldn't make it "original research". "Original research" is not a synonym for "untrue" or "invalid" or "lacking evidence to refute all possible challenges" — "original research" simply means that the information has not previously been published by a reliable source. Is that actually true of the information in question — that, right or wrong, it has not previously been published?
• I know you say that what you're talking about is a new area of exploration, but is there any published literature on closely-related subject, for instance? Further, how do you suggest that Wikipedia include information on this subject if nothing has been published, as we can only include information which has been previously published?

These questions are asked in good faith. I'm trying to work with you here. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OR tag without explanation

Somebody put the Original Research tag on an article I wrote, but did not explain why. At Template:Original research it says: "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." I have left a message on the person's talk page asking them to explain their tag on the article's talk page, but they have not responded (as of 5 days later). As the author of the article, am I now entitled to remove the OR tag in accordance with the removal policy quoted above, or do I have to ask someone else to do it? (The article is Mutants (Judge Dredd).) Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can do it, but it's nicer if someone else does it. This is a clear-cut case so I just now did it for you. Eubulides (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Richard75 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OR?

The Anon IP keeps adding information[19] which just goes to a flight page which I see as WP:OR since it's not a press release and just because there is more flights that you can chose from doesn't make it reliable since there is no press releases about the changes of flights. Bidgee (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This was posted in the AN page but I've moved it here. Bidgee (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, OR policy does allow for the descriptive use of primary sources in the event that a non-specialist reader can easily verify that the Wikipedia text has correctly described the contents of the primary source. So, we could do without press releases if we could link to flight information tables which clearly showed an increase to double-daily service starting in October (as I believe is the issue here). However, the link provided by the anon does not provide clear primary-source information, but rather makes you search it out yourself. I went through myself to check the information, and while it does appear to be true, there's no good way to link to the results. Since it does not appear possible to supply an easy link to primary information (in this case, flight info tables) clearly confirming the added Wikipedia content, I would say that, yup, the added content runs afoul of OR policy. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources involving Images with explicit definition

Ok, this question is really complicated and is probably going to be really controversial..BUUUT! What if a source has an image that explicitly states information in a caption, or note within an image, that is not stated within the article that the image is inculded in. Is information in the caption original research, usable, or completely useless? An Example: If an image caption in a source article says " A Jones hotdog with cucumbers tomatoes and basil." But the source text itself only mentions that the Jones hotdog only comes with tomatoes and basil, and the only mention of a jones hotdog having cucumbers is in the image. --Holamitch (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Holamitch — hope you don't mind, I moved this thread to the bottom of the page, where new threads usually go, so that other readers of the noticeboard will be able to spot it. As for your question, the use of a caption in an article is perfectly legitimate and should be uncontroversial. This specific example is slightly fuzzy, but in general a caption in an article is a legitimate source for information. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool, and no, I don't mind you moving the thread, it's totally fine. One other question, I was reading one of your posts otward the top of the page and you said "That would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR." and I just wanted to know when such an exception is applicable and when it isn't. --Holamitch (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, an image should clearly reflect something that is stated in the article. And a caption should be a simple discription of what is in the image. If a caption goes beyond that, it can be considered OR. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask Why it should be considered OR if it's in the article? No offense, I'm just wondering. --Holamitch (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I'm thinking there might be a misunderstanding, and that Blueboar might be talking about a caption on Wikipedia that goes beyond describing the image. If I understand correctly, we're talking about a caption in the source article being used as a source of information, which would not be OR. As to your question, Mitch, that statement is broadly applicable. Primary sources are acceptable for use as long as the Wikipedia content based on them is — uncontroversially, plainly, and to any educated person with common sense — a clear description of their contents, rather than, say, an original interpretation of their contents. So any time you're dealing with a primary source, and you follow that guideline, you're safe. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, awesome, thanks for the help. And yes, I think Blueboar might be a bit confused, ( no offense to blueboar, I use the word confuse for lack of a better word). --Holamitch (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Glad to help. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Motivation of attackers who make Acid attacks

In the article Acid attack subsection Motivation of attackers does this paragraph constitute OR (and if so what has to be changed or removed to make it non-OR) :

Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress. According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed," for failure to wear hijab.

The talk page arguement is here

The sentence "Religious reasons have also been given for attacks." use to begin the paragraph but its deletion has not stilled controversy.--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any real OR or SYN issues here. As for the list of countries where attacks have taken place, each is backed up separately by sourcing, and merely forming a list of them is not a SYN problem. The more obvious concern would be grouping them together and then drawing them as attacks by "Islamists" with "religious motivations". That could arguably be a violation of SYN — though frankly I think it would fall on the acceptable side, because there is no synthesized opinion not plainly evident in the original collected sources — but the information is backed up beyond doubt by the Rand source at the end of the paragraph, which is secondary and contains basically the same information. If someone has a problem with this article/section — which I could see, since these attacks seem to be presented as if they never occur outside of these countries — they might be better off pursuing a POV, undue weight, or {{globalize}} complaint. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OR synthesis n a BLP problem

In the Rosalind Picard page, there is a section about a petition found here.

"Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[23][24] "

The two links are combined into one to connect her signature to the Discovery Institute, and then there is a claim that, unmodified, makes it appear that she supports such a group. This is later denied by sources later, if you follow the paragraph. All of the sources say that the signers did not know how the petition would be used, nor is there anything to say that the signers meant it as the other group did.

I believe this is OR synthesis by combining the fact that she signed a petition with information on a group that later used the petition to connect her to that group. Since this is a BLP, I believe this is unfair. Any advice? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there's an OR/SYN issue here, but the information on the usages of the petition seems unnecessary. As the petition has its own article with a long section on usage, there's no need for the second part of that sentence. It should read, simply, Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. As for the sources used, I think they're both legit. One is primary, but it backs up WP content which is clearly a simple description of its own contents. The other is secondary and reinforces the basic facts of the first source, stating specifically that Picard is a signatory. Persons interested in further information of the uses on the petition may click the link. Seems like an easy solution. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are concerned about stating her views on the matter accurately, the statement could be re-written to say: "Picard was a signatory of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism <cite to the current citations>, but subsequently reputiated her signature.<cite to source that disusses her reputiation>" (or something to that effect... the phrasing obviously depends on what the sources say). Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a group of people who edit about 40 or so related pages and who refuse to allow anything to be done about the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear about just what you want gone. What from here...

Picard says that she was raised an atheist, but converted to Christianity as a young adult.[22] She is dismissive of a school of thought that science can develop anything,[clarify] and says that scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure. She believes it likely that there is "still something more" to life, beyond what we have discovered, and sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes". To her, the complexity of DNA shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are".[22] She sees her religious beliefs as playing a role in her work in affective computing.[21]

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[23] Although her view about the complexity of DNA "sounds similar to the intelligent design debate", reporter Mirko Petricevic writes, "Picard has some reservations about intelligent design, saying it isn't being sufficiently challenged by Christians and other people of faith".[22] She argues that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[22]

...must go? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I quoted above the line - that is the first line of the second paragraph. Its not that she signed the petition. Its the explanation of the petition that seems to be OR synthesis. You take the fact that she signed, add in later fact how the signature was used, and combine it into a sentence which makes it seem that one follows the other. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if it's still just about that one sentence, I agree w/ you that we should strip out the info about the uses of the petition and just leave the fact that she signed. As the petition has its own article, any information about its uses can be contained there, as it is far more relevant to the petition itself than to Ms. Picard. Who are the people objecting to this change, and on what grounds? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, it still seems more like an UNDUE issue than a SYN issue. The second part of the sentence simply describes the uses of the petition without strongly implying that Picard supports those uses. It could be worded to make that more clear, but it's not really a SYN violation. I mostly think it should go out because the ID issue is taking up too much space, proportionally, in an article on someone whose life is not devoted to the subject...at all. There has been too much drama over this article already, most of it incomprehensible to those who do not regularly participate in ID-related WP slugfests. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin voting procedures

There is currently a dispute going on regarding the article on Wisconsin. As explained on the Wisconsin talk page, an anonymous editor repeatedly adds material that other editors find to be original research. This has resulted in an edit war. Could others please provide their disinterested thoughts? Thanks.

Text in question:

"State statutes do not specify the manner for actually counting ballots." In Wisconsin, pencils are used to mark the election ballots, and the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied. However, in select communities, some voters may still be allowed to use a proper marker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.144.55 (talk) 00:14, 2 September, 2008 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the relevant talk page and the Wisconsin Board of Elections documents linked to by the editor arguing for the inclusion of this text. I agree with those on the talk page who say his/her assertions constitute an original interpreation of the Election Day Manual. In essence, he/she has taken the footnote on page 47 and interpreted it in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the document. He mentions the apparently contradictory text on page 51, but argues that the note on 47 renders it misleading, because the text on 51 may say that "counting" is open to the public, but the note on 47 defines "counting" in a counterintuitive way (essentially as a period of reporting after the actual tabulation is already complete). However, what he's missing or ignoring is that:

• The note on 47 applies exclusively to absentee ballots.
• There is text on page 45 which makes it exceedingly clear that the note on 47 is just worded badly, and that the actual counting process is fully open to the public, with no intervening "tabulation" period.

So, this is an interpretation inconsistent with the source material. Moreover, as election manuals are a primary source on this subject, they must be represented descriptively and in a way which is evident to any educated reader — and frankly, this manual is sufficiently arcane that it is troublesome for use as a primary source, especially in regard to any claim which is based on a semantic conflict, as this one is. So, even if the claim were correct, it would border on OR and might require secondary sourcing...but as far as I can tell the claim is also simply incorrect.

As to the matter of pencils and markers, there is even less in there to support that. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)