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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

No Article Yet

I have a general question about OR and primary sources, which has not yet been applied to an article. If this isn't a good place to ask, please let me know where would be better. Here is the situation. Facts about an event in the past (1955) have been written in several secondary sources, (Published reference books, magazine articles) although they all relate a first person account, and nothing recent (past 1972) has been published. There has never been a published claim that these facts are not true. Now, certain WP editors claim that the facts presented in these sources are not true and that the person who authored these accounts is lying. There is no actual proof of this however.

In the mean time, I have tracked down the original person who was interviewed for these secondary sources, and have a chance to interview them myself, to confirm the facts from the secondary sources. Because this interview would be used only to establish that this person did indeed do what they claimed in the secondary source, with no interpretation, is this type of this allowed? Is it OR to confirm what the secondary sources say? The interview, which I plan to record would be a primary source, so could it be used for just establishing if the event did or did not happen? There is no reason to think that the person is or was lying, but is this an acceptable means to calm doubting editors? (Whose qualms seem to be mostly based on personal bias, but regardless, it would be nice to know.) Because the event was witnessed by only 2 people in the world, it seems to me that this is an acceptable thing. Please let me know what others think. pschemp | talk 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I also need to add that the person I can interview is not the person who is the source the original articles. The two were traveling together, the event happened and the 1st is the source of the published information. The second, whom I will speak with was a witness, but not the source of the first person articles or interviews. pschemp | talk 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are too many hypotheticals here to give a meaningful answer, but on the face of it, that seems to me to be WP:OR. It isn't Wikipedia editors job to ascertain whether things are 'true' or not by conducting interviews. I suppose to some extent it depends rather on what it is that is in question though. If somebody is claiming to have seen a unicorn, one would clearly be more concerned with such issues than one would if it was over some minor detail. I think you'll have to be more explicit in regard to what exactly you are trying to verify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Simple answer: Yes, your interview is OR...

More complex answer: a certain degree of OR is allowed on talk pages, especially when it relates to a discussion as to whether a give source should be considered reliable or not. You can not add any information you obtained from the interview to the article itself... but you can certainly discuss the interview on the talk page to either question or confirm something that was said in a published source, and to reach a consensus on whether what was said in the published source should be included in the article or not. The outcome of that discussion (ie what the consensus will be) depends on the specifics (and as Andy has already noted, for us to say anything more, we would need to know those specifics). Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the detail in question is a location, a minor detail and not an extraordinary or difficult to believe claim. In the secondary literature, the people who have witnessed the event said that it took place in a certain location. An editor who is unhappy with the political implications of the event taking place at the location simply insists that the witnesses were wrong or are lying, but there is no real reason to doubt that detail, and no research or citations to back the assertion of untruth. So if I'm reading your answers correctly, the interview could be used to help establish reliability of the published literature? Also, is it really OR if I just get the witnesses to restate what they already said in other published sources? It wouldn't be a new fact. Last, if as Andy has said it isn't editors' job to ascertain what is true, is the opposite correct, that it isn't our job to ascertain what is untrue (assuming no sources in the world also claim untruth)? pschemp | talk 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for snooping, but it's much easier to deal in specifics rather than generalities. If the article in question is Turkish Van, then the editor who argues that the reliable secondary sources reporting that Lushington acquired the cats in the Lake Van area of Turkey [1] are actually wrong or erroneous needs to cite some equally reliable secondary sources that explicitly support that position. You don't need to conduct interviews with witnesses to resolve this issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is about cats? How can there be 'political implications' regarding cats? Cats don't involve themselves in politics - they have more sense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Meowy about that. Claiming that Turkish Vans come from the Lake Van Area of Turkey threatens her Turkishness somehow. She's ranted for years about this. pschemp | talk 19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The cats are innocent victims of the schemes of humans. This is about one person (Lushington, a cat breeder in the 1960s) seeming to say two different things. In third-party sources, mostly amateurish cat-fancier literature from the 1980s, the cats come from the Lake Van region, but in earlier sources, from the 1960s, in particular those written by Lushington (and before she started to call them "Turkish Vans") she is very vague as to their origin and her words imply that she got the cats from everywhere in Turkey but Van (and, significantly, she NEVER actually states that she got them from Van). But really, pschemp, are you actually saying that the only reason to find out the facts about something is if those facts can be used in Wikipedia? You should be wanting to ask this person the questions to gain knowledge for knowledge's sake, even if the resulting information is OR and cannot be used. Meowy 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And if a person wrote that she got cats from the forests of Antartica, such an obviously dubious claim is questionable regardless of the source, and regardless if there are no sources that also question it. There are no forests in Antartica, and no lobsters or gum trees anywhere near Van! Meowy 15:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree that someone saying they saw a cat "curled up in a disused lobster pot" is an "obviously dubious claim" as there are many possible explanations and interpretations for it. The pot could have conceivably been a decorative antique, for example. Or better yet, the cat curled up in the pot was reportedly observed off an island on the south coast of Turkey. In any case, we can only report what reliable third party sources say about the subject. If they say she got the cats while traveling in Turkey, that's what we report. (And I see that's what the article presently says). We really can't add our own investigative analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The dubious claims are not that she got the cats while travelling in Turkey (that fact is accepted), but that other, later, sources claim she got them in Van, thus justifying the "Turkish Van" name. Lushington never says in any of the early sources that she got any of them in Van. I suspect the OR research that pschemp wants to do is to explain that awkward fact by talking to the woman Lushington travelled with on her first trip to Turkey. I hope she will do it, and do it with an open mind. However, pschemp is a "Turkish Van" owner, and I can't help thinking that she will have a vested interest in trying to avoid the awkward fact that thay are probably all just descended from assorted long-haired Turkish street cats that were found anywhere in Turkey but Van. Meowy 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistakenly thought this dispute concerned something that was *in* the present article. Now I understand: it's about a theoretical addition of content based on a theoretical interview. Never mind. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It does concern what is in the article, I don't want to add any more than is already there. The printed sources, cited in the article, all say the Ms. Lushington and Ms. Halliday stated that they got the cats in the Lake Van region, then returned on subsequent trips to get more cats form that region. Meowy doesn't like the political implications of this, for various incoherent reasons. However, Ms. Halliday is still alive, and I did talk with her, and she did restate that the cats all came from the Lake Van area. Nothing new here. However, Meowy insists on claiming that these women are lying...with no references to back it up. Perhaps Meowy would like to call up the woman and accuse her of lying to her face? (That seems to really be OR in my opinion.) SO my question stands. Is it OR if the primary source restates what the secondary source already said? (And I don't own a Van currently, I'm only interested in keeping random Turkish nationalism OUT of this article.) pschemp | talk 19:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your phone call is still Original Research. What do the majority of secondary sources say about the subject? Do they say she got the cats "while traveling in Turkey" or "while traveling in the Lake Van area of Turkey"? Therein lies the answer to what should be in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Where does Lushington say she got the cats in the "Lake Van region"? The two 1960s articles, as I have explained on the talk page, indicate locations other than Lake Van. Turkish Van breeders, have a vested interest in maintaing the vagueness. I want to know the exact locations where these cats were obtained (not some vague "lake Van area") and I would want a description of the locations as proof that Halliday and Lushington actually were there, or some photographic evidence if any exists. That is the barest minimum any concientious investigator would ask for (and wanting such information has nothing to do with accuations of lying). Given that Pschemp has never been to that part of the world, she is not qualified to ask such questions or assess the answers. I would be willing to ask Ms Halliday these things if, with her permission, pschamp would pass on the contact information. Even though it would all be OR as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is information that should be properly clarified while one of the eyewitnesses is still around. Meowy 17:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

I believe this article has many problems with original research, particularly WP:SYNTH. I'd like to focus on two paragraphs in Christ_myth_theory#Meaning_of_the_whole_term:

Sources that try to actually define the entire term "Christ Myth theory" and "Jesus Myth Theory" only add to the confusion. The 1988 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines Christ Myth Theory thus: "(the) view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes, and its basis is sought in the parallels, actual or legendary, to the Gospel records concerning Jesus", and then presents Lucian, G. A. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and P Graham as examples of this concept.[29] Lucian, however, never said that Jesus did not exist as a flesh and blood man, but rather mocked the story of Jesus and the belief of Christians;[30] Wells has stated, even in his pre-Jesus Legend works, that Paul's Jesus was mythical in the legendary sense of the word (ie historical myth);[31] and Russell and Graham both "left open the question of whether there was such a figure as Jesus of Nazareth as the Gospels portray Him."[29] Furthermore both Greek and Norse myth stories have a huge range of theories regarding their origins including distortions of actual historical events[32][33] As late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods"[34] and these three with Mithras are the cults Bromiley says that Jesus' death and resurrection story suggests to some minds as being a variant of. As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way.

This passage is based on an editor's opinion that the definition of the Christ myth theory is ambiguous and problematic. The first sentence is pure opinion—there is no secondary sources that states that the definition of the term is confused. Then the passage quotes the entry on "Jesus Christ" from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and analyses the quote, with a bunch of citations. None of these citations comment on the entry in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and none of them says that the definition in the encyclopedia is unclear. This is, then, a use of published sources to advance an editor's own position—a clear instance of WP:SYNTH.

There are some other problems as well. Even though the text attributes the definition to Bromiley, he is probably not the author of the entry in question, he was the editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia. And despite what is claimed, there is no reason to think that the definition of Christ myth theory is unclear, either in the quoted entry or in any other secondary source. But the main policy issue is that an editor is trying to put his own opinion into this Wikipedia article through WP:SYNTH. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not touching this one with a 10 foot pole. This whole article is a hornet's nest. I was involved in it a long time ago, and there's really no gentle way to deal with it. Be prepared for an ugly debate if you wade into this area. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a look and I can't figure out why there is both this article Christ myth theory and the article Historicity of Jesus. The historicity article seems well written and the myth one seems a train wreck. The thing that seems especially interesting is that the historicity one refers to the myth one in a section in which the first half doesn't really deal with the person being mythical at all but to a sect which believed he wasn't a living human but a spirit, and the second half refers to the modern meaning of where he was purely mythological, I'd have thought the two were completely different things. That really should be two sections in the historicity article. There is also another article Jesus Christ in comparative mythology which tends more to the first meaning in the historicity article but also has bits of the second. Yes I do agree the article is a big mess because it is trying to cover at east two completely different things at once. I think the best first step would be to distinguish between the two main ideas in the historicity article which is the top level one. Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the Josephus section for neutrality which was promptly removed. I did go back and reread WP:NPOV and I should have introduced the idea the section isn't neutral in the talk page before tagging it. I still feel very strongly the section is not neutral and specifically does not address the majority of biblical scholars who feel two statements Josephus made are authentic and the one about 'Jesus who is called the Christ' is at its basis authentic. In fact a significant amount of the article is synthesis with the bent Jesus was not a historical figure. This was an extreme fringe theory for nearly two thousand years. It's only been the last two hundred years the 'Jesus is Myth' theories have arisen. Now the article is about Jesus as Myth so we need to address what those who espouse that idea said. That should be what they said and not interwoven with editor's opinions and synthesis of what those authors said or even what others said those authors said or meant. The former is perfectly necessary for the article and the latter should be expunged. Also there are entire sections early on which seem to me to be synthesis of what Jesus as Myth means, etc. The article needs a great deal of work and we need a balance of opinions with proper weight to be heard and not censored by others. This article is not about whether Jesus is myth or fact but appropriately referenced mention of those who say Jesus is Myth.Jobberone (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article has extensive problems, but I was hoping that posting here would result in a discussion focused on one specific problem. What do people think of the passage I posted above? Is it ok to have Wikipedia say things like "As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way" without that opinion appearing in any secondary source? This looks like obvious original research to me; what do others think? Jobberone indicates that there's synthesis in the article, but doesn't address my question specifically.

And Dmcq, the "Jesus was a purely spiritual being" idea is part of the Christ myth theory. Maybe some context would help—in the 19th century, people started applying historical method to the Gospels and other early Christian writings to try to figure out what the actual history was behind our stories about Jesus. In general, scholars found that the sources give us information about a human being who lived in the early part of the 1st century CE and whose preaching led to the formation of Christianity, even though they disagreed vehemently about many details of Jesus' life. The Christ myth theory grew out of this attempt to find the real history behind the Gospels. It says that you can't use these sources to find out about the life of a human being because there was no historical Jesus at the root of it all. Christ-myth theorists' explanations of the real origins of Christianity differ, but an explanation common to many mythicists is that Christianity developed from a Jewish sect that worshipped a savior-god called Joshua (the same name as Jesus—Joshua is a more direct transliteration whereas Jesus is filtered through Greek). This Joshua was not initially thought of as a human being, but as a purely spiritual being, essentially a god, but over time he was given human characteristics, so that eventually the Gospels portray him as a human being (though a special kind of human being). So the idea that Jesus was originally understood as a purely spiritual being is an alternative account of Christianity's origins that arises from the initial step of saying that there was no historical Jesus at Christianity's beginnings. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe this 'purely spiritual' thing was some heresy that was squashed by the declaration that Jesus was both true God and true man. It wasn't some idea that people couldn't see the person or anything like that. That is not the same as myth in the modern sense at all. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, Dmcq—the idea that Christianity arose from a pre-Christian Jewish cult of Joshua is a modern theory which I believe was first advocated by John M. Robertson in the first decade of the 20th century, but the idea was followed by a number of Christ-myth theorists after that, like Arthur Drews. It seems to me that you're thinking of docetism, a heresy from the 1st-2nd century CE, but that's distinct from the Christ-myth theory.

Also, it's important not to get tripped up by the meaning of "myth" here, since it can mean so many different things. When Christ-myth theorists use the word they mean something like "made up" or "invented". --Akhilleus (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's the heresy. What I was saying is that the Historicity article in the section 'Jesus as myth' mixes that in with the modern idea and they just shouldn't be mixed together. Fixing that would be a good step towards setting the background for the modern Christ myth theory which is what that article should just deal with. It shouldn't touch upon that heresy at all or any other historical business like it though what Celsus wrote is probably okay for the article. Why exactly there is a Christ myth theory article separate from the historicity article is what I just don't get, the only good reason for such separate existence is if it deals with a very well outlined subset of the historicity article. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ Myth theory is - or rather should be - about the tradition of thought which claims that Jesus is a mythological figure, one whose life story should be interpreted in the same way that others myths are analysed. In a sense it starts from the assumption of his non-historicity. It's rather similar to the way that Marlovian theory starts from the assumption that the author William Shakespeare is a "myth". The article describes the various claims that have been made about Marlowe and ther arguments for them. The Shakespeare authorship question page, in contrast, deals with the arguments about the "historicity" of Shakespeare, only touching briefly on specific claims made for alternative authors. The Historicity page has essentially the same role as the SAQ page - to detail the historical arguments about Jesus. The CMT page has the same role as "Marlovian theory" - to explore the history of arguments that take the non-historical position. Of course there will always be some overlap - as with the SAQ articles - but they are nevertheless clearly distinct topics, I think. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that comparison just doesn't work for me. The theory that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's work is a specific topic and a specific section of the authenticity question. In the case of the Christ myth theory there just is no such definite idea, it is all over the place with different ideas. I don't see that as a specific topic under historicity - it is as far as I can see just a slanted version of the historicity article. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, I think the reason that it seems like "there just is no such definite idea, it is all over the place with different ideas" is because the article is poorly written (and in fact the opening sections have been written with the goal of making the subject seem confusing). There's a reasonably large body of secondary sources about the Christ myth theory that treat it as a definite and clearly defined trend within the study of the historical Jesus—a recent example is Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The reason why this should be a separate article, not just part of the historical Jesus article, is because it's such a minority view that it doesn't merit more than a few sentences in an article dealing with the mainstream views (in accordance with WP:UNDUE) but there's enough sources to write a lot more than a few sentences. Essentially, the number of sources justifies a full article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The historical Jesus and christ myth theory articles refer to two (of many) rival theories concerning the historicity of Jesus. Both approaches use historical methods but lead their proponents to different conclusions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Bruce Grubb should be topic banned from Jesus-related articles, and especially from "Christ Myth theory". I used to contribute to this, but was essentially driven away by Bruce Grubb's relentless POV pushing. I wish to apologise to Akhilleus for leaving him to struggle against the tide of sophistry almost alone. Essentially Bruce has been pushing this claim that there is no clear meaning to Christ Myth theory for a long time. He drags quotations from sources out of context, sythesises arguments from multiple sources and essentially uses the full armoury of WP:OR to push this view, which simply undermines any attempt to give a serious and clear account of what is undeniably a distinct intellectual tradition. Of course there will always be some variation in usage between different writers. That goes for almost any term used in historical literature. There is also a genuine ambiguity about the limits of the concept of the "Christ myth", which is an inevitable consequence of the theory itself. One can never draw an absolutely clear line between a minimalist model of "historical Jesus" and the concept of a purely "mythical" figure. There will always be an area where one position "shades" into the other. But that does not alter the fact that concept has a clear identity and the scholarly literature that discusses it is generally consistent about the meaning. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus first comment. I just happen to think there is synthesis thruout the article. However, I was censored immediately so I withdrew not wanting to fight it. If there is enough opposition to the article as its written then I will be happy to participate. I do think we should be faithful to the purpose of the article which is to bring an encyclopedic rending of the Jesus as Myth story. The article can be salvaged.Jobberone (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

It appears to me from the discussion above that other editors share my concerns about original research in this article. However, the editor responsible for the problematic text is removing the {{synthesis}} tag from the article: [2] [3]. Can anyone suggest a course of action? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 3 days. I am also sympathetic to some action being taken in regard to Bruce Grubb. I note that he hasn't taken part in this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, BruceGrubb might not have been aware of this discussion until I posted on the Talk:Christ myth theory page yesterday.

I was NOT aware of this discussion PERIOD. I should mention that administrator User:SlimVirgin created the Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition page to collect the LONG discussions on what the article was-should be about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if some kind of action were taken against BruceGrubb, because he has been inserting OR, misrepresenting sources (e.g. [4]), and POV-pushing on this article for years now. But I really have no idea how to solve the problem; I've posted to many noticeboards over the years trying to get some help, and the situation has not improved. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest one of us use their sandbox to write the article from scratch or attempt to rewrite it with other editors contributing. We could do the entire article or section by section. I do not propose that be me although you are welcome to use my sandbox. I welcome any other suggestions.Jobberone (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The article tries to address the problems User:Ludwigs2, User:Vesal, User:Peregrine_Fisher, User:Blueboar, User:jbolden1517, User:^^James^^, User:SlimVirgin, User:Crum375, User:Wdford had with the old version. In fact, Paul B and Bill the Cat 7 both agreed that the idea of the Gospel Jesus as a composite character "may legitimately fall under the umbrella of "Christ Myth Theory" though they never answered the question of would that include a 1st century teacher who was NOT crucified being in the mix.

Nevermind Anthony's relevant questions of 24 April 2010 were ignored:

"If the Christ myth theory means "Jesus did not exist", what does that mean?

• there were no preachers in early 1st century Galilee-Judea doing or saying the kinds of things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, and the NT Jesus is pure fiction.
• there was/were preacher/s in early 1st century Galilee-Judea doing and saying some or all of the things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament but he/they are anonymous, and the New Testament character may be partly or wholly based on him/them.
• there was a man named Jesus, brother of James, in 1st century Galilee-Judea, but we do not know what he said or did, so the New Testament Jesus Christ may be pure fiction."

This article has had numerous attempts at getting a consensus regarding its definition and all have been failures.

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_part_7295
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Christ_myth_theory_and_Historicity_of_Jesus
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Christ_Myth_Theory_definition

Then you have the many times this has come up: [[5]]

SlimVirgin set what the guidelines should be for the article:

1) It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ.

2) It should make clear whether it's a term used mainly by proponents or opponents. It should explain the history of the theory and the naming of the theory.

3) It should outline the different ways in which a person might be such a theorist (soft, hard), sourced to secondary sources to avoid OR.

So far I have been the only one to try and apply those guidelines.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bruce has popped up on my talkpage about this, but not linked here. I was briefly involved in trying to referee this article ages ago, and observed then that it is all over the place, from people who believe that there never ever was or could be anyone who lived who was remotely connected to anything recorded in the Gospels; to the theory that there were three Jesuses (Jesi??) - the son of the carpenter, the one who wrote his scripts, and his agent in Tin Pan Alley. My own opinion is as follows

1. this mishmash is OR, if only because there is not one single notable "jesus is a myth" topic - there are hordes of the things. The coatrack inclusion here of every theory ever advanced makes it appear that there is such a thing, and that is by definition OR.
   
2. the heresy needs an article of its own, that is just about the heresy. The heresy is a notable topic, with references and everything
   
3. all the other theories either belong in the article about Jesus as a historical figure, or if notable enough deserve their own articles.
   
4. In some cases, the particular theory is so bound up with one author or one book that I would put the theory in the author article or an article about the book.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In case this wasn't clear - the entire first half of the lede of the article is OR, "Sources that try to ... equally reliable references" is clearly OR, and "It is unhelpful that breaking this spectrum down into categories tends to be dependent on the author in question" is OR. More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ." This statement may well be true, but it is OR to place it in the article outside of a context of writers of theories about the non existence of christ. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

iPad (3rd Generation) source reliability and original research dispute

This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.

The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according to the original research guideline but that does not discredit my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.

Sources in question

• Source claims LTE is not 4G
• Source mentioning the requirements of 4G which LTE does not fit while quoting from the International Transmission Union which is the organisation that standardised mobile technology and there respective classifications
• Another source stating that LTE is not 4G by referencing requirements standardised by the ITU
• Primary Apple source claiming 4G is LTE by labelling their device as 4G LTE compatible

Disputed article

iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.

Previous discussions

Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuMaNuMa (talk • contribs)

The bottom line is that your sources need to discuss whether the iPad is 4G or not. Combining sources that say LTE is not 4G with sources that say that the new iPad uses LTE is against our policy of no original research. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first 3 sources don't even mention the iPad and the 4th source doesn't say anything about the iPad not being 4G. Combining unrelated sources to reach a novel conclusion is WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the first 3 sources are contradicting the apple source despite not explicitly mentioning the new iPad, shouldn't there be some sort of exemption to the rule? It's quite clear in the first 3 sources that I've provided that lte is not classified as 4G which direct refutes apple's claim that it is. These sources directly quote the international telecommunication union which regulates international wireless standards including 3G and 4G. Pretty much all I'm saying is that there is a conflict of sources and content, which renders three articles in relations to the iPad, LTE and 4G in general, conflictory. I would like to get a few more opinions and comments before settling this case. If I'm not mistaken, I think this is the first time someone has disputed LTE being classified as 4G so thus is would serve as a precedent for future 4G and LTE disputes. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading something about the ITU accepting the use of 4G in businesses marketing LTE products (even though LTE could be described as so-called 3.9G technology), as LTE is the directly related lead-in technology to the full LTE-Advanced technology (LTE-A meeting the original ITU spec for 4G of 1Gbps). Sorry can't find it, and little time to, but I suggest you attempt to research further this point before claiming Apple is "wrong" to use it here. Companies marketing usage can be valid —even without meeting the official specification— if the ITU standards body have accepted it to be so. --Jimthing (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The argument JimThing has raised is valid and justifies the conclusion of this NOR case. Full results of the discussion and conclusion is located here. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit says that source doesn't directly mention subject of article

At Jebusite this edit [6] says "While not directly mentioning the Jebusites genetic research has noted that Palestinians (specifically Palestinian Muslim Arabs) largely descend from converted Christians and Jews who have lived in the area since what the researchers state as prehistoric times (which would include in Canaanite times)." I'd reverted something similar earlier and asked the editor not to replace it but to go here if they thought this wasn't original research, but they chose to replace it again. Struggling a bit with this editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Costa_Rican

Not much citing, all original research.

George Washington and religion

Please see George Washington and religion for a POV/OR dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Porky's Five and Ten

Hi, just set out to become a new page patroller and have already encountered plenty of thorny questions, this article was created by copy pasting another cartoon article, not a problem, I just updated the no refs tag, but I think that the writer is literally watching the cartoon and writing the action step-by-step. This is a 7 minute short and there are paragraphs and paragraphs of plot, with a lot of wierd stuff thrown in about Greta Garbo and mustachioed fish. I don't know if this qualifies as OR, could someone take a look, maybe prune it down and have a quiet word with the enthusiastic editor? Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced Category:Russian monarchists to biographies

I would like to ask others to comment on adding an unsourced category to several biographies when not supported by anything in the article's text.

Specifically, User:GreatOrangePumpkin has been adding Category:Russian monarchists to such articles as Dmitri Mendeleev and others. Here is what's going on:

Dmitri Mendeleev:

• User:Zloyvolsheb [7] removed

(edit summary: unsourced)

• User:GreatOrangePumpkin [8] readded

(edit summary: see http://books.google.de/books?id=GHDlXwAACAAJ&dq=Mendeleev+monarchist&hl=de&sa=X&ei=lF-MT4D8GI_htQbL08zrCw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA for example)

• User:Zloyvolsheb [9] removed

(edit summary: rv, that's a paper copy of Wikipedia articles (really - see the description in your link))

• User:GreatOrangePumpkin [10] readded

(edit summary: it was just an example. Please search on Gbooks for beginners)

• User:Zloyvolsheb [11] removed

(edit summary: rv, it's your job to provide a source for a claim you make -- WP:BURDEN)

• User:GreatOrangePumpkin [12] readded

(edit summary: Undid revision 488061537 by Zloyvolsheb (talk) please use google, thanks.)

The only Google Books result describing Dmitri Mendeleev as a "monarchist" is just a paper copy of Wikipedia (see search results). It seems the burden of proving a claim falls on the person making it, so that "Google it" is not a proper answer (WP:BURDEN). If GOP is so sure that the source exists, why can't he add it to the article?

I do not want to fruitlessly edit war over this, and would appreciate if someone could aid in the process of dispute resolution. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is an apparently controversial issue. It's not obvious that someone who is known for all sorts of chemistry discoveries and conversely whose article makes zero mention of any sort of monarchist-related activities would be included here. This categorization is a strong factual claim unsupported by the article or simple steps of logic from cited and known material, and therefore does require a cite. It's more problematic that an editor has refused to do so and plowed ahead more while brushing off WP:V policy. "You can find it on google" and then having his own result of that strongly disproven as WP:RS (a fact he does not dispute)--WP:BURDEN indeed. If that's really his best evidence, that's definitely not enough. Per your talk-page, "There are many articles which do not cite the categories," that is not the issue here (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)--uncovering unsourced and not-obvious content is a problem to be solved, not an excuse to make more problems like it. Conversely, here would be an opportunity to make your content stand out as being WP:V unlike those other claims. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New evidence in Underground Railroad quilt code controversy

I have a dilemma in that I have original research, so much in fact that I wrote a book covering the material.( see "The Content of Their Character" Trafford Publishing 2009) I must admit that I have this book as an item to promote and this is not generally acceptable for Wikipedia, but there is no other way for this original research material to be presented systematically. Beside that there is no one else to present it accurately. The controversial Underground Railroad Quilt code is a thorny subject for historians. A bit of notoriety developed in 1999 when authors Raymond Dobard and Jaqueline Tobin wrote a book about the subject "Hidden in Plain View". This started a vehement response from established academics who considered their work amateurish and woefully undocumented.

That sets the stage for my dilemma, as I try to present valid arguments in favor of a code with the field having been marred some what by what these authors have instigated. I have material that has no association with that book but nonetheless reveals quite a bit of the documented history of a family of fugitive slaves that lived beyond the Civil war era to settle in a predominantly Black village in Ohio. They created a quilt in 1877 which has been erroneously labeled a "crazy quilt" which was a popular fad at the time. I have consulted numerous textile experts and historians while writing this book. There is a point of departure of this quilt from the norm of crazy quilts that can be readily defined. The book demonstrates the coding method that is present on this quilt and reveals a very systematic method of construction. The code can only be held in relation to the Underground Railroad by consideration of the fact that the makers of the quilt where documented in 1861 as fugitive slaves and if anyone would have knowledge of such an Underground Railroad code, it would be these folks. Having been made long after the Civil war and slavery, the quilt served not as a slave device but possibly served some communal function to Blacks attempting to survive in the Reconstruction era. More research is needed to establish this function. I have produced a brief video on the subject here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSnGimgonAQ The provenance of the quilt been established. It still exists in fine condition and is available for museum display. The code is there for those who wish to investigate the phenomenon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.206.195 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 April 2012

Since the work is published outside of Wikipedia, it would technically be an issue of reliability rather than one of originality. However, Trafford Publishing is not generally considered reliable, so the material would most likely be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is original research and you need to get it published in reliable sources before it can be included here. TFD (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)