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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Moon Landrieu

The part of the article on "Moon Landrieu when he was a Mayor has several incorrect facts. The Mayor of New Orleans is the Executive Branch. The City Council is the Legislative Branch of Government. This part of the government makes laws and puts them on the books, not the executive branch. The Mayor as part of the executive branch would not have had that power or authorization to interfere in the business of the legislative branch. There are five district councilman or women and two elected "at -large" city wide for a total of seven. Five members of the City Council can override a Mayor's veto. On the subject of who chose A.L. Davis the first African American to be on the city council. It was the City Council that chooses the replacements not the Mayor from the Executive Branch. In fact it was Eddie L. Sapir that was voted in Moon Landrieu's old DIstrict "B" seat when he was elected as Mayor of New Orleans. All of the accomplishments you attribute to Moon happen after he was Mayor. These are in fact the the accomplishments of Eddie L. Sapir, a well know fact here especially among the older African American people. It was and still is the custom that the city council person leaving in good standing will choose their replacement and the other councilmen or women will support that choice. In this particular instance Eddlie L. Sapir was elected as judge. He was the councilman from District "B" Rev. A.L.. Davis was also from District B. It was Judge Eddie L. Sapir that chose A.L. Davis the first african american to be on the city council to take his seat until an election was called to permanently fill the District B seat. It was also Eddie L. Sapir that lead the charge for the public accommodations law as well as taking down the confederation flag in the council chambers. Eddie also fought the fight against Moon Landreiu and others in the 60's when the powers that be, wanted to put another bridge across the Mississippi River. This action would have destroyed our future riverfront developments and everything we have today. Woldenberg Park, the Ouarter, the Riverwalk shops, our huge convention center facility. This ignited a big controversy with the people who lived in and loved this city. Eddie fought his heart out while on the council, went to Washington and told them the right place to put it was next to the existing bridge. He won the battle against all odds. He was the city hero. Twenty years and countless studies later the bridge was built exactly where he said it should be built, next to the first bridge. In all the elections Eddie was in, he never lost. While on the bench he was never opposed. Eddie at his time was the youngest elected person when elected to the House of Representatives. Moon and Eddie soon became good friends and allies. That strong friendship carries on to this day.

Information on A.L. Davis appeared in Jet Magazine February 13, 1975

Eddie Sapir sworn In January 1975

Minutes from Council Meetings regarding all subject matter are recorded and written up and now televised as well.

google

British Bangladeshi

Continued unsourced additions by Mark Hayesworth [1] to a good article, without explanations or citations. Requesting assistance rather than edit-warring. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This new(?) contributor just seems unwilling to talk, or to stop. I think a block will be the end result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mark_Hayesworth_at_British_Bangladeshi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented there. My experience is that wholesale additions of unsourced content and original research are usually removed, especially from high-quality articles. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning criticism of kosher slaughter in the Criticism of Judaism article

On the talk page of Criticism of Judaism an editor has repeatedly alleged that the section of the article on kosher slaughter is original research. For the entire discussion see:

• Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism#Kosher_slaughter

A majority of editors commenting do not agree that it is original research, and because of this I've repeatedly asked the other editor to start an RfC or a thread here to ask for outside input on the matter if he wants to try to get consensus for his POV. He has not done so, and therefore I am now doing that for him. I'd like this to be settled so that it doesn't come up again and again every week. Any comments, but particularly uninvolved comments, would be greatly appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I just hate all these "Criticism of... religion" articles. I can't see any way to get them to conform with NPOV. I suppose if there is to be an article with this title, then criticism of Kosher slaughter is one thing people would expect to see in it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent about "Criticism of ..." articles even more generally ... not just religion. However, I don't see them disappearing from the project, and IMO the kosher slaughter section of this article is a good example of a fairly neutral presentation of the material. It gives a pretty balanced view of the topic, explicitly covering how such criticisms were at times part of antisemitic canards and how recent research answers the criticisms of animal rights groups. If a "Criticism of ..." article is simply a pile-on of negative commentary then I'm inclined to think it doesn't belong, but when it is more balanced it can be quite informative. The difficulty is keeping them balanced, but I think editors at this entry are trying in good faith to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved, but given that it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record, and, as Griswaldo says, not showing much interest in seeking more productive discussion, I don't see much to be gained by Griswaldo opening this thread, other than seeking reassurance (especially since it will keep coming up even if editors here are clear about it not being OR). I know that Griswaldo doesn't much listen to my advice, but I'll give advice anyway: don't let that one editor get to you so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful to distinguish between the two separate issues going on here. There's one issue, which is whether or not a section on criticism of kosher slaughter belongs in an article on criticism of Judaism. Underlyingly, that's not the issue being disputed at the article. The issue being disputed at the article is whether editors can project onto FAWC a context that FAWC never itself so much as implied. The bottom-line question is Is FAWC being critical of Judaism in its criticism of kosher slaughter? The answer is that to associate FAWC with criticism of Judaism, when what they're criticizing is kosher and halal slaughter, is original research. There's nothing in what FAWC says to indicate that they have an problem with Judaism, and we can't synthesize their criticism of kosher and halal slaughter into an article on criticism of Judaism in a way that mischaracterizes them as criticizing something that in all likelihood don't have any problem with. If FAWC had criticized Judaism, it wouldn't be original research to mention them in the context of the article. But nowhere has FAWC expressed any criticism of Judaism – not the religion, not the people, not Jewish history, not Jewish philosophy. They've criticized one component of Judaism and never articulated their criticism as a criticism of Judaism. It's therefore original research to make an inferential leap from one criticism to another.

Now, is the section on kosher slaughter original research? That depends. Given that it's nowhere been established that FAWC is critical of Judaism, it's pure WP:SYNTH to mention FAWC in the section and attribute things to that organization that they never themselves took a position on. So yes, on some level at least, the section constitutes original research. Ergo, is it just "an editor" repeatedly alleging that the section on kosher slaughter is original research? No, that's again a mischaracterization of the debate taking place on the Dicussion page. There have been issues raised that continue to go unaddressed by the editors arguing for the inclusion of FAWC in the article. And the situation is made worse by the same inclusion-bent editors engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics to isolate one editor they disagree with and pommel him with nasty remarks. Add to that the fact that one of these editors just had to revert an entire section he added to the article because he failed to verify any of the sources in his addition, and there's probably a more serious problem at work here.—Biosketch (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch your argument fails because the view of Judaism you present is incomplete. You suggest that the Farm Animal Welfare Council isn't criticizing "the religion ... the people ... Jewish history ... Jewish philosophy," and therefore it isn't criticizing "Judaism." How is it that you are excluding religious practice and ritual from "the religion," or from your overall picture of "Judaism?" The various practices of the Jewish ritual tradition are at the core of Judaism as a religion, and the Jewish way of life more generally. To claim that a traditional Jewish practice, which is proscribed in religious texts, isn't part of the religion is beyond my comprehension. Reliable sources also show that Jewish groups feel that the FAWC is being critical of their religion, because they consider the practice an essential part of that religion. This has all been explained with sourcing on the talk page. In the end, please also recognize that the FAWC material is about 1/4 of the entire section, so when editors like Jayjg call the entire section OR, we're dealing with much more than just this issue, which you have oddly twisted the debate into only addressing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Jayjg actually argues that the entire section is original research. That is why I posted this. Biosketch's reply does not address the scope of Jay's disagreement which is, again, why I posted this. I'll respond to Biosketch as well, but contrary to what Biosketch says, there are indeed editors arguing that the entire section is OR and it isn't a "tactic" to engage those editors on their actual arguments. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, and in the future, don't make straw man arguments or "clarifications" on my behalf. See my more complete response below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's what User:Jayjg argues or not. There's a general problem of people misrepresenting or misconstruing one another's arguments. From my perspective it isn't so much that the section is original research but rather that it's WP:SYNTHESIS to force FAWC into an article on criticism of Judaism when they never expressed any criticism of Judaism. WP:SYN is a section of WP:OR; so yes, at least on some level the section constitutes original research.—Biosketch (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this is your opinion, now can you please address the actual argument I made to you above about the scope of Judaism. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times is it necessary to tell you: FAWC nowhere expressed any criticism of Judaism. We have no information from them directly that they have any problem at all with Judaism. They've taken issue with kosher and halal slaughter. Does that mean they have a problem with Judaism and Islam? It assuredly doesn't. If you want to attribute to them an attitude that's critical of Judaism, you need a source – from FAWC or from a reliable news source – where FAWC's criticism is directed at Judaism. They've made no indication that they have a problem with Judaism, hence you cannot characterize them as attacking Judaism. Characterizing FAWC as having criticized Judaism when they never articulated any criticism of Judaism is pure OR.—Biosketch (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I've deleted FAWC from the page, although I don't know whether I'll be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, despite Trytofish's claim that "it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record", there are actually several people who have objected to this section on OR grounds, including the editor who placed the tag on the section in the first place (and that wasn't me, I might add). Second, I'd appreciate it if editors here would not make straw man arguments in my name - particularly if they don't have the decency to tell me about this discussion or their presentations in my name.
My consistent point has been that the sources in this section have not stated that they are criticising Judaism; on the contrary, as I've pointed out, they would likely vociferously deny this accusation - pretty much the point Biosketch makes in his comment of 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC) directly above. In fact, they are criticising shechita, a practice observed or demanded by a small number of Jews and not considered mandatory by many Jewish religious movements. In fact, these critics are often merely insisting that animals be anesthetized before shechita is done. This is a problem with all the sources used in the section; none of them say (or even imply) they are criticising Judaism per se. When challenged, the editors who insist on using these sources bring various other statements from the sources which neither state nor imply a criticism of Judaism itself, and then say that what the sources really mean is that they are criticising Judaism, despite not actually saying so. This is, of course, Original Research.
I have no objection to criticism of shechita in the shechita article. Nor would I have any objection to this section in the Criticism of Judaism article if the sources actually said something like "one of the problems with Judaism is that it demands shechita". Neither, however, is the case here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is original research. The article is called Criticism of Judaism. That happens to define its scope. Its scope is not just anything that seems approximately similar to "criticism of Judaism". No group or individual finds fault with the religion when they articulate that in their opinion there is unnecessary suffering associated with a method of slaughter. They are in fact referring to a topic that might be called animal welfare. That is an unrelated topic to the topic indicated by the title of the article. That topic does not belong in this article—in fact the inclusion of that topic would be highly misleading. By putting "Kosher slaughter" in this article we would be misleading the reader into thinking that those expressing objection to kosher slaughter have articulated an objection to Judaism when they have not—according to sources. We can't and we shouldn't be reading into the motives behind objection to kosher slaughter. Objective and respected commentators such as Temple Grandin support the counter-thesis that the method of slaughter used in producing kosher meat is not more cruel or painful than methods used in dispatching the animals that supply the non-kosher food market. If the groups or individuals opposing kosher slaughter cannot be found to to be formulating an objection to the religion then we should not be foisting on the reader that in fact Judaism is being objected to when these groups and individuals are in fact objecting to a method of killing animals. Let us not mix and muddle these two unrelated topics. No source has yet been presented in which a group or individual presents any semblance of an objection to Judaism. We should not be including in the "Criticism of Judaism" article a section on kosher slaughter unless sources can be found supporting exactly that contention. Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Boxford, Massachusetts

Section on points of interest is becoming a site of contention, beginning with an attempt to link to a business whose importance I've questioned. Link has been restored, along with much original research, no sources. Taking here rather than edit warring. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a better place to start would be on the talk page of the article. Has there been discussion of this somewhere other than edit summaries? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps; I think this is primarily an effort by several accounts to slide Ponix Laboratories into Wikipedia, and I'm asking for a broader overview. This edit summary [2], accompanied by an unacceptable reference, kind of makes my point. Aside from Ponix the larger issue now being broached is whether local notability, unsupported by any sources, is enough to justify content that's essentially chamber of commerce text and/or spamming, and appears to be mostly, if not all, original research. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(Same user as above, new IP) Given that this appears more and more to be about the laboratory getting its name into the encyclopedia, in one article or another, and that three separate registered users are acting as WP:SPA accounts, this may be more appropriate to discuss at a different noticeboard. Comments or bold move elsewhere welcome. 99.178.163.46 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think initiating discussion on the talk page would be a good idea, esp. if we are to assume good faith. I do see your point, but let's see how it goes. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nuujinn. I've initiated discussion at the Boxford talk page, Ponix talk page, and at the talk pages of several users. My take is that the defense of the 'Points of interest' section isn't the real agenda here. 99.178.163.46 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Great American streetcar scandal

The article Great American streetcar scandal is badly compromised by synthesis and original research, starting with the name. First of all, there are no sources that use this name. It is used by Wikipedia editors to refer to an alleged conspiracy that every reliable source presented so far agrees did not happen--that GM purposefully destroyed the streetcar system in the United States. It is true that they were found guilty of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. But that is all. The hyperbolic and fanciful title is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia to invent.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The conspiracy did happen. There was a court case which decided against the conspirators, fining them $1. The tiny fine showed how the court determined there were many other social and economic factors working against the light rail line operators.

Regarding the problem with original research, I thought most of the article was based on the 1995 book by Bradford Snell: The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit. Have you read it? Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, GM was found guilty only of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. That is a tangential issue to what the article is purportedly about. As far the book you mention goes, I can find no trace of it. It certainly doesn't seem to have been published by a reputable publisher, and it is not cited in the article. However, it is indeed clear that the article is principally based on Snell's allegations, made in other contexts, which are ultimately dismissed as unfounded by every reliable source the article does cite, including the detailed assessment in Urban Affairs Quarterly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit is cited in the bibliography, not via inline refs. The work was published by the New Electric Railway Journal. Here are three scholarly papers that cite it. Here's another, a paper cited in turn by others. Here's another, one in which Snell is quoted saying that he thinks that in 1922 GM decided specifically to kill the streetcars. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well, then we have a single reliable source that characterizes the events as a conspiracy. That shows only there is an alleged conspiracy by that one source, which all the other reliable sources given dispute. Titling the article "Great American streetcar scandal" endorses the view that the conspiracy really did happen, which is hopelessly POV. It also makes it even worse by throwing in the sensational word "scandal," which is also found exactly nowhere in any sources and is purely an editorial adjective thrown in by wikipedia.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If I might jump in here, I looked to find this "book" and couldn't but I did find an out of print item on Amazon self-pubished by Bradford Snell called: Statement of Bradford C. Snell before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly: Presented at hearings on the ground transportation ... in connection with S1167, February 26, 1974 [Unknown Binding]Bradford C Snell (Author). Perhaps THAT is the book being cited but under a different title? Google books turns up no result either but does show mention of a paper Snell wrote called GM & The Nazis published in a periodical called Ramparts June 1974. it seems that all the other google references to Bradford C. Snell are reflected back to his own publications or an article here or there which I can't get access to. I don't have a dog in this fight but the topic piqued my interest so I did a search to see what I could find. I hope this info is of some use. LiPollis (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to send you on a wild goose chase. The Snell document by the title "The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit" is a journal article. It is currently hosted at this URL. The book I first read about the conspiracy is probably Geography of Nowhere on pages 90–92, with related discussion of increasing automobile use before and after those pages. It was a while ago which is why I am still not clear about which book. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No bother! It was kinda fun. I found this page in my goose-chase that really has a fun paragraph about Snell. Check it out Eco Chronicle: GM Street Car Conspiracy was paranoid nonsense! The paragraph that begins with.. "Who doesn't know Bradford C. Snell, the founder of the GM Conspiracy Theory? He devised the whole plot so unreservedly that there was hardly any justification left to dribble over." Well, obviously we need to know more about this guy! Anyway, it was fun and got me to make a few edits. Can that be a bad thing? Nope ;-) LiPollis (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Call for a constitutional convention in Occupy Wall Street?

Should the following paragraph be added to Occupy Wall Street and summarized in its intro?

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, and others.

This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention. I do not understand why people are trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Dan Froomkin[3] and Peter M. Shane[4], both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC and on the Rachel Maddow show. (I am asking here because the only uninvolved party who responded where I first asked on RSN suggested ORN would be more appropriate.) Dualus (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, neither of those sources reports that. And Lessig wrote the book and planned his conference before OWS even existed.

As I and other editors have mentioned at the duplicate discussion over at RS/N, as well as other discussions in which your contentions (that OWS was somehow responsible for Lessig's book and conference, or that Lessig collaborating with a Tea Party leader somehow means that OWS was collaborating with the Tea Party) were rejected by numerous other editors, such as this discussion, and this one, and this one, you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the nature of the connection between OWS and Lessig. Even if, for example, Lessig publishes a book tomorrow entitled I am OWS — And So Can You!, that will still not mean that his conference, co-chaired with a Tea Party leader, is an instance of "OWS collaborating with the Tea Party". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The one uninvolved respondent at RSN asked that it be discussed here at ORN. Here are several more sources on the question. Dualus (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Lessig has nothing to do with the OWS movement, nor has he (as far as I know) commented upon it, I do have to wonder why an article on the Occupy Wall Street movement is discussing Lessig in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He has repeatedly commented on it, e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], and here he is speaking at it. Dualus (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and looking deeper, I stand more than corrected). But I still have to wonder why we mention him in the article in the first place. The purpose of the article should be to explain what the OSW movement is/was for future generations. How does mentioning Lessig further that goal? Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He's saying that there's no way the protesters can get what they want without a constitutional amendment, and he's trying to help them get one. Dualus (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What he is saying they should do is entirely different that what the protesters are actually doing. It is synthesis of material to take Lessig's opinion with the sources you have to imply that a constitutional convention has any meaningful aspect within OWS. Do you see the difference? Arzel (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The 99 Percent Declaration includes a call for a constitutional convention. Dualus (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand the concept of reliable sourcing. Arzel (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a news story saying that is the first official document from the New York City General Assembly. Dualus (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... I can see where Lessig himself has stated that, in his opinion, the protesters won't get what they want without a constitutional amendment... what I don't see is a statement from Lessig himself saying that he is trying to get them one. Do we have such a statement? If not, then someone else is interpreting Lessing's comments that way. If that someone else is a wikipedia editor, then we have a case of Original research. If not, we have to ask further questions... Is that someone else a reliable source? How much weight should we give that person's interpretation? At a minimum we would need to attribute the interpretation to the person who makes it - we need to say who believes that Lessig is trying to the OWS movement a constitutional amendment. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Lessig says, "That system for us is a representative democracy, cabined by a constitution that both limits the power of government and checks the power of one branch against the others. It is the rules of the game. The terms upon which competition happens. Sometimes those rules don't work. Or they don't work anymore. Sometimes they defeat the objectives of not just one side in a competition, but all sides. And when that happens, all sides need to stop the competition for a moment and fix the rules."[9] and [10] has a copy of his draft amendment. Dualus (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, though, Lessig had this idea, and was writing his book, and planning his conference, all before OWS came a long. He would have done this even if OWS had never come along. He's a progressive professor on Constitutional Law; this is his gig. As I said before, making proposals that are very appealing to OWS is very different to doing the same thing for or on behalf of OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone should probably ask Lessig whether he subscribes to Adbusters or is on their email list. I'm sure he knows people who do and are. Dualus (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Centrify's comment is apt here... there is a difference between calling for a constitutional convention and amendments, and calling for them specifically on behalf of the OWS movement. We need a source that directly links OWS to Lessing's calls for an amendment. Otherwise the connection, while perhaps quite logical, is a synthesis that we (ie Wikipedia editors) are making. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The most recent version cited [11] and there are many newer stories which have appeared that I'm working on. Dualus (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

All that source shows is that Lessig is very supportive of OWS. But OWS still had zero to do with Lessig's book, conference, and collaboration with the Tea Party leader. No amount of enthusiasm for Lessig's ideas after the fact is going to change that-- and we really haven't even seen any evidence that OWS is specifically interested in Lessig's idea in particular--rather, people have said that his proposals, like other proposals for constitutional amendment, should be of great interest to OWS. Hence none of this supports leading off the OWS demands and goals section with an extensive paragraph on Lessig, complete with a promotional tone, sound bites, in-article links to Lessig's convention website, and mention of other people whose ideas on reform OWS had nothing to do with—and it certainly doesn't support the fairly ridiculous claim that OWS has been collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply put: No this material should not be added to the lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive‎‎

• Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the end of World War II, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society was renamed as the Max Planck Society, and the institutes associated with the Kaiser Wilhelm Society were renamed as "Max Planck" institutes. The records that were archived under the former Kaiser Wilhelm Society and its institutes were placed in the Max Planck Society Archives. What happened to the records in this archive?

Research materials related to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, including personell, photographs, etc. are very difficult to come by. Indeed, information, including photographs of now-deceased researchers, are effectively "classified" (unavailable). This article illuminates why these research materials are difficult to access.

...

What does the above discussion -- true or not -- have to do with difficulty in accessing materials at the Max Planck Society Archive? Let us examine the following. Any normal, thoughtful person has thought processes that can travel back and forth in time. Suppose one wanted to censor the history of National Socialism in Germany during the Third Reich. One might then think 'What ideas prior to the Third Reich should be censored in turn?' One might find a precedent to the actions of Facism in what transpired in German Southwest Africa. This in turn might imply a necessity to censor the ways in which German Southwest Africa led to ideas during the Third Reich. Thus, finally, the realization in the present time, that aspects of the history of German Southwest Africa must be censored, in order to censor the origins of Nazi racism. Not only does this require thought (as a function of time), but also the 'dialectic' of moving back and forth in time. A use of Temporal (or Chronological) Modal logic.

The underlined bit seems to sum-up the problem. Is anything salvageable? So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that ArtifexMayhem has a problem with the way the article is introduced. I suggest s/he take a stab at fixing the introduction so that it makes more sense, or -- even better -- ask some questions. If ArtifexMayhem doesn't feel qualified to fix it because s/he can't follow the article, that's possibly due to a lack of clarity in the article's writing, a problem with the way the article develops its argument (structure), or possibly a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.

Now: Is the material worthwhile? Hmmm. Is it worthwhile to note when historians meet with great difficulty due to censoring or obscuring of the historical record, on the part of the people who were key figures in that history? ArtifexMayhem's user page portrays him/her as a skeptic; therefore, he/she already knows the answer to that one.

Anyway, "baby seal", stand by. I'm going to be doing some editing of the article's language in the next few days. Maybe if you check back you'll find the article easier to comprehend.

Excelsior,Virago250 (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

James, son of Alphaeus

I believe that these edits are basically original research. Starting from the top, a citation request for " there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers" was replaced by references to biblical passages, which is OR. The next paragraph, 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' again has no sources other than the Bible, which is true of the paragraph after that. The next para is also headed 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' and is again sourced to the Bible, but also has 2 references to The Good News Bible Revised Edition 1994 but with no page numbers or quotes. Following that we have another paragraph called 'Ambiguous James' entirely sourced to the Bible. And finally the section 'Tradition' has unsourced text saying " we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother." and two sources which supposedly back the statement "Robert Eisenman <ref"James brother of Jesus" Robert Eisenman</ref> and The New Advent online Catholic Encylopeida Catholic Encyclopedia: James son of Zebedee both suggest that the death of James in Acts 12:1-2 is James, son of Zebedee and not James son of Alphaeus." I can't find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I may of course have missed it) and I will ask the editor to provide a quote from each backing the claim. See also James son of Alphaeus Biblical Criticism by this editor, prodded as OR by one editor with the prod endorsed by another, who added WP:SOAP and WP:FORK as reasons for the prod. Bunofsteel (talk · contribs) has accepted the prod but is still confused about our policy of OR. Hopefully once he understands he will become a good contributor. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that we are starting to get somewhere now. What I have been accused of by others is the synthesis argument. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Lets apply this to the first part of the Possible brother of James. Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (reliable source says A). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (reliable source says B), which has led some[who?] to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (implied conclusion C not explicitly stated by any of the sources). "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Therefore the citatation is required at this stage.

I then put in the biblical references to try to defeat this unreferenced synthesis argument. The biblical references in some ways backs up the statement which I might add that I didn't write but I agree aren't ideal. I would simply delete this whole section.

I'm unaware that if you use only the bible then that is not ok in a paragraph. You will have to find that in the rules for me. Taking passages from a the bible to alert the reader to aspects of the story is not original research because I'm not trying to interpret the story. However, the facts when laid out does challenge the reader to think more deeply about James.

Matthew is not referred to as Mattew son of Alphaeus. I wasn't quite sure what to do there as far as quoting it. I'm thinking that when I get around to it I will find everytime that Matthew is mentioned in the bible and quote that. I will fix this up in the next few days.

My good news bible also idicates which stories are paralled in other books in the bible. It does this by placing the biblical references at the top of each story so that you can read the different accounts. I'm not 100% sure how to quote this properly.

Acts 12:1-2 which I strongly believe refers to James son of Zebedee. I admit that I was being lazy with my James brother of Jesus reference but with good reason. I deleted Acts 12:1-2 and stated the reason why in the talk page but it was reinstalled with no explanation. Given that I believe that whomever wrote that in made a mistake I felt compelled to write an argument contradicting as a tempory measure until this line gets deleted. The plan is to delete my section from the tradition section once the original incorrect line has been removed. Also you will find James son of Zebedee's death here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm

Citing the bible to support a statement as to what is (or is not) contained in the bible is not OR. It is an acceptable use of a primary source. That said, it is important to remember that there are multiple translations of the bible, and they are not the same. A word or phrase may appear in one translation and not in another (just a general comment... not one directed at this specific issue). Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Bible to show what is not in the Bible is, I think, generally considered OR (what else could it be if it's not sourced?), as is counting the number of times something is mentioned, eg Matthew - we are not reliable sources for something like this, are you saying we are? Are you saying that "we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother" is a statement we can make on the basis of our own reading of the Bible? Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely OK to cite the bible for a statement as to what is or is not contained in the text of the bible... the statement "The King James version of the Bible does not contain the word 'fluoride'," can be reliably cited to the King James version of bible. On its own, the statement and citation are not OR...

However, context matters, and if we change the context it can be OR... for example... if an article states "Biblical scholar, Ima Expert, believes that Christ's parable of the aardvarks refers to the necessity of using fluoride in one's toothpaste <cite to Ima Expert>" it would be OR to counter this with "however, the Bible does not contain the word 'fluoride' <cite bible>" The reason it is OR is that we are setting up an implied conclusion - "Ima's view is wrong". A primary source should not be used to reach a conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen numerous sitatuions in which people have been told that they cannot make claims about what is not mentioned in a book in order to construct an argument. Are you saying that they were wrong or is that what you are describing as OR (I think it is, but would like it confirmed)? You haven't commented on counting the number of times X is mentioned, I've also seen that described as OR. Have you read the passages in question? Because it looks to me as though the editor has been building an argument based on his own research on what the Bible doesn't say, and you agree that that is OR. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

men's rights

Men's rights could really use some people with experience applying the original research guidelines. There are many potential OR/synth issues in the article, including some that haven't yet been discussed on the talk page yet. This talk page section is one where I would especially appreciate outside opinions, but the talk page needs more NOR-experienced contributors in general.

(Also: this article is currently under probation, the terms of which can be viewed here.) Kevin (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes

What do traffic jams, weather, a pony cart, a murder, President Bush, an electric heater, gilded breasts, a baseball field, Afghanistan, hormones, and the Lebanese Civil War have in common? They are all included in a coatrack article titled Golden Domes, which was recently put up for GA review.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize sources, but this article is more like journalism: it takes bits and pieces of information -- which are largely passing mentions in articles on related topics -- and weaves them into a 4,000-word article. There is no single source that includes this information, and as far as I know, there is no third-party source that focuses solely on the subject of the Golden Domes. My question is whether this sort of journalistic approach to writing Wikipedia articles is acceptable or original research. --BwB (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

First, this seems like a bad faith posting since the OP didn't place a notification on the article talk page and he didn't notify me, the principle editor, either.

Every source mentions the Golden Domes, and every incident in the article directly concerns the domes. The OP seems to be suggesting that articles are limited to including topics all of which have been included in a single source. I doubt there are any featured articles which meet that standard.

I don't see any part of WP:OR which this article could be considered to violate. Nor does it violate the WP:COATRACK essay since all of it is about the Golden Domes, and the incidents and phenomenon which have occurred there. None of it is about tangentially related biased content.

If this were an article about a theater or a stadium, it would likewise be natural to describe various important or unusual events, even if the sources about those events were not primarily about the venue.

As for the specific incidents listed by the OP, the answers are obvious in the text. Is it really a coatrack to say that one of the domes is located on the site of a former baseball field? Is it a coatrack to quote descriptions of the domes? Is it a coatrack to describe a notable event which occurred at one of the domes? I get the feeling that the OP does not understand either the policy or the essay to which he is referring.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not posting on the talk page. I have only done a NB once or twice before and I completely forgot to do it. --BwB (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This accusation won't have come as a surprise to you because "coatracking" was raised on the day after you created the article. And the GA reviewer called it "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM. Since the article is about buildings it should contain the info about the buildings. Yes, you can briefly mention things that regularly happen or have happened in the buildings. But also, the article should stick to the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a surprise. But I think it's standard practice to notify interested editors about noticeboard postings.

One editor raised the issue of "coatracking" in August, and we discussed it on the article talk page. There don't seem to be any unresolved issues there. I replied to the GA reviewer on his talk page,[12] but have not yet had a chance to incorporate his suggestions. FWIW, my impression is that WP editors who have spent time in the Golden Domes do not seem to object to it as being a fluff piece. We could ask the OP his views on that issue. As can be seen from the reference list it is not a piece of fluff, but rather a carefully researched article about a pair of structures which some believe to be the most influential buildings in human history. Despite the fact that such extraordinary claims are made about the domes, the article's structure is not so different from Royal Albert Hall, for example.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Golden Domes talk page, FYI - [13]. --BwB (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bigweeboy, do you view the article as "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM?   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Will. You wrote this article.Why not allow uninvolved editors to comment without side stepping into interrogating the posting editor. He seems to have thoughtfully posted and then removed himself from the discussion. Would you consider doing the same, please.(olive (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

I'm here to discuss the article with anyone else who wants to discuss it. Itsmejudith raised a point, echoing a point raised by Malleus Fatuorum. I told Malleus that I'd try to improve the balance by adding more critical sources. What's your view? Do you think that the article is "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM?   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved. My thoughts are on the talk page. I'm interested in seeing how others see this. Talk away.(olive (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

People can comment on an article relating to a building (pair of buildings) without having visited it/them. Do you want this article to be included in WikiProject Universities, i.e. are these university buildings? If so, then see articles like King's College Chapel, Cambridge. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

These buildings are unique. While we can draw comparisons to other structures, there are no comparable buildings. In some regards, they are similar to churches. Attendees participate in two 90-minute sessions daily (some spend longer) and assert that their group practice of Yogic Flying has a direct and measurable effect on both their immediate surroundings and the world. They have conducted scientific studies, issued press releases, and otherwise spread the news about the influence of the group practice in the domes. [In comparison to churches, it would be as if these were the only churches of note, and very specific claims had been made about the power of the prayers made there.] I would not characterize them as university buildings in the conventional meaning of that term because their significance goes far beyond their role in the university. In that regard they are more like the Stanford Linear Accelerator, to which the Maharishi compared them. The domes are located on the campus of the Maharishi University of Management, and daily attendance is required by faculty and students but members of the community also attend. They are not classrooms, though they are occasionally used for gatherings, like graduations and concerts, other than their intended use. Both because of their unusual appearance and the extraordinary claims for their far-reaching effects, they are landmarks, centers for the entire TM movement, and have been featured in a number of documentaries. FWIW, I have never visited them myself, though I imagine that some other WP editors have done so.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Further regarding the "coatrack" claim, FA New Orleans Mint includes an extensive section on the coins produced inside that building. I think that shows that it's acceptable to include material on the events which happen within a building.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Teardrop tattoo

Could use a second set of eyes on this one. A stubborn but good faithed editor is insistent on adding his own interpretation of this tattoo. The sources simply don't back it up, nor are they reliable, but it's all we got so far. -- œ^™ 13:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a bunch of sources and have added excerpts on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very helpful. -- œ^™ 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I did a re-write based on those sources and deleted some material based solely on blogs. However a single-purpose editor, User:TheFrogPrints, reverted it to his preferred version. I've asked him to discuss it on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotation mark

I've got some concerns about the article Quotation Mark. I've just removed what I believe to be an OR claim.[14]

One editor came into the section that deals with terminal punctuation, changed all of the "American"s to "typsetters" and added the claim that the term "American style" is a misnomer "because it is also sometimes used in British and other non-American journalism and fiction writing, and is not universally used in American writing." As sources, this editor gave two style guides that require British style. However, these sources don't claim that the term "American" is a misnomer; they're just examples of American style guides that do things the British way. I removed the misnomer claim and changed all of the "typesetters" back to "American."

Background: Most American and British style guides differ on how to treat periods and commas that come next to quotation marks. The short, short version follows. American: Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "the Boss," performed "American Skin." British: Eric Clapton, nicknamed "God", performed "Cocaine". American style is also called "typesetters style," etc., but this is a lot rarer than "American."

Who's right? Is it enough to give examples or does this editor actually have to find a source that says "'American style' is a misnomer"? (The article already said/still says that American style is not used by every single American writer and style guide.) Does this have any bearing on whether the article itself should call the style "American" or "typesetters" in the body text?

Full disclosure: we're on opposite sides of the keep/replace WP:LQ issue that keeps cropping up on WT: MoS. This editor has repeatedly expressed a belief that American style causes problems (without giving evidence or citing sources) and I believe that pushing the term "typesetters" is an attempt to frame American style as old-fashioned. I believe that American style does not cause problems and should be permitted on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've sourced this to the bejeezus belt, far more than is actually needed in the article, here: User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation, though any/all of these sources could be added to the article. The WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which is far more serious, is the pushing of typesetters' a.k.a. printers' a.k.a. etc., etc., quotation marks as "American", and logical quotation as "British" (I've PROVEN that these labels are false). It's a blatant agenda. Wikipedia has been directly attacked in the British press for being inaccurate on this. (See essay; I cited that, too). My edits brought the article into line with actual reality. I don't need a source to say "American-style is a misnomer", though the Slate piece essentially does this, as do others I've cited in the essay. It's just wording expressing the cited facts; if someone doesn't like them exactly as they are, they can be tweaked, but reverting everything back to "American" is a falsification of the facts. Proponents of this hyper-nationalistic label, on whom the burden of proof lies, have to show reliable and independent sources for this term. The vast majority of published style guides are neither, because their authors and publisher have a very strong, vested monetary interest in falsely nationalizing punctuation and other grammar points, because this is what sells style guides. Those that do falsely patrioticize the issue do so only by ignoring demonstrable facts (which I've provided citations to in the essay), so they're not reliable as well as not independent of the subject. It's a bit like quoting guidebooks on American vs. British "psychics" for "facts" about the veracity of the claims made by the practitioners. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources that you provided showed that not all American style guides use American punctuation (which the article already said). They did not show that "American" is a misnomer. I kept the statement that not all American style guides etc. and deleted the statement that "American" is a misnomer.

"American" is accurate because most Americans use this style—and the sources in the quotation mark article say so. If 100% compliance were required, then the term "typesetters" wouldn't be usable either because American style isn't universal to typesetting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, here are sources that refer to these styles as "British" and "American." They include but are not limited to the Chicago Manual of Style and APA style guide website: [15] [16] [17] [18] Even if not all Americans use American style, etc., "American" is still the name by which this style is known. If you wish, you can think of it as how a London restaurant can list "Chicago-style pizza" on the menu even though the food isn't flown in from Illinois. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a level of confusion here. We're here to document what reliable sources say, not to worry as to why style guides say what they do. Style guides do vary in terms of quality, but I cannot see that they would not be reliable sources for questions of style. But in this issue, they are generally primary sources, as they define the style, rather than analyze them, and we should give preference to secondary sources. Questions regarding which are more reliable really belong at RSN, but I would suggest sticking to the major style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style and APA style guide. Looking over the sources, it does seem clear to me that the terms "American" and "British" are use to describe the different usage of quotation marks, even if the sources do not exactly agree about what those terms mean, and even if not all sources use them. In regard to this, it reinforces the notion that the terms are used, if inconsistently. I would say that to state that the terms are "misnomers" would require a direct source, and I don't think Guardian article supports that, although I think it makes a fine source to state something like "although the terms 'American' and 'British' are widely used, there is inconsistency in their usage". Finally, I would also think this is all rather irrelevant to WP's MOS, and I hope that article space is not being used to argue MOS issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)