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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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

Historical maps made by editors

It is quite an interesting subject, I suppose. Wiki encourages editors to create images on their own and post them as there are often problems with copyright issues [[1]]. Those images are not OR if referenced. But now I have a question if maps are also included. How would a map be referenced? But the main question I am experiencing difficulties with are historical maps. For historical maps a very serious historical, geographical and topological researches have to be done. For creating a historical map by an editor seems impossible to be competent enough and I could claim any unpublished historical map made by any editor an OR or at least an Original Synthesis. Can we at all consider such made maps proper for an encyclopedia??? Thank you for your comments! Aregakn (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The presentation of a published map is what is copyrighted; the information therein is not. So if an editor adds exactly the information from any published map to an extant map template, then that is one way to make a new map without doing OR.

There is already the precedent in many election articles applying results data to map templates demarcating the districts. In this way, a new map gets created where no map existed before; this is also not OR.

What both of these have in common is that they are relatively simple. As maps get further removed from a single original source, such as by referencing multiple sources at once (separate historical, geographical, and topological sources), then it starts to become WP:Synthesis. The line when this starts is not well defined; if you want to make maps, I would encourage you to start with a simple one then get feedback as you attempt more complex iterations. Blue Rasberry 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. I have made a number of maps by combining information from several existing maps. For example, I might start with an old map and draw on it modern features from a recent map in order to show how the region has evolved. Such maps can be very informative and enhance articles a lot, so I think we should be lenient towards them. On the other hand, maps are not exempt from the WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV rules. Anyone making a map should be willing to give a source for anything on the map that is challenged, and these sources should satisfy WP:RS. Similarly, the choice of what to put on a map can be an WP:NPOV issue. However, merely combining information from several reliable maps is just the same as writing an article based on several reliable texts; usually it is not WP:SYNTH unless the combination is designed to support an original hypothesis. Zero^talk 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the points of views now. I think I will have to present a specific case now to see the opinion about it. Here it is:

Preconditions

The map was created by a non-professional with many issues I'd claim OR or/and SYNTH, no topological consideration and I see no references to any RS [2]. It is important to evaluate it to be or not an OR because the map is used on many articles.

In this case of disputes 1 question arose - "the created map is easier to read". Even if so, the map is not academical and violates the above mentioned rules of Wikipedia. But for this issue there was quite a lot of work performed to bring a map based on a reliable source to a "more easy to read" condition [3]. Aregakn (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues to be discussed and results - achieved

1. Does the 1st user-created map [4] contradict to the rules?
2. Is the 2nd user-created map [5], referenced to a reliable souce, an OR or Synth? If not, is it preferable for use than the 1st?

Thank you for participation! Aregakn (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with final conclusions (please note the latter in BOLD)

As the 1st map does not respond to correct political borders of the Roman Empire, in my opinion, it can only be used in 1 case: when describing which provinces has which type of status in the Empire. I do believe this 1st map was created only with this goal and not to have propper borders of lands etc. But of course, in any case, even this use is only possible when the info is referenced to RS(s), and yet it is not. Aregakn (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

question as to bar for WP:OR

At National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms there is a question as to if the table and figure represent original research (OR). On the talk page I have pointed to some possible sources that publish something similar but nobody has exactly the same thing. I am still unsure if this is or is not OR because the concept is so simple, and there are many who use the concept (increase in debt be Presidential term), but there is still no identical table.

If you answer is that the sourcing (and links I provided on the talk page) are insufficient, can you please tell me what would be sufficient? Alternately, if you think that this article/table/image do not violate OR, can you please explain how they should be cited or why this is the case? Thanks in advance for your thought! 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed that the article has been allowed to exist for so long. I haven't looked at the precise issue you mention because the whole thing is total OR and any competent POV pusher could add tables to show whatever they wanted. I agree that the simple idea is rather nice: compare the national debt at the beginning and the end of each presidential term. However, life is not so simple in practice and independent secondary sources that have worked out what each President did that resulted in an increase or decrease is required. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Observations about political affiliation and changes in US government debt has been made by several political commentators (Paul Krugman for example). This makes the introduction of this issue into Wikipedia not OR. Citations to those outside commentators would be welcome however. If I have time, I'll leave some cites on the article talk page. LK (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, these are the two ways I saw of seeing it. A third editor on the page called it a "routine calculation." I can see all three sides. This is why I posted on this noticeboard. How do we sort this out? 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article suffers from clear OR and factual accuracy issues. As O18 points no, no source exactly replicates the table, it has been created via WP:Synthesis. Further, its making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Spending bills originate in the House, but the article implictly lays responsibility for spending in the executive branch. A table collating spending by who controlled Congress would be better (though still very problematic). The problem is that the entire article, down to the color-coding on the chart, is clearly designed to promote a particular point of view, rather than factually educating the reader. For instance, the majority of the spending increase in the 2005-2009 period happened when Obama took office in Jan 2009, but it's chalked up to Bush.

The largest problem of all is that federal fiscal years don't begin and end on presidential terms. Whenever a president is elected, they "inherit" a portion of the budet from the previous president, but can also work to make changes themselves (though as previously noted, Congress ultimately has more responsibility here). Trying to artificially align presidential terms to fiscal budgets just cannot be accurately done. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, please stick to what is not referenced for this discussion. the article already states

Louis Fisher writes, "Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests." In the case of Nixon, who fought fiercly with congress over the budget, he writes, "Congress was able to adhere to the President's totals while significantly altering his priorities."

The point is the President sets the spending totals and they are adhered to. 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that the ex-Socialist candidate for President? You're basing your argument of a remark of his made over 20 years ago? Congress regularly has and does exceed the amounts requested by the President...and that is the least of the problems in this article. The real problem is that you cannot align federal fiscal years with presidential terms. No matter how you allocate years, you're forced to tie at least some spending by a president to his successor or predecessor. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, not sure if you know this, but NPOV and verifiability apply to discussion pages too. Can you please give us some sort of reference for Louis Fisher being a socialist candidate for president, that congress exceeds the President's request, and that it matters in any year other than 2009 that the President changed office. In addition, as was pointed out on the talk page, you actually argued for the timing that is currently used in the table. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• While I would generally say a table is basic and doesn't need to be published elsewhere, I actually do see this article as being inappropriate. Interesting data, but overall shallow and more fit for a blog post or something than an encyclopedic article. The topic is better treated in a scientific paper about political party's contributions to the national debt. I'm awfully sympathetic to the observation that Republicans have historically contributed more to the national debt, and I do think that it is an encyclopedic topic to cover at the United States public debt article, but the way it is done is more of a political jab. II | (t - c) 06:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly makes you say it is a jab. I see almost zero text--mostly numbers. Can you please tell me what would help make it read as not a jab? 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think is really fit for a standalone article - it would be interesting statistics to supplement an article on how much each party contributes to the national debt, but standing alone it implicitly gives off that impression with stating it. For example, Barack Obama will oversee a serious increase in the national debt, simply because he inherited a crisis which caused reduced tax revenues and required increased spending. So in this chart he will look like a big spender even though it really shouldn't be attributed to him. II | (t - c) 20:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dollar Baby Stephen King films

Regarding the "Definitive List" section of Dollar Baby, isn't that almost all OR? That list just keeps growing unreferenced without assertion of notability as well. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly fails WP:V, at any rate, and likely WP:NOR too. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the race and intelligence controversy

For a couple of weeks there has been an ongoing and entrenched conflict among editors on thetalk page of this article concerning the proper way to use different kinds of sources, whether or not the viess of historians published in reliable sources ought to be privileged, and whether primary sources are being used to forward interpretations and value-judgements. Input from people who have a lot of experience with this policy would really help. The most recent talk - ay talk frm the last two or three days, talk in the last few sections - whould be enough to illustrate the conflicts. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It's difficult for me to judge whether the NOR/primary source disputes have quieted at this point but I've watch listed the page to see if the issue is re-raised. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Have Spacesuit, Will Travel

Resolved

From article history:

cur | prev) 19:26, 19 April 2010 Sbharris (talk | contribs) (13,884 bytes) (Practive is to leave "OR" looking stuff in non-BLP articles, so long as it doesn't look obviously wrong. If may be OR or not. Eventually, cites are found. Most of WP is uncited. Patience.) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:19, 19 April 2010 Richard L. Peterson (talk | contribs) (11,513 bytes) (rm possibly valuable and/but far from obvious information--original research.also rm OR tag) (undo)

From sbharris talk page:

[edit] Have Spacesuit, Will Travel; errors section;original research It's been a couple years already, how much faster do you think patience will work in the future? It seems likely to me that if citations are eventually found, it will because a fire was lit under the original researcher by deleting her or his contribution. But in fact, I'm dubious that any nonprimary sources can be found that point out the stated errors in Heinlein's book, whether or not they are errors. Best wishes, Rich (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What should be done? Thanks, 199.33.32.40 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Rich (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)posted on help desk, pasted here; help desk possibly wrong place.Rich (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's been done. It looks good; that was one of my favourite books when I was a kid, and it holds up for adults looking for an entertaining quick read. The material in question added nothing substantial to the article, IMO. I catch little errors all the time in fiction and movies, and it's really beside the point. Shakespeare made some whoppers and somehow his work is still considered good enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Give the length of time the material had been in the article unsourced, I think it was reasonable to remove it as OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you.Rich (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to paste this to the have Spacesuit Will travel talk page.24.7.28.186 (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputable info with orphaned quotations

Hi, can somebody please have a look at this discussion Talk:Ukrainian language#Ukrainian not a language - just a dialect of Russian, the user has added some controversial info and supported it by short quotations where that info could not be found, and refuses to provide broader quotations. thanks. --windyhead (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Defective script

Defective script is an article which has been completely without references since its creation. The article seems to be quite flawed, with a POV title, which considering the article is completely unsourced, could also be a neologism. Either way, I think this article needs some attention from the community at large. --Pstanton (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the title is non-neutral. I think it's referring to the idea that some alphabets are ambiguous and hence "defective" in a technical sense. (It's like the imperfect tense—not imperfect as a pejorative, but just as a technical term.) I don't know enough about the topic to comment definitively, however. I've tagged it for attention through WikiProject Linguistics. TheFeds 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Sullivan

The article on Timothy Sullivan, representative from New York, cites mostly primary sources. As a historian, I admire the effort to research a historical figure on whom there are few reliable secondary sources available, but I'm not sure the material belongs in Wikipedia. I'm not much of an editor though, so perhaps someone from the Wikirati can take a look and see if the page warrants a flag. Merkinmuffly (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Harm reduction

I and some other editors have a problem with Minphie (talk · contribs). He have his way on many articles in the scope of Harm reduction and is "juxtaposeing" to make "valid arguments" against harm reduction that is "evidenced and factual" and "logically correct". However, looking at the sources he uses, in many cases it is evidenced that they not are critical of harm reduction. In one instance he for example uses kingheathpartners.org to make an argument against de cost-effectiveness of heroine assisted treatment, but looking at the source kingheathpartners.org is actually making the contrary argument, that it is cost-effective. Then he brings Sweden to that table, using a source that does not say anything about wither Sweden is have a cost-effective drug policy or is making it an alternative to heroin assisted maintenance. Another example of OR is this where he saw together an original synthesis with the same kind of selectivity shown above, not showing that the "critics" in fact used the sources in the way he did.

I would be pleased if someone took a look at the above, informed Minphie a last time about original research and then reverted his edits to Harm reduction. Steinberger (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger has not understood the differences in formal logic between synthesis and deduction, and herein lies his misunderstanding. I have indeed cited a medical media release on the UK heroin trial as my source for the COST per participant and as my source for the ONGOING ADDITIONAL COSTS of acquisitive crime to the UK community from these same participants despite their provision of free heroin. I have then juxtaposed (not synthesized) the ongoing costs of heroin maintenance with the once-off costs of rehabilitating heroin users such that they cost the community nothing in acquisitive crime or ongoing maintenance. The deduction is clear and indubitable.

IF the heroin trial participants are still costing the UK community 15,000+ pounds p.a. in real terms (as demonstrated from my cited source)

AND a rehabilitated user, who after an initial one-off investment costs the community no pounds at all (a given)

THEN the rehabilitated user is the cheaper strategy.

This is precisely the argument of the critics of the heroin trials. There is no synthesis or original research. Straightforward deduction is not empirical research in any shape of form, where rather it is 'induction' at play. Unless Steinberger can grasp the difference between deduction and induction he may continue to make the error of thinking that deduction is original research. Others may assist him better than I. I have put a similar explanation on the Harm Reduction Talk page.

Minphie (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is still an WP:Synthesis and the result you get when doing it is factually wrong. The addicts that can get heroin by prescription have failed numerous attempts at rehabilitation, including with methadone. They are the treatment-resistant worst five per cent, according to your source. The alternative to heroin as given in the source you quote is not rehabilitation, but prison and the cost for a year in prison, according to the source you quote, is 44k£.

Your argument however, can still be done. But then you have to have a source where it is made explicitly and properly attribute it to it. That is perfectly fine and in accordance with WP:OR. But that is not the case here, is it? Steinberger (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as I read Wikipedia's policy on Original Research "straightforward deduction", as you call it, is a classic example of original research. Any logical inference from the sources, that is not explicitly stated in the sources, is Original Research. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. We are documenting knowledge, not drawing and presenting further inferences and conclusions we create from it. While in academia the process described might be considered deduction, it's a pretty cut and dried synthesis/OR issue for a neutral encyclopedia. If a credible independent third party had drawn and published those same conclusions in reliable sources, that would be different. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to hear that I have understood the policy correct. Thanks both for taking your time. Steinberger (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved observer of this dispute and I am not convinced that this dispute is as clear cut as made out and I am worried about the direction this dispute is taking. It appears the accusers here allow uncited POV original research such as the following commentary, "Little anecdotal evidence supports them beyond the arguments and claims put forth by anti-harm reduction groups themselves." and "Critics furthermore reject harm reduction measures for allegedly trying to establish certain forms of drug use as acceptable in society:" minimise criticisms of harm reduction. See this article section. I am concerned that this noticeboard is being used to generate "evidence" to get a newbie editor community sanctioned from wikipedia based on comments by Steinberger on [6] and a user conduct RfC being filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Minphie. The newbie editor Minphie is concerned with the POV of the article and I can see why. Am I right in saying that the above bolded examples of uncited commentary is original research? Outside views would be welcome.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally this mass revert was done on the grounds that Minphie was doing synthesis and original research but when I checked the sources, I did not see any synthesis or original research. I did not read every reference but about half of them and seemed fine and the mass revert seemed to be on flawed reasoning. Most of the sources also seemed to be ok. This is not a one sided issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LG. Even though I disagree with the critics of the SIS these criticisms are verifiable and thus should be included on Wikipedia. These safe injection sites have not been around very long and thus many conclusions surrounding them cannot yet be made. Well Minphie may have picked onesided passages. These should have been balanced rather than removed. And this should probably have occurred on the subpage Safe injection site to keep the main page from getting too big.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the example presented is original research. I also agree that the article should try to be neutral. Scanning the mass revert it does seem like some of the citations removed were likely not used in an original manner. I glanced through Google Scholar and didn't find a lot of criticism on harm reduction. Harm reduction approaches to alcohol use:: Health promotion, prevention, and treatment (2002) mentions that the practice has been controversial and discusses criticisms briefly at the end, but is overall supportive. Controlled drinking: more than just a controversy seems similar. II | (t - c) 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Yes a lot of areas of harm reduction is fairly common sense and not controversial, though some forms of harm reduction are controversial for a number of reasons. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Over the mass revert, there was mainly four things:

1. that "Critics of this intervention point to these same evaluations of safe injection sites" (four sources, were only one is in fact pointing to a evaluation that was preceding or following, namely this and it mainly summarized other findings then the ones that were following)
2. the statement that Vancouver and Sidney are the most evaluated drug consumption facilities (novel and without citations)
3. that "[Vancouver] cost ...$3 million per annum to operate ... [although] indicating just one life saved from fatal overdose per annum" indicating that it is cost-inefficient although the same expert review where the figures were taken from said it is cost-efficient; exactly mimicking what above is said to be a original synthesis
4. that this partisan "review" was used without attribution (its findings contradicts the official evaluations on many points)

To make Minphies edit compliant to policies (not only NOR but also NPOV) it had to be completely rewritten. Steinberger (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Silesian metropolitan region

Silesian metropolitan region is completely written by one user (User:LUCPOL) and contains references to sources that don't support it. I placed prod template there but User:LUCPOL removed it claiming there was no discussion, so I ask you for help.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to template {delete}, this IP incorrect use of the template [7] - first template, then the discussion with other users. Should be: first discussion with other users then template (if there was consensus). I'm a different opinion about article than IP. I wrote my arguments in the discussion of article. LUCPOL (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I started discussion here, before I placed prod template. Provided sources don't support your opinion on this article. There's nothing that shows it's more than just original research.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What? Quotation: "I started discussion here, before I placed prod template"? Please, see: started discussion and placed template - one day. You give one day on discussion with other users. No waiting for the reviews of other users. You are not alone on Wikipedia. The sources said that should. I'm a different opinion about article than IP. I wrote my arguments in the discussion of article. LUCPOL (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, one day may really be too little but template works for seven days. Anyway, I hope more people will give their opinions on the problem, but it's pretty clear it's original research. It's also understandable that you defend article you created yourself. How much time do you need, a month?--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitherto, to different users expressed own opinion and the emergence consensus. LUCPOL (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, if no one apart from you contributes to this discussion for a longer period there's no point in waiting with article which is clearly original research. So you're warned, it's nonsense to preserve article clearly violating WP:NOR policy. I hope people give their opinion.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion 'test" at Criticism of Judaism

Criticism of Judaism has been the subject of a lot of edit warring recently. Editors are now discussing some sort of test on whether material would be appropriate for the article. If material fails, it is excluded. This seems to me to be original research used to justify exclusion. The "test" discussions are going on here (at the bottom), and here. Outside opinions would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense but, if "criticism of Judaism" is a notable topic, then must be secondary sources on the subject. That being so, can't WP just rely on those sources to identify what are and what are not criticisms of Judaism? Jakew (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're being dense at all! It seems to me that the editors, including me, who are discussing this are, in fact, discussing exactly that: the need to base such decisions on secondary sources. No doubt, there will end up being some who want to push for some sort of OR based upon what amounts to ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT, but I expect, and certainly hope, that consensus will not go that way. An expectation that editors are going to settle upon some sort of out-of-policy subjective test seems to me to not reflect what is actually happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the inclusion test they're talking about is exactly an out-of-policy subjective test. My guess is that editors are going to push for (as they currently are) criticisms not considered "anti-semitic", criticisms that are unanimously agreed upon by Jews, etc. That would be fine if it was supported by the sources, but it's not. Jewish Deicide for example is considered anti-semitic by some, will they use this test to exclude that or similar topics? This is exactly what WP:OR was designed to prevent. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, from my point of view, no article can contain all topics, and there's already an article on Jewish deicide. It seems to me, given that we have an article covering that topic, there is little need, if any, for more than a link to that article in Criticism of Judaism. Duplicating the information seems to me a waste of effort. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I see what you are concerned about. My perception is that some editors may very well try to do that, but that consensus will go against them. Most certainly, I will argue against them. It will have to be based on what the sources say (subject to UNDUE and so forth), not on what editors want to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So much faith in the Wiki process. We shall see. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is pretty much a list of things, all relating to one central subject. The central subject has an article, some of the things on the list have articles, but when an encyclopedia user goes to the list they expect to see an overview of the subject specific to this article. That may mean, as in many other similar articles, having a short summary of a topic relevant to that article, along with a link to the article being summarized. Since some things on the list will not have separate article, they will require explanation - part of the list will be in prose. So is the encyclopedia reader helped by finding a page that describes some aspects of a subject and just lists others, with links for further reading? I would say not - someone looking for the page 'criticism of judaism' will most likely benefit from having a short description about every item on the list. The explanation is the justification for including any item on the list.

If I go to an overview of criticism of judaism, and one of the items on the list is simply Jewish deicide, then I haven't learned much from it. What do you mean, jewish deicide - is that cos they killed jesus, or something different entirely? Why should the encyclopedia reader have to click on a bunch of links to get the overview of a topic they expected to see on the article that is requiring them to click on all those links? Using links alone doesn't aid the understanding of someone reading this article, it only aids the understanding of someone who reads one of the links. This is an article, not a disambiguation page, nor a list without prose. Every item should be explained, not just linked to. Weakopedia (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that anything written as a section should have some explanation, mere wikilinks are also in wide use. See, for example, Islam, there's an info box on the right with a large number of related articles, and a substantial See also section at the bottom of the page. The Criticism_of_Islam has a similar structure. Editors make choices has to what to include where all the time--I suggest that anyone with an interest simply watch the pages and chime in as needed. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

First, what gets included in an article (including if guidelines are written for it to help keep the article under control) is the type of OR that is acceptable in the creation of the WP as it's behind the scenes and not with the actual information presented. Mind you, that could lead to NPOV or more specific NOR problems, but in general, we have to engage in the minimal amount of NOR to determine what goes in the article.

Second, as I suggested on the VPP page, what needs to be used to go into these types of articles should be "detached" sources - generally secondary sources with respect to those that are making the opinionated statements. An academic poll, a book that summarizes numerous statements, etc. This depersonalizes the issue and makes NPOV statements (particularly from editors that have an ax to grind on the topic) very easy to spot and help to remove that bias.

As for duplication of info from a topic, it would seem reasonably appropriate to have a one or two sentence statement that quickly defines the term with the wikilink so that in the process of the Criticism article one can grasp the meaning and then the supporting statements that discuss its critical analysis, so if a reader needs to know more, they can click thru to that link. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Inexplicable change at Tupac Shakur

An editor, User:AwesomeMomin, continues to write a deception in the infobox of Tupac's page. (S)he's been warned four times, yet refuses to make any amends or form of communication. This person keeps changing the origin of "Marin City" to "Oakland", I do not know why (see diffs of edits to Tupac Shakur's). "Marin City" is what's sourced in the content of the article. Could definitely use a hand here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User hasn't edited since your report. Doesn't look like this is an ongoing dispute. Either they got the message or got board, but perhaps we can consider this matter closed for now. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Need an opinion on primary source usage at Everybody Draw Muhammad Day

I entered these entries into the page using primary sources and very neutral language; just fact reporting. I still can not find secondary sources. The entry displays usage of the term prior to the Molly Norris cartoon. Suggestions on any possible changes to salvage any part of the text would be appreciated. Alatari (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Norse dwarves

Hello. The article Norse dwarves could use some attention. Basically, as it stands, the article presents theory as fact throughout and is knee-deep in original research and synthesis. Haldrik (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing NPOV/OR/Rewrite tags and altering talk page headers that he doesn't care for, presumably to deflect attention. Anyway, since there seem to be few eyes on this article and I have neither a lot of time nor my books with me, please see the talk page and article edit history for more information. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you need a WP:3O or some other measure of dispute resolution... -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vipera palaestinae

A couple of editors have been quarrelling over the geographical range of Vipera palaestinae, a species of snake. The source cited in the article gives the snake's range as "Western Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and northwest Jordan".[8] One of the editors wants to cite the source as it is; the other wants to change "Palestine" to "Palestinian territories". This looks to me very much like original research, specifically by misrepresenting what the source says. I'd be grateful for some outside views on how to resolve this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has failed to mention the fact that the editor who wants to change it, me, has a completely valid and appropriate reason. ChrisO is mistaken in his reasoning for reverting my change. He stated that the author might have been referring to the "geographical region" of Palestine, and not just the Palestinian territories. This is flawed logic, because if the author did mean the geographical region, listing Israel would be superfluous. It is clear that the author was referring to the Palestinian territories, and either purposely or ignorantly referred to them as "Palestine", which is wrong. Referring to the modern day Palestinian territories as "Palestine" is misleading and against Wikipedia policies. This issue should be corrected promptly. We are intelligent beings on Wikipedia, and we do not blindly follow sources without considering the fact that sources are full of mistakes and bias. Breein1007 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting notion: if an author of a book writes in a way that contradicts alleged Wikipedia policies, the author is "wrong" (and possibly even ignorant) and the source must be "corrected" in a Wikipedia article. Original research indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that it is not what the source says. If you're going to cite a source, you need to do so faithfully, without trying to impose your own view of "what the author really meant". That's original research by definition. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's "clear that the author was referring to the Palestinian territories", then it can't also be "misleading". Quote the source - making clear that it is a quote - and readers can figure it out for themselves. --GenericBob (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be. It is clear to me after analyzing it. Not all readers will do so, and not all readers have the same knowledge in this area as I do. This has been made clear already in several cases from the editors who have commented here and shown that they don't understand the issue. It doesn't even matter, expertise or not. Referring to the Palestinian territories as "Palestine" in the encyclopedia's voice is unacceptable. It goes against naming conventions and Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, not to mention it is completely inconsistent with every other instance in any article you can find on Wikipedia, where if we are talking about the Palestinian territories, we say the Palestinian territories. We don't say Palestine even though we mean the Palestinian territories. It's really quite simple. With all due respect, inserting a quote is stupid. We will have a list that says... The snake is found in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, "Palestine", and Jordan...??? That's garbage. It doesn't solve anything. It doesn't clarify what "Palestine" is supposed to mean for the reader. In fact, I already pointed out that another source in the article lists the geographic region as "Palestinian Territory", so it should simply be changed with no problem. Breein1007 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"It is clear to me after analyzing it... not all readers have the same knowledge in this area as I do" - this is the problem. WP:OR specifically forbids editors, even knowledgeable ones, from injecting their own analysis into the article. This is unfortunate when the analysis is correct (and I think it probably is, here) but there are good reasons why the policy is written as it is. --GenericBob (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I appreciate your explanation about WP:OR. Were you kind enough to read the rest of what I wrote though? Do you agree that since my analysis is probably correct, and that all other articles about the Palestinian territories refrain from calling them "Palestine", we should use the source that I mentioned that calls it "Palestinian Territory"? Breein1007 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. Neither of you is addressing the issue at hand. Leaving ChrisO's edit in place as is (a list that includes "Israel" and "Palestine"), makes no sense. It is misleading to readers. It is either superfluous (if you read Palestine as a geographic region that includes Israel) or against WP:NPOV and naming conventions. Breein1007 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If the author means "Palestine" in the political sense of the State of Palestine, which I note apparently has widespread international recognition (much more so than Kosovo, it seems) then that seems fair enough. I don't see how it could be "against WP:NPOV" to use that terminology. On the other hand, it's very clear that it's against WP:NOR to replace the author's terminology with your own on the grounds that you think the author is wrong. This is a really basic principle of not amending cited sources to fit your own views. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine controls no territory. It is impossible for this viper to be located "in" the so-called state that has no land. If you lack key knowledge about the situation, I invite you to actually read these articles before you start linking them and making erroneous statements. Read Palestinian territories while you're at it. As I made clear to you on your talk page, it is against NPOV to refer to the Palestinian territories as Palestine in the same way that it is against NPOV to refer to the Gaza War as a massacre. Some people might use these terms, and we can make note of that (as we have done on each of those articles). However, it is unacceptable for the encyclopedia to use these terms in the encyclopedia's voice. Breein1007 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be an entirely political one. I don't want to get into that. It's not relevant to the question of whether it's permissible for you, as an editor, to amend what a cited source has said because you consider it to be wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ ChrisO. I don't see an issue with maintaining the wording as is. NickCT (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, I agree with basically everyone here except Breein about changing (correcting) a cited source equals original research. While we may be intelligent beings, Wikipedia SHOULD blindly follow sources, even if they are wrong (or rather, if we know they are wrong, we should find better sources...) If we can't locate sources that use "politically correct" terms or whatever Breein is arguing for, then perhaps we should just use quotation marks to make it clear it is our source using those terms, not us. I'm not sure on the naming conventions when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict, so if Chris's version is in violation of our manual of style or naming conventions, we should just quote the source (or find another source), but we should NOT change what the source says or misrepresent it because anonymous internet user Breein knows more about this stuff than the author. We aren't required to only use sources that follow our naming conventions, you know? But it is a bit silly that such hot bed conflicts can find themselves in such mundane topics such as a snake. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, one of the sources listed in the article lists "Palestinian Territory" as the geographic location. [9] And referring to the Palestinian territories as "Palestine" is in fact contrary to Wikipedia's naming conventions. Breein1007 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That source appears to be referring to the "Occupied Palestinian Territory", which is probably a different bird than just the "Palestinian Territory", and truncating that bit is probably almost as deceptive as adding words to a source. Are you ok with changing "Palestine" to the fuller "Occupied Palestinian Territories", or is that term also unsatisfactory. Chris, would you be ok with changing it to what this other source says to be more in line with our naming conventions (BTW, want to link me that Wikipedia page, Breein? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) is all I could find, and it doesn't seem to help)-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious to see a page on this alleged naming convention as well. There's nothing listed under CAT:WNC. It might be a myth, in which case this whole discussion lacks the basis Breein1007 asserts it has. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the source calls it "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". Apparently, you aren't allowed to analyze what the source appears to be referring to. Therefore, you are engaging in WP:OR by suggesting that we say "Occupied Palestinian Territory". On the contrary, in line with this source, the article should be changed to list "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". And guess what? If you check out the talk page, there appears to be a long standing consensus to merge the Wikipedia articles Palestinian territories and Occupied Palestinian Territory because "Occupied Palestinian Territory" is a non-neutral POV-Fork referring to the exact same thing. Breein1007 (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand you are getting frustrated, but I'm not sure I understand the meaning behind your comment. Is it correct to assume you are not OK with using the exact term in your newly found source after all? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment is indicating that what you stated above is in fact not the exact term in this source. And by the way, it isn't a newly found source. It has been in the article this whole time. I am ok with using the exact wording of the source: "Palestinian Territory" - but the "Occupied" qualifier that appears after the name "Palestinian Territory" has been deemed POV in many previous instances on Wikipedia. You'll find that no other article includes this in references to the Palestinian territories. Breein1007 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were using hyperbole to try to illustrate a point. But apparently you don't understand a common rule when alphabetizing? Like I've been trying to say, just because Wikipedia finds something POV, does not mean we have to "correct" sources to make them PC. In fact doing so is a form of deception. As for the exact term, apparently over 35 articles link to, if not reference the term itself [10], so your statement that no other article includes it is simply false (though maybe they shouldn't be using it, but I guess that is a different discussion for a different noticeboard). As I said, using quotation marks to show that it is our cited source using these terms is probably the best solution. I have not found any argument that we should 'correct' our source convincing. Wikipedia editors on polarizing topics do not know any better than actual published biologists. I'm not trying to drag this out, or join the content dispute. Someone came and asked if it was OR to change what a cited source says, and I thought it was. I also offered a few suggestions for compromise. If my comments don't help, I'm sorry, but hopefully they did someone and you can now work together on that article's talk page to reach a compromise.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, the question here is are we trying to write an encyclopedia or play silly games with semantics? We're talking about an article about a snake. When presenting the reader with what the habitat of this snake is, do we link to Occupied Palestinian Territories which is not very informative and is about one page long, or Palestinian Territories which looks like a country article much like the other three countries we link to? I assume we all understand we're talking about the exact same geographic area here. Do we use "Palestine" which is a loosely defined territory that may or may not include all or parts of the other three countries we mention, or do we use the term "Palestinian Territories" which a reader can find on a map? What would a reader find the easiest to understand (assuming all versions meet WP:V)? Seriously, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When you say "Palestine" it's the same as "transjordan" instead of "Jordan", "Syria Desert" instead of "Syria"... Palestine is the name of the land, while "Syria" "Jordan" are names of countries. If you decide to use the term of "Palsetine" which is reffering to the land, you should use the other lands terms as well (transjordan ect...), but if you decide to use the names of the countries, so use for all of them.--Sipio (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments:

• I find it really worrying that more and more editors argue for mindless parroting of sources that is so extreme that it's hard to do without plagiarism. Slavishly following the formulations in a source when we know that the source used unclear or misleading language and we know what it meant (from context or by consulting other sources) would be an example of that. But I will argue that it's not really clear what the source meant.
• Actually, it's not really about what the source means. It's about distilling the information contained in the source, and then rephrasing it so it fits into an encyclopedic article. If a source says "funny hats are worn in France, Europe and Mexico", then it's obviously defective and we will have to do something about the defect rather than just copy it. The most straightforward solution would be to mention just Europe and Mexico, but if we know from the same or another source that France is the European centre of funny hats then we may say "Europe, especially France, and Mexico", so that our readers aren't as puzzled as we were initially.
• This source is defective: Arabian Burrowing Asps occur in "the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen", and Ein Geddi Burrowing Asps occur in "Sinai, Palestine and Jordan". Here "Palestine" presumably includes Israel. It would be astonishing otherwise. And indeed, both together range over "Sinai Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Arabian Peninsula". It appears that here "Israel" includes the Palestinian territories. [11]
• This source is about venomous snakes worldwide, not about Middle East geography and politics, and it is written by a British animal TV personality, not by anyone who can be presumed to have specialised knowledge about the Middle East. Discussing what this author meant, and trying to represent it as faithfully as possible, is about as reasonable as reading tea leaves.
• The right thing to do is to find out from sources that are sufficiently clear about the matter where this snake actually occurs, and then describe the region using Wikipedia's terminology. Hans Adler 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument depends on the idea that there is "Wikipedia terminology" in this matter. Breein1007 claims there is but has failed to respond to requests above to demonstrate this (again, there's nothing in CAT:WNC). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Since O'Shea says "This snake is a significant cause of snakebite in Israel and Palestine..." it's pretty obvious he's not using "Palestine" in a sense that overlaps with Israel, thus the link currently in the article is incorrect. Someone remind me why we can't use Palestinian Territories? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that nobody has added anything else to the conversation in a while, so I'm going to give it a bit more time and then go ahead and change the wording to "Palestinian Territory", in quotation marks, and attribute it to the appropriate source, as per the suggestions from this discussion. Even though "Palestinian Territory" sounds much more awkward to me than Palestinian territories, and Palestinian territories is overwhelmingly more common, it seems that it would be WP:OR to call it anything other than what the source says, so that's what we'll do! Breein1007 (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd rationale for an edit -- "no-one has said anything for awhile". In reality, what this discussion shows is that this discussion has failed to produce a consensus for the change you have in mind. I also note that you continue to ignore the request to show that there is a relevant naming convention. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there appears to be fine consensus for the change I have in mind. Several of the uninvolved editors who joined this discussion suggested it, in fact. Breein1007 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The only uninvolved editors that have participated in this thread are Genericbob, Andrewc, and Hans Adler. It will be interesting to see how you get to "several" from that list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Genericbob suggested quoting the source, and making clear that it is a quote, which I incorporated into my proposed change. Andrew c reiterated the suggested quotation marks, and also supported using the terminology from the alternative source. Hans adler agreed that we must take into account that the source is flawed, and that the author could not have logically been referring to Palestine when he said "Palestine". At the time of the posting of this discussion, No More Mr Nice Guy had not edited the article, therefore he was also uninvolved and he agrees as well. The only editors here arguing for the continued inclusion of the erroneous, superfluous, and misleading terminology are yourself, ChrisO, and NickCT (all of whom are involved in the dispute). Additionally, obviously I support my own proposal, and Sipio appears to agree as well (and is also involved). I'm glad you found my analysis interesting. I'd be happy to enlighten you any time. Breein1007 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Natural law

We have an editor at this article who I and others think is inserting OR. He argues that he can use primary sources the way he is using them and his edits are not OR. As he plans to edit other articles similarly, some commments here would be very helpful. My reversion is at [12] Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty straight forward on first glance. WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. It's like when users want to quote the bible and then state their personal interpretation. Ancient texts can be examined and interpreted in many different ways. Luckily, we have scholars who spend their lives doing that stuff, so we don't have to do it here. It shouldn't be hard to find a scholar discussing Aristotle. And if we can't find secondary sources to support those changes, then either they aren't notable, or they are novel and thus WP:NOR would apply. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Dougweller. The article already has secondary sources discussing Aristotle, and since the point of the article is not Aristotle, but natural law, it seems quite sufficient now. The editor has already said that his own forthcoming paper will address this...which is a red flag for me as well. Tb (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps a second glance is in order in this particular case. My addition was first reverted based on the false assumption (everybody makes mistakes) that I was advancing the view that Aristotle "believed" in natural law. That was NOT my intention; that has never been my view; and I thought that what I wrote made it perfectly clear that I was not advancing such a view. In other words: this whole issue arose because of another editor's unexplained misinterpretation, so I reverted the deletion.
• It was my assumption that what I wrote was so self-evidently, even banally, mainstream that no citation was necessary. Obviously I was wrong about this, so I'll go back and provide footnotes to on-line encyclopedias to reassure everybody when I revise and re-post what I wrote. Here's what I intend to use for starters: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html Perhaps my choice of words inadvertently crossed some red-lines of scholarly disputation. If so, that is a matter for discussion and re-phrasing, not deletion.
• Finally, Tb's claim that I have "already said that my own forthcoming paper will address this" is simply not correct. I earlier stated (at the Natural Law discussion page) that my forthcoming paper will address the use of "happiness" versus "property" in the Declaration of Independence; and I have been very careful not to give even a hint of my own view on that issue here at wikipedia. My forthcoming paper says absolutely nothing about Aristotle or natural law.

I think the purpose of the noticeboard is to receive third-party feedback, not for us to continue the dispute from the article's talk page (which anyone looking here can easily access). So far, the only comment from someone not involved in this dispute is Andrew c's. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find secondary sources discussing some particular point about Aristotle and natural law (or really, Aristotle and anything) then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, because Aristotle has been done to death. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize secondary sources, not primary ones. But to the question at hand, the material removed in the diff supplied above is unquestionably original research. Some of the second and third paragraphs of the current revision of the Aristotle section are as well. The third paragraph talks about "the best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric..." referenced to the Rhetoric. "Aristotle notes that natural justice is a species of political justice, viz. the scheme of distributive and corrective justice that would be established under the best political community;[8] were this to take the form of law, this could be called a natural law, though Aristotle does not discuss this and suggests in the Politics that the best regime may not rule by law at all.[9]" You can't state something from a primary source—"...natural justice is a species of political justice..."—and then form conclusions—"...were this to take the form of law, this could be called a natural law". This is original synthesis. Of course this doesn't mean it any of these statements aren't true or widely accepted analyses of Aristotle. It's just saying they runs afoul of Wikipedia's original research policy. I'd suggest finding sources which support the text. If it's as mainstream as RJC says it is, this should be relatively easy. -Atmoz (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Pseudoscholarship

This discussion may interest editors with an interest in OR Anthony (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN on Tea Party Movement

This edit on the left [13] is making an attempt to link the found cut gas line on the propane tank to the post on the Tea Party website. The FBI have not determined who cut the gas line nor has it been determined by any source exactly when the gas line was cut. Therefore, adding this into the website incident violates WP:SYN. Malke2010 23:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the FBI have proven a legally actionable connection. This seems to be a flawed understanding of WP:SYN.

I'd say it does not constitute WP:SYN, if there are reliable sources which associate the event to the Tea Party. (And, for this matter, I'm fairly sure there are numerous sources which do just that.) BigK HeX (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. The FBI have said it was vandalism. They have not said when it occurred. Nor have they suggested who the vandal(s) might be. Folding it in with the twitter posts makes it appear beyond a doubt that the twitter post caused somebody to go over to the wrong guy's house and cut his propane gas tank. There's no source linking the two directly. As the Southerners say, that dog don't hunt.Malke2010 02:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be that's a hunting dog, the edit follows the first two sources closely, and does not claim a direct link. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It gives the appearance that there is a link. There is no RS showing the two events are linked. The twitter post has an RS and the response by the tea party has an RS, but linking them with the propane gas line vandalism has no RS.Malke2010 02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Unless there's a source specifically connecting the cut gas line to the Tea Party movement, this is clear original research. Feel free to continue removing it if there is no source - which I'm taking on good faith to be true. If a source appears obviously it's a different situation. As this is quite clear, can we agree and close this? II | (t - c) 06:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, since there is no source specifically connecting the cut gas line to the Tea Party movement. There is no source that states the date and time of the gas line being cut. There's no reliable source that shows the two events are associated. I think we can close the thread. I'll post on the talk page that the content can continue to be removed. Thanks.Malke2010 10:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, are you claiming that this Politico article and this New York Times piece are not reliable sources? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be a bit presumptuous here, and say that I think the threadstarter is not arguing whether sources relate the Tea Party to the incident, but rather he's arguing basically that law enforcement has not proven a Tea Party member to be guilty of the act. Ultimately, I'm pretty sure there are quite a few sources that associate the Tea Party with the incident, due to information not presented in this thread.

Judging from the talk page comments though, I'm fairly certain that the threadstarter is, indeed, here to plead that editors should ignore any associations presented in various sources ["mainstream media RS"], on the "strength" of the fact that the criminal case has not been closed with a Tea Party member convicted. See, for example, this talk page comment by the threadstarter, which says

...You can edit anything to support a POV and even us_[sic] "mainstream media RS" to do it. But that doesn't make it true. The whole section is not accurate. A gas line on a grill in a closed in porch gets cut. Must have been a tea partier? Where's the proof? Maybe it was the guy who lives there....

Anyways, maybe Malke will elaborate further, or correct me if I'm off-base here. BigK HeX (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to close the issue, I looked it up. A Google for "tea party Perriello address" (and a few other terms) gave a Politico article. I'm pretty sure it's generally regarded as an RS. BigK HeX (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, see the New York Times piece, I think they are generally considered a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these sources link the events. Agree with (t - c) Malke2010 11:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and neither did the editor you reverted. I believe their edit accurately reflects both articles, which state simply that a tea party activist posted the address and the next day the propane hose was found cut--the sources juxtapose the two events, not the editor here, so I see no WP:SYN. Adding a line stating that investigations on ongoing would be a good addition, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The sources are not saying they are related.Malke2010 12:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. The Times and Politco articles do not link the events, but they do jutaxpose them, indeed, the Times article opens with that juxtaposition. The edit on the left to which you object does not link them either, and accurately reflects the sources cited. In what way is that synthesis? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malke for a variety of reasons in addition to WP:OR. Including this little incident does not pass the relevancy smell test because the act of cutting the gas line cannot be directly tied to the Tea Party movement; there is no evidence, it is only idle speculation by the New York Times and other opponents of the movement.

It is also in violation of WP:Recentism and WP:Undue because it slants the article toward an insignificant current event; no one was hurt; the damage was maybe $25; no one will remember this incident six months from now, much less ten years.

To include this incident violates WP:NPOV which requires that an article represents fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views. This incident is not significant and including it distorts the proportionality principle of Wikipedia policies. Obviously it is an insignificant speck which has nothing whatsoever to do with the millions of people in the Tea Party movement. Lose it. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with all of those arguments except WP:OR--the secondary sources are reliable and the information presented accurately, and thus neither original research nor synthesis. Nice pun with the "smell test" and "gas line", lost some soup to the screen on that one. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources suggest that the targeting of (and thinly-veiled threats against) a Congressman for his vote is a significant incident. I'm not really suprised that this whole part of the incident has been omitted from the discussion. Editors can choose to downplay it, but there are reliable sources that suggest it is notable. BigK HeX (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would only be synthesis if the two events were drawn from separate sources. As for recentism, the Tea Party is a recent phenomenon. TFD (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

The following section (removed) is being continually added to this article.

A study conducted by the University of Washington found that Tea Party Movement supporters were statistically more likely to be racially resentful than the population as a whole. Critics of this study suggest that while it's possible that agreement with statements like "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects a resentful spirit, it also could reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else.

The problem is that the study is not a national study. It was specifically limited to 7 states, however is being presented as a description of the movement as a whole. This study has also been strongly criticized for being very partisan and poorly worded (see second ref for example). To fully incorporate this study would require substantial qualifiers to fully explain the methodology of the study and the limitations which would very likely provide undue weight Arzel (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a flawed understanding of policy (on this AND in many other of your objections).

The SOURCE specifically has the words, "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability...of being racially resentful" [late edit follows] as well as the source saying, "Surveyers asked respondents ... a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population".

The article edit says this, "A study conducted by the University of Washington found that Tea Party Movement supporters were statistically more likely to be racially resentful than the population as a whole.[72]"

Perhaps the edit could be worded differently, but to claim this text constitutes original research is quite an odd objection, IMO.

In any case, it's pretty clear to me that the actual problem here is that you believe the study's methodology ["7 states"] to be flawed, but your personal belief that the assertions in an RS are flawed is something quite apart from believing that an Wikipedia edit is violating WP:OR. It would help progress on the article if there less confusion of those two things. BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"A higher probability" doesn't necessarily mean "more likely." And what's the actual population here? Are we talking about people who agree with the ideas of the tea party movement, or are we talking about actual tea party members? Because the tea party movement is about actual participation. Using the word "supporters" suggests that the researchers didn't 'study' actual tea party participants, but rather just asked a randomly selected group for their opinions. That's not a study. That's a poll.Malke2010 02:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

""A higher probability" doesn't necessarily mean "more likely."

Sheesh. It's kind of sad that a talk page full of objections like this are distracting editors from more important work on Wikipedia. BigK HeX (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• BigK HeX is right - there's no original research here. This could be brought up at WP:RS/N or WP:NPOV/N, but I think it should be included in the article, particularly since it is balanced by a rebuttal. II | (t - c) 04:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, indeed, BigK HeX is right and Malke's understanding of OR and of social science methodology is flawed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nomoskedasticity see WP:CIVIL.Malke2010 11:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

....another poor application of WP guidelines. I see no civility breaches. BigK HeX (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for including this study; I agree with Arzel. The study was local, but the Tea Party movement is national so their results are not statistically significant. Their methods are questionable: How did they decide which handful of states to include in the study?

Also their premise is questionable. What does "racially resentful" even mean? For example, if a white firefighter was denied a promotion or a white student was rejected from medical school, on the basis of skin color euphemistically called "affirmative action", then don't they have a legitimate basis to be "racially resentful". But does that make either of them a "racist" necessarily? So what does that have to do with the "racism" charge used by opponents against the millions of Americans participating in the Tea Party?

Furthermore, the conclusions made by the study are highly subjective. They decided that disagreeing with the statement "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects "racial resentment". However a number of contradictory interpretations are possible. For example, couldn't a black person who thought he deserved "special favors" based upon his skin color, be deemed to be "racially resentful"? Of course. And couldn't a white person, who thought that blacks were equal to whites, disagree that blacks somehow needed "special favors" to have a level playing field? Most certainly because Tea Party members are Conservatives who believe in individual rights and who reject group rights and identity politics.

So this study, from a handful of cherry picked states, is not statistically representative of the millions of people in the national Tea Party movement. The premise, methods, and conclusions used by those who conducted the study are highly controversial and questionable. Therefore the study is in violation of the WP:NPOV and WP:Undue policies; there is no consensus for inclusion and any mention of the study should be removed at once. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kinda off topic for this forum like (as least) part of the above:

Quote: "Tea Party members ... believe in individual rights and who reject group rights..." ; But they don't reject their own group, or do they??? :)

And I too concur with the statements made below made by Nomoskedasticity and others. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is textbook original research. You have critiques of the study -- fine. But your critiques as a Wikipedia editor count for precisely nothing. If you want to have an impact on this article along these lines, what you do is get your ideas published in a reliable source, and then it can be used here as a source. I might even share your critiques -- but it wouldn't matter, the point is that they have no bearing on the use of the source given Wikipedia's policy on original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Nomoskedasticity. I'll also interject a bit of frustration that this type of blatant OR fills the article's talk page and is constantly being used to "justify" numerous deletions and reverts. I understand that the 3 editors feel strongly about their WP:TRUTH, but something is going to have to be done about the crusading. BigK HeX (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm going to concur here also. This is indeed a classical example of what we mean by original research. Neither Freedom Fan's opinion'd not mine of the study count. Wikiedia is not a debating chamber, we report what reliable sources have to say and don't try to determine ourselves if they are right or not - in fact, we don't even expect them all to agree with each other! This & related articles are a bit of a nightmare for anyone who wants to keep them encyclopedic. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well, we have to follow what the secondary sources say, it is not our job to evaluate "premise, methods, and conclusions used by those who conducted the study". --Nuujinn (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Did any of you actually read the study, or the Newsweek article compared to the actual statement in the article? I have presented a synapsis of the information on the talk page. The OR is plainly clear for anyone that wishes to see it. Arzel (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not original research to mention an academic study. In fact they are the best sources available. But the expression "Critics of this study..." is weasel wording. The reference is a WSJ editorial which should be directly attributed, provided the opinion is considered sufficiently notable for inclusion. TFD (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

When did I say it was OR to mention the academic study? The OR is in the presentation of the sample population to give the impression that the study is representative of the nation as a whole. Even the Newsweek article doesn't go that far. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic Synapsis for reference:

• This what the article currently states (section Bolded is the OR).

A study conducted by the University of Washington found that Tea Party Movement supporters were statistically more likely to be racially resentful than the population as a whole.[70] Critics of this study suggest that while it's possible that agreement with statements like "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects a resentful spirit, it also could reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else.[71]

• This is what Newsweek says:

Until now, that is. A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

• Notice that the comparison is not between Tea Party Supporters and the rest of the population, but between Tea Party Supporters and Non-Tea Party Supporters. If you actually read the study you can see that this is a sub-sample of the population as a whole. study

• This is what the study says about the methodology:

The survey is drawn from a probability sample of 1006 cases, stratified by state. The Multi-State Survey of Race and Politics included seven states, six of which were battleground states in 2008. It includes Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio as the battleground states. For its diversity and its status as an uncontested state, California was also included for comparative purposes. The study, conducted by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Washington, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent and was in the field February 8 - March 15, 2010.

• This is what the author of the study says:

Moreover, I make no claim that the data is representative of the country. Rather, they are representative of the states that were sampled. Appropriate weights, based upon the American Community Survey, have been constructed.

The current wording is patently FALSE. We cannot say that the Tea Party Movement was compared to the population as a whole. neither the Newsweek article, or the study make that claim. If you read the study you can see that Tea Party Supporters + Non-Tea Party Supporters is a subsample of the whole population. It must also be specified that the study was limited to seven specific states. Additionally, the study did not make a statistical statement, it stated that the difference was "Suggestive". Arzel (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I should've quoted this one to begin with, but anyways .... the current wording is a patently accurate reflection of the Newsweek article. From the article

Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.

While Arzel is correct that the Newsweek article describes a comparison of Tea Partiers to non-Tea Partiers, he fails to understand that there is another comparison performed in the study. So, actually, there are two comparisons from the study which get covered in the Newsweek article. As Arzel has elaborated, there is one comparison of Tea Party supporters to Tea Party non-supporters, but also another comparison is made of certain Tea Party supporters to a more complete group that is not limited to just the non-supporters. The quote above from Newsweek is a summarization of this latter comparison. And given this source, the article wording is accurate. BigK HeX (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The second paragraph you describe is the Newsweek explanation of the Parker quote from the previous paragraph. read the study, ALL of the comparison was between supporters and non-supporters. The author was even questioned on this and responded at 538.com. Please stop trying twist the meaning of the study. Arzel (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since he's posting the above on the OR noticeboard, would anyone care to point out the irony that his above "defense" seems pretty clearly based on his personal assessment. After the last few weeks of this, it's getting rather tiring for me to keep pointing out that his personal research into matters does not trump verifiable text.

In any case, the bottom line is that the source CLEARLY states "Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population".

Compared to the wiki article edit which says, "A study conducted by the University of Washington found that Tea Party Movement supporters were statistically more likely to be racially resentful than the population as a whole.[72]"

Keep raging against the machine. Someone will eventually be impressed. BigK HeX (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that you realize you are wrong you resort to Personal Attacks? Nice. Arzel (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The choice 7 states for the research was clearly explained in the paper. It is not up to us to challenge the methodology of studies but to use reliable criticism that challenges it. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Direct use of primary sources

Is it original research that the editor look up at primary sources and state: " Reference A and reference B have no accounts on X historical event"?La Mesa (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. But to get a better answer, please at least indicate which article your question refers to. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Actually the correct answer is... Perhaps Yes, Perhaps No. - We need to know more specifics as to what the primary source document is and how it is being used in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a general issue over which I would welcome more information. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of data not discussed in report

The editors on the Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Norcross_2006 are unsure whether it would be acceptable or not to use this source for the article on NLP given that does not actually discuss the data/results or make any conclusions in relation to NLP in that paper. It seems to me that it would be original research to make inferences from the data that the researchers themselves did not make.

In this paper there are four tables. In tables 3, Neuro-linguistic programming is listed with the results for round 1 (mean = 3.57) and for round 2 (mean = 3.87) of a survey of psychologists. A score of 4.0 is regard as "probably discredited". Another treatment which had a score of 3.5 was described as "between possibly and probably discredited". We can assume that a score between 3.0 and 4.0 is possibly discredited so NLP may be in this category.

Table 4 again lists a test of significance (p-value < .004) in which the opinions of psychologists from the CBT v. PD-HUM. The CBT group corresponds to scores averaged across cognitive and behavioral orientation and PD-HUM corresponds to the scores averaged across psychodynamic and humanistic. It shows that CBT > PD-HUM which presumably means that the mean rating by psychologists from the CBT orientations was less favourable toward NLP than the mean rating by psychologists from the PD-HUM orientations. The results of some tests were discussed in the paper but the results related to NLP were not. The tests that were discussed were ones which fell below 3.0 or were above 4.0.

There is debate on the talk page Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Norcross_2006 and in recent edit history over whether including these results would constitute original research or not. One of the problems is that the results are not discussed in the paper. We can only speculate why the data from NLP was not discussed. Maybe the researchers did not deem it important enough or they thought the rating of 3.57 was in the neutral area so nothing could be concluded.

We are also interested in guidance about what sources are acceptable as reputable/reliable sources for this subject. And what would be considered original research in general for this topic. It is particularly difficult because there are no university level text books dedicated to the subject. There are peer-reviewed journal articles dedicated entirely to NLP in various disciplines. And there are books and journal articles which cite NLP literature written by the founders and by its practitioners.

---

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 11:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

Locations mentioned in the transcripts of Khirullah Khairkhwa Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

This edit removed the image I've thumbnailed here, without offering any explanation beyond an edit summary that said: "rm - original research".

I am asking for advice here because the contributor who removed this image and I have had many disagreements over what constitutes original research. I won't try to paraphrase or otherwise represent the position of my correspondent, because my good-faith attempts to do so, in order to try to verify I understand what they meant, or to offer background when I have asked for third party input, make them see red.

I am a bit frustrated that WP:OR keeps undergoing all kinds of revisions. Two months ago the WP:SYNTH section stated clearly right in that section, that careful summary of what our references say is not original research. More recently those who maintain the policy counted on other sections of the policy to make that point. In my experience WP:SYNTH is one of the wikipolicies that is most commonly cited incorrectly, over this exact issue. In my opinion it was a mistake to remove of the explicit statement that careful summaries of WP:RS are not WP:OR from WP:SYNTH. Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think WP:OI might apply here - Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Barnabypage (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think i am even more frustrated by this user. He added information that are WP:OR to hundreds and hundreds of articles and cleaning up this mess is a big pain.

I have removed countless (maybe 1000!) instances of WP:OR that this user has created. Sure he did it in good faith but multiple other editors told him that many of his contributions are indeed WP:OR but he did not listen for many years and kept filibustering until just recently where he admitted that a large number of his edits are indeed based on WP:OR.

Sure we speak about thousands of instances each of them sure vary in details and specially this one vary highly from the other large number of WP:OR that this user has added against policy and that i have removed over the past months.

This single edit could have been discussed on the articles talk page and i suggest we move the discussion there over the issue if this image increases the quality of the article and therefor should or should not be included in the article. What do you think? IQinn (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that this issue should be discussed on the talk page of an obscure article after saying "I have removed countless (maybe 1000!) instances of WP:OR that this user has created" is very misguided. Naturally such extensive disagreement needs to be discussed on a central noticeboard and this seems the appropriate place. I am not experienced in this field (whether an image is OR), and I hope others will comment, but I will give some preliminary thoughts: The map in question seems very useful; I doubt if a suitable substitute is available; the facts should be very easy to verify, so OR would not apply; what about images like File:Turkey (orthographic projection).svg used in Turkey – should they be removed? Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No i do not think we should remove File:Turkey (orthographic projection).svg as they are thousands of reliable secondary sources for the fact where Turkey is located in relation to other countries.

Did you check the source for the information presented on the image we are discussing here?

The problem is that these is a set of redacted primary sources where it is often unclear which location they really mean. IQinn (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)