Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Palestine and its membership in United Nations organs

Cross-posted from WP:RS/N. Nightw 11:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations Regional Groups is a geopolitical grouping of the United Nations. According to the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, Palestine was accorded full membership in the group on 2 April 1986: "On 2 April 1986, the Asian Group of the U.N. decided to accept the PLO as a full member", (Source).

In 1998, the General Assembly Resolution 52/250, which conferred upon Palestine further rights and privileges in the General Assembly, noted that: "Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia". Other official websites, such as the Conference on Trade and Development website, also make the same statement (source): "At present, the PLO is a full member of the Asian Group of the United Nations, ...". Last year, an article by Jurist (published 27 November 2009), on the prospect of Palestine gaining full membership to the General Assembly, stated: "Palestine is already recognised as a full member of the Asian Group of States in the UN, and often thereby submits and influences UN resolutions. Being a member state would also give the Palestinian representative to the UN the right to vote on General Assembly resolutions, among other UN decisions." This is just one example of a secondary source that supports the resolution.

However, a user has recently called this claim into question, citing the following sources, which exclude Palestine from their lists:

• Document, "Members of the General Assembly are arranged in current Regional Groups"; (uploaded 11 May 2009).
• Document, "Part VII: Statistical Annex", which contains (p 329), according to the footnote, "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups"; (uploaded 13 November 2007).
• Document, "UNAIDS Governance Handbook", which contains (p 28/30), according to the heading, the "composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board"; (published January 2010).

However, I identified these sources as unusable, because none of them contain any explicit statement regarding Palestine's membership in the Regional Groups, and each of them could be argued to be unrelated to the topic. The first two documents, as is stated above, contain lists of Members of the General Assembly, which Palestine is not. The last document, as it says on the above-mentioned page, outlines "the composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board", which "is based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". It does not describe, as is claimed, the UN Regional Groups.

So the questions are: do the second group of sources conflict with the first group, or is further research needed? Are they relevant to Palestine's membership in the Asian Group? Can the first group of source be used in the article as they are, or is further research needed?

A preliminary discussion took place on the article's talk page. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Night w forgot to add a fourth source: a resolution of General Assembly (p. 7, sec. 25) of May 2009, which determines that Palestine's status (in round-table sessions) is identical to that of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group. Additionally, User:Night w ignored other quotations, which are taken from footnotes in these sources, and which prove that Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group. For more details, see the section about Palestine in this old version. The issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations Night w ignored. Eliko (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. I'm assuming you're referring to point 25: "A Member State that is not a member of any of the regional groups may participate in a round-table session to be determined in consultation with the President of the General Assembly. The Holy See, in its capacity as observer State, and Palestine, in its capacity as observer, as well as organizations with observer status in the General Assembly, may also participate in different round-table sessions to be determined also in consultation with the President of the Assembly."

This does not state that Palestine is "not a member of any Regional Group"; it instead makes a note about member states which are not members of any regional group, that they "may participate" in accordance with what the President determines. And then, in a separate sentence, says that entities with observer status (such as Palestine), "may also participate" determined also in consultation with the President. It does not state anything about Palestine's membership in Regional groupings, so it's irrelevant in this context.

And the quotation that supposedly "proves" that "Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group.": "By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates", doesn't say anything about Palestine's membership in a Regional group. You're using that statement and its placement with statements about other states to come to the conclusion that is not backed up by any secondary source or any statement of explicit nature. That is Original research. Nightw 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No original research, because, as I've explained in my last responses on the talk page of the article mentioned above, the limitation against original research refers to claims appearing in articles rather than to claims appearing on talk pages. Additionally, I've already proved, on the relevant talk page mentioned above, that these foonotes consider Palestine to be a non-member, but User:Night w has ignored my proof ibid.

As I stated above, the issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations.

Additionally, next time, when coming to the Noticeboard page, user:Night w should try to present all sources and all quotations about which both parties disagree, what User:Night w hasn't done.

Eliko (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at both types of sources above (those by Eliko and those by Night w) it seems that there is a reliability problems with some of these. The sources that support the statement "PLO/Palestine is a full member of the UN Asia Regional Group" are circumstantial and thus unreliable. They include such statement only in the context that PLO/Palestine: is UN observer; is participating in many UN System organizations and initiatives (but it participates there 'according to' its UN status, e.g. as observer and not as full member); is member of UN ESCWA (the only officially confirmed exception of PLO full membership in UN system body); is member of a few other organizations (NAM, G77, etc.) - thus these circumstantial sources imply/make assumption such as "since PLO is a UN observer that is a member of 'UN ESC Western Asia' then it is a member also of 'UN Asia RG'" - I would not object to this assumption/implying-by-circumstantial-source if it wasn't in contradiction with direct sources and most importantly with the Official UN list of Regional Groups.

So, we have the official list not mentioning PLO/Palestine and we have some circumstantial sources stating such membership, but seemingly pulling this out of another related membership/observerships of the PLO. My personal assumption is that PLO has the status of something like de facto observer/special observer of the UN Asia Regional Group (just as it has such status in many UN System bodies), but because of its UN ESCWA full membership some sources wrongly state that it is also a UN Asia Regional Group member (because of the primarily geographical character of both?).

My bold proposal (reverted by Night w) was to list UN ARG in a section "conflicting or inconclusive sources" - just as we have such section for states about whose recognition of the State of Palestine we have conflicting or inconclusive sources. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

? This is your interpretation from your reading, and it isn't backed up by secondary sources. It also requires some serious mental leaps for another to get to the same conclusion, especially when the statements made in the sources are so plain. You're reading of the second group of sources is also baffling: it isn't an "official UN list of Regional Groups", it is (quoting from the heading): "Members of the General Assembly are arranged in current Regional Groups" (which Palestine doesn't qualify for), so who knows how you came to that conclusion. You're hardly an innocent bystander, though. Nightw 13:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "innocent bystander" - have I claimed to be such?

The "official UN list of Regional Groups" description I gave was taken from the United Nations Regional Groups article. Now that you point out about the file heading - yes PLO is not Member of the General Assembly, but still having no UN non-member in the official list maybe shows that no UN non-members are members of UN regional groups (pretty reasonable assumption).

Also, Eliko has given many other sources not mentioning PLO/Palestine - so we clearly have "conflicting or inconclusive sources" here - so what's the problem with listing it as such? Do you question the validity of all the sources Eliko has given? (I will leave this issue for you two to discuss) Also, you don't give any source that shows regional groups members - the sources you refer to make some statements that PLO/Palestine is member of UN ESCWA and other organizations, and among these it mentions UN Asia group, but this is not convincing enough - since we lack any confirmation. Also, it seems very dubious since the nature of these UN regional groups is such that non-members have nothing to do there. Most probably the circumstantial sources you refer to wrongly use 'United Nations Regional Groups Asia' instead of 'United Nations geoscheme Asia'. Alinor (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Probably": again your assumption, not backed up by secondary sources. I certainly do question the validity of Eliko's sources! Have you read any of my original statement? Because I clearly pointed out what Eliko's list was at the start—where I also pointed out exactly what his "other sources" were, and why they weren't valid here. Please read the introductory. Nightw 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my assumption - I just point out why the sources you refer to are problematic - they apparently mix two different UN grouping concepts.

In your introduction you state about one Eliko source: "is based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". It does not describe, as is claimed, the UN Regional Groups." - what do you mean by that? UN Regional Groups are the UNGA regional groups - "as claimed" - why do you claim they aren't? Also Eliko stated on multiple occasions that he proved the things he claims, but again - I will leave this issue to you two.

Do we have any official source listing PLO as member in UN Regional group Asia? Or even listing any UN non-member as member in any UN Regional group? Lacking such is very suspicious and unexplainable. That's why I propose leaving UN regional group in "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section for the time being - until we find a proper source. Alinor (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems plain to me, as an outside observer, that the arguments against Palestinian membership in the listed groups is based on opinions outside of the sources and reading things into sources that they do not state. The list of GA members by regional group is just that, a list of assembly members organized by regional group. It is not and does not present itself to be a complete membership list of those groups. A UN proclamation and reliable secondary source notes a claim oft-repeated in reliable sources that Palestine is a full member of those groups. A brief search reveals that Palestine's membership is referred to in many reliable sources and disputed by none that I could find. (I found quite a few that decried it, usually in context of Israel's exclusion, but none that denied it.) Even the laziest research could confirm the full membership. The very top result in Google for several related searches is a Google Books result for ISBN 0415939216. It is the Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, published by Taylor & Francis/Routledge, a gold standard academic publisher. It is unquestionably documented in the highest quality sources. These hairsplitting games over the matter are quite obviously disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. What really matters, is not what the Encyclopdias state, but rather what the UN documents state, and these documents seem to be contradictory. There are 5 UN documents in favor of Palestine's membership, against 5 other (more recent) UN documents.
2. For exmaple, this is a GA document of August 2000 (i.e. two years after Palestine was admitted to the Asian Group, according to a previous GA document), and it uses the wording: "United Nations list of reginal groups" (p. 17, sec. 32), which sends the reader to #8 footnote, stating (p. 34): "The unofficial list is used only for General Assembly elections"; Whereas, Palestine has no right to put forward candidates for elections!
3. Further, a recent document of UN-HABITAT (2007) - which classifies countries by explicit lists under the title: "United Nations Regional Groups" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, pp. 329-330), along with a more recent document of UN-AIDS (2010) - which classifies countries by explicit lists according to the "Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly" (See: UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, pp. 28-29), indicate (when referring to the explicit lists of Regional Groups): "The US...is not a member of any regional group, but attends meetings of...WEOG as an observer, and is considered to be a member of that group for electoral purposes...By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, p. 335, 2nd footnote;UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, p. 29, 4th footnote).
4. Additionally, this footnote mentioned above, begins with the following introductory: "All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups". So, the Regional Groups are assigned for "members of the United Nations General Assembly" (in order for them to put forward candidates for electoral purposes, as I proved above), whereas Palestine is not a member of the United Nations General Assembly!
5. Additionaly, that footnote mentioned above, which is attached to the title located above these Regional Group lists, mentions also Holy See (as well as Palestine); This proves that the whole context is not only about UN members but rather about all countries, including non-members, like Holy See (and Palestine), whereas the Regional Group lists to which this footnote refer, do not include Palestine (nor Holy See)!
6. Furthermore: had these UN document assumed that Palestine (or Holy See) is a member of any Regional Group, then the footnote mentioned above, which is attached to the title located above these Regional Group lists, should have stated something like: "The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings...as an observer...In additions to the member states, there is also a non-member state, the Holy See, which - despite its having an observer status in the United Nations - has a member status in the Regional Group [of so and so]. Palestine, which has an observer status in the United Nations, has a member status in the Asian Group, although it does not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates".

Eliko (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, as has been stated, you're reading things in these documents that they do not state, and missing things that they do.

The first document, as it says in section 33: "represent[s] Member States only". The second document lists, as it says on page 335, "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups." The third document simply describes the "composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board", which is "based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". How similar it is to the original groupings and what differences there may be are not specified.

Your last few points are plainly your own interpretation, and you've used unrelated statements and the placement of footnotes alongside others to come to a conclusion that is baffling to any impartial eye. None of the documents say that membership in Regional Groups is exclusively for members of the General Assembly, as you claim. That is, again, original research.

I've humoured you up until now, but to have any kind of standing in this discussion, you need an explicit statement. Something like "Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States" (but the opposite). Nightw 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I've already explained (see #4 above), the statement "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups" - proves the opposite. This could have been my personal interpretation - rather than a proof, only if the footnote hadn't contained the comments about US, Holy See and Palestine: Those comments clearly prove what is meant by the statement "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups", as I've explained already (see #2, #3, #5, #6 above).
• The UNAIDS document (p.28-29), does not list the Programme Coordinating Board, because the PCB comprises 22 representatives only (that are elected from among the Member States of the Consponsoring Organisations). See ibid. p. 18.
• No original research has been made, because, as I've explained in my last responses, the limitation against original research - refers to claims appearing in articles/templates, rather than to claims appearing on talk pages.
• As Alinor has claimed, User:Nightw needs an explicit list which contains Palestine/PLO.

Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note... when someone argues that something should be included because they can "prove" it, that is a red flag that they are engaging in OR. Being able to "prove" something is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We require citation to a reliable source that explicitly reaches same conclusion that the editor is making. Verifiability... not truth. So, to say that these Primary UN documents "prove" something about Palestine, you need to point to a secondary source that explicitly states that the documents "prove" something about Palestine. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note... the limitation against original research refers to claims appearing in articles/templates, rather than to claims appearing on talk pages. Any argument of mine based on a proof, appears here, on the talk pages, whereas what I and Alinor want to add to the article, are citations only, backed by UN sources. No proofs, nor personal interpretations, nor original research. Eliko (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

When you are using said claims in an article to both dispute sourced information and display contrary information, without providing sources that make the claims you do, that is original research. Nightw 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any claim based on an original research, appears on talk pages only. The article itself presents none of such claims, but rather presents quotations only. Additionally, even if any article had presented claims based on OR (really no article does, but if any had done...), that would undoubtedly have been less bad than articles whose current version was obtained by violating the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You harbour grudges against me. We get it. Nightw 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OR is allowed to a limited extent on a talk page. However, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss the article, not the subject. Talk pages are not the place to "prove" things about the subject either. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Was your recent comment referring to any article, or to my comments? Any comment of mine, that was "proved" by me and presented on talk pages, was referring to comments made by other editors, and that's allowed, just as your recent comment is allowed, although it was not referring to any article. Eliko (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? Is it not reasonable to just stick to what the first set of sources say? It doesn't look like the Eliko is willing to accept this, but without sources that directly and explicitly disagree with the first set, there's not much for him to stand on. Unless anyone else objects... Nightw 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Blueboar's comments discuss OR made on talk pages; User:Blueboar hasn't expressed their position about whether the direct quotations, presented by User:Alinor and by me in the article itself, involve OR. Is it not reasonable to stick to simple quotations involving no OR? It doesn't look like User:Nightw is willing to accept this, but without explicit updated full lists containing Palestine as a member (as required by User:Alinor), there's not much for User:Nightw to stand on objecting direct quotations given by User:Alinor and by me. Unless anyone else objects. Eliko (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Would any of the frequent monitors on here care to provide their opinion? We need a consensus for this. Nightw 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• A request for comments on this discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine. Nightw 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• A request for comments on this discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Nations. Nightw 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had comments from only two editors and the discssions seems to have stalled, so I've readded it in the hopes that the other editor has changed his opinion. If not, any ideas about where to get other opinions? RfC? Nightw 12:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted by Eliko. I'm at a loss. The sources support my information, but a user objects. Would anyone else here like to comment? Nightw 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, have you tried to arrange with Eliko to use this formulation that we adopted recently on the other page? - "For the purposes of United Nations Regional Groups arrangement the Palestine Liberation Organization participates in the Asia group since 2 April 1986" - of course this dodges the issue what these purposes are in the case of UN observer (that doesn't participate in voting or elections) - for example Vatican is not shown on the page to participate in any regional group. If some source are found about Vatican or Switzerland in the 20th century it would clarify the issue. Also, it may help if you add this text to "Special cases" and not in the main "Asia Group" section. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand of Wikipedia policy (verifiability, not truth), we can only say what is said in reliable sources. In this case, both primary and secondary sources explicitly state that Palestine is a full member of the Asian Group of States. No sources have been provided that directly disagree with this statement. I'm open to discuss the arrangement of such information within the article, but having a user block the addition of such information with his interpretation of other sources—unless that interpretation is added alongside—is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Nightw 03:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to discuss (with any user who does not violate Wikipedia rules) the arrangement of all relevant information within the article, but having a user who wants to add unilateral quotations only, and who blocks the addition of other quotations (no interpretations but rather quotations) — is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Eliko (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't related. All of the documents you've provided are about Palestine's rights and privileges in the General Assembly, not about membership in its Regional groupings. You're attempting to selectively present unrelated information as though there is a disagreement between sources, when clearly there is not. One group of sources state Palestine is a member of the Asian group, while the other group describes its rights and privileges regarding voting and eligibility, with no reference to its standing in the Regional groups. Describing this latter piece of information as though it contradicts the first is original research, as such a contradiction is not clear from any reading of the sources. Nightw 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• No word like "contradiction", nor any similar wording, is mentioned in the version proposed by me. Contradicting or not, related or not, all of this will be determined by the reader.
• I'm really doing original research - for proving that the quotations are related, but this original research is not presented in the article, but rather on the talk page - in accordance with Wikipedia policy which has never prohibited original research carried out on talk pages, and please note that most (if not all) of the content of talk pages - consists of arguments - i.e. of original research; While the article itself (under the version proposed by me) contains quotations only, rather than any original research, thus letting the reader determine whether or not those quotations are related.
• Anyway, I've already proved that some UN documents do not consider Palestine a member in any UN Regional Group, however user:Nightw chose not to discuss my proof, but rather stated: "I don't have the time to read through...I've only been able to glance through."
• Eliko (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahash

Tahash has largely been written by one user who is opposing removal of material from the article that appears to me to be original research. Some of the material is interesting and relevant, but I really think it would be more suited to a book or research paper rather than encyclopedia as there is too much opinion and synthesis. Not wanting to get into an edit war, it would be great if the whole article could be read and edited as necessary by other editors. I really think it needs to be severely cut down and rebuilt. The Etymology section especially contains a lot of inappropriate material --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with Pontificalibus. The contributing user writing this book-length tome is sarcastic, unresponsive, unwilling to compromise or work out solutions. There are hundreds of external links within the article. Needs administrator attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Out of control article, book-length, one or two contributors,Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary: Tahash article: I have serious concerns about notability, original research, WP:Undue. Here's why:

I did a fairly extensive search of religion-oriented newspapers and magazines in January 2011 (including Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Mormon, others) as well as searching the Internet for just the stand-alone term. As best I can determine, the word "tahash" is a boy's name from the Bible, from Genesis. It is basically mentioned there but with no further coverage -- I did not find any particular Biblical stories relating to this person Tahash (although it's possible that stories exist, somewhere). According to Genesis, Tahash was the nephew of Abraham. One writer in the Jerusalem Post named Shlomo Riskin thought the significance was a contrast between Abraham and his brother Nahor -- while Abraham had trouble conceiving children, his brother didn't, and had twelve -- eight by a wife, and four by a concubine named Reumah (of which Tahash was one of the children). But the focus of this article was on Abraham -- Tahash only got a brief mention, if that. Still, Tahash is a Biblical name. So, what's surprising to me, right off the bat, reading the Wikipedia treatment of Tahash, is that the Tahash-as-Biblical-name information doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article in the lede paragraphs. At the very least, there should be an indication that the name "Tahash" was a brief cameo-mention in the Bible. - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But other than that, I searched numerous publications, religious and secular, for mention of the word "tahash". There was basically nothing. What I can't fathom was that if the term has any cultural or historical importance, why isn't it at least mentioned in any of the countless magazines and newspapers devoted to religious or secular topics? Here are the sources I looked in hunting for the word "tahash": - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious news sources: bbc.co.uk/religion, breakpoint.org, christianbusinessdaily.com, christianitytoday.com, freshoutlookmag.com, theturning.org, commentarymagazine.com, forward.com, jhom.com, jewishworldreview.com, reformjudaismmag.org, eretz.com, khilafah.com, dailymuslims.com, islamic-voice.com, lds.org - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish religion newspapers: beismoshiach.org, chabad.org, commentarymagazine.com, eretz.com, forward.com, innernet.org.il, jpost.com, jewishfamily.com, jhom.com, jewishmag.co.il, jewishpost.com, jewishrenaissance.org.uk, thejewishweek.com, jewishworldreview.com, kabtoday.com, kashrusmagazine.com, freeman.org/MOL, momentmag.com, nkusa.org, reformjudaismmag.org, shma.com, tikkun.org, worldjewishdigest.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

US and worldwide secular sources: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com, baltimoresun.com, herald-mail.com, staradvertiser.com, hawaiitribune-herald.com, westhawaiitoday.com, mauinews.com, gazette.net, fredericknewspost.com, somdnews.com, wsj.com, nytimes.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english, canada.com, cbc.ca, japantimes.co.jp, dailytelegraph.com.au, sunherald.com.au, hongkongherald.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked tertiary sources such as Bible encyclopedias and again found a pattern of very little interest. They picked up the mention in Genesis. A few sources mentioned something to the effect of animal skins. It's possible that these other "Bible encyclopedias" picked up an earlier version of Wikipedia's tahash article and there's a mirroring thing going on, so that they picked up the "animal skins" idea from Wikipedia, and are reporting it back. But basically the term tahash didn't get much more attention than that. What possible confuses matters more is it's possible that there are spelling variants for the word "tahash", such as "ta' hash" (two words) or "tachash". It isn't clear which words derive from which. Regardless, there need to be sources indicating that the two terms are interchangeable, or derived from each other, that is, tahash and tachash.- Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have difficulty understanding is how this appears to be a book-length tome about something that gets very little attention or coverage in so-called Bible encyclopedias or in mainstream media or in religious publications including newspapers or magazines as well as online sources. This suggests that there's original research going on as well as undue influence- .Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive/Genesis sales

There has been a long-running debate over the sales figures for the Mega Drive, affecting that article as well as History of video game consoles (fourth generation), Console wars, and List of best-selling game consoles. On one side of the debate, we have a number of sources (many reliable, some not) addressing the question:

• Game Tunnel: 30,750,000[1]
• IGN: 29 million units[2]
• GamePro: 29 million units worldwide[3]
• Wired: 29 million units workdwide[4]
• CNET News: almost 30 million[5]
• Ars Technica: 30 million units worldwide in its various forms[6]
• VGChartz: 30.75 million[7] (not considered reliable)
• VGChartz: yearly figures totaling 30.9 million[8] (not considered reliable; note the possibility of cumulative round-off error)
• Sega-16.com: almost 30 million[9] (probably not considered reliable)
• An outlier is Retro Gamer, giving 30-35 million[10]

On the other side of the debate, we have:

• Figures originating in a blog post [11] which add up disparate sources to reach a total of 40 million:
  • 20 million for the US, from a New York Times business article.[12]
  • 15 million for 'not North America' by subtracting 14 million "North American sales" from 29 million "world sales", from a tertiary source[13] that probably gets the latter from Linux Format Issue 51 (March 2004) (unverified) and the former from the EGM 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide (verified).[14]
  • 2 million attributed to TecToy, from a Brazilian blog site.[15] (probably not reliable, discussion started at WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite?)
  • 2 million attributed to Majesco, from the same Brazilian blog site.
  • 1 million for the Sega Nomad, a compatible handheld, from GamePro.[16]
• An assertion that all of the sources for 29–30 million "must" have gotten their figures from a German magazine article from 1994, scan available at [17].
• A screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet referencing press releases that, if they could be verified, might be helpful.[18]

Much past discussion is available at Talk:Mega Drive/Archive 10 and Talk:Mega Drive/Archive 12#Total Mega Drive Sales. I've personally put off pursuing this, but I'm starting to feel its time this gets settled as it keeps coming up. So I ask for input from people familiar with WP:OR whether the 40 million figure is "allowed" by WP:CALC or whether the sources are too disparate, and if it is allowed whether the many reliable sources should be given equal weight or completely ignored in favor of this calculation. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Without looking at the talk page archives, and just from what you have given above, there aren't enough reliable sources to make a calculation, certainly not one to 40 million. You do have reliable sources for 29 million, so go with that, although it is probably out of date. The 20 million for the US is reliably sourced too. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are consistent disputes regarding counting (these types of disputes show up for record sales as well) and while it may not strictly adhere to WP Policy, it's generally allowed assuming that reliable sources are used and the counting is extremely straightforward. There are many reliable sources for a total of "approximately 30 million" and I would even be content with an addition stating that "some sources incate as many as 35 million units were sold" if it could be fit into the article well. I support that second phrase because one source explicitly states it and by counting a few RSs you can verify it (I have ignored the 5 million from non-RSs).LedRush (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• One source says "(Total North American sales in its lifetime: 14 million. Total world sales: 29 million.)" It list references for everything it says. Seems quite credible, although obviously the sales figures used are dated to the time the sources were published. New York Times says 20 million, not 14 million, were sold in North America. So you can update that number to something more accurate. Tracking down the actual original sources, and using them directly, makes more sense. I'll start looking through that now. But if a reliable source has a bigger number, then obviously there is no problems adding that updated number. Dream Focus 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Google translation of http://www.team-aaa.com/news-15016-0-1-flashback_la_megadrive.html shows another source for Majesco sales, places it at 2.5 million units. The source for 2 million was published before then, and perhaps not as up to date. A Google news archive search for "Majesco" "Sega" and "Genesis" shows results [19]. I ran some through Google translator to find the one above, which seems credible. Anyone have any other sources for information about the sales of this? Dream Focus 17:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that "14 million" was published after the "20 million" (1999 versus 1998), so it's not a simple case of updating an earlier figure with a later. Anomie⚔ 17:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note, this isn't the place to discuss this. It is NOT original research to add numbers from different reliable sources, as I mentioned in our original discussion [[20]] See WP:CALC for the policy in question. This discussion should be on the reliable sources page, or the video game discussion page perhaps, but not here. Dream Focus 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure it is. WP:CALC is for things like converting miles to kilometers or adding up numbers that are from the same source. It is not for adding up numbers cherry-picked from across the Internet to advance some particular POV. Anomie⚔ 18:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the policy. It states that the following is permissable: "adding numbers ... provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." It clearly contemplates there be more than one source, and it clearly contemplates adding numbers between them. However, you do raise a good point. Have these numbers been "cherry picked" and therefore, are they somehow not been reliable? Do you have sources that indicate that the breakdown of sales of certain products in certain regious is incorrect in the above sources?LedRush (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I question the decision to choose the highest number that can be found for each region (that's the "cherry-picking"), the reliability of some of the sources, the advisability of unquestioningly including sales of compatible devices and sales by third-party licensees after Sega gave up on the console (which strikes me as artificial inflation of the total), and the decision to completely ignore the many reliable sources that give a straightforward figure without the need for adding anything up when most if not all of these regional numbers are not mentioned in more than one source. I would be glad to accept a compromise wording that accurately reflected the situation, including a clear delineation that Majesco and Tectoy sales are third-party licensees and (if it is mentioned at all) the fact that their "20 million US" from 1998 is contradicted by "14 million US" from 1999, but every past attempt along those lines has been reverted. Something like this, maybe: "Sega has not released sales figures for the Mega Drive. Mainstream publications report total worldwide sales of 29–30 million.^[refs] Sales in the United States of between 14^[ref] and 20 million^[ref] have been reported. These numbers may or may not include some or all sales by third parties licensed by Sega (e.g. Tectoy in Brazil, or Majesco in the US after Sega's first-party discontinuation of the console) or sales of compatible devices such as the Sega Nomad; fans assuming best-case figures have claimed totals as high as 40 million.^[ref]" Anomie⚔ 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

While I would have a quibble or two with your wording, it seems the general approach is good. To me, this post seems like an edit dispute cloaked as an original research issue. Even if all the various counted sources were 100% reliable and easily calculated, we'd not lose all the sources that say approximately 30 million units were sold. With that in mind, some kind of compromise seems inevitable to me. However, in my mind, such compromise should be worked out in the talk page of the article.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have to be exact? What about giving the figures in terms of a range (something like: "Sales have been estimated to be as low as $X <cite to RS with lowest number>) and as high as $Y <cite to RS with highest number>.") These can be changed as new estimates come in. Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, it looks like the majority of RSs have decided on around 30 million (many a little less, some a little more). This could be inertia and it could be because reliable counting has never been implemented. However, if you include 3rd party devices, the number could increase. Furthermore, it seems that in some markets (particularly in S. America), the Genesis continued to sell well after people stopped counting in other regions. So, you have a claim that as many as 40 million were sold. Your formulation isn't perfect because it gives equal weight to the widely accepted (though perhaps underestimated) number and the highest available number, which is cobbled together in ways that stretch RS and OR policies. I would prefer a formulation similar to Anomie's: The Genesis sold approx. 30 million, though some sources claim as many as 35 million units were sold [ref] and, if third party compatible products are included, perhaps as many as [40][number to be downsized based on number of RSs to back up computation] million units.[list of ref]LedRush (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Sega Genesis article already states, "Sega has never officially released a total sales quote. Some sources have claimed Sega sold 29 Million units worldwide, noting that 14 Million were sold in North America.[6] However, other sources state this total was already reached by 1994,[7] and there are updated sales numbers for North America totaling 20 Million,[8] presenting a disparity in the sales numbers. Additionally, Tec Toy has sold 2 million units of their own Mega Drives (as of August 31, 2005)[9] Majesco has sold 2 Million units of their Mega Drives,[9] and Sega has sold 1 Million units of their Sega Nomad.[10]

It is unknown how many Mega Drives, Firecores, Gencores, Retrogens, or GenMobiles have been sold by ATGames."

Now, these numbers are not in fact cherry picked. As pointed out in the other discussion about the Majesco/Tec Toy source, one source says Majesco sold 2.5 million. I can also tally Business Wire sources together for North America (not just US) that will come to 21.5 million Pre Majesco sales. It's not cherry picking the highest number to go with NYT's 20 million, that's simply the most reliable source IMHO. It's also fair to include numbers for OFFICIALLY LICENSED systems, and while I do believe this can include the new Mega Drive/Genesis consoles that came out last year, it certainly includes the Masjesco and Tec Toy consoles sold at the time.

Here is what a cherry picked breakdown would look like.

• North America - 25 million
• 1989 - 1994: "nearly 18 million"
• 1995: "more than 2 million"
• 1996: "1.1 million"
• 1997: "400,000" (these numbers totalling 21.5 million are feasibly inline with the New York Times' "20 million in the US alone" because they state "North America," and not "US Alone."
• Majesco (1998-1999): 2.5 million
• Sega Nomad 1 million
• +
• Tec Toy - 2 million
• +
• Rest of the worlds first party numbers - 15 million
• = 42 million

Hm, 42 million. Welcome to cherry picking.

What I recommend is breaking it down like this.

• State 40 or 42 million with a content note (depending on if we now cherry pick the highest numbers which we have ignored)
• Content note then states:
• First Party: 35 (or 36.5) million
• 3rd Party: 4 (or 4.5) million
• Sega Nomad: 1 million

The 29 million and 14 million numbers both clearly come from Man!ac Magazine's May 1995 issue. Other users uploaded and confirmed the scan. [21]--SexyKick 21:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I note your "nearly 18 million" through the end of 1994 is in direct conflict with your Man!ac Magazine's 14 million through the end of 1994. If the 18 million is inflated, that would make the later numbers from that same source similarly suspect. I also don't buy the assumption that every English-language source's numbers come from an obscure German-language magazine, and the rest I addressed above and won't bother to repeat. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with the existing wording in the Mega Drive article is that it doesn't point out that the 20 million may not be so updated (as EGM has 14 million a year later), implies that none of the Tectoy 2 million is included in the 29 million (we don't know either way), and doesn't make a clear difference between first-party sales and ongoing sales of third-party derivatives and knock-offs. Anomie⚔ 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said I find the NYT's source to be the more reliable. My point was just that no cherry picking is happening. Also that there is nothing "artificial" from counting Majesco, Tec Toy, and the handheld Genesis (which is not a "compatible" system, such as GameGear, it actually bears the Genesis logo on the hardware itself, and adds no new capabilities like GameGear, which is why editor consensus on the Genesis talk page continued to include Nomad numbers) when they all come from the same time period where 16-bit systems are on sale. I agree there would be some artificial number inflation from counting the new AtGames systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't count them when the numbers come out either, they still technically count as officially licensed hardware.

It doesn't matter whether you "buy" it or not, it's very clear that's the earliest source of those numbers. It must be where EGM gets the 14 million, and it must be the last study that was ever done in all territories. 20 million is the most up to date reliable number. They all fit with the 35 million, and the NYT's number clearly comes from before Majesco's possible influence, so there's no ambiguity there. I guess the main matter is settled here, we are allowed to total up numbers from reliable sources without it being original research. I'm glad that part is settled.

I'm annoyed about the TecToy source however, since it's the only one I know of, it's been used here on Wikipedia with no problems for a very long time, and I think the only reason you suddenly have a problem with it is because you're a SNES fan. I love the SNES too you know. I find all "total" sales numbers presented so far to be clear "first party only" sales, meaning no TecToy/Majesco (Mega Drives are still sold by TecToy too btw, meaning more than 2 million have been sold by now.) However, this still lets us write down 38-40 million assuming you just CBA to agree. Remember the original blog source which started all of this, which just counts up sources hits 39.70 million, I just think it's too much of a coincidence that everyone's independent research of regional numbers hits near the 40 million mark, whether it's 39.70, 40.5, 42, or Wikipedia's current (and IMHO most accurate, since it's using more reliable sources) 40 million.--SexyKick 23:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note my bolding to be for TL;DR purposes, I'm not annoyed or yelling. : ) --SexyKick 23:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to note that the initial post is not only based around very out of date info (nobody has been using the excel spreadsheet for ages now, being that most of the original sources its speaks of have been found), but is extremely misleading, the present sales figures for the US are based around many, many newspaper and magazine articles from the time, most of which clearly state that they have gotten their information from either Sega themselves, or from well regarded 3rd party sales trackers of the time such as Robertson Stephenson and CO, and GFK. None of the sources which the initial post holds in such regard, such as even IGN and Gamepro state where their figures even come from.

I think this was explained fairly well in the aforementioned page but there's a little more I can add in regards to US sales in particular.

Here's a timeline of sources

1. In May of 1994 the US total stood at a rounded 13 million - Businessweek

2. At the end of 1994 the US total stood at a rounded 14 million - Man!ac Magazine (attributed to GFK, Robertson Stephens and Co, Computer Trade Weekly, and Sega

3. At the beginning of 1995 the US total stood at a rounded 15 million - Newsday

4. Over (unfortunately it doesn't give a precise figure) 2 million were sold in the US during 1995 in total - Business Wire

5. 1.1 million were sold during 1996 in total - Business Wire

There are two sources for 20 million US sales up to March 1998 (not including Majesco because they took over from that point onwards) - The New York Times and Electronic Times

All of these sources back each other up fairly well and jar with the vague EGM "over 14 million" total figure for US sales.

Europe's sales also have a source for 8 million, the source being CVG magazine, which attributes the figure to Sega of Europe themselves.

Also, it was never mentioned that recent sources all got their figures from "a German magazine", what was said was that it was possible that sales totals were collated by 3rd party trackers and released to the public at the end of 1994, figures of which both Man!ac, and the recent websites could've been working from. Personally I don't "buy" that the more recently popularised figures for US and Worldwide sales both perfectly (29 + 14) matching those given in a magazine from 1994 could be easily attributed to coincidence.

I think the way the Content Note stands at the moment is as good as its going to get, Anomie's re-phrased version gives undue weight in my opinion, for instance, there is no reason to omit the section saying "though other sources state these figures were already reached by 1994" the Man!ac source is just as reliable as the general "14 million" figure sources, much moreso in fact being that it attributes its information properly. There is also no doubt that the 20 million figure does not include Majesco, because Majesco took over sales after the publication date of the New York Times article (this has even been sourced already) Jesus.arnold (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that this is all a horrible excercise in synthesis and we should be using the various *citable totals* of around 30 million. I don't see a problem with the other sources and figures being mentioned in the content note as they are now, just as long as they continue to be presented as claims rather than fact. Miremare 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because you're bias. One of the reasons we had to bring it here in fact, since you refused to believe that simple arithmetic wasn't synthesis. Synthesis is doing something to advance a new position, such as "Sega Genesis outsold Super Nintendo." There's no synthesis. The nice editors here have resolved this poultry dilemma for us, thankfully.--SexyKick 00:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SexyKick, please don't keep accusing people of disagreeing with you because they're "a SNES fan" or "biased", it's ridiculous. And from this very policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" That is what you are trying to do by adding all these disparate sources - NONE of them support the TOTAL you are giving. How do you explain why we don't have a reliable source that supports your total? What we do have are several reliable sources that contradict the "position" you are trying to "advance".

And the sources you're using - where have they sourced their numbers? One of them mentions its numbers came from Sega Europe, and that's great. But where did that paragon of video games journalism the NY Times get its figures? Notice the article itself sources everything it says to either Sega, Shoichiro Irimajiri, or Moody's Investors Service... until it gets to the bit where it claims "some 20 million sold in the early 1990s", where it goes strangely quiet on sources. And remember that this claim is nothing but a single-sentence aside, in an article about something else. And SOME twenty million? What does that mean? And what defines the "early 1990s"? 1990-93? 20 million in three years? Unlikely. It's vague journalism like that being used as gospel that is one example of why this whole thing is simply not viable. We have quite a few reliable sources for approximate total worldwide sales, there is absolutely no need to make up our own. Miremare 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what proves you're bias. You ignore the simple arithmetic rule, and you're looking at the NYT's as if they're not a reliable source, excuse me? And don't even mention the other sources that state 20.3 million or even up to 21.5 million for North America (instead of "US only" as the 14 million and 20 million nummbers both state) right? We just have to find reliable sources and quote info in them, we don't have to find where reliable sources get their information. We have to find where non reliable sources get their information instead, to see if they then become reliable sources.--SexyKick 11:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you're confusing a reliable source with an infallible one, and there's no such thing as that. Take a look at WP:NEWSORG. There is no rule that allows us to pool a bunch of numbers that we have no way of knowing are correct, to come up with an answer that no reliable sources agree with. There are however, rules that specifically disallow this, as has been pointed out many times. I'll ask you again, how do you explain why we don't have a reliable source that supports your total? Miremare 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Miremare, is it your contention that the sources used to come up with the total aren't reliable, or that the adding together of multiple reliable sources isn't allowed. If the former, this is the wrong board for the discussion. If the latter, the position has been clearly refuted above. It is not original research to add numbers from different reliable sources: see WP:CALC for the policy in question. If you have a different point, could you make it more simply for me? I am not fluent in the history of this dispute.LedRush (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources used are reliable enough to state "x claims y million sales", the problem is adding them together because we don't know that the numbers are true. Different sources claim different figures. The crux of the matter is that nobody but Sega knows how many consoles they sold and they haven't told us, therefore we have absolutely no way of knowing that the number we're arriving at is true. Regarding routune calculation, if we had a reliable source saying "side A lost a thousand soldiers in War X" and another saying "side B lost two thousand soldiers in War X" we could apply routine calculation to state that there were three thousand killed, not least because such figures would be much researched and the subject covered in a scholarly way. But what we are dealing with are an abundance of sources that state different things, mostly in passing, none of whom say where they got their numbers from. This doesn't even approach routine calculation. But I think we agree that this is the wrong place to discuss this, as it seems to be getting little input from anyone who wasn't involved in the original discussion. WT:VG would be better. Miremare 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We've resolved it. I'm updating the article accordingly soon.--SexyKick 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We have? Then perhaps you'd like to answer the question that you've twice ignored: How do you explain why we don't have a reliable source that supports your total, while we do have several that contradict it? Miremare 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, pretend we haven't resolved the issue, I'm updating the article. It was ruled to not be original research. Live with it. Content note explains all. See content note.--SexyKick 11:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not the one pretending, and your continuing refusal/inability to answer the question only highlights this. Please answer it. Miremare 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's been explained. Regardless, we have some sources that say one number and other sources which indicate that that number may not be accurate. This could be because of the date of the original information, different information collection methods, and different fact checking standards. But the fact remains that counting numbers in different sources is not per se original research. However, we need to use reliable sources and we can't cherry pick numbers either. I don't believe that we will ever get a final number, which is why I support inclusion of some range of numbers followed by a content note or an explanation.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not generally in the habit of repeatedly re-asking a question that has been answered. I am still waiting for the answer. And I have never said that adding numbers from different sources is per se OR. I have made it quite clear several times that that is not my position. But you're right that totals that are supported by reliable sources is what the article needs, and we've got plenty of sources for 29 million and 30 million. Miremare 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I answered your question in my last post. Maybe you don't like the answer. Maybe you don't understand the answer. Maybe you disagree with the underlying assumptions of the answer. I don't know. But someone else has answered a couple times, and I just answered it before your snarky response. Could you perhaps rephrase your question or (better yet) address our responses? Or even better still, since this is a content dispute, could you discuss it on the Mega Drive talk page or the Video Game project page?LedRush (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If it was a snarky response it was because of your apparent unwillingness to read my posts before replying to them, while implying that my argument is "adding numbers is wrong". I have asked a straight question, several times, to which I have not received an answer. I'm not asking about the sources being used to arrive at this new sales figure, I am asking why there are no reliable sources that support this new figure. This is pretty basic stuff. Miremare 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anger and snark. Awesome. We've discussed the answer to your question a lot above, but here is a quote from my most recent response: "Regardless, we have some sources that say one number and other sources which indicate that that number may not be accurate. This could be because of the date of the original information, different information collection methods, and different fact checking standards."LedRush (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, I can't work out whether you're being intentionally difficult, or you genuinely don't understand the question. I'll try again: What sources support the new total? Again, I am not talking about the individual figures put together to arrive at the total, but the total itself. Where are the sources that directly support this number? Miremare 20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am trying very, very hard to AGF, but it is difficult. You asked "How do you explain why we don't have a reliable source that supports your total, while we do have several that contradict it?" Though we've discussed this thoroughly above, and I've given you a summary statement, you still don't seem to acknowedgle the answer. I can do nothing more than repeat my earlier statements: Perhaps we don't have a single reliable source for the higher total, while there are several for the lower ones beacuse "the dates of the original information, different information collection methods, and different fact checking standards." There are a ton of other reasons, but those should suffice.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps we don't have a single reliable source for the higher total". That's the answer I was looking for, thank you. We don't have a single source for the new total we've come up with, yet we have plenty for 29-30 million. We all know it's not the place of an encyclopedia to venture its own opinions or research, but to report on those of others, and a figure of 40 million is uncitable because it is against the widely-held views of the video games/technology media. IGN, GamePro, Wired, CNET, Ars Technica, Retro Gamer... are we to believe that all these reliable, reputable sources are wrong, and our little bit of synthesis (50% of the total of which is entirely based on a single vague unsourced throwaway comment in an unrelated article from a journalist and publication who don't specialise in video games) is somehow right and outweighs them all? It amazes me that this is still even being discussed after all this time. Miremare 22:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted that specific answer to the questions, you should have written it down for me so that you could later take it out of context. Of course, your question had been answered long ago, like your other questions were. And, of course, you don't recognize your repeated mistake or your rude and unhelpful comments regarding it. And, of course, you ignore the substance of the discussion to make your soundbyte answer. Finally, of course you don't understand why this is still being discussed. You ignore other people's opinions as you attack them for your own mistakes. I, on the other hand, understand why there is disagreement on this. I understand your position. It makes sense. However, I think the other opinion makes more sense for the many, many reasons above.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The context is irrelevant, there either are sources for the total, or there aren't. You can repeatedly insist that my objections have been "answered long ago" all you like, but I'm afraid that doesn't make it so. I mean, I'd love to see you actually refute any of what I said above, with logical reasoning backed up by policy, rather than hiding behind the same unsubstantiated "already answered, many many reasons above, etc." lines that you and SexyKick seem so fond of. And you then go on to accuse me of ignoring other people's opinions! No, what I have done is attempt to thoroughly justify what I say in opposition to the opinions that have been put forward. That's not ignoring people's opinions, it's disagreeing with them and explaining why. And what did I get for it? Accusations of bias, strawman arguments, patronizing variations on "this has already been settled", and no attempt to actually explain how or counter what I say. And please, I haven't attacked anyone and I have no idea what "mistakes" you're referring to. The bottom line is that opinions are all you have in favour of claiming 40m sales, you cannot back it up in policy. Miremare 02:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Except LedRush is new to the whole thing, and going solely off of cut and dry policy. NYT's states 20 million. NYT's is a reliable source. Very simple. We can total other sources to hit 21.5 million for North America. "Some 20 million" is certainly being on the side of cautious since it's understating the continents total for its own countries total. Being snarky and angry isn't the way to communicate your point. If you don't think the above extremely detailed information isn't enough for you, I certainly don't think we can provide extra information. There's no reason to get upset at Man!acs numbers being updated by the NYT's...I mean, why be upset? What's the big deal?--SexyKick 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The big deal is that you are ignoring abundant reliable sources in favour of an uncitable figure you've arrived at yourself. As I said before, while the NY Times is a reliable source, that does not mean that everything it says is true. See the context of the number, the fact that no other sources agree, and the other reasons I gave two posts back. Since the majority of reliable sources support a worldwide total of just 9-10m more, describing 20 million for NA alone as "on the side of caution" is patently absurd. Finally, if we're talking about "updated" sources, every one of the Gametunnel (2005), IGN (2009), GamePro (2008), Wired (2007), CNET (2009), Ars Technica (2008), and Retro Gamer (2006) sources are far more recent than the NY Times (1998), so why don't you consider these to be "updates"? Miremare 16:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How sad that only one outside person really got involved, and the same old redacted have seized upon the slightest hint of support to completely ignore all reliable sources in favor of their inflated number. Anomie⚔ 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Anomie, using updated sales numbers and the numbers used of 3rd parties (partnered with Sega to either bring the console to foreign lands, or to extend the life of the console to meet the life of the SNES) used during the time of the system is not an inflated number. Moreover it's dishonest to use a number proven incorrect on multiple occasions, even if for the simple fact US: 20 million + EU: 8 million = 28 out of 29 million...and we know the console sold extremely well in Other Asia, Australia, and sold at least 3.58 million in Japan. It's simple refuting of evidence that I would hope an intelligent person such as yourself would accept with open arms.--SexyKick 04:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you have to say to those things Anomie? What of the sources of year by year Genesis sales that add up to 20.3 million? Why do you have to stand by a number proven to be outdated?? Why don't you accept this information with open arms (please answer this question first)--SexyKick 06:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is evidence that the 29 million number may be outdated, although there is no justification for completely ignoring the fact that all reliable sources continue to report that number (maybe they know something we don't). And there is no evidence for any particular higher number, as there is no evidence that the 29 million does or does not include Tectoy sales between 1989 and 1994, there is no evidence that the "20 million US" does not include existing Genesis 2 inventory sold to Majesco, there is no evidence that the "some 20 million" US quoted in the NYT is not "18 million rounded up by Sega PR in their press release", and I still find it misleading to uncritically include sales of the Tectoy Genesis, the Majesco Genesis, and as many of the compatible machines as you can find. But it's clear you don't care about any of that and just want to push the highest number you can get away with. Anomie⚔ 16:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no evidence about TecToy's sales, as I have said before in this thread...apart from them being a 3rd party company and still selling Mega Drive's to this day (3rd parties are rarely if ever included in tallying sales.) As far as Sega selling consoles to Majesco, "First 150,000 will be original model" is what the reference says about Majesco's Genesis 2 inventory. 150,000 isn't anywhere near substantial or significant, and there is big evidence that the 20 million US is not "18 million rounded up by Sega PR in their press release" because of the tallied up year to year sales that reach 20.3 million. If we use Sega's 18 million rounded up to replace up to 1995, then we wind up with 21.5 million. This is very good evidence to go with NYT's numbers. Not to mention NYT's is a rock solid source and stands as a guaranteed update on its own, it's nice that we have two tallies that reach above and beyond 20 million.

It's clear none of that matters to you, and you want to keep the numbers a magazine in 1995 presented. It's not misleading to include Majesco's sales, the Super NES was still being sold in competition with the Genesis 3, it's dishonest to not simply update the first party numbers to Wikipedia's original 35 million. Everyone knows you're the main Super NES guy, I can only assume the reason you don't want these other numbers included is because it has something to do with that, but I can't figure out what, since these numbers still leave it at 49.10 million to 40 million. This isn't some fanboy update to 55 million with no source, like we've both reverted so many times.--SexyKick 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget I did some work on the Mega Drive article a while back too, I just don't know as much about it. I also don't know why Sega's console seems to attract more POV-violating edits than other consoles; maybe it's related to the reason List of best-selling game consoles seems to get more POV edits boosting Xbox than its competitors. Anomie⚔ 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We can all see the evidence is here though, and from reliable sources no less. I think writing out 38-40 million with a content note saying which sales are first, and 3rd party, and an explanation of the possible overlap in TecToy sales is the most fair and neutral choice. Again, 42 million is the highest number we can "get away with" and is proof there is no cherry picking going on - all the numbers are from reliable sources, so we have to make a judgment call, and if Arnold and I were trying to go with the highest number available, we'd just go with those and say forget the NYT's. Likewise, you don't see me jumping up and down with excitement at the more than likely wrong 2.5 million for Majesco, (I've never heard anything but 2 million) or trying to include even the 20.3 million number (though mostly it's because it's hard to add 8 sources for more tallying of numbers, whereas we have a source saying 20 million from the most reliable newspaper ever.)--SexyKick 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest, yet again, that we bring this to the talk page, or at least to the video game project page? This conversation simply doesn't belong here. Also, I made what I thought was a good compromise edit...tomorrow I will reprint on the talk page to get the ball rolling on specific wording so we're not bogged down with theoretical positions, procedural issues, and people being rude.LedRush (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a new discussion on WT:VG. Going back the Mega Drive talk page isn't going to get us anywhere, and hopefully it will be a lot more visible there than here. Miremare 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Roman_Empire_125.png

Removal of Dacian group is based on User:EraNavigator original research on linguistics. Marking Costoboci and Carpi as non-Dacian (the articles were changed by the same author and disputed), and on top of it adding Dacian language to the Slavic group are all disputed and far from main stream research. Read what happen here. Look at the Changes to Empire 125 map section of the talk, which was since removed, I assume in good faith. See also this newer version of the file as well, which was moved to png format, losing the history of changes about the same time (November 19-20, 2010). Please also check the corresponding commons versions. This talk is also very relevant. And another broader point is this: Due to the hard work of the author, this map is used by a LOT of pages, and significant changes to it should involve more discussions and scrutiny from now on. It can no longer be updated with radical changes without impacting other articles. Otherwise it becomes some sort of Trojan horse, pushing incorrect information to many articles in one shot. So the reason I bring all this up is not the Dacia related articles, but the fact that a LOT of articles are using it are affected bu such radical changes.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an opinion, Codrin, but I think you will need to give a much clearer explanation of the issues involved in determining whether Costoboci and Carpi are Dacian or not in order to get uninvolved editors to comment.

On a side-note, it's a great map, although I think the location of Deva may be very slightly out. --FormerIP (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if Carpi and Costoboci stay as uncertain, marking Daci as Slavs and removing their distinct status is at least original research if not more. It is also inconsistent with all other articles about Dacians, their languages and the Indo-European languages. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but I think users who will be able to judge whether your opinion is right or wrong without having further information to go off will be few and far between. Something fairly concise saying "this is orginal research because...", perhaps with some wikilinks, is needed here I think.--FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The best I can bring is what the "research" author of the changes, says, in his own words: "Add UNCERTAIN category to list of PROBABLE BARBARIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS and remove DACIAN" and "Make the DACI Balto-Slavic (speculative, I know)". It can be read here, section Changes to Empire 125 map. The same talk page has a lot of a other instances of original research. Look at the second section named Roman Empire 125 for the phrase My view that Dacian is related to the Baltic languages is based on the comparison of Dacian plant names. Other incredibly original ideas Therefore, modern Romanian is not descended from Dacian at all. This is consistent with my view that Romanian is Illyro-Latin. Interesting innovative idea, but not for Wikipedia. See also the new proposed language tree. All this original research results in a lot of invasive changes to many key articles, many changes were already done. All these sections of the talk, were removed, but I assume in good faith.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And don't get me wrong, the guy is putting some hard work in linguistics here, which I appreciate, but I think he should write his own books not Wikipedia articles. We could add references to his books later.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this definitely looks like original research. The map should not be advancing the novel theories of a WP editor. --FormerIP (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So what are the next steps? --Codrin.B (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's just the colouring of that "Dacians" string, just go to the original SVG map and edit it. It can be done in any plaintext editor, or in a program like Inkscape. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there is also the distinct Dacian grouping, as you saw in the previous version, which makes sense since the mainstream and historical sources, and the Romans, classified them as distinct. Then Bastarnae are also of uncertain origin as well as other tribes. There is more work and I don't want to get into any edit wars. I had enough conflict for the next 5 years.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides, the guys abandoned the SVG version and went to a PNG version, File:Roman_Empire_125.png, which continued to evolve. Change that one too? Remove one? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this case is now obvious. On the talk page of this map none of the materials presented as sources for Dacian as a Balto-Slavic language contained this claim (two of the references were just copied from a site, without even checking what those sources say). Andrei Nacu, the author of this map, said it's fun to push his own theories against opposition and he doesn't want to concede, because " it will take some time to find some other pioneering theories to fight for". This came after a temporary compromise which Andrei reverted (Jan 14), not motivated by sources, but by a personal conflict with CodrinB.

Thus this map is "advancing the novel theories of a WP editor". Daizus (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if I said that, and even if I enjoy debating against you and Codrin (to whom I have no conflict, I just made fun of his protochronistic beliefs) I brought some references in support of classifying Dacian as probably belonging to the Balto-Slavic linguistic group. I told you to discuss about novel theories and OR with scholars like Ivan Duridanov, Harvey Mayer or E. Hamp and other people sharing their views. I am not doing any OR on my map!

Andrei (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep asserting that if some scholar writes of Baltic-Dacian connection (or about Baltic and Illyrian, or Baltic and Albanian), that means Dacian is a Balto-Slavic group. Non sequitur. Fact is none of the aforementioned scholars claimed Dacian is a Balto-Slavic language (to be sure, Mayer, a very controversial linguist, holds there is no Balto-Slavic group! - I don't think his papers are reliable sources anyway) - that's only your and EraNavigator's theory.

Your added those false references (as pointed above, you didn't even read some of them) after you reverted the map and I said this should go to AN/I. Your conflict with CodrinB is well documented, for example, at some point you even complained to EraNavigator that "maybe they are just paid by some organization to support theories going against the new vawe in Romanian historiography" and there are many similar remarks by you and EraNavigator about the editors or even scholars opposing your theories. Daizus (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds more like a NPOV issue than a WP:OR issue. Original maps are allowed, but they should illustrate what reliable sources say. If the sources disagree, then the map should indicate that there is disagreement in some way. Or, as an alternative, the article can present several maps, each illustrating the different viewpoints, and captioned appropriately (as in "Map of Dacia showing linguistic groups as proposed by Prof. X"... and "Map of Dacia showing linguistic groups as proposed by Dr. Y") Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So far there is no reliable source cited for some of the illustrations on this map (the one I focused on is that of Dacians being a Balto-Slavic population). "Map showing linguistic groups as proposed by Prof. X" (or "Dr. Y") must be supported with citations from Prof. X and Dr. Y saying that directly and explicitly . Otherwise it is original research. Daizus (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Andrei Nacu complained the criticism of his map is "vandalism and harassment"(!) and attempted to remove all the objections from map's talk page. Daizus (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this OR?

My source is Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.

The full quote I reference in the cite is:

“ Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed: women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many body reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain. ”

The sentence I proposed is a precis from several sources for the overview article and says:

“ Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder[11] that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack[12] led most of the townspeople to leave. ”

I am using this to cite two factors in the decision to leave. One being the events during the take over, the second being the expectation of a counter attack to retake the town. It is being alleged that this is WP:OR with the argument the wording is not the same as the cite.

Second opinions please. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos as source

Is it original research to cite videos of Eastern Orthodox baptisms, published on Youtube, as showing that those baptisms do not always involve total submersion of the child or adult being baptized? Is this different from citing books or articles that describe such baptisms? See the citations and a discussion on them. Esoglou (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable sources, but sometimes are if the video is unambiguously from a reliable source (such as a news agency) and does not violate copyright. I looked at one, the baptism of sofia and my thinking is that home videos of baptisms would not fall into that category, so I would suggest such videos are not reliable for this purpose. Such videos, even if reliable, would be primary sources, and I would also suggest that by using them to draw conclusions about baptisms in general would be considered OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I was taking the video not for "drawing conclusions about baptisms in general", but only for concluding that some Eastern-Orthodox baptisms do not involve total submersions, I presume that you know best. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I sure you are correct about the services, for what it is worth, esp. considering how much variation in religious services there are even within a single sect. Can you find a better source? Also, others may have different opinions. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My idea was simply that "seeing is believing" and that the sample videos were the clearest demonstration possible that, while total submersion is also practised (a Moldovan priest has actually been charged with manslaughter for drowning a baby when baptizing it and videos of total submersion are also available), there is variation in regular Eastern Orthodox practice. However, I have given also two citations from undeniably reliable printed sources that state explicitly that immersion (as distinct total submersion) plus pouring is used in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I must add that to my surpise an opposing editor has claimed that I was "misrepresenting sources": see the end of this section. Esoglou (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's better to avoid the seeing is believing entirely and just use illustrations as simply that - illustrations of things described and cited in the text. The problem is they are both primary sources and their provenance is often a bit iffy. What Wikipedia wants is reliable sources and it prefers secondary sources. Drawing a conclusion solely from a video is original research in all but the most obvious cases or where the video was explicitly made for the purpose - and where it was made for a purpose someone would have said so separately anyway. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"They are both ..." I'm sorry, I don't understand. I have already cast aside the idea of using the (more than two) videos. Are you referring to the two books I mentioned? I don't think so. They are not primary sources and their provenance is far from iffy. And in spite of the claim by another editor, each of them quite explicitly says that the mode of baptism that I described is used in the Eastern Church. I suppose that the puzzling phrase "they are both ..." was just a slip of the keyboard. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two reasons there. Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my failure to understand that it was a "both ... and ..." clause. Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Atheism entry and the inclusion of demographics on other groups

Over at Atheism, one finds the following demographics in the lead.

• Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in a god.[9] In Europe, the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers in a personal god ranges as low as single digits in Poland, Romania, Cyprus, and some other countries,[10] and up to 85% in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 72% in Norway, and 60% in Finland.[9]

As you can see these stats cover a much larger group of "non-believers" than strictly atheists. I have tried arguing at the talk page that we should not be including demographics that heap all of these groups together, because that would be like saying that "55% of the worlds population identifies with Christianity, Judaism and Islam", on the Judaism page. We already have separate entries on agnosticism, irreligion, etc. On the talk page I have suggested substituting that text for replacing that text with:

• Rates of atheism are higher in Western nations, like the United States (4%), Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%).[1]

These stats come from a poll that has specific data for "atheism" as distinguished from "agnosticism". The reason why I'm asking about this here is because editors on the talk page argue that the most inclusive definitions of "atheist" might actually include the groups that the first source (Zuckerman) groups together, yet clearly distinguishes as "atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers". I believe doing so is original research. We can only add statistics to the page when the sources are reliable and have identified them as specifically "atheist". General stats on non-believers or the irrelgious should go into other broader entries like irreligion. Any advice would be helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Important correction: You have not suggested to substitute other text for the text in your second bullet. You have suggested to substitute the text in your second bullet for other text. Hans Adler 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I reread my suggestion on the talk page and I'm not sure how you get here from there. However, I've added a clarification in case it is still unclear. I am suggesting, for the record, to switch the current figures in the lead (first bullet) with the ones in the second bullet above I see my mistake now. Thanks Hans.Griswaldo (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not original research to use these statistics (they are published after all) ... but I agree that it would be misleading to use them without making it very clear that they refer to more than just Atheists. I think this is more a WP:NPOV issue than a WP:OR issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I wasn't exactly sure what board was best for this question. My main objection is also that there are statistics that are much more precise available. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between atheists, agnostics and people who do not believe in gods is mostly philosophical hair-splitting. This was my first Google hit for "define:atheism". Note the second definition, which can be rephrased as "atheism, agnosticism, or not believing in a god". It appears to me that the first group is for people who don't believe in gods and are somewhat evangelistic about that, the second for people who do not believe in gods but haven't completely made up their mind, and the third is for people who don't believe in gods and reject or do not understand the hair-splitting. In other words: "atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers" is how a statistician defines atheists in order not to lose any due to terminological issues.

Articles tend to be dominated by the most extreme or most typical cases. But they are still also about the more general cases. E.g. the majority of the German population is nominally Christian, goes to church once a year (on Christmas), if that, plus on a few special occasions such as funeral services, has only very vague ideas of who that Jesus person was and what his relation to his mother and his two fathers is supposed to be, or why it is all supposed to matter. This is why German churches are being closed nowadays, or merged. Except at Christmas and maybe Easter they are empty. Yet we count all these people as Christians.

I don't think there is even the slightest problem with counting someone as atheist in the wider sense who, presented a huge choice including "atheist", "agnostic" and "do not believe in a god", ticks the second or third box rather than the first. One could similarly offer choices such as "Christian", "non-practising Christian" and "believe in God and Jesus". Hans Adler 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree... there is a huge difference between an Atheist (who does not believe in the existence of any gods), an Agnostic (who questions the existence of gods), a Non-believer (who may well believe in gods, but not "as defined" by a particular religion or sect) and a non-participant (who believes, but does not attend). Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those differences will necessarily be apparent to people filling out questionnaires, though, who will probably not know which of the various options is most applicable to them. So I don't think that a statistic about how many atheists there are in a given place actually tells us very much. So I would say that too much prominence is given to any statistic on the subject by putting it in the lead. And also, it would be misleading to base whatever is included in the article on the assumption that people have correctly grouped themselves according to the definitions of atheist, agnostic etc that are reflected in Wikipedia articles. (ETA: readin back up, I'm more-or-less repeating what Hans said). --FormerIP (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Hans, the reason why Zuckerman groups all three together has to do with the lack of methodological consistency between the sources he's summarizing - and I feel his pain there. If he were to draw a hard line, as I suggest we do here, he would have had less material at his disposal. However, more recent studies have begun to draw these lines, because many of the people who use the terms we are discussing to self-identify make these distinctions as well. In fact, I would argue, they have made the distinctions for a long time now. Social Scientific surveys on religious identification, at least in the United States, have suffered in the past from a lack of nuance when it comes to those who are unaffiliated. If you didn't identify with a religious group you were just a "none". But it turns out that "nones" are pretty diverse group, ranging from hard core atheists to new agers. So I feel for Zuckerman because the data he has at his disposal is not consistent and often resorts to broad categories without nuance, but I just don't think we have to do that ourselves.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"However, more recent studies have begun to draw these lines..." does seem to signal original research. --FormerIP (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow? If you believe my statement is original research I'll be happy to supply examples.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And to be clear, the broad categories I speak of are not "atheism" as a broad category, but other related terms like "secular", or "nonbelievers", etc.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an good example of what I mean. In their 2006 study Hunsberger and Altemeyer (Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers, Prometheus) differentiate between "atheists" and "agnostics" in their results. In the introduction they refer to some demographic stats from the ISSP II study (1999) reporting a figure of only 3% atheists in the United States. Only those answering "1" to the relevant question were considered "atheists". Question: Please indicate which statement below comes closest to expressing what you believe about God. Answers: 1. I don’t believe in God 2. I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out 3. I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind 4. I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others 5. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God 6. I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it 8. Can’t choose, don’t know 9. No answer. Similarly the ARIS (2001) asked people to rate their agreement with the statement, "God exists" on a scale: 1. Disagree strongly, 2. Disagree Somewhat, 3. Agree Somewhat, 4. Agree Strongly. The ISSP is more nuanced, but I think you get the idea here. Social Scientists are now actually trying to tease apart disbelief and lack of affiliation in ways they did not do before.Griswaldo (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a problematic relationship here between "atheism" as an analytical category and "atheism" as a term of self-identification. Those who self-identify as "atheists" tend to adopt the broadest definition of the term analytically. It follows, to them, that others who espouse a certain set of basic beliefs are also atheists. However, those very people who are claimed by the atheists, but do not themselves self-identify as such, often adopt a stricter definition of the term, which is exactly how they justify not being atheists. The definitions Hans linked to are indicative of this analytical disagreement (1.Atheist definition - A lack of theistic beliefs vs. 2. Non-atheist definition - The belief that there are no gods) . To the non-atheist disbelievers the distinction is important in other words, and that is why, when they can, they use more exacting language to describe themselves. The idea that they don't know any better is not supported by empirical research. Qualitative research shows that people who have made the choice to consider themselves agnostics, for instance, have usually thought about the matter enough to conceive of a difference. "Atheist" means something to them that they do not identify with. I think we ought to be conscientious of these distinctions on Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you're proposing, Griswaldo, but the reason I say "original research" is that you seem to be saying that there may be other sources out there that could be used to interpret the source containing the data in order to make it suitable for inclusion. That seems like a textbook case of OR to me. That would be fine for making an argument for exclusion (there would be no OR issue), but not for inclusion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. --FormerIP (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually saying just the opposite. Figures concerning "Atheists, agnostics and nonbelievers" are being reported in the entry, and part of the rationale is that the most inclusive definitions of "atheism", which are not the definitions adopted by the source, would include all of those groups. My suggestion was to use a different source altogether, which had reported specifically on atheism. I don't wish to reinterpret Zuckerman or his sources. Here's a good comparison. Consider that Zuckerman were writing an essay on the Abrahamic faiths and using data from all three here, two there, another two here, one there. We'll that's what he's done but instead he's grouped together all nonbelievers with some stats just about atheists here, about atheists and agnostics there, etc. Now what Wikipedia editors are doing is taking his review of research on non-belief and using figures from it that are not specifically about atheism in the entry on atheism. It is like taking demographic stats that lump together Judaism, Christianity and Islam and making supposedly meaningful claims about the demographics of Judaism in the entry on Judaism. Is that clearer?Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Atheism up to this point has largely between Griswaldo and me. Something that I think I should point out is that there has never been any disagreement that the page should say "the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers" and so forth, so there is no issue of taking information from these sources and misrepresenting it as simply "the percentage of atheists". We have always been very clear about identifying the data the same ways that the sources themselves identify it. There is also, I think, agreement with Griswaldo having very helpfully found some newer sources that are more specific to atheism per se. The issue, rather, is about deleting what would end up being quite a bit of the page (including more than just the sentence from the lead quoted above), on the grounds that the page is about atheism, and therefore must not include any information that is not strictly and unambiguously about atheism and nothing else. Up to now, the page (which is a Featured Article, by the way) has always included information that includes so-called "weak atheism", which extends over a broad and imprecisely defined range of beliefs and nonbeliefs, but always being clear about what data are specifically about atheists, defined narrowly, and what data extend to a mixture of atheists and whatever else. So long as we don't mislabel the latter, and we don't, I don't think it's de facto mislabeling to include the information on the page, and there, I think, is where the disagreement lies. Perhaps like FormerIP, I am concerned that it may actually be OR to say, for example, that Zuckerman described the data as "the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers", so therefore this is not information about atheists at all, and must be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Weak atheism" is not an analytical category utilized by social scientists, it is a category constructed by philosophers. To claim that groups of people labelled by social scientists in their studies as something other than "atheists", are actually "atheists" for the purpose of out entry, because they fit the definition of "weak atheism" is WP:OR in my book. That argument, is indeed what made me chose this page to pose my question on. I have to admit that I am willing to take a less hard-line on the topic if an adequate explanatory narrative goes into the entry. In other words, I think with enough of a preface we can include the more general information in the demographics section of the entry. What I continue to disagree with, however, is presenting these non-exact figures in the lead.Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This goes to Atheism#Definitions and distinctions. And I think there is no objection to "adequate explanatory narrative" at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg

I was wondering if a primary source can be used to establish that a secondary source is referring to an individual when the secondary source doesn't specifically mention the individual. Here is all of the primary source's discussion of NPR (full primary source available at [22] ):

Some time ago, when a spokesman for NRA called National Public Radio, to complain about a news report in which we believed that NPR had deliberately misrepresented our views. NPR series editor Larry Abramson responded, contemptuously, "your p.r. is your problem." So be it. If NPR's misrepresentations of the views of NRA are indeed "our problem," our members will endeavor to fix it. ...

The NRA has experienced this first hand. In December of 1989 NPR conducted an editorial essay, masked as a "news feature," in support of gun control. In one broadcast NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said "(t)here may be a lively debate about whether the Constitution confers on individuals the right to bear arms, but that debate is not on in America's courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. Indeed, even the National Rifle Association could not recommend for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals the right to bear arms.

No debate in America's scholarly legal journals? An informal survey of the literature suggests that no less than 28 law journal articles supporting the thesis that the Second Amendment protects an individual right appeared between 1960 and 1989; this includes the American Bar Association Journal. No Constitutional law professors who support this view? Hardly. In December 1989, the very month in which Miss Totenberg made this broadcast, University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional scholar, had published an article in the Yale Law Review entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." In the article, Professor Levinson says that the right protected (not "conferred", as she would have it), is an individual right. So on these counts, at least, she was demonstrably, flat out, wrong. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe America's premier legal reporter just hadn't visited a reasonably well equipped law library to review the Periodical to Legal Literature, or had not seen the Yale Law Review, when she made the broadcast.

What about the National Rifle Association and the names of the legal scholars? This is a different story. When asked for the names of scholars, NRA spokeswoman Debbie Nauser gave Miss Totenberg the names of three (3) -- count them -- scholars. There is no room for doubt here. In the words of Josiah Royce, the reporter had "willfully misplaced her ontological predicates."

More recently, the CrimeStrike Division of NRA, following the murder of several Korean-American merchants in the District of Columbia, met with a group of these merchants to discuss some legislation which we had proposed for D.C. Following this meeting, during an NPR news magazine and documentary broadcast, an NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, gave a harangue against the NRA for having attended the meeting. She said that we had gone there to tell Korean merchants that blacks are criminals. She said that our initials should stand for the "Negro Removal Association." She said that we wanted sixteen year old boys to carry Uzis because the gun would probably be used to kill a black person. ...

We have asked every one of the hundreds of NPR member stations for an opportunity to give an adequate response to a scurrilous attack. One, and only one, gave us this right.''

The secondary source is a Cleveland Plain-Dealer news article on January 20, 1995:

James H. Warner of the National Rifle Association complained about a National Public Radio report that "deliberately misrepresented our views."

Yes, that would be OR. I'm sure NPR has done a number of pieces covering various aspects of the NRA, and we cannot know that the Cleveland Plain-Dealer article from 1995 is addressing the complaint that Warner made back in 1989. An additional problem is that your primary source, from http://www.urbin.net/, is not reliable--the web site is a personal one, and the document published there appears to be been taken from Usenet, neither of which are reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't it be said that we can know that the report spoken of in the Plain-Dealer is Totenberg's report, as it is the only NPR report mentioned in the entirety of Warner's Congressional testimony that the Plain-Dealer article references (the only other thing he talks about that was aired on NPR is a commentary, not a report)? BTW, the link to the source is a convenience link only--the source can be found at Lexis-Nexis behind a paywall. I should have made that clear earlier. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source 2ndary source that say that, you can, I think. But if you have that, you don't need the primary you listed or the secondary. WP is not about what we know or what we can figure out, but rather what is documented in reliable sources. BTW, I have access to lexis-nexis, and there's no requirement that a source be available online--if you have access to the original source, please provide a reference to that, rather than a reproduction. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Electoral Commission

Is the Australian Electoral Commission website[23] a primary or secondary source for Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)? It is being used as source for its decision on the allowing the LDP to register under its current name and for votes it received in elections. TFD (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• The AEC presents an administrative decision, with a published date, authorising bureaucrat, and a summary, "The delegate of the Australian Electoral Commission determined that the application by the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) to change its registered name under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 should be accepted and the name (and abbreviation) Liberal Democratic Party (Liberal Democrats [LDP]) be entered in the Register of Political Parties.". The AEC is an Australian government instrumentality renowned for its impartiality, circumspect behaviour, and direct open accountability. As such, the AEC is trustworthy when stating its opinion. For the AEC to state that the LDP was approved to reregister under a certain name on a certain date, they would be a simple secondary source for this matter. While they are an "involved party" as the registering office, their public accountability and clear direct reporting of matters to the public indicates a trustworthyness and impartiality that removes them from a partial position in relation to the LDP. Treat as secondary for the summary of action, date, and authorising bureaucrat. As the AEC isn't a court, do not rely on the contained material which would require legal expertise to interpret. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not an issue of reliablity, but of the type of information. A primary source for example cannot establish notability. Articles should not be based solely on primary sources. TFD (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the issue is notability than the AEC cannot establish notability. Any registrable organisation which applies to the AEC for registration will be registered. There is nothing which indicates a registered political party is in itself notable. The standards for Australian political party notability would be coverage in academic or significant news media reportage. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

self- supporting thin- shell dome

Hi

I'm a newbie here, and this is my first post.

The article in the subject line doesn't yet exist in Wikipedia. I have it prepared but have questions about submitting it.

The subject stands alone because of its mathematics, however the math is my own, and demonstrates the existence and proof of such a dome.

Is there a way to submit the information to Wikipedia for inclusion in Wikipedia without first finding someone to publish the math and description? In the above case, attributing to someone else's authority seems moot.

I've submitted the information to a math journal, but it wasn't published there, the response being that the journal didn't publish that specific type of math. I have several emails containing the comments of editors in response to submission of the article. Is there a simple way for me to pass the criteria for entry without time- consuming Catch-22 method?

Thanks much

Zigzagzot (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not suitable for Wikipedia as it is original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that only covers subject matter that has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. If and when your demonstration and proof has received such coverage, it may meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I have added a welcome message to your talk page with lots of helpful links. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian mortalism

Is this statement original synthesis? "A review of nine standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources shows that the majority of them describe the Biblical view of the state of the dead in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view." It's backed up with numerous footnotes. See Christian mortalism#Modern scholarship. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely unless there is a reliable source for this 'review of nine' sources websites, but it seems to have been done by an editor. Among other things, maybe they were chosen to give the desired result. Even if that were not the case, still OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly they are not websites, they are standard reference sources (dictionaries and encyclopedias), all of them WP:RS. Secondly direct quotes are provided from each for verifiability. Is it original research to say that source X says Y? Yes or no?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR to say that X says Y, but it is OR to say that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J, when assessed and combined, support assertion Y. --Nuujinn (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. That is not what is being done here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources being quoted are Harper's Bible Dictionary (1st ed. 1985), New Bible Dictionary (3rd. ed. 1996), Encyclopedia of Judaism (2000), New Dictionary of Theology (2000), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’ (rev. ed. 2002), The Encyclopedia of Christianity’(2003), The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’ (3rd rev. ed. 2005), The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (rev. ed. 2009). They are not being used to say that all standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources have this view. Is it WP:OR to say they have view X and quote them expressing view X? Bear in mind that User:St Anselm has consistently removed large numbers of WP:RS citations from the article, all of which citations just so happen to contradict his theological POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of interest Doug, what led you to believe that Harper's Bible Dictionary (1st ed. 1985), New Bible Dictionary (3rd. ed. 1996), Encyclopedia of Judaism (2000), New Dictionary of Theology (2000), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’ (rev. ed. 2002), The Encyclopedia of Christianity’(2003), The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’ (3rd rev. ed. 2005), The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (rev. ed. 2009), are websites?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clear cut original research. Please read WP:NOR. If an editor has conducted the "review" it is original research, no ifs, ors ands or buts about it. On top of that, where the sentence reads, "... in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view" there is clearly OR there as well. Editors are looking at primary sources and judging their contents to be "very close to" something else. Are there no reliable sources about what the mainstream view here is? You can always use words like "some" or many and then hash out the accuracy of those words on the talk page. While that might be less precise than what you have presented, it doesn't require original research.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I cited the mainstream majority view, the scholarly consensus, from a WP:RS. I reworded the introduction, since all "A review of nine..." meant was "Nine standard scholarly sources say...". Apparently saying that X number of scholarly sources say Y is also WP:OR, so I took that out as well. The reworded paragraph now says exactly what the original paragraph did in different words. I have also added another half a dozen WP:RS citations, which might look clumsy but which is necessary if WP:OR is to be avoided (apparently).--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. As it stands it is OR. Apologies for writing 'websites', I can't imagine what I was thinking as I'd looked to see what the sources were. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, we all have our moments.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Time travel urban legends

See also:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22#The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Charlie Chaplin and time travel
• Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Notability of 'time traveler' film in The Circus
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends

Time travel urban legends has been undergoing a deletion discussion with an active primary contributor attempting a rewrite at Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox. The user in question is an excellent writer, however, there is still some confusion about what constitutes OR and WP:SYN, and continuing problems with WP:RS. I've very briefly touched on some of the problems over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends, but I would appreciate some fresh eyes on the sandbox rewrite. One major part of the problem, is that when one goes to check up on the sources, one discovers they have nothing to do with time travel, and the arguments and conclusions reached appear to belong to the editor, not to the sources. For examples of this problem, see the following in Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox:

1. Introductory, cherry picked quote attributed to Rodney Dale has nothing to do with time travel urban legends. The actual reference is about UFOs.[24]
2. The entire first paragraph has nothing to do with time travel urban legends. Two authors are used, Dégh (2001) and Jones (2006) to advance a theory not found in the sources. Regardless of the reliability of Jones (obviously fringe), p. 78 of the source does not support the content in the article.[25]
3. The second paragraph begins by bringing up the concept of time in ancient cultures. The source has nothing to do with time travel or urban legends.[26] The user then uses the point raised by this source to make an argument and observation about cultures that travel forward in time, particularly Hindu mythology. The sources used to argue this point are primary and unreliable and represent only the opinion of the editor.[27][28]
4. It is argued that Honi HaM'agel is an example of a time travel legend, but no RS is provided supporting this idea.[29]
5. We are told that the first fictional time travel stories about traveling backwards in time appeared in the 19th century. But the source supporting this claim is an anthology containing the story, not a reliable source making the claim.[30]
6. It is claimed that the Moberly–Jourdain incident of 1901 represents the first claim of time travel outside of literature. However, there is no indication that the source in the article supports this statement.
7. We are told that the structure of the time travel urban legend "may vary from case to case, but common motifs re-occur". But, the source cited doesn't say anything about this.[31]

I can go on like this, in paragraph after paragraph, source after source, but you get the idea. It would be helpful if someone could take User:Stuart.Jamieson under their wing and mentor him, as he's a good writer but doesn't fully understand the OR (and RS) policy and guidelines. I've tried to explain the problem to him in several different discussions but he won't listen to me. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this Viriditas, let me cover your points:

1. The Rodney Dale quote is taken from a series of Paragraphs where he essentially says that the different aspects of Fringe Science are interchangeable when talking about explanations versus proof, he then gives a series of examples the first of which indeed uses the term UFO but is set up in the previous sentence to be about all fringe science - It does not change Dale's meaning only remove the specificness of his example. Given your concerns, it was removed at my first opportunity to do so.

2. That Paragraph sets the context of Urban Legends, and is mostly copied/adapted from Urban Legends, the claim of synthesis is accepted but I considered that Dégh (2001) did not affect the meaning of Jones (2006) however again given Viriditas concerns I changed the line at first opportunity.

3,4,5 Not my Work - all merged from Time Travel something I had suggested in the AfD and was testing in talk space. I have not substantially considered editing/adapting it yet - Not my OR.

6 granted I should have started "a claim of Time travel appeared." rather than claiming the first a simple mistake.

7 The text reads that common motifs appear in "Urban Legends" misreading seems to be a common problem here the ref is slightly wrong identifying the following page rather than previous page where author discusses how Urban Legends are categorised into common themes. I did synthesis here by using bad punctuation though I believe I have corrected that now.

Overall I should point out that the cause of my actions was due to Viriditas altering text in the original article to claim that the causes of all items in the list was proven - an OR that was not held by any of the sources in the article. Any attempt to correct led to him arguing RS and WP:Lead essentially setting criteria that no-one could remove his OR attempts to engage him in BRD led to him claiming he was removing OR by me even though more than half the material he removed was by another editor not myself. I am happy that the rest of my work stands up to scrutiny and I am perfectly happy for it to be checked, and I am working on identifying enough sources to recover this piece as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not covered any of my points, nor do you seem to understand the OR policy. Previous concerns were raised on the talk page of the article, and your response was to deny them entirely, and to post a new draft in the main space that added more OR. This is unacceptable. In reply to the above:

1. The Rodney Dale quote has nothing to do with the subject and you appear to have removed it as a result. However, you have now replaced it with a cherry picked quote from a fringe source that has nothing to do with urban legends, a quote you've chosen out of context to promote your POV.[32] This shows that you either haven't read the OR policy or don't understand it.
2. You appear to have accepted the criticism of the first paragraph, but you've replaced it with more OR, this time adding Nahin (1999).[33] Again, you are not understanding the OR policy. Nothing in that source supports the topic.

I can go on and on as before, but you need to sit down, read the OR policy and show some understanding of it. The pattern here is clear: A problem with OR in your writing is raised, you delete it, and add more OR. This can't continue, and it should not continue in main space. Please move your personal essay to your user space. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, no both reference time travel as a myth - which i've pointed out in the AfD are used as synonyms for Legends within many sources which is why I proposed renaming the article away from Urban Legends - a name that although I suggested was jumped upon by another editor before further discussion took place as to whether it was supported by sources.

1. The chapter of the book discusses the origins of myths and legends and how many are based on concepts about progressing individually or as a society, it then discusses how time travel myths are a reversion of that - wanting to go back to a simpler time.

2. The entire Nahim book is on this subject contrasting folkloric(another common synonym of Legend) stories of time travel with the real physics. Specifically in that paragraph he distances folkloric tales of time travel from folkloric tales of other pseudosciences such as ESP or spoonbending.

Like it or not this is a fringe belief, as such the majority of sources will be fringe, and cover the pseudoscience neutrally - your refusal to accept that, makes sourcing difficult for anyone trying to live up to the FA criteria you keep applying to the article. I am well versed in OR policy despite your regular ad-hominems otherwise, and whilst I have had difficulty wording this particular article - which is why it's being developed in talk space not main space - I don't believe the problems are insurmountable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart, you've made it clear that you want to replace the current article with a personal essay you created at Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox. Because this is your own work, and you've ignored all discussion about it, it belongs in your user space. Now, to begin where I left off:

1. The easiest way to solve this problem and to move on, is to cite a source you feel best represents the main points of the topic. Unfortunately, this can't be done, because no such source exists. That gives you an indication that you are dealing with OR. In other words, when questions arise about OR, no matter what topic, an editor should immediately be able to cite a single source that best summarizes the main points of the topic. To continue:
2. You raise the concept of time in the second paragraph in an attempt to argue about cultures that travel forward in time. The sources you cite,[34][35][36] do not support the claims you have made. Without supporting sources, these claims represent your own opinion, not the opinion of the sources. You may not understand how we use primary sources, as you appear to be interpreting them rather than citing secondary sources that make these interpretations for us.
3. Nahin (1999) has nothing to do with "time travel urban legends".[37]
4. You claim that "the structure of Urban Legends vary from case to case, but common motifs often re-occur". Your source says nothing about time travel, however you use this source to support your claim that "within those on time travel, there are legends about individuals who either openly or pseudonymously report to have time travelled themselves", and you go on to provide examples, examples not related to the sources about urban legends. This is all OR as you make several claims about motifs that are not found in any sources. This is simply your opinion.
5. As for the rest, you surprisingly claim that because you didn't write it, you haven't removed it, which tells me you still don't recognize OR when you see it.

In short, you are still adding and preserving original research. As a solution to this continuing problem, I recommend that you delete the entire essay and use the talk page to work on a collaborative version with other editors. You may even be interested in the article incubation process, where you would work with other experienced editors. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not made it clear I want to replace it. I made it clear I wanted debate on whether an article in this format would be preferable to one in a list format (and thus more likely to survive the AfD)- or should an article in this format be retained alongside one in a list format. I still believe the List format is a preferable one but you seem to want some coverage of the subject as a whole in order to support any kind of inclusion criteria in the Lead.

1. In my opinion the best source that covers the work as a whole is Jenny Randles', "Time Travel: Fact, Fiction and Possibility", which covers the subject in the way you wish. However it has been several years since I've had a copy of that work in my possession and local book-stores and libraries are not stocking it. I believe Lionel Fanthorpe's "Mysteries and Secrets of Time: Time Warps, Time Travel, Reincarnation and Deja Vu" would also be a suitable source but again accessing Lionel's analysis of the sources is difficult since Google books covers mostly his case reposts and not overall analysis of the cases, again local suppliers do not stock this where I am. Though I do own some sources relevant to this subject, they are in storage an inaccessible to me - I am trying to use other sources as best I can.

2,5. The entire second paragraph has been merged from Time Travel and I have not as yet checked the accuracy of the sources. Ths does not mean that I "don't recognize OR when [I] see it" it means that in this draft of a rewrite I have merged some text without checking it yet. Please stop with the condescending statements such as 5. Please stop inferring that this is somehow my OR as if I have written this text, when you can check who the authors are for yourself.

3.Nahin refers to them as "Speculations", others use "Legend", others use "Myth", other still use "Folklore" and a ton of different terms to describe these styles of story. I originally suggested Urban Legends as a possible title but left the actual title open for discussion and consensus it was Slater Steven who locked the article down to use "Urban Legends" and the AfD has shown that there is still disagreement about the use of that term which is too specific. Nahin's entire work is based on a comparison of these "Speculations" against actual physics and though he concentrates on published speculations such as those found in science fiction (rather than those told orally) his work covers similar ground to Randles and Fanthorpe and would be my #3 source. However "The encyclopaedia of American Folklore" also makes the connection discussing published folklore on time travel such as "A Connecticut Yankee..." alongside more orally transmitted tales such as "Sleeping Beauty" so Nahin should not be dismissed on his preference of published tales.

4. The source says that within legends, common motifs and categorisations appear - like Dale the examples given are not exhausted and the source clearly claims that. Dégh also states the same but is not referenced here. I will accept that my current sourcing on the examples does not prove these motifs are widely accepted but this is a draft rewrite and there is room for further sourcing to confirm that they are before it finally makes it into main space.

Do you understand the purpose of the article incubation process? It is for articles which have been considered for deletion and consensus is that they require improvement before entering the main space. The original version of this article is not in that position and at the moment that is all that is important (which is good because the sandbox version is simply an attempt to meet your complaints vis-a-vis WP:Lead.) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart, I don't see you acknowledging any of the problems, but rather brushing them off with an excuse each time I bring them up. My "complaint" is that you are deliberately invoking IAR when it comes to adhering to NOR, and you are aware of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I also add the fact you've added an {{about}} hatnote with three debates I am not connected with, seem to suggest your intentions are far more WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the content than any real review of my editing ability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart, don't personalize this more than it already is. You're a good editor, but you still need to learn about OR. We all have our strengths and weaknesses;you are a strong writer (and could probably help others improve their composition skills) but weak on keeping your personal theories out of the article. While you may not be directly connected with other issues related to this topic, it is important to leave a note showing that this topic is undergoing discussion on various issues, with multiple editors. I apologize if you are taking this personally. Perhaps we should proceed by not referring to editors and just to ideas and concepts. That would certainly alleviate any hurt feelings. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you personalised this. You continually make claims about my apparent OR problem yet only ever cite this article - I've been editing for almost 4 years, though a chunk (2007-early 2010) as an I.P. I have numerous articles I have written or re-written - I have worked with experienced editors to improve articles none of whom considered I had an OR problem in my writing. I've had several article reviews again no OR issue has been raised with my work, in fact I even had a Copyvio investigation worried that I was citing sources too closely but was quickly cleared on the basis that aside from my first ever new article, I was striking the right balance. Even in asking me not to personalize you again make a condescending claim about how I "still need to learn about OR" - it's not as neutral a statement as you may have thought when writing it. Your comments on points #2, and #5 above only go to show how despite more important articles in the rest of the encyclopaedia suffering worse problems - you would rather use that fact to pin further complaints against me. Please desist from interacting with me in this manner. If you wish to proceed by not referring to editors and just to ideas and concepts then go ahead but this OR/N is against me personally and it would be difficult to continue it without assessing me further. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but every time I bring up the problem, you raise some kind of distraction and excuse. I don't know what to say at this point, other than to tell you that the sandbox version cannot remain there for long, and it most certainly cannot replace the current article. You say you understand NOR, but I see no evidence that is true. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Strike that; I see you've removed it and it has been deleted. I guess you do understand after all. My apologies. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, my deletion has has nothing to do with any of the points you have raised here - it is to do with the fact that the intention was to raise further debate on the deletion arguments for a list at AfD and to compare those arguments to the delete arguments for non-notable subject as an article. As the AfD has closed in favour of a keep, the rewrite can be archived unless it becomes pertinent in a future nomination. As to your other points, I have never "Brushed off" any of your suggestions - I took much of your advise, blanking out sections, replacing quotes and sections that appeared synthesised, however you have made POV statements on sources reliability and meaning which I have dismissed because your POV is not the be all and end all - get further input if you think it's needed. I only ever quoted IAR once and that was about the application of WP:Lead at a FA level - I do not IAR unless it would improve the article to do so, creating a summary of the subject at the top of a list does improve the article and is actually required as the first paragraph of the lead per WP:Lead - summing up the individual cases as per other parts of WP:Lead would not have significantly improved the article at this point in it's lifecycle and again WP:Lead suggests that for lists the Lead covering the subject generally (and unsourced) is fine - for instance it points to List of environmental issues as an example to be followed which has no citations at all but sums up the subject. Your OR claims against me are most concerning - especially since you chose to retain the majority of the material that you have marked as OR and instead of dealing with the (claimed) OR nature you simply retained it and reworded it to push your Non-NPOV against the fringe theory - never mind the fact that this article is a fringe theory article and to remain neutral needs to sum up the content in a way that represents both sides of the concern - in fact on many of the cases listed, the comments of experts refuse to debunk the time travel claim, for instance on mobile phone woman Philip Skroska says "it would be hasty to dismiss [The rational explanation]" rather than commuting to a a claim that the rational explanation is right. The article explaining the opening of the south fork bridge presents it as the least likely of several explanations. Reliable sources such as Randles and Fanthorpe do the same yet you think it is more appropriate to make the OR claim that "All of these reports have turned out to either be hoaxes or to be based on incorrect assumptions, incomplete information or interpretation of fiction as fact." which is not representative of the sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Speed of gravity

For a little while now, User:Antichristos has been inserting a variety of arguments - logically dubious syntheses of other sources - in support of a fringe position. In my opinion, he has also made a number of other edits which have drastically worsened the quality of the article in order to bring it more in line with his peculiar opinions. Rafaelgr (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The one argument that matters is that a reliable source has described something. Antichristos is indulging in original research and is causing disruption. Being right or logical does not matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it has to be published and summarized reasonably faithfully in accordance with its weight in the literature. There is no literature, they should go and get their own paper published if their ideas are so wonderful. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discipline

See this series of edits: someone thinks the Gospel of Matthew has something to say on the topic of discipline. I've reverted three times already; the IP does not respond to talk page remarks, does not give edit summaries, does not seem to know that encyclopedic information should a. be encyclopedic and b. have reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That whole section is unsourced. How about finding some source about military discipline and why it is applied? At the moment it is just people sticking in their own thoughts which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be developed. Personally I think both versions are just OR. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should this article be tagged for neutrality, original research and synthesis? (Posted to both neutrality and OR noticeboards.)

The concept was developed in the book Radical Right, with contributors Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, Seymour Martin Lipset, Peter Viereck, Daniel Bell, Talcott Parsons and others.[38] Lipset wrote a history of the Radical Right.[39] More recently books have been written about the Radical Right by Sara Diamond,[40], Chip Berlet,[41] and others.

User:Collect says that "The references used are not checkable on line - zero...."

TFD (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)