Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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

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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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

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

John Abbey

Hi, I'm having some trouble deciding whether this would be counted as original research or not;
There is a piece of text on the John Abbey article, "He was a apprentice for James and David Davis, and later for Hugh Russell after 1818." (ref) - This isn't very informative in it's current state and placement.
I would like to add extra information to this - "In his youth he was a apprentice for James and David Davis, and later for Hugh Russel after 1818, both reputable organ builders in their day." (bolded text ref) - would this count as original research, if not: how would I structure the inline citations. Thank you --George2001hi (Discussion) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I add, both the sources include similar sentences but both lack information that the other includes

• "In his youth he was employed in the factory of Davis and subsequently in that of Russell, both organ-builders of repute in their day" - (Fuller Maitland, J. A (editor). Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians; Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Company (1911))
• "Abbey was apprenticed to James and David Davis, and then worked for Hugh Russell after 1818" (Bicknell, Stephen (1999). The History of the English Organ. Cambridge University Press). Once again thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 22:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some Help, please. --George2001hi (Discussion) 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

George. Your suggested construct above does not seem to be original research or SYN as you are drawing no new conclusion not supported by sources. You are merely combining sourced information into a meaningful piece of prose. As for the citations, merely cite both works at the end of the sentence. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mike. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --George2001hi (Discussion) 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Original Research in "White Argentinian"

The basic problem the article White Argentine is that mixes different things. The main editor of the article, according to an interesting point of view, exposes his own personal research. In fact, he work also in the website that he used as a reference. He tried to did it on wikipedia in spanish, but the article was erased by them [1]. The author put together some things from the article Ethnography of Argentina with other part of Immigration to Argentina, to sustain his hypothesis of the existence of a different ethnic group born from the interweaving of different European ethnic groups in Argentina, called "White argentinian". In fact, put in the same group Arabs and Turks, with Germans and Anglo-saxons people, among others, according to ancient theory of physical anthropology, now lapsed. Adding a lot of unnecessary information about politics, music, culture and sports, which is the reproduction of articles about politics, music and sport in Argentina. However, would be different if the article was only about the term, more or less widespread, which brings together in an ambiguous way all Argentines with a some European origin. In this sense, it should be changed the whole article. In other words exist the "term" but don't exist the ethnic group, do you understand?. I know I don't write well in English. But, if you really want a list of the specific problems of your article, when I have a bit more free time, I will tell you. Otherwise, I just let this observations, hoping someday this article will be reviewed with common sense. Regards. G.--79.43.220.9 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.210.248 (talk)

Hi, I am the "main editor of the article" that the unknown user writes about. I have certain things to explain:

1) The article is not my original research; it was created in June 2007, and I found it and first edited it in April 2010. Before I began to expand it, many other editors had already improved it. Check the article´s stroy if you don't believe me.

2) The "website he used as reference" is The Joshua Project; When I first found the site, they already had the ethnic group "Argentinians White" included in the list of Argentina's ethnic groups with a photograph taken by Howard Erickson. The profile of the group lacked a text on their history, way of life, etc; so I submitted one. That was my only contribution; the group and the photo were already there when I found the site. When I asked the source of the Argentinians White group, Mr. Duane Frasier -a member of the Project- answered this: "The source for this group is a list from decades back. This group is composed of Argentines of European descent". So the group is not my invention; it was named that way decades ago.

3) The grouping of all European/Caucasus/Middle Eastern ethnic people groups as "White people" is neither arbitrary nor lapsed. The US Census Bureau nowadays defines White people as "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." This definition is used to establish who is "White American" or who is not at this very moment. The same criteria of grouping European/Caucasus/Middle Eastern ethnic groups all together as White is used in the article White Latin American. All I did is to apply the same criteria to the White people born and residing in Argentina. If the article White Argentine is going to be questioned for this grouping, then all the other articles on White people should be questioned too: White Canadian, White Brazilian, European Australian, White Mexican, etc.

4) Due to the criticism of this unknown user, another editor and I agreed to add a new section about the usage of the term "White Argentine/Argentinian". This is now well explained and referenced in the correspondent section of the article.

5) The aim of the article is also to show the influence of the European immigrants and their descedants in Argentina's culture. That is why some sections were added. The Sports section is restricted to explain what ethnicity (colectividad in Spanish) brought such and such sport to Argentina (Example: the British brought football, Cycling was brought by the Italians), and to provide lists of sportmen of European/Middle Eastern descent. It is not my fault that I have so many people to name in those categories. The sections on Tango and Folklore also show European immigrant's influence on those genres, and lists of notable White Argentines. I admitted that the Rock section is too long, and I promised to make it shorter (See talk page).

6) The article Argentino blanco was erased in the Spanish Wikipedia for several reasons. First, it was the simple translation of an older version of the article "White Argentinian", and it was not even half as long and well referenced as it is now. Second, in Argentina nowadays there is such a current of "political correction", that anyone who uses the word "white" is immediately considered racist. I thought -and I still think- that English Wikipedia is different, that anyone can use the word White without being labelled as racist. Third, the consult for its deletion was in a technical draw when an Librarian came and arbitrarily deleted it before more users could express their opinions.--Pablozeta (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

here is the deletion request at that project, and as it can be seen there are mixed opinions for keeping or deleting, each one with its own plausible arguments. At this project, it would likely had been closed as keep by "No consensus". So I wouldn't take the deletion as a binding element, it does not represent a consensus from the comunity but just the opinion of an admin and a portion of users. MBelgrano (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes... there definitely are a lot of OR issues in that article (and some serious NPOV issues as well). This one is going to take a fair amount of work to clean up. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Heather Mac Donald -- Is there a gray area between primary and secondary sources?

I'm having a disagreement about an article I revamped about a controversial conservative commentator named Heather Mac Donald. Another editor is challenging my additions, claiming that when I quote Mac Donald, it's a primary source. Here's an example:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

“ Secular conservatism. Mac Donald identifies herself as a secular conservative, and argued in USA Today that conservative thinking is superior to liberalism by virtue of the ideas alone, and that religion should not affect the argument. ”

What I'm wondering is: is this an instance of a strictly primary source? Consider that Heather Mac Donald is a commentator. USA Today is a newspaper. USA Today chose to print Mac Donald's views. It's not like Mac Donald wrote something on her own website and I'm quoting it. Rather, there's a reliable publication (a secondary source?) printing Mac Donald's views, saying, in effect, that her views (while controversial) are important, worthy of print, relevant to debate on this topic. If USA prints unreliable or boring commentators, it could lose circulation and respect. Isn't USA Today adding a little weight to the source here? But at the same time, I agree quoting Mac Donald is not a true secondary source -- it's not critic X said Y about Mac Donald (which we all agree is best). My question is: isn't this a case where the source is in that gray area between primary and secondary?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem from another angle. How can any of us write any biographies (particularly about commentators) without ever quoting what the article subject says? As a writer, I'm trying to describe Mac Donald. Why is she notable? Her views. What views are they? Well, what? Here I'm stuck -- if I'm forced to rely only on what other reviewers SAY are her views, I don't think that would be a reliable way to describe them. Why not quote her directly? I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a mix of her views, and views of others (ie real secondary sources), in a mix, and assume that the reader is intelligent enough to know which is which.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at current WP articles on commentators. George Will, Jim Cramer, Liz Cheney, Maureen Dowd, Bill Maher, Jonathan Alter, Charles Krauthammer. These are generally good articles. And they ALL have references quoting the commentator saying something. And not just sporadic references, but MANY references. George Will said this. Bill Maher said that. And I think the references are helpful. IF the "no primary sources" rule is strictly enforced, most of these articles would have to be gutted. What I'm saying is that the de facto standard, particularly regarding biographies on commentators, is that it's perfectly reasonable to include direct quotes when handled responsibly, that it requires judgment, while I agree that secondary sources are preferred.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a misstatement of the dispute. If one is merely quoting a source, then a primary source is sufficient. However if editors cannot analyze primary sources and draw conclusions from them. Further, the issue in dispute is whether large parts of the article, including entire sections, may be based exclusively on summaries of opinion columns written by the subject. My view is that NOR says that articles should be based on secondary sources, and that primary sources should be used only for illustrative quotes or details. An editor picking and choosing which of her numerous of printed columns or opinion pieces to summarize is a form of OR in itself. We should rely on secondary sources to indicate which of her opinions are noteworthy, and then we can use primary sources to flesh out our discussions of them.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To discuss how this policy applies to the Heather Mac Donald article, please continue the discussion at the No original research/Noticeboard. Thanks--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• First, "primary source" is not Wikijargon for "unreliable source". A primary source might well be the most authoritative source available for a given fact. (You might want to read Wikipedia:Party and person.)
  Second, possession of an authoritative, reliable source for a given fact does not mean that the fact needs to be stuck in an article. We want a balanced article that gives appropriate WP:WEIGHT to each aspect, where "appropriate weight" is determined primarily by considering what other reliable sources write about the subject (not what the subject writes, and not what piques the interest of the Wikipedia editor). The fact that we have a source about a subject is not a good reason to stuff that fact into an article. (See WP:COATRACK.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, good points. You sound fair and you sound like you know what you're doing. So you're saying the Mac Donald article is basically a judgment call (ie what's important) not a matter of rules? Wondering if you would consider being the arbiter of my dispute with WillBeBack about the Mac Donald article? Like, what you say goes; I'm getting super-bored with this increasingly-trivial quarrel. Will Will Beback agree to WhatamIdoing being the arbiter?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

inventing a classification scheme for the beliefs of living people: OR or not?

We have a dispute at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, where editors believe that we can invent a new scheme to classify the beliefs of living people in such a way that it might not be synthesis/original research. Implied in the discussion is that we would still classify scientists by finding quotations and matching these quotations to category headings. It is suggested that scientists whose views span multiple categories could be resolved using a matrix system.

I have the view that inventing a new scheme to classify the beliefs of living people is pretty obviously contrary to WP:NOR and WP:BLP but other experienced editors think this might be OK.

Anyone willing to give their opinions? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If those categories are taken from a well established public position which said living people clearly disagree with, I don't see why this is either Original Research or a BLP violation. I'm happy to get input, but I would make the point that we haven't exactly exhausted the discussion at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming; Alex keeps re-asserting his position without any attempt to persuade other editors who have different views. --Merlinme (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This raises all sorts of red flags for me... I see a huge potential for classifying people by taking quotes out of context. For this reason, I would say it is a very bad idea. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like a fine example of original research. Any scheme seems inherently doomed. It's subjective, non-repeatable, it provides a framework for selection bias when dealing with people's statements and encourages potentially faulty generalizations and categorizations of people's views. Is there a List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ? If there is going to be a list of sampled statements by scientists about the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming why even categorize the statements at all ? Do we do this for any other contentious topic ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

But what if the context is where they're saying why they disagree with the consensus position? My suggestion (which Alex has so far essentially refused to even talk about) is to make the category headings tighter and more explicitly based on the "consensus" position which they're supposed to be disagreeing with. If at that point there are felt to be insurmountable OR or synthesis problems, i.e. it is impossible to improve the current system to eliminate the synthesis problems, then we can talk about the way forward again. I am however reluctant to abandon (without even an attempt to improve) a classification system and article which have survived for several years, including several attempts to delete the article; it has survived because it is held to serve a purpose, i.e. to show what are the main arguments used against the consensus by reputable scientists. There is no equivalent list for consensus scientists simply because it would be enormous. --Merlinme (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have my position clear on the article talk page: the article should go. It is the result of "climate deniers and anti-evolutionists [who] put out those long, misleading lists of all the scientists who allegedly support their views".[2] Global warming is not a belief thing - a cultural, social, or political tradition to which you either belong or you don't (like belonging to a religion, a social class, or a political party).[3] This is a remnant of some ancient POV pushing and 'anti-AGW' advocacy, which are no longer part of the way we cover climate change on WP. If there are issues to cover we have articles that should and do cover them (scientific, political, economic, public opinion etc). Any relevant points made here and not covered elsewhere should be merged into those articles. We should not be using cherry-picked BLP quotes to try to persuade or to build up one side of a case. --Nigelj (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Beatrice of Portugal

Hello, I write here because I need a clarification about the use of sources (specially the primary ones) in the article Beatrice of Portugal. On September 27, I made a deletion of content [4] per WP: PRIMARY, and on October 9, I explained the reasons. The next day User:Jorge alo, restored it adding two sources that do not support the wording, because the wording of the article displays his own interpretation. Thus: [5]

• He writes that Also her husband, King John I of Castile, as can be read in his testament, dating of 21 July of 1385, in Celorico da Beira, did not recognize his wife as the true monarch of Portugal. Nevertheless, such affirmation based on a primary source does not appear anywhere in the testament, and the source added, written by Oliveira Martins, explains merely a excerpt of the testament of John I of Castile, that which Jorge alo has indicated in the wiki in French,[6] but not in wiki in English, furthermore, such author, Oliveira Martins, does not refer to the pertinence of the testament, much less that John I of Castile did not recognize his wife (Beatrice) as queen.

• He also writes that Also is truth that many Portuguese nobles have not recognized her, but John I of Castile as their real monarch, to that end Jorge alo put the example of the recognition of Lopo Gomes de Lira for John I of Castile, but the source added does not indicate that Lopo Gomes de Lira did not acknowledged Beatrice. That statement is a particular interpretation since Beatrice was approximately 10 years at that time, and she did not exercise any government, and that statement disregards that the source is a Portuguese Chronicle written by Fernão Lopes (supporter to João of Aviz) in the 15th century, where the context shows simply that some nobles sided with John I of Castile and other part of João of Aviz (without further speculations), and where it is explicitly written that Lopo Gomes de Lira mando pregonar que fazer menagem ao dito rei de Castella e a sua mulher (commanded to proclaim to pay homage to said King of Castile and his wife) which it is explicitly the opposite of what Jorge alo interprets particularly.

I could remove such edition and re-explain it to him, but in wikipedia in Spanish Jorge alo insisted on a edit warring resolved by an administrator [7] on the basis of his misuse of primary sources. To avoid a edit warring, I need an opinion more qualified about this issue of NOR, since in the wiki in french Jorge alo gave me all kinds of insults,[8] and there is no way of making him understand the policies of wikipedia. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is not there any opinion about this issue and what should I do? Trasamundo (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim to be an expert on this, but it seems that John is excercising hs rights as king through marriage. A similar case is Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, who is referred to as the 'duke' even though his wife inherited the title (uncontested) or Charles of Blois who also made the claim through his wife (contested). I agree that it is OR to claim that this is some sort of problem. Clearly there is a complex question of when inheritance is obtained, and the meaning of the act of acclamation, but that should be explained in its context rather than the way it is presented here. Paul B (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that at the moment this is OR. We have clear interpretation (WP:SYN) based on a footnote to a primary source in Latin. We really need more detail on issues of inheritance law, the applicability of Jure uxoris, and cultural norms. Clearly there are complex issues about male primogeniture - when and whether the husband of a queen regnant becomes de facto king and can pass the crown to his son. We all know this stuff was meat and drink to medieval warlords, who were eternally claiming to have the 'true' rights to inherit according to various interpretations of precedence, Salic law and what-have-you. Obviously John would have wanted to pass his rule to his son if he predeceased his wife, so seems to have constructed an argument for inheritance to sustain it. How valid it was, I wouldn't know, but surely there are useful secondary sources on such a significant historical event. However, the passages you link to in French seem to be designed to exclude illegitimate children, rather than his wife, since they just say that either should inherit. I've attempted some rewording, but maybe it could be simplified further. BTW, where does that ridiculous funny drawing of Beatrice come from? Can't we find a contemporary image? Paul B (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your intervention, your comments make sense to me. A dispute for the throne brings complex issues and therefore it is necessary to take care specially about the use of sources, and to avoid to offer personal interpretations of fragments extracted of primary sources, because at last, such interpretations can contradict what explicitly the own primary source indicates itself, as I already indicated on October 9 [9] (I have noticed that I had not write this link above).

Now, your wording really discard that original interpretation focussed on demonstrating that Beatriz could not be a queen simply because his husband did not acknowledge as such, and that Juan I of Castile as king of Portugal implies excluding to Beatriz as queen of Portugal. To avoid these misinterpretations I see that there would be necessary to replace Many Portuguese nobles of the pro-Castillian faction recognized her husband, with Many Portuguese nobles of the pro-Castillian faction also recognized her husband,. And in addition, to replace John I of Castile, as can be read in his testament, dating of 21 July of 1385, in Celorico da Beira identified himself as de facto king, with John I of Castile, as can be read in his testament, dating of 21 July of 1385, in Celorico da Beira identified himself as de iure king, because he identified himself as rightful and legitimate king, not as a usurper.

In regard to the image, there is only this image [10] in commons. Trasamundo (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made those changes and added a reference to de jure uxoris, as on the page of Constance, Duchess of Brittany (wife of Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany). Paul B (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. Now the wording is much more accurate. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary source policy discussion

Could some editors please chime in on this discussion? A new editor wants to use her own transcriptions of British National Archives documents in Latin to source a biography article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. I don't have the firmest grasp of policy, so advice from more experienced editors would be appreciated. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting interpretations of a source

I'm posting this discussion on behalf of another editor Alinor (talk · contribs) who seemingly refuses to come to the noticeboard to discuss a clear difference in interpretation of a source.

The source in question is Francis Boyle's Palestine, Palestinians and International Law (2009), which states the following:

As I had predicted to the PLO, the creation of [a] Palestinian State was an instantaneous success. Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states. The only regional hold-out was Europe and this was because of massive political pressure applied by the United States Government.

According to User:Alinor, Boyle is making a prediction that Palestine would eventually be recognised by 130 states, and therefore raised issue with what is currently written in the article that "In 2009, Boyle reported that about 130 countries had recognised the State of Palestine."

There's a preliminary discussion located here. Nightw 14:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the possible dumb question here, but have either of you considered the introduction of/confirmation from a third source? When you have two sources contradicting each other, its often best to note the discrepancy of (in this instance) recognition. The third source provides a point of view, perhaps even a prevailing one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that there may be a related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Francis A Boyle? is this a new issue, or an off-shoot from that discussion? Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We argue not about the discrepancy, but about the meaning of "would eventually achieve". Alinor (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is related, but not the same issue. Alinor (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have migrated to the article's talk page. Nightw 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking just in terms of grammar, there are indeed two ways of reading the first two sentences:

1. At some point in the past I made the following prediction to the PLO: "The creation of a Palestinian state will be an instantaneous success. Palestine will eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states." All of this turned out to be correct.
2. At some point in the past I made the following prediction to the PLO: "The creation of a Palestinian state will be an instantaneous success." The prediction turned out to be correct. Moreover, Palestine eventually achieved de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states.

The first interpretation does not make much sense. Why should the author have predicted the approximate number of state recognising Palestine, rather than a minimal number? What really shoots down this interpretation is the word "eventually", which indicates that the number of states recognising Palestine is not going to change substantially either way even in the future. That would be an extremely unusual claim to make, and it did not turn out to be correct since we simply can't know this yet.

The second interpretation is much more natural, and in fact the way the source phrases it is merely a stylistic improvement over the formulation under 2. I have no doubt that this is what is meant by the source. Hans Adler 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Hans's analysis of how to interpret the quote is the most logical one ... WP:NOR makes it quite clear that we are not supposed to include our own interpretations or analysis of sources. What we need to do is find a source that discusses what Boyle says and interprets it for us. Until we have this, our choice is to either leave the quote uninterpreted, or (probably the better choice) omit the quote entirely. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

All reading of sources is an act of interpretation. Even if we found a "source that discusses what Boyle says and interprets it for us" we would have to interpret the meaning of that source - or find another source to interpret its interpretaion of Boyle for us, which we would then have to 'interpret' too. This reading of NOR rules just creates an absurd infinite regress. There are cases where there may be real ambiguities in sources, but this surely is not one. I think we should work on the basis of "reasonable doubt" about meaning. No-one would ever be convicted of any crime if we had to ensure there could be no doubt about their guilt whatever, since we can all conjur up elaborate conspiracy theories in which all the evidence was planted etc etc. It's the same here. There is only one coherent, reasonable interpretation of this sentence (Hans' second option). The first makes no grammatical or logical sense, so there can be no reasonable doubt as to its meaning. Paul B (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. The issue has been resolved. A sincere thank you to all who commented here. Nightw 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

An article on the topic of the Homosexuals Anonymous program was recently posted and nominated for DYK. I considered it extremely POV and advertisement-like (there was virtually no criticism). In working on the article, I have been accused of violating WP:SYNTH (see the talk page), which led me to work in the quiet of my user space. I have now (just) posted a new version, and I invite comment / criticism / feedback / changes on the new version, with particular concerns about NPOV, NOR, and SYNTH. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. Nightw 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

When sources disagree

Related to an issue previously discussed in another thread above, a lengthy debate has developed at Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority between myself and another editor, Alinor (talk · contribs).

The argument, as it has degraded into, is over a recently added section entitled "Overview", which contradicts the data displayed in the rest of the article. The main point of concern is the following conflicting statements:

1. "the State of Palestine is recognised by 104 states..."
2. "the number of states that have recognised the 1988–proclaimed State of Palestine is not clear..."

The first statement, which I recently changed to "at least 104 states" to address concerns I'd had with its conclusiveness, is derived from calculations of multiple reliable sources. Without the recently added "at least", this statement contradicts different figures cited by respected legal professionals: "over 114" (Boyle, 1990); "more than 100" (Fowler and Bunck, 1995); "117" (Anat Kurz, 2005); "about 130" (Boyle, 2010); "about 126" (Boyle, 2010).

The second statement comes from the fact that, according to one reference, many statements of recognition were "equivocal" in nature. It is also, in my opinion, plainly obvious from the level of disagreement between sources citing a number (above), and therefore necessary.

So the question is: Is it original research to claim that a situation is unclear when multiple sources disagree? Do we need a source that states that the situation is unclear? Nightw 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So far Night w has managed to file these notices here in a NPOV way (e.g. representing fine both my and his opinion), but in this particular case there are many inconsistencies, that I will explain below shortly. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion are this and more recently this. The issues are the following:

1. We already solved the "at least" issue, e.g. it remains per his proposal (my opinion is that the explanatory note was enough, but anyway I have nothing against adding the "at least" words - this doesn't change the meaning of the text).
2. Sources giving "just a number" (without list and dates) are conflicting/contradict each other. Sources don't show exactly that (see below)
3. "Number of states recognizing the State of Palestine is unknown/unclear" Sources don't show exactly that (see below)

About the alleged contradiction between the sources. First, the Fowler and Bunck 1995 source statement is retrospective: p. 59: "By 1988 more than one hundred countries had formally recognized the 'state' of Palestine, which also received official acknowledgement by the United Nations General Assembly.", e.g. this is not for 1995. Second, most of these sources don't use "exact number", but ranges ("over X", "about X", etc.) and some of them overlap (e.g. don't contradict each other). Third, they are for different moments in time - and state recognitions are not constant - they change over time - so it is highly probable that some states gave/withdraw recognition in the time between the sources. It should be noted that the only "exact numbers" given are 117 (Anat Kurz 2005) and 127 (Boyle 2010).

Boyle "over 114" (1990) doesn't disagree with Anat Kurz 117 (2005). Boyle "about 130/126" from 2009/2010 and the Boyle 127 from 2010 doesn't disagree. Boyle "over 114" doesn't disagree with Boyle "about 130/126"/127. So the only potential disagreement is between the "exact" Anat Kurz 117 (2005) and Boyle 127 (2010) - but maybe 10 additional states recognized for these 5 years - the sources we have neither confirm nor deny that.

The number is not "unknown"/"unclear" - it is unknown/unclear only to us, the Wikipedia users - because we have inconclusive sources (e.g. the 117/127 no-specific-list vs. the sources showing recognition by 103 undisputed up to 111 - 8 inconclusive). An example for "unknown number" is the Age of the universe, but the number of SoP recognitions is not unknown/unclear - it is only that we don't have simultaneously reliable+exact+specific+recent sources about it. The SoP itself (PLO as its government in exile) should know it pretty well (does it have a website?). Alinor (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So, I propose that we avoid making statements like "number is unknown/unclear", "sources contradict each other" (unless we have a source actually showing such thing) - and that instead we stick to wordings like "In 1988 the PLO declared the State of Palestine, being quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms." that more closely resembles this reference cite above. Alinor (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite plainly unclear. The sources given are just those that previous editors have deemed as the most authoritative. The numbers on the web are all over the place: "108" (Zaid Tayem, 2009); "more than 115" (ABC News, 2008). Given the many proposed manifestations of this state, the number of UN resolutions and proposals, it's not even clear which "State" they're recognising... Nightw 15:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - it's not even clear which "State" they're recognising - that's what's unclear. If we focus on "recognizing SoP" only (not "Palestine" as PLO/PNA/Palestine state right to exist/etc.) then a) the sources are much less b) those that are reliable (e.g. do not include statements contradicting official webpages, known facts, etc.) are even less c) the picture is much more clear - but additional efforts are needed to get there in the first place (e.g. in contrast to the current mixing of all into one single "152 list"). Alinor (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See here: "Crawford and the other sources cited do not say that the number of states that have recognized Palestine is unknown or disputed. That appears to be an unsourced editorial narrative introduced by user Breein1007. [11] [12] [13]" comment by user harlan. Alinor (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bart's Comet and Astronomy

The Simpson's episode Bart's Comet has several real astronomy references. For example, the numbers that Skinner and Bart read out at the telescope are real astronomical coordinates. Does looking up the coordinates on a star chart and describing their locations on the sky in the article count as original research? If so, can I get around this by referencing a star chart?TomLuTon (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

five feminism books as secondary or primary

Some sources have been challenged as primary and not secondary. I think the following books are secondary, not primary. I'm not planning to use any of them in a study of its author personally, its scholarly method, its literary style, or the book itself apart from its content. Rather, I plan to use them for their content. Please tell me whether you consider any of them primary rather than secondary.

• Gyn/Ecology, by Mary Daly, cites primary and secondary sources. It has a Notes section, from p. [425] to p. 467, which has 733 endnotes, and the book also has a small number of footnotes. Its publisher is Beacon Press. The book, a study of ethics, is generally at least one level removed from personal experience. She was tenured at Boston College and held two or three doctorates and is well known as a feminist theologian and as the author of several books in the field.
  • • Citation: Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, pbk. [1st printing? printing of [19]90?] 1978 & 1990 (prob. all content except New Intergalactic Introduction 1978 & prob. New Intergalactic Introduction 1990) (ISBN 0-8070-1413-3)) (New Intergalactic Introduction is separate from Introduction: The Metapatriarchal Journey of Exorcism and Ecstasy).
• Women and Madness, by Phyllis Chesler, cites primary and secondary sources. It has a Bibliography section; covering from the earliest times to 1970, the bibliography is from p. [371] to p. 374; I counted 53 sources for the earlier period. The book being a revision in 2005 of the 1972 edition, the earlier sources are relevant to the earlier edition. However, as I'm quoting the 2005 edition (because it's available), the later bibliographic sources have some relevance; later sources are listed on pp. 374–389 and I estimate over 240 sources are listed for the later period. The book has a Notes section, from p. [353] to p. 370, which has 188 endnotes. The 2005 edition's publisher is Palgrave Macmillan, partly a division of St. Martin's Press. The book, a study on psychology, is generally at least one level removed from personal experience. According to the 2005 edition, cover IV, she is a professor emerita of psychology and women's studies. She is well known as a feminist author; she wrote several books in the field and this one is probably her best known.
  • • Citation: Chesler, Phyllis, Women and Madness (N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, rev'd & updated ed., 1st ed. [1st printing?], pbk., Nov., 2005 (ISBN 1-4039-6897-7)) (original ed. prob. published 1972, per id., p. [ix] ("1972 Acknowledgments"); "[i]n 1970, ... I first began writing Women and Madness", per id., p. 34, & 1972 date confirmed at WorldCat, as accessed Sep. 21, 2010).
• Scapegoat, by Andrea Dworkin, cites primary and secondary sources. It has a Bibliography section, from p. 372 to p. 419; I estimate the bibliography lists over 1,600 sources. It has a Notes section, from p. 339 to p. 371, which has 1,454 endnotes. Its publisher is The Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster. The book, a comparative political study, is generally at least one level removed from personal experience. She is well known as a feminist theoretician and as the author of approximately ten books.
  • • Citation: Dworkin, Andrea, Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation (N.Y.: Free Press, [1st printing?] 2000 (Preface dated Jun., 1999, per id., p. xi) (ISBN 0-684-83612-2)).
• Mothers and Amazons, by Helen Diner, is a book of history. She was not alive during most of the times on which she wrote, so she didn't participate in most of its events. According to the book, "[u]nfortunately, it was not possible to include exhaustive notes or a bibliography. The book and its price would have been expanded intolerably by an enumeration of all source materials, magazine articles, papyruses, and pamphlets from the diverse disciplines necessary to bring about this feminine history of culture. Nor did it prove possible to make room for the bibliography through an abbreviation of the text, for the contents are already condensed. But in the most important passages, quotations and sources have been included.", id., p. xiii (Author's Preface). The author, "for the 'mothers' part", credited Johann Jakob Bachofen and Robert Briffault, id., p. xiii & n. 2 (Author's Preface), and "for the 'Amazons' part" she credited "Ephoros, Pherecydes, Isocrates, Hellanicus, Cleidemus, Eusebius, Dionysius Scythobrachion, Herodotus, Diodorus, Plutarch, Pliny, Strabo, Pompeius Trogus, and many nameless gentlemen still older .... [N]ew sources are unnecessary ....", id., pp. xiv–xv (Author's Preface). According to Joseph Campbell, "[t]he authoress, a Viennese lady of society ..., convincingly displays ... an impressive learning", id., p. vi (Campbell, Joseph, Introduction (N.Y.: Aug., 1965)). The book's publisher in 1965 was Julian Press (N.Y.). The book was "[o]riginally published in German", id., dust jkt., rear flap (The Author); I don't have the German edition and am not fluent in that language. The book is at least one level removed from personal experience.
  • • Citation: Diner, Helen, ed. & trans. John Philip Lundin, Mothers and Amazons: The First Feminine History of Culture (N.Y.: Julian Press, 1965) ("the German edition of her work ... appeared in the early 1930s" under the author's pseudonym Sir Galahad, per id., p. vi (Campbell, Joseph, Introduction (N.Y.: Aug., 1965)) (author "Viennese society woman ... authored several books under the pseudonym Sir Galahad", id., dust jacket, rear flap (The Author)) (this work trans. from German, per id., dust jacket, rear flap (The Author))).
• Daring to Be Bad, by Alice Echols, which was only tentatively challenged as to secondariness, cites primary and secondary sources. It's based on interviews of "forty-two people", id., p. 391 (Appx. D: A Note on the Oral Interviews), and is an outgrowth of a dissertation, ibid. It has a Notes section, from p. [297] (substantively from p. 299) to p. 366, which has 1,344 endnotes. Its publisher is the University of Minnesota Press. The book, a history, is generally at least one level removed from personal experience. Its author was then a visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Arizona at Tucson.
  • • Citation: Echols, Alice, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967–1975 (Minneapolis, Minn.: Univ. of Minnesota Press (American Culture ser.), 1989 (ISBN 0-8166-1787-2)).

You may not have the books handy, so you may need to judge them contingently, and that's fine. I've borrowed them from libraries and will be returning them soon, so, if you want to know more, please ask soon, while I still have them. It can take months to get them again.

None of them are in the noticeboard archives, when searched by short title, author name by given name first, or author name by family name first.

Does anyone consider any of the books primary when used for their content? None of the other issues raised are being presented here, as they're being addressed in other ways.

Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure by what you mean by "use them for their content". Sources can be either primary or secondary depending on the context. Here's an example. The BBC would be a good source for an article on a military attack. But in an article about accusations of bias against the BBC, the same BBC report would be a primary source. This is an important distinction to make in regard to feminism, which is a political viewpoint. If you want to distinguish between different approaches in different currents of feminism, there is an academic literature on that, and that literature is what you should use. You can also provide bibliographic details of the landmark works in those currents, although they are primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin are both radical feminists, some of whose views may well be considered WP:FRINGE, but that's arguable. They are certainly polemoical writers whose views shouls always be attributed to them, not presented as fact. Of course this all depends on how you intend to use the sources. You are not clear about that. Paul B (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've scanned the disputed content as it appeared in the article and the manner in which the references were used was problematic. They were used in the article as direct examples of various forms and figures in feminist socio/political "superiority" advocacy rather than as sources for a secondary, scholarly analysis of it. So in that sense, the section as drafted was mostly a synthesis of the p.o.v.'s of feminist "superiority" advocates--and the legitimacy of the synthesis was challenged. In other words, the labeling the work of writers like Joreen, Mary Daly, etc., as actually even promoting a system of superiority for women was challenged. To do this properly you need secondary sources analyzing Joreen, Mary Daly, et al. For example, if there are scholars such as Riane Eisler or Helen Diner writing about the size, influence, and other characteristics of "feminist superiority" advocacy, it is their analysis of its advocates that should be relied upon rather than extensive quotations and analysis from texts by Joreen, Mary Daly etc. Those texts were largely used as primary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this focused on whether the five books are primary or secondary, mainly whether any are primary. I'm addressing the other points elsewhere.

WP:PSTS doesn't say that all sources on feminism or politics are primary and only nonfeminist or nonpolitical sources can be secondary. Almost every academic book (maybe every academic book) has inherent views, such as that either evolution or creationism is a valid theory. It would be a problem to require that all sources on feminism must be by nonfeminists, just as we should not require that all sources on any topic be by people with little background in it. As I understand WP:PSTS, political feminist books can qualify as secondary. I'm asking about whether these books above, whether feminist or not, are secondary.

Sources being secondary or primary according to the context of their use in Wikipedia was just included in a recent amendment to WP:PSTS. I'm not using the sources for Wikipedia articles about their authors, literary styles, or scholarly methods or the books as physical products, but for their content.

All are fully attributed.

The new draft has not been challenged on any ground, to my knowledge. If a challenge to the draft has appeared elsewhere, please point to it, because I need to read it.

Joreen's work is treated as primary, so it isn't relevant here. The same is true of several other sources not discussed here. Primary sources can be used, just with more care; for example, they can be quoted. And other secondary sources are included, such as Linda Zerilli's statement of matriarchies as an object of second-wave feminism. If these sources above are secondary, the resulting article could be more readable without being considered synthesis. That's why I'd like to know if anyone considers any of these five in particular to be primary and, if so, on what grounds.

I still have the books handy before I have to return them and, if anyone has questions about what's in them, I can provide more information. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) (Corrected (deleting redundant passage) and clarified: 00:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment just above, but it sounds like the core issue here is being missed, which is that in terms of way the PSTS policy applies on wikipedia, sources are referred to as primary, secondary or tertiary based in large part on how they are to be used. Any source can be a primary or a secondary--it depends on the nature of the claims the editor is making and attributing to the source. I've participated and/or weighed in on numerous WP:OR disputes and proposed changes to the policy as far back as 2007--this is how the policy was meant to apply for at least that long, even though various revisions have been proposed along the way to more clearly explain it. It isn't the nature of the source itself, but the manner in which it is used that the policy is concerned with. So I don't want to get too technical here, but for example take the sentence, "Scholars, such as Riane Eisler and Helen Diner (Bertha Diener), reported evidence of historical, protohistorical, or prehistorical matriarchies." Along those lines you want something like, "Scholars such as X and Y identify feminists such as Joreen and Mary Daly as major influences recommending alternative power structures granting superiority to women." You want third party scholars X and Y who describe the major theoreticians and activists, their positions and their influence and scope. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PSTS has been classifying a source as primary or secondary according to its content, not according to how it is used, until in the last few weeks when I added a use-based test to the policy page after discussion. I had added it earlier but it was deleted as lacking consensus (but it's in now). Since you've been applying a use-based test for years, perhaps it used to be in WP:PSTS and disappeared before I saw it, but, if so, presumably that disappearance reflected a consensus, too. If it is somewhere in WP other than WP:PSTS, I hope someone cites its location, since I want to read it. And if it is elsewhere it should be copied to the more-visible location.

Secondary sources include more than scholarly restatements; they include newspapers, thus the Guardian's interview of Andrea Dworkin in which the interviewer went into depth on her concept of Womenland, expanding on her book, counts as secondary. But her book itself was challenged in WP as primary, and, as far as I can see in WP:PSTS, it's secondary and not primary. Linda Zerilli's is also secondary and, while she doesn't quote the same sources I did, she makes a more overarching statement about the second wave of feminism and matriarchy.

My concern is that the standard apparently being applied is a test of the conclusion: the conclusion found is turning the book into a primary source. If so, that's a misapplication of WP:PSTS, and problematic besides, because it justifies an endless chain—source A is not reportable until B says so, but B is declared primary because it says so and that means we need to find C, but C is declared primary because it says so and that means we need to find D, and ultimately nothing is good enough to stop passing the buck.

A scholar may arrive at a conclusion by several intellectually legitimate routes, and it is not necessary that they arrive by starting with another source who already had a similar conclusion, or the world would have made much slower progress than it has. I don't think Andrea Dworkin came to her position by finding another who had, but did it by analyzing and evaluating other sources and developing her own conclusions, which is no different than someone studying physiology and climatology and concluding that wearing a coat outdoors in the Arctic is a good idea even if they don't find anyone else who wrote that. Thus, I think that Jill Johnston's book and Joreen's essay are primary but Andrea Dworkin's and Mary Daly's books are secondary, not because the latter quote the former but because the latter analyze, evaluate, cite, and depend on a variety of primary and secondary sources while the former are more personally involved or don't cite sources.

Your proposed sentence would be appropriate as to Joreen's work, which is treated as primary because of its composition, but to require it for Mary Daly's, whose work is evaluative of other sources, would justify that endless chain of citations. That's why I asked if Mary Daly's Gyn/Ecology) is considered primary. To classify it, the book's conclusions are largely irrelevant.

And, Helen Diner's work on matriarchies, which is secondary, is cited by Jill Johnston, whose book is primary, and Linda Zerilli's secondary source does much the same for the feminists of circa the 1970s. So it appears that there's already enough material by any WP analysis to support a superiority section in an article.

And there seems no objection to citing, say, Mary Wollstonecraft and Betty Friedan for other fulcrums of feminism, even though they originated the key parts of what they said, in that they didn't refer to other feminists who preceded them with similar declarations. We don't wait for a scholar who says Betty Friedan says such-and-such; we find Betty's books and quote, paraphrase, or summarize them directly, and should, largely because of the impact of one of her books. And Mary Daly probably had stronger academic credentials than Betty Friedan did. Other scholars may have valuable insights to add to the discourse, in which case they can be important additions to WP, but they aren't required before we can report the sources who thought up interesting conclusions and did so not from personal involvement alone but from reliance on primary and secondary sources making their resulting work secondary.

The challenges to the five above seem to be challenges to their conclusions, not to their content from which their conclusions arose. That's why I'm asking about these five and why any of them should be considered primary, if there's a reason other than their conclusions. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (Corrected a spurious paragraph break: 10:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

They should all be considered primary in writing an overview of ideas about matriarchy, female superiority etc. The "new draft" you linked to is essay-like and original synthesis. An example of a suitable source to write about feminist ideas would be Sarah Gamble, The Routledge Companion to Feminism and Post-Feminism. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, treat them as primary. However, they are excellent examples of where primary sources (when properly attributed) can be highly appropriate for use in articles. It is fine to discuss what these sources say... just don't use them to support something they don't actually say. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, be extremely careful not to cherry-pick points. The subject of Chesler's book, for example, is, as the title says, Women and Madness. That should be made clear if points subsidiary to her main focus are discussed. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice.

Is there anything the sources don't actually say that's in the draft? There's nothing like that, to my knowledge.

Parts could possibly be considered synthesis if all the sources are primary, but it's not synthesis if some are secondary, because editors can summarize and paraphrase. That's why whether they're primary or secondary matters, and for that the books' conclusions shouldn't matter, but essentially whether the authors are writing about their personal experience or drawing on other sources.

None of it is original (I assume you meant like OR), since I grounded it in the sources.

Can you give an example of how I wrote essay-style? Since the section is mostly quotes, maybe I'm missing something that gives that impression, and I'd like to know. I did try to organize the section for better readability, but I didn't substitute for sourcing or try to persuade readers one way or the other (other than to show that the superiority fulcrum exists).

I didn't cherry-pick—I looked for contradictions of what I quoted from any of the authors, and there weren't any—but also I didn't summarize any entire book, which would be appropriate for an article about the book, rather than a subject the book covers along with others, and in a feminism article would have been coatracking. Phyllis Chesler was not arguing that women diagnosed as mentally ill or delusional were likelier to identify with Amazonian power; rather, she was writing that it is generally women who are qualified to do what she was discussing. I cited the title of her book, but didn't summarize her other issues. It is not an antifeminist book, which would have contradicted her quoted content. As far as I can see under Wikipedia's standards, Women and Madness is secondary.

I'm guessing you meant The Routledge Critical Dictionary of Feminism and Postfeminism (not Companion). It's by the editor you named, and a library has it circulating. Dictionaries are generally tertiary and not preferred, but if it has good content, I can add it to other sources.

I'm concerned that we're using sources' conclusions to determine primariness, rather than relying on authors' processes, e.g., research and reasoning. That still needs addressing, for consistency across WP.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) (Corrected two words ("they're" to "some are" and "Reference" to "Companion"): 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

When does a calculation become OR?

At Shepherds Flat Wind Farm we have the situation where a figure of 228 MW, and now 230 MW, has been calculated as the average power output of a wind farm not yet built. See Talk page for discussion. When does a calculation become OR? Johnfos (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb would be that as soon as another editor raises reasonable questions about the legitimacy of results from such a calculation, the calculation doesn't qualify as "routine" and the article should defer to actual cited/referenced figures rather than new figures derived by an editor. Only routine calculations are ok under the policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The only question is about the overprecision of the unit conversion. The source says, "2 billion kilowatt-hours per year".[14] Converting kilowatt-hours to kilowatt-years simply requires dividing by the number of hours per year:

$2\times 10^{9}\ \mathrm {\frac {kW\!\cdot \!h}{yr}} ={\frac {2\times 10^{6}}{24\times 365.25}}\ \mathrm {\frac {MW\!\cdot \!yr}{yr}} =228\ \mathrm {MW} .$

Where is there room for reasonable dispute about the legitimacy of the calculation? This is just arithmetic, no different from converting 'approximately 5 miles' to '8.0 km'.

—WWoods (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Calculations should be presented to reflect the degree of precision available. "Approximately 5 miles" should translate to "approximately 8 km", not to "8.0 km", which might be misleading. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if this relates to the example above... but another complicaton to consider is that a calculation may be routine in terms of one topic, but not at all reoutine in terms of another topic. If you are the first person to use a calculation in the context of a given topic, then doing so is Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Isn't it more usual to cite the peak output of a power station rather than its estimate average over a year? It's something we should be careful about, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I'd just put the following formula converting units of gas to Kilowatt hours into an Excel spradsheet.

units*correction_factor*Calorific_value/KWh_conversion_factor

which includes two fudge factors depending on the gas and temperature plus an actual constant, and the gas company's glossary didn't describe one of them at all. I didn't think the above is too bad if the source figure is given and it is converting to more familiar units and the accuracy of the result is properly qualified - approximately 2.3 is as much as should be said. I don't think peak power has much relevance to a wind farm but I do wonder how its variance should be treated in things like this. Dmcq (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Search results rather than paper?

We've got a question at WP:ELN#ELNO_.239 that's not properly an External links question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?

The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good (secondary?) source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a handful of (important?) papers. The aspect involving NOR is whether these papers should be called out in the journal's article at all, since nobody seems to have written anything like "Journal X is famous for publishing these papers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Girl Talk albums

This came to my attention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#All Day (album) full of original research. All Day (album)‎ has a "track listing" that is admitted OR. The listing is constructed from a set of lengthy pieces of music containing a number of songs and has been created by some WP editors. It also appears that Secret Diary, Unstoppable (Girl Talk album), Night Ripper and Feed the Animals have the same problem.

I removed the OR from All Day but is has been reinstated with the rational of WP:IAR and "there is no harm". More eyes on the explain why WP is not a place for original research would be great --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't like there are being pulled from the sky. The artist released a list of songs sampled and a number of sites have provided timings. Google brings up a number of them.--Terrillja _talk 14:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, in which case it should be possible to source! So far I have not been able to manage it --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[15] [16] [17] As I said, it's not like these are being pulled from the sky. For obvious reasons, you aren't going to find something like the NY times posting all the samples, but [people with probably too much free time] are going through and have done it. Those took 3 minutes to find. The last seems to have used wikipedia to start the matching and then verified it, but whosampled is probably the best right now. I'm sure the music genome project could probably get most of them if their databases were used as well.--Terrillja _talk 14:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I might support some of that. the All Day source, which is the only one I have so far searched for is just a list of samples and not the timings - which is the OR bit. For the other albums - the sources are not great but I'm a believer in being sensible about such things, that said others might not be so open about it. As it is All Day is still OR sourced. Whosampled is a source for the tack listing, but there are no timings --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not ending timings, but starting ones: http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/68920/Girl%20Talk-Down%20for%20the%20Count_The%20Temptations-Get%20Ready/ http://mashupbreakdown.com/ also has a graphical representation of the samples and is based on whosampled.--Terrillja _talk 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, well I for one am happy with that (it's a bit "in your face" on Whosampled so I missed those times, sorry). Although I would point out we have no source for All Day. Plus we need to be careful on the other examples to stick to data Whosampled uses and avoid "filling in the blanks". Pre-warning; other editors may dispute these as a RS though. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whosampled like IMDb is community generated. Hence, not a reliable source.Q ^{T C} 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've been mulling on this. And on reflection Wikipedia is not even really the place for this information - that is what sites such as Whosampled exist for. So, actually I re-support removing these and providing Whosampled (and similar) lists as external links. Regardless of what sourcing has been provided OR is going on in the articles, and that is not appropriate --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Read my response on WP:AN.--Terrillja _talk 14:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done. It boils down to WP:HARMLESS, which is not really well stacked up against WP:OR and WP:IAR which, again, is not really workable. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's about common sense and what is best for the reader. More info that is sourced to a number of sites, whether they are 100% reliable or not gives the reader a better understanding of how this album was created. Having an article which says it was an album by Girl Talk and nothing else doesn't improve the encyclopedia in any what whatsoever. It does a disservice to the reader. The entire point of what makes the album a mashup is understanding the combinations of songs. Without that, the reader has no clue what the hell is being mashed up.--Terrillja _talk 14:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a legitimate wikipedia argument. That same argument could be used to include contact information for businesses, price lists for products, or 1000 links to different sites about any given topic. Our purpose isn't to give the readers everything they might possibly want--it's to give them every piece of encyclopedic information about the topics that meet our notability standards. We take the stand that all challengable info needs to be verified by reliable sources, and when there are no reliable sources, we just don't include the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

IAR is a policy. So my argument to include is based on policy. Keep in mind the fifth pillar.--Terrillja _talk 00:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not about outright ignoring rules; it is about pointing out that the spirit of the rule is vastly more important than the letter of them. It is also not a license to pick and choose when to follow policy. And the 5P is some text dealing with our core principles and vision - but is not in itself policy. The core policies NPOV, V and OR are key and the spirit of them should be upheld for the benefit of the wiki. You call IAR because this is a harmless bending of the NOR policy, I call IAR to cut and remove the content as it undermines the wiki. See the issue :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC started. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR/Synthesis at Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard)

The article Jewish control of the media was changed to Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) and without any prior discussion. This happened after I pointed out that WP:RS use myth and conspiracy theory much more frequently than canard. I also pointed that WP:RS definitions show canard means lie and myth/conspiracy theory are not necessarily a lie, but misintepretation, misconception, or whatever, as even the WP:RS sometimes make clear. (FYI. I have opined that Accusation of Jewish control of media probably would be most NPOV title allowing all accusations to be described properly, without giving impression the article was about Jewish control of the media.)

WP:OR's first paragraph clearly applies, i.e.: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources. But despite requests, none has come up with WP:RS that say canard/lie equals myth/conspiracy theory.

Worse, this WP:OR/Synthesis has major BLP implications since it is supporting the article's current modus operandi of labeling propagators of canards (i.e., liars and fabricators) people who WP:RS do not describe as such. I've just been waiting for article title to be settled before do so. Maybe I should not wait.

Please feel free to add comments to this WP:Original Research reminder section. Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is a topic where angels fear to tread, but it would be nice to get an NPOV opinion or two. ;-) In short, can editors just claim words with less negative meanings are just as bad as words with highly negative meanings, even despite WP:RS, cause it fits their POV? Thanks. (Of course, the solution is to just make sure every one of the unending examples identifies what the WP:RS said it was and then at least the BLP issue will be quasi-resolved.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis on Family Research Council

Family Research Council has been a hotbed of contentious editing ever since the SPLC designated it a "hate group" last month. While the article has a number of POV issues, I believe there is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH first introduced here: FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as the result of a political attack by a "liberal organization" and "the left's smear campaign of conservatives", but reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

I take no issue with the first clause in the compound sentence, but the second clause, ([Perkins] reiterated that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles despite scientific evidence to the contrary.) is a synthesis of two cited primary sources: the MSNBC interview of Perkins and an APA study on sexual orientation. Without a reliable, secondary source, this statement cannot be taken as anything other than synthesis. At least one editor and one administrator apparently disagree with me. I'd appreciate additional feedback from this board. Uncle Dick (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. It takes the form of combining two sources to make a point which is controversial in the context. I don't mean to take sides with the FRC here. I just see that it is a blatant synthesis of two sources to make a point. There should be sources which make this synthesis for us. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Becritical that joining two sources to make an original point runs afoul of NOR. But the solution does not require deleting the whole sentence. It looks like the second clause was added here.[18] Deleting that material would be sufficient to fix the material.   Will Beback  talk  09:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How about my suggestion - does this seem to be too SYNTHy? EdChem (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about the FRC and looks very definitely like synthesis to me and should not be in the article. Why this burning need to stick something like that in? It's obvious thery're eejits anyway and that bit is in a section about criticisms of them. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting development, now they're arguing they have to stick in a document refuting a view by FRC even though it has no connection with FRC because doing so is required by WP:NPOV! I've asked them to raise their new point on WP:NPOVN. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno - I think we owe readers accurate information. We shouldn't leave them with a false impression simply because no source has specifically refuted that particular iteration of the falsehood. I respect WP:NOR, but the ultimate goal is not slavish adherence to policy, but rather accurate and informative content. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It really seems to me that merely eliminating the paragraphing there would be sufficient, since the next sentence would be a nice refutation. It would go on "In its Winter 2010 Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the FRC as a hate group,[27][5] saying that the organization "pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia." But if that's not enough, we could perhaps at that point go on to give the scientific data, because the source has brought up the issue of the falsity of the accusations. Since that little part of the article is now discussing the general falsity of the accusations, we should be able to use the scientific data, since at that particular point it is directly relevant to the subject and we have a source which links the two. Of course, we don't have a source saying that the reason the SPLC said that was because of the scientific data. EdChem's text is very nice if we can use it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the source here links its statement "Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia" to this page. They directly link the words "false accusations," and I'm betting without looking we hit the jackpot here :D .....Yes, we did. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've raised the issue of NPOV at WP:NPOVN#NPOV being used to justify OR at Family Research Council, perhaps that would be better as they are using NPOV now to justify the insertion. Maybe I was wrong to do that, it does become messy when the grounds are changed. Perhaps better to use the NPOVN notice board now. Dmcq (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that last link about 18 groups sounds like the jackpot okay, I'll copy it over to the talk page of the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold Start (military doctrine)

The article is really in bad condition. "Cold Start" due to the latest wikileaks is all over in the news. So I think is relevant but the majority of it was written by an unregistered user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_Start_%28military_doctrine%29&action=historysubmit&diff=335282532&oldid=319488768 I removed some totally irrelevant content, but I'm not familiar with the subject.--Dia^ (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been plagiarized from various sources such as [19] and [20], thus removed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

List of alumni of Wesley College, Melbourne

This is a walled garden maintained by an alumn, who insists on listing hundreds of people without articles whom I suspect of being non-notable. Can I get some help here? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Made a start, taking out those without articles. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

My understanding of wikipolicy is that primary documents must be used with care, but they are not prohibited.

It is my understanding that summarizing a primary document is not automatically a lapse from our policy on original research.

This edit removed a passage from an article on an Afghanistan political group. As I wrote on the talk page, I think the meaning of the testimony I paraphrased was clear enough that it did not require any original research to draft that paraphrase.

I'd be grateful for others' opinions, was my paaraphrase really a lapse from OR? Geo Swan (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Using a recent 2009 study is OR?

A recent 2009 study was deleted from Chiropractic#Treatment techniques. See Talk:Chiropractic#New Section: Causes of Adverse Effects from Chiropractic Techniques for the discussion.

This specific proposal is to restore the text. "A 2009 study to assess the prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries sustained by chiropractic students receiving and/or administering manipulation while attending a chiropractic college found the prevalence of injuries sustained was 31%, 44% of which was exacerbations of preexisting injuries. Injuries from receiving manipulation were most prevalent in the neck/shoulder at 65%, while hand/wrist injuries were most common when administering manipulations at 45%. Diversified, Gonstead, and upper cervical manipulations methods were considered to be the most related to injuries."[21]

An editor claims it is bordering on OR to use this decent study. The text is sourced in accodance with V policy. There are no other sources avaliable like this one. The source is too new for a review of the study. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)