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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

"Summary Tables" for Fatal Dog Attacks article

This is a request for help determining if the Summary Tables in the article "Fatal dog attacks in the United States" violate WP:NOR. To give you the background, this article is an incomplete list of some of the people who have died after being bitten by dogs in the US going back to 1887. The list is composed almost entirely of fatalities that were reported in the news media, not in any other more reliable primary or secondary sources. At the end of the article, there are Summary Tables that attempt to report the percentage of bites per year attributed to different breeds of dogs. For example, in 2013, it says "Other mastiff-type (3) (9%)." I feel this is original research and not the type of thing we should be publishing on Wikipedia. However, after long discussion on the talk page, another editor has insisted that it is exempted based on WP:CALC. These are the reasons I feel that this is Original Research:

1. WP:NOR states "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In this article we are calculating statistics from sketchy primary sources, ie news media.
2. According to WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." However, in the case of this article the primary sources are already vague and contradictory about breeds of dogs. For example, the same dog might be referred to as a "Lab mix," a "mutt," a "bulldog mix," or a "mastiff mix." Thus, there is no way to ensure that the summary tables are "an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." Furthermore, even if the primary sources were not contradictory, there would be no "obvious, correct, and meaningful" way to summarize the data on all the different breeds of dogs. For example, there is no way to know if a purebred Labrador and a Labrador-mix should be combined together into the same percentage.

The extensive discussion on this topic can be found on the Talk page. Any input in resolving this question would be greatly appreciated. Onefireuser (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

Talk page link is here (you accidentally linked to main namespace. As an aside, I had never heard of this article before today, but earlier today I wanted to know how many fatal dog attacks there had been in the US each year and ended up there. Weird coincidence that it would show up on NORB the same day. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the link! Glad you've found the article helpful. Just know that our article is likely catching less than 75% of all the incidents that actually take place. There is a lot of variation in the newsworthiness of different dog-bite-related fatalities and many victims' families understandably don't want to be all over the evening news so they don't get reported. If you want the most accurate possible estimates, I would direct you to the scientific references (from the CDC and JAVMA) at the beginning of the Wikipedia article.Onefireuser (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

Wait: you know of other fatal dog attacks in the USA yet haven't added them to the list? Please, hold back no longer! Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw what it was and that it wasn't appropriate for assessing the total number, but it also gave me I think a sense of the order of magnitude on the number of fatal dog attacks. I (and I think all other humans) are kinda bad at assessing the magnitude of very small risks, so I was curious if this was one of those things that kills a surprising number of people or some small amount. I just took the number I saw and figured it was that plus up to about 1 order of magnitude bigger, which it sounds like you'd agree is probably accurate. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

My position is that summary is not original research: see WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. We just count and give the readers our best description of the top two types of dog that we've collected in a year. If all we can say is "mixed breed dog", we should say that. If the list included one Welsh spaniel, one field spaniel, a cocker/springer mix, and a King Charles Cavelier, one "spaniel type", and one "spaniel mix" the obvious way to summarize that for the people would be "Spaniels, spaniel-types, and spaniel mixes: Six fatal attacks". If there are ten known such attacks by packs of stray mongrels on Indian reservatins (yes, that is a thing that happens regularly, albeit not six times in one year, as far as we know) we should say "Six attacks by packs of mongrels on or near Indian reservations." Just saying "ten fatal attacks by mixed breed dogs" is what we should say if that's the best we can do, but we should always try to do the best we can so if we don't have to use such a vague and problematic term as "mixed breed", then we should be more helpful to the reader than just saying "ten mixed breed". Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So Wikipedia editors searched through all the U.S. newspapers since the Revolution and the first fatal dog attack they found was in an obituary for a woman who died in 1887. The next mention was from a 1901 article. That is original research. In order to present a list we would need to find a source that had already compiled a list. The fact that no reliable sources have done so indicates that the list meets notability, and should be deleted. TFD (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue I meant to raise was with the Summary Tables. Are you suggesting the entire article should be removed? Onefireuser (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

The article is fine, its just the "Media reports of fatal dog attacks in the United States." Since according to the article there have been epidemiological studies of dog-bite fatalities since 1977, they could be used to develop summary tables. TFD (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes This whole section is research into reports tallied to come to a conclusion. It's obviously inappropriate and (as others have explained) misleading. Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree - it's Wikipedia editors doing the research. We need to use proper epidemiological studies. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for not putting together a better explanation here earlier. I will remove its deletion tonight because it the ground on which it was deleted do not apply in this case because the summary is not WP:OR. Also its deletion does not constitute article improvement. Let me explain:

The summary (Section Three) cannot be removed on original research grounds because summary is not original research. Section Three is merely a summary of Section Two, and summary, as is well known and well established, is not original research. Therefore I will revert its deletion tonight because it was removed on demonstrably incorrect grounds.

The summary is needed to improve the article for the reader and its deletion does not improve the article. Very little of Section Two is visible at any one time to the reader, and any one screenful might give a biased sample of attack types. If you will please just look at it for a moment, click the scroll bar at different places. What is the reader going to make of this? One gets a certain impression of the frequency of different types of attack from any one screenful, and scrolling up and down to get a wider impression is of limited help to the readers looking for a wider perspective. The reader can't see the whole list at once and run their eye down the different columns. It is helpful to the reader to have a summary to see exactly how common different attack types are in Section Two. For the reader, I revert its deletion.

Chrisrus (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the issue/confusion here might be that a large part of Section Two is also original research. For many of the incidents, we have had to do a lot of sleuthing/interpretation of various, conflicting primary sources (poor primary sources: online news articles) to determine breed of dog and whether or not the incident even qualified as an attack (e.g. people in their 90s who died of renal failure weeks after receiving a dog bite on the leg). For example, see the discussion here Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Clear_Case_of_misIdentification regarding an incident in which media sources identified the dog as a Golden Retriever mix, but editors argued that we should call it a "Duck Tolling Retriever" because of their own interpretation of photos of the dog. This type of thing is a recurrent theme with many of the incidents on the page.Onefireuser (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

ALL of section 2 is OR. It's a systematic tabulation of incidents, exactly the kind of thing that researchers do. Even if we don't summarize it, we invite anone who comes along to do so. The whole section should go. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I weakly agree with this. It might be a good idea to fork this into a list article. "List of notable fatal dog attacks in the US", maybe. There's some precedent for incomplete lists of this type (List of unusual deaths, List of inventors killed by their own inventions, List of political self-immolations, etc.). Their inclusion in the encyclopedia is somewhat controversial it seems, but there are some cases where the consensus seems to be in favor of keeping. I think maybe forking the content and de-emphasizing the stuff about the breed of dog would be a step in the right direction there. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That could be a good option. If we do go that route, I would drop the word "notable" from the title. With the exception of Diane Whipple, and perhaps a few others, these dog-bite-related fatalities are not really notable, although they are sad and unfortunate.Onefireuser (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

It is still OR. In the 1980s for example Rottweiler attacks became a public issue, so the papers began to report them. All a list would tell us is that the media covered Rottweiler attacks, and leave the reader with a misrepresentation of which dogs carried out more attacks. That's why we need someone familiar with dog attacks and how the media reports them to compile a list and comment on media coverage and which dogs are most likely to attack. We need secondary sources to do this, since OR prevents us from doing it ourselves. TFD (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Section Two is not under discussion. The question here is, may we summarize Section Two into Section Three. That is all - off topic statements are not going to be applicable to this proposal to delete the summary. Different topics are being discussed here, but there is nothing in this discussion that explains why summarizing the list is somehow original research. Unless this is done, I will restore Section Three tomorrow. Second, Section Two is not original research. It simply reports what is found in the available WP:RSes of each attack. If Section Two is original research, then why isn't the corresponding section of or the entire article List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States by decade, Coyote attacks on humans, Shark attacks in South Australia, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, Killer whale attacks on humans, Dingo attacks on humans, and many more such articles. Not to mention ever list of discrete items taken from different sources all over Wikipedia, including List of famous dogs. Why are you singling out this particular article for such censorship? This is wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For one thing, section 3 was a summary of section 2. If Section 2 is original research (the topic of this board), it moots the (related) question of whether or not section 3 is original research as well. The issue regarding section 3 is that compiling a list ourselves out of various samples is original research (see WP:SYNTH - creating an original research statement out of the juxtaposition of reliably sourced statements). My suggestion above was to fork Section 2 into its own article similar to the ones you've listed. Some of those you've listed have what I would consider to have the same problems, but you've got to start somewhere. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Randomly picking one to illustrate the difference between a list that is original research and one that is reliably sourced, I noticed that Shark attacks in South Australia references SharkAttackFile.info. Assuming that's a reliable source (whether or not it is is a different discussion, because it's plausible to have a reliable source that looks exactly like this), you'll see that that claims to be an exhaustive and complete list of all shark attacks worldwide, broken down by location and type of shark. We don't have anything similar to that in this, we're cobbling together a list of dog attacks reported in the media - essentially doing ourselves what a secondary source is supposed to do - that's pretty much the definition of original research.

Oh, and to clarify a point, under no circumstances should you add the summary tables back into the articles without first building a consensus for your position. As it stands now, a number of other editors have weighed in on this topic, and all of them agree that this is a clear violation of WP:NOR. That's a pretty clear indication that there's a consensus for removal. Repeatedly adding it back in against the consensus would be effectively edit warring. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is the kind of work that social statistics people do, and a number of the similar articles ought to be deleted for having the same fault. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just not true that Section 2 is the topic of this section. It is not. Section Three is the topic, specifically its recent deletion on WP:OR grounds. The arguments for the deletion on those grounds may be seen here above, if we tease it out from the irrelevancies. That argument is that putting numerical totals at the end of a list which has been compiled from discrete WP:RSes constitutes original research. That is wrong for Wikipedians to put totals at the bottom of columns on such lists. That it's wrong for the List of fatal bear attacks in North America to include these maps List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#Maps. There is nothing wrong with adding those maps or totals or text summaries after discretely sourced lists. It is long established and hugely well precedented project-wide consensus that that WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. This has been argued before and always lost. This consensus is the grounds on which I restore the summary tables at the bottom of that list, as soon as appropriate.

Another topic on this page can be that Section 2 be deleted on WP:OR grounds. If it succeeds, Section Three will have to be deleted at that time because, as you rightly say, it "moots the (related) question of whether or not section 3 is original research as well".

I think you will agree that here is not the place to discuss splitting that article unless it has something to do with WP:OR. As you know, this place is for discussions of cases of possible WP:OR problems, only. How would splitting Section Two off address any WP:OR problems? TALK:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States is a better place to discuss splitting. It's off topic here. The topic in this thread is, should Section 3 be restored, or not not be restored on OR grounds alone. This is the topic here. Because I'm planning to restore it as soon as it is appropriate because WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. Chrisrus (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Section 2, obviously we can discuss whatever we want here, and it was suggested that Section 2 be removed as original research. I was trying to say that I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I was suggesting that at the very least it be split off into another article - I think that framing it as "List of notable fatal dog attacks in the US" or something similar would help with the OR problem by making it very clear that it's not an exhaustive list. Honestly, I'm fine with discussing this elsewhere.

That said, I think you make a good point about the bear attacks article - there are a million sources on that page, so I'd probably want to get someone more familiar with that material to address whether there's some secondary source tying all those reports together and/or indicating that it's an exhaustive list. Frankly, I'm thinking we might want to aim for a wide-audience RFC on the rules about these types of list in general. Many of them basically seem like they fail either WP:SYNTH or WP:INDISCRIMINATE.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

While anyone can discuss anything they here, this place may only be rightly used to discuss whether particular edits are OR or not OR.

The only thing relevant to me restoring Section Three found here is whether or not discretely sourced list summaries violate WP:OR. That the list itself - please understand this important distinction - should be deleted or not deleted on OR grounds has nothing to do with my restoring the summary of the list while the list itself still stands.

You seem to agree that whether the article should be split or not split has nothing to do with whether I should restore Section Three today. I am not going to split or unsplit the article today, I'm going to restore the Summary Tables to the list, that is all. Me restoring the Summary Tables does not effect whether it is split or not split, and seems off-topic here unless it has something to do with WP:OR.

Whether discretely sourced lists in general violate WP:OR, and therefore should all be deleted, is a separate issue from me restoring the Summary Tables to that discretely sourced list today. If we decide to delete all discretely sourced lists, the list of fatal dog attacks in the USA will be one of them, and the summary tables will likely be deleted at that time. As it is not, at this point, clear that that is going to happen, it is no argument for not restoring the Summary Tables today. Chrisrus (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So, is there some argument why I should not restore the Summary Tables today, and you all can just delete it later when you delete the list that it is a summary of? Chrisrus (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is clear to me that the summary tables at the very least are OR because as I've said over and over again, the only way they would be a "straightforward calculation" is if the information we were trying to convey was "how many media reports have been included in the Wikipedia article", which is just random information. Add to that that it actually looks a whole lot like something that you'd put in some sort of meta-analysis of case studies or an epidemiological study and the summary tables are clearly OR independent of whether section 2 is OR. Finally, the breakdown by breed of dog is the most inappropriate part of the article, as that seems to imply something about how likely various breeds of dog are to kill someone, which is borderline POV.

Even ignoring these arguments, I'd say that basically everyone here (except for you) at this point seems to support the removal of section 3 - Onefireuser and I do, even though I'm not sure that either of us is 100% solid on the removal of Section 2. The other editors have indicated that section 2 needs to be removed in its entirety, and Mangoe's reasoning specifically mentioned that Section 2 is OR because it invites users to draw the conclusions explicitly drawn in the text of Section 3. Given that everyone here (except you) has advocated removal of section 3, either because it is mooted by the removal of section 2 or as OR itself, I think a reasonable place to start is to remove section 3, then move on to the discussion of section 2, at least until anyone expresses that if we keep section 2 we should also keep section 3.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Here, first, you seem to be saying that all incomplete list summaries on Wikipedia should be deleted because they are all by definition WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Is that correct? Because we summarize incomplete lists all the time, sticking to the same example of the maps on Bear Attacks in North America. Are you asserting a general rule that would apply there as well?

Second, there is no analysis in the summaries. It's just the totals of the ages dog types totals by year, that is all. We can probably improve it by adding more and better totals and clear and obvious categories vs. iffy cases. Why just list the two top kinds of dogs, why not list them all? We could use pie charts or something. I invite you to participate in improving the summary tables. That would constitute article improvement, while deleting them would not because just because when scrolling through you might get the impression that, for example, it looked like mostly mostly children, but they were actually a minority in a particular year. The list is too long and the reader needs a summary, actually more summary would be better, such as including maps of the locations of each of them, how many were spayed and neutered, how many had attacked before, how many were chained up and left alone, etc, to the extent that doing so is possible. Then people researching the topic will be even better served than they will be when I put that summary back, but putting it back will definitely help the reader. Who knows what they might use the information for? For all we know, it could be very important.

Third, you seem to be saying that it's not WP:OR but WP:NPOV that is the most important thing to you. You worry about the effect on the reader. Readers will look at that and come to the conclusion that you assert to be wrong: that certain types of dog are more likely to kill someone than others. You know that is not true: no type of dog kills more often than any other type of dog, so you don't want to give the readers information that contradicts this knowledge you have. You are worried that, (correct me if I'm wrong) if the readers are provided with this information, they will come to the wrong conclusion, in your point of view, on this emotional topic. The problem is, you assert, that there are no types of dogs that consistently kill more people than others in the United States. That is your position, is that correct, this is what you're trying to say? If so, even if you are right, the reason for the deletion was not NPOV, but OR, and as such would not stand in the way of me restoring Section Three today. You could then re-delete it with the new NPOV grounds, and we could maybe move this discussion to the NPOV discussion page because it would belong there, not here, because it's not original research, but the effect on the reader would be misleading.

If I understand you correctly here, at the end, you are saying that Section Three should be removed because Section Two is going to be removed some time in the future. Is that correct? Because I wouldn't be too sure about that. That definately remains to be seen, please agree. People have tried to delete this list many times before, as to be expected with an emotional topic like this one with facts that people want or don't want to be true or if true not widely known. They've not succeeded thus far. The prudent thing here is clearly to wait and see. If you are right, the summary will also be deleted at that time. For now, I'm putting it back to help the readers get the totals and percentages.

Finally, will you please stop personalizing this and counting heads and address yourself solely to evaluating the arguments being made regardless of how many or which people made them? And focus on the wider consensus represented by precedent and policy and so on, please, that's the real consensus that matters: see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Chrisrus (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first two counter-points indicate that you've completely missed my point. Answer this question - why would anyone care, at all about the number of dog attacks listed in this Wikipedia page? What is the purpose of the section? I'll respond to the other points separately so that you can respond to this question directly, because it's at the heart of the question of why these summary tables are inappropriate, independent of whether Section 2 is appropriate.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We collect all reliably sourced fatal dog attacks in the USA on that list. What leads you to believe that we are missing any? If you are aware of other reliably sourced fatal dog attacks in the USA, please let us know so that we can add them to the list.

Basically, the purpose of the list of fatal dog attacks in the USA is the same as the purpose of, say, for example, List of fatal cougar attacks in North America: to inform readers who are interested in the subject, that is all. Why do you ask me this question? If it's because you think we're out to malign certain types of dog, rest assured, it is not. If one type of dog shows up more often it's because they show up more often, not because we wanted them to. I personally am interested in all types of dog articles and animal attack articles for no particular reason, so you might as well have asked me why people would want to write or read the article Klingon starships: some people are interested, that's why. However, there may be a difference between animal attack articles and articles like Klingon starships. Someone might read animal attack lists and articles and notice something in our summaries and data that might keep someone from getting hurt. You never know, it could happen. They might decide to do or not do something based on what they'd learned and that could help them not get attacked by a bear, cougar, dog, coyote, and so on. But we don't tell them what to do or think; unless it's just to pass on recommendations from the CDC or some such. We just give them the mere facts as we know them in a neutral point of view manner,that is all.

Where are you going with this? Why did you ask? i assure you, nothing is being hidden or held back or distorted to try to lead the readers to any conclusion. If the majority of victims were full grown men, or if the majority of such dog attacks that we can cite well enough to include were spaniels or bloodhounds, we would simply pass that information along to the readers. I cannot say the same for the opposition to the article, however. Much of it is motivated by the desire to push their personal points of view that no dog is more likely to be involved in a fatal attack than any other, and any evidence to the contrary should be censored lest the reader come to a different conclusion.

You still have not addressed my points just above. Chrisrus (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, Dodo Bird, Onefireuser, Mangoe, Dougweller: Chrisrus is making some noises to the effect that he's going to restore section 3 of this article, based on his interpretation of Wikipedia policies. I have discussed this with him at his talk page (warning: talk page is huge and he for whatever reason refuses to archive), and he currently suggests that there is no consensus for the removal of section 3, because some of you have advocated for the removal of section 2 and section 3, and that there is currently no consensus to remove section 2. Frankly, I think this is a misrepresentation of the situation at hand. I think there is a broad consensus to remove section 3, and a weaker movement towards removal of both section 2 and section 3. Can you guys weigh in and clarify so that we can assess the current consensus on the matter? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree the table should not be added per the discussion above. TFD (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, we're discussing whether the long-standing summary tables should have been recently removed on OR grounds alone, not adding anything that hasn't stood for so long enough that it constituted the tacit existence of a general consensus to keep.

Now, you refer to what was stated earlier. Your argument above (correct me if I'm wrong) was in support of the removal of Section Two and Section Three both, not whether such as summaries as List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#Maps all constitute WP:OR, across the board, as a general principle. Please understand that this is a separate question from the deletion of the summary, only, on the grounds that it's OR to summarize any such list. Please understand that me restoring the Summary Tables while the List stands does not affect any future deletion of the list itself. If later we delete Section Two, Section three will be deleted then and at that time, only, with it because there will be nothing for it to summarize . So please clarify. Are you saying that all discrete item list summaries, such as List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#Maps, for example, always constitute WP:OR, across the board, as a general principle, or that only this particular summary constitutes one does so? If so, why? Chrisrus (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Support removal of sections 2 and 3 per above arguments. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether you'd support the removal of section 3 if section 2 were to remain in place, or does the justification for removal, in your estimate, flow entirely from Section 2? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support the removal of section 3 if section 2 stays in place. In my opinion, section 3 is more problematic because as noted is summary table of randomly collected data through media reports. I think the biggest problematic issues with section 2 are the breed section (media reports are usually inaccurate and visual identification of dog breed by anyone is only about 25% accurate, and most dogs that are listed as "pit bulls" are some form of mutt with a large head), the fact that data is really only present for the last 20 years or so, and is a collection of media mentions, rather than drawing on a list compiled by a third party organization. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

First, it's not breed of dog, it's the type of dog which it lists. This is only a breed in some cases. Second, where are you getting this "only about 25% accurate" information? Do you have an WP:RS for it? Third, how are these randomly collected? We collect all the reports on fatal dog attacks in the USA, not just random ones here and there, all of them. We do not discriminate, and there is nothing random about it. As long as a WP:RS reports it, we do too. If you are aware of attacks that go unreported, how are you aware of them? There are extensive disclaimers on that list about the possible limits of news reports, but news reports are WP:RS, too, and countless citations prove. Do not censor this information on the grounds that the facts might lead the readers to a point of view you don't share. Let the facts be as they may, and the readers may conclude whatever they conclude, that's not for us to worry about. If the facts show that most of the fatal attacks are by, for example, German Shepherds, then people are free to use that information however they like, even if it is to support a position that you don't agree with. Chrisrus (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Category of dog" is currently being used interchangably with "breed". Notice it doesn't say "molosser" or "shepherd", but outright states breed like "Rottweiler" or "Pomeranian". The 25% accurate comes from the Victoria Voith studies, which can be viewed here: #1 #2. These lists are randomly assembled because they are drawn from media reports, primarily from the last 10-15 years. If something is not reported on, like the majority of data pre-2000, it doesn't appear in the list. Its just poor methodology for being of any practical use, I'm not trying to "censor" anything. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong about that. On that article, "category of dog" is not being used interchangeably with "breed" at all. It includes many things including "sled dog", "shepherd", "pack of feral dogs", and many other non-breed descriptions, including "pit bull itself, if you would click on it that's what it is. We are aware of that paper by Voith and have regularly consider it's lessons about identifying mixed breed dogs. She did no testing as to how often they could identify purebreds or packs of feral dogs or sled dogs or dogs of a general phenotype regardless of ancestry. All the dogs in her study were mixed breeds. Everyone knows it's nigh on impossible to guess what made up a random mixed breed dog, but you can say if it conforms generally to general types without regard to lineage. So if WP:RSes indicate that it's some kind of scenthound-type-mix, we say "scenthound-type-mix" or whatever is the safest. So you have nothing to worry about, although I invite you to participate in overseeing the categorizing of the dogs in the article.

Its extremely unlikely that the majority of dogs responsible for fatalities are purebreds, and the studies clearly demonstrate that respondents can incorrectly identify mixed breed dogs as purebreds. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I vote for renaming the article to "Owners who failed their dogs and caused them to fatally attack"? ;) JMJimmy (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to fall into the trap of commenting on Section 2 at this time. Regarding Section 3, it seems that we have a very clear consensus that it is Original Research. It is original research for many, many reasons, but I feel that the least ambiguous of those reasons are the ones I stated months ago on the Talk page. I will repeat those reasons here: These are quotes from WP:NOR:

1. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
2. There is an exemption for simple calculation: "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed..." However, this exemption only applies "provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources."

Regarding point 1, the summary tables are clearly an analysis and are not referenced to any secondary source. They are not exempted by WP:CALC because they are not a clear, obvious, and meaningful reflection of the sources. There is simply no way to arrive at clear, meaningful totals of "dog type" based on the news reports. This is because the "dog types" reported are at times inconsistent, contradictory, vague, or meaningless. For example, if in one year three incidents were attributed to a "Labrador retriever," a "Lab-bulldog mix," and a "Golden retriever-Collie mix," would we summarize this as "3 attacks due to retriever type dogs," "2 attacks due to Labrador retrievers and Lab mixes," or 1, 1, and 1?

There are numerous other reasons that Section 3 is Original Research, but I feel that the reasons I have just described are sufficient to justify the removal of the tables.Onefireuser (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

I will make one additional point. Our study in Section 2 is far from a complete survey of all dog-bite related fatalities. Another study based on CDC WONDER data found that there were at least 26 deaths in 2000. Our study on this Wikipedia page identified only 5 in 2000. Since this is a slightly different topic than the appropriateness of the Summary Tables, please see the Talk page for additional discussion.Onefireuser (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you will agree that looking at one source about, for example, one fatal polar bear attack in Alaska in 1980, and then looking at another source about another fatal polar bear attack in Alaska in 1980, and then putting them together and calculating and arriving at the conclusion that there were at least two polar bear attacks in Alaska in 1980, doing that is hardly the kind of "interpretive claim" that is being referred to there.

I think you will agree that, to the extent that summarizing the list entails simply counting how many fatal attacks were attributed to, say, German shepherd dogs, in a particular year, that is as clear, obvious, and meaningful a calculation as can be. You are right, however, that Wikipedians might disagree about how best to deal with, to use one of your examples, a "Lab-bulldog mix". However, we should have tried, in good faith, to arrive at the consensus among us editors of that article that the guideline you quoted refers to as which would be the best way to summarize them. Counting it as "one Mixed breed" for example is pretty clear and obvious, but there might be an even better way that we could count it that would improve the article even more; or maybe "other". As Wikipedians, we are supposed to try to work things out together based on principles and such with service to the reader at the main goal.

My reply to this last additional point is in the place you directed any readers to look, but as you mentioned it, I will just summarize my reply here by saying that of course there is no real danger that the reader will think that the list or its summary is intended to be exhaustive because the reader is told repeatedly that it is not, (not to mention that it is common sense that it couldn't be). I will also note that neither are the attacks studied by the sources in Section One, nor any such study, and that there's nothing unusual or problematic about that because it's an incomplete list like countless others on Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I had marked this issue Resolved a while back because there was a consensus that included 0x0077BE, TFD, Mangoe, JMJimmy, Dougweller, PearlSt82, and myself Onefireuser. However, the tag was removed. There has only been one dissenting voice in the discussion and the Summary Tables have been removed for a while now from the article. Does anyone wish to continue debating this question or can we mark it resolved? Onefireuser (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Much of the above discussion was off the topic of specifically may or may not such lists may be deleted or blocked on OR grounds. We cannot rightly block any restoration of the summary tables on OR grounds pointing to this discussion without first including here a substantive reply to the following points in favor of not removing/restoring the summary tables to the article. The above tally of usernames is immaterial.

Please respond substantively to this:

It has been pointed out here above, and not substantively objected to as yet, that summarizing such lists cannot not constitute original research by synthesis, citing WP:CALC and many precedents all over Wikipedia, so many that it points to a clear long standing Wikipedia-wide consensus that we may summarize such lists, with many examples given. Since that time, an attempt was made which can be seen as a test case, to delete the summary of Fatal bear attacks in North America on WP:OR grounds. This blocked citing WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR and WP:CALC grounds, and pointed to widespread precedent and practice. So the summary removal on that article failed, setting yet another precedent. And there are many, many more such examples of such summaries all over Wikipedia, so there can not be Wikipedia consensus that to summarize such a list is WP:OR.

Please work out in good faith cooperation with other editors the best summary tables for that list. Please do not block the planned restoration of the summary tables on OR grounds again, because it's been established that such summaries are not OR violations. If you do undo the summary table restoration, please do so on some other grounds, not WP:SYN or WP:OR, because it has been substantively demonstrated and not substantively refuted that summarizing such a list per se does not constitute any OR violation. Consider if you will undoing the restoration on other grounds, perhaps notability or list project guideline violations. But please understand that you may not rightly do so on OR grounds citing this discussion. Chrisrus (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been some time we've been waiting for a substantive reply to these points. I'll wait a bit before adding the resolved tag. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced inference on ABISY article, is it valid or Original Research?

• Context of article: ABISY is an NGO in the field of History in India. The section header where the content is inserted is "Publications". It is about a journal published by the NGO.
• Context of reference: It is a Journal article published by Firenze University Press available in pdf here. The quote provided by editor is on the same page where the above mentioned Journal is discussed. The title of this article is "Hindu Nationalists and Local History: From ideology to Local Lore".

• Supporting text given by the editor from page 14 of above reference:

The emphasis on what is “true” or “scientifically proven” also characterises Thakur Ram Singh’s discourse on local history — the main domain of abisy’s research activity. In his declarations, in fact, Thakur Ram Singh is explicit about the fact that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with abisy’s ideology.

• Content inserted in the article by the editor:

ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character. However, this stated aim has been used to exclude viewpoints and local histories that contradict the organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology.

• Context of Thakur Ram Singh: He was head of the NGO from 1988, ten years after the NGO was formed... not sure till when. He died in 2010.
• Additional Note: Hindu nationalist ideology is attributed to the title of the referenced article itself according to the editor.

• Two editors have strongly objected to this paraphrasing per OR. One other editor has show partial support -- but no further reference has been produced. I am party to the discussion and I hold that this is original research and request the other editor to provide clear reference to support his inserted content. There has been a lengthy discussion on the article talk page, where the editor is insisting on his stand but not providing reference. Any attempt to make it closer to source is reverted by him. The link: Talk Page discussion
• Ping to involved party (shall we give space to not-involved editors to comment): Vanamonde93, Uday Reddy, sarvajna.

Nothing to add, save that I am aware of this discussion, and that Uday Reddy's support was more than "partial;" he simply said that the ideal version would be further away from what Amritasyaputra wanted, than what I had proposed. Also, that when I proposed taking the disputed section phrase by phrase, Amritasyaputra responded by closing the discussion and bringing this here, which I interpret to mean that they are not interested in discussing this fragment by fragment. Rather than insist that my version is not supported, find me a fragment that is not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will keep my response brief: 1. In the use of 'partial' there was no hidden intent, I paraphrased according to my understanding. Apology if it was inaccurate. 2. Our discussion is available to all for reading, in my personal opinion it was rehashing. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I regard myself as neutral in this dispute, and tried to mediate between the two parties. However, my views are so much closer to User:Vanamonde93's that my neutrality didn't amount to very much. As a scientist, I can vouch for the fact that a scientist is required to examine all the available evidence and not cherry pick. The fact that this organisation was cherry-picking material and still claiming to be "scientific" means to me that it is just putting up a front of science for convenience. The source also clearly explains various other flaws in the methods of this organisation. User:AmritasyaPutra has used every means possible to block this contradiction from being exposed. I do not agree with his/her position that "no original research" means using exactly the same words as the source. Uday Reddy (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference to back such assertions are needed. Their lack is the cause of Original research. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(uninvolved, except briefly as a commenter on the WP:RSN board) In my opinion, the quote is essentially legitimate and not WP:OR, but the phrasing can perhaps be improved. There is nothing really WP:OR here, since the non-consideration of sources histories other than those which meet the ideology, by definition, means excluding them. I see that there was an offer on the talk page to deal phrase by phrase which was rejected. That should be pursued. Kingsindian (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, the phrase s/he took up was not objected to ever! The objections were never replied to with any reference. I had put this phrasing and it was reverted twice: "The former head of ABISY, Thakur Ram Singh said that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with organization’s ideology." Closer to source with nothing left to imagination -- is this better or worse? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: I am not in a position to say whether X or Y is better; these matters belong on the talk page of the article. I can only say that, in my opinion, the quote being discussed is not original research, though the phrasing can be slightly changed. Kingsindian (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the alternate phrasing proposed above OR? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: The alternate phrasing is not OR either. Kingsindian (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Amritasyaputra, that question is off the mark. You objected to my version of the text, claiming OR. Kingsindian has said it was not; and so your only objection breaks down. To change it, you need to show your version is better in some way, not just to show that it is just as good (In fact, it's a lot worse; poor English, and far too specific for it to be very meaningful). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked a specific questions and got a one word reply to it. That is it. The discussion here has not got over yet, let it continue. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 08:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol

Mol was accused of spreading HIV deliberately, but was never convicted because he was very ill and died. And, probably most importantly for this issue, he was black. The article has a section titled "Parallel cases in other countries". This begins "His intentional infection of local female sexual partners, attempts at denial of his illness and accusation of institutional racism, are similar to other racial minority immigrants cases." It mentions one other case (among the many listed in the linked Criminal transmission of HIV, another Black man. No sources saying it's a parallel case. It then uses a paper prepared for a workshop (not an RS in any case) about "Racism, Racial Discrimination and HIV/AIDS" which isn't about criminal transmission of AIDs. I removed this, the editor reinstated it. I deleted it again for the same reason, was reverted by a User:Mikemikev (a well known banned racist) sock, I reverted (not counting towards 3RR0, and it's just been reinstated by an IP. Seems pretty classic OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)

Leaving aside the absurdity of the existence of a section named as "scientific view" in an article which is already categorised as parapsychology or is clearly unscientific for the time being, there is serious violation of our WP:OR policy in Materialization (paranormal). There had been a dispute nearly 10 days ago, over a material added by Anaphylaxis2014. Apart from the material, Anaphylaxis2014 had also objected the inclusion of an irrelevant source, namely a book by Velasquez who has a degree in business ethics, which seems as added by retired Fodor Fan in November 2013. However, Anaphylaxis2014's reasoning was missing the core/primary reason why Velasquez's book had to be removed. After not getting any return to his argumentation/reasoning and after edit warring with some editors, some of whom do not look they have ever read the cited page in Velasquez's book, he took the case to ANI.

As I explained here, here and here; both the related section:

Nevertheless, this dualist view -that the mind and body are two entities each made of a different kind of stuff- raises a hard problem. How can an immaterial mind move a physical body, and how can a body that consists of heavy, dense, spatial matter affect an immaterial mind? If the mind is immaterial, it is not part of the physical world. How can something like the mind reach into the physical world and affect it? If it did so, then the mind would somehow have to introduce new energy and force into the physical world. But scientists tell us that this is impossible because it would violate the principle of the conservation of matter energy.

of Velasquez's book [1] within its own context of dualist view, and its usage as a reference in a wikipedia article to a statement like this;

Confirmation would falsify the generally accepted law of conservation of mass-energy. Any alternate would violate credible views of reality.

is OR/synth. Both, the book's author Velasquez, and the wp editors who have been insisting on the inclusion of that source make OR/synth. Which practically means that there is a OR² or "double OR" case here (I am exaggerating for easy understanding of the extent). We can't do something about Velasquez's OR/synth of course, but his OR/synthy remark -about conservation of energy and matter within the context of dualist view without citing any reference- renders his book unusable/unreliable in this wp article -even if his statements were related to the paranormal materialization or just materialization-.

As WP:OR clearly states: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

One editor tries to discuss the issue by defending the source at any cost with an incorrect analysis full of false accusations, and the other pops up from nowhere and "participates" in the edit warring -perhaps in accordance with WP:CANVASS, WP:TAGTEAM and the like-, instead of participating in the discussion. His mere participation was simply agreeing with pretty much everything the former editor had posted; neither sustaining/extending the former editor's position nor revealing any new thoughts/evidences. Which simply is not the type of "discussion" described in WP:DISPUTE.

Let's resolve this issue once and for all. Logos (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how a No original research objection can be raised against "the book's author Velasquez" this is a policy which states Wikipedia is not the place for the publication of original research. Clearly the book's author is not publishing original research on WP but has published it in a book. Thus it is not original research being published on WP but having been published in a textbook with corresponding editorial oversight by a reputable publisher it is being cited on WP. The assertion that No original research applies to published sources clearly illustrates the OP does not understand the policy. Likewise asserting Synth, if the synthesis of ideas is done by an author (not a WP editor) and published in a reliable source this is what WP relies on (not excludes). "We can't do something about Velasquez's OR/synth of course" why yes we can, we can use it for content on WP that is policy. Line by line citations are not a standard in textbooks, regardless they are not required by WP policy for a source to be considered reliable. What original research or synthesis on the part of WP editors is being asserted? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I too don't understand where any WP editor has done any OR here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources in the section themselves discuss the scientific and philosophical aspects of turning energy into matter which has nothing to do with the parapsychological concept of materialization. I removed the section in question entirely. The whole lot of people pushing fringe views and disrupting the article should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, reading through them, most of those sources were completely unrelated to the paranormal phenomenon of materialization. They were being interpreted by editors, which is clearly original research. The first source, which is not freely available, at least looks like it has something to do with the topic. But who knows? I would like to see quoted text from the source. Using unrelated scientific experiments to validate fringe paranormal beliefs probably does call for at least a ARBPS warning. Ryulong did the right thing in removing that synthy mess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

OR essay about shamanism repeatedly pasted into Haruki Murakami

Hello, in the article about novelist Haruki Murakami, a user is periodically re-inserting a mostly WP:OR essay about literary shamanism, even after I trimmed the OR and summarized it down to a neutral description of what its two refs actually contained. Main diffs:

• [2] he pasted his essay in the middle of Biography
• [3] I summarized it and moved it chronologically to a more relevant section
• [4] he just pasted his whole essay again (in addition to the summary)
• [5] so I just reverted to the summary-only version
• [6] he replaced the neutral summary with his whole essay (then in more edits, moved down his section out of the Biography)
• [7] I turned it into a longer summary
• [8] he just pasted his whole essay again (right under the summary!)

Since I notice he also threatened "leave it alone or will have to report" and "Will report vandalism" (along personal attacks) but somehow forgot to do it, I thought I'd turn meself in. 62.147.27.118 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be in the right here as none of this is sourced. But this might not be a case of original research. Shantiq simply needs to provide the sources that support all of his statements and if he is shown to be combining two separate interpretations where they were never combined before, that would indeed be original research (specifically synthesis).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable but still OR...

I'm here regarding this edit, which added "Adobe Flash Player's update feature will fail badly if it cannot access the update server; it will report, "Adobe® Flash Player is up to date on your system," even though it has been unable to access the update server." to Adobe Flash and was reverted; I shan't speculate as to why User:Codename Lisa challenged this readily verifiable fact, but she did (with the Edit Summary, "Sorry, but I am afraid I have to ask you to supply a source for this." The problem is that while it's verifiable according to the plain English meaning of the word, it's not according to the wikipedia definition; it's OR without a RS, which I've been unable to find. I'm not going to edit war over it, but wonder what, short of causing a RS to write about it can be done, if anything, other than IAR. (I did try that route; I just pinged the author of this article on Flash's insecurity.)--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Hi.

I am afraid "readily verifiable" above entails installing an OS that is compatible with Flash, installing Flash, blocking access to fpdownload2.macromdia.com with a firewall and attempting to update Flash; all of this must be done in a country that Adobe does provide update service. I have a hard time calling it readily verifiable. Some people might have the facilities to test this immediately but how about five years from now?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

One purpose of the verifiability requirement is to prevent people putting facts into the article that nobody thinks mentioning. So yes I think removing the statement is correct. You need to find some sort of decent source other than just trying it out, that is OR. Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I call that readily verifiable. Most readers of this article can skip steps 1 and 2 and step 3 can be replaced with an edit to the hosts file to add a line like "127.0.0.1 fpdownload2.macromdia.com" ... We allow sources behind paywalls and dead links. We don't delete dead links (Well, we're not supposed to, but people do sometimes) simply because they're dead. But even if we all agreed that it was readily verifiable, so what? P.S. "nobody thinks mentioning"?? Gibberish. I guess you're making the (preposterous, IMO) claim that a MITM vulnerability is not worth mentioning. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a classic example of Original Research. It is based on a Wikipedian's direct observation of what occurs with Adobe under some circumstances. I would call it a "repeatable experiment" not a verifiable statement. It may be true, but what is needed is a source that has noted what occurs. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think it is OR. Besides that, its WP:WEIGHT is questionable. If reliable secondary sources don't bother to mention it, it is not significant enough. It is also likely to be out of date soon since Flash Player is updated often. Zero^talk 01:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What Maimonides stated about masturbation

At [9] and [10] User:Debresser has made the weird request that I should indulge in original research based upon primary sources in order to have my verifiable edit based upon reliable source accepted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

From the article talk page:

We have a reliable source written by a professor from American Jewish University who stated what Maimonides has written. A direct reference to Maimonides' work is prohibited by WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:BURDEN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

His work has been published by Jewish Publication Society. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We have to distinguish an empiric-analytical claim about the texts written by Maimonides from a theological claim which would require assent from a community of faith. So, unless someone is prepared to affirm that this claim was made up (and prove it with reliable sources), Wikipedia defaults to keeping it per WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, the professor even has his own Wikipedia article: Elliot N. Dorff. So why claim that his writings would not constitute a reliable source? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dorff, Elliot N. (2003) [1998]. "Chapter Five. Preventing Pregnancy". (First paperback ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society. p. 117. ISBN 0827607687. OCLC 80557192. Jews historically shared the abhorrence of male masturbation that characterized other societies.² Interestingly, although the prohibition was not debated, legal writers had difficulty locating a biblical base for it, and no less an authority than Maimonides claimed that it could not be punishable by the court because there was not an explicit negative commandment forbidding it.³ {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |author-name-separator=, |doi_brokendate=, |deadurl=, |laydate=, |subscription=, |nopp=, |trans_title=, |trans_chapter=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, |author-separator=, |lastauthoramp=, |registration=, and |separator= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And footnote 3 says "Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4." Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to Maimonides' work, but it is the famous piece which also says "Between women who lie with one another: it is an abominable practice, but there is no punishment from the Torah or from the rabbis", see [11]. So I guess that User:Debresser's curiosity being satisfied, this matter has been settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no further objections. I would like to note that writing this on the talkpage of the article would have been a logical first step, as I indicated when I referred to WP:BRD, and that coming here was a bit premature. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wrote in the article talk page before writing here, but there was no answer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK... First, the statement "A direct reference to Maimonides' work is prohibited by WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY" is not correct. Primary sources are explicitly not prohibited, however they are limited. We can quote Miamonides for what he said, but we then need to use secondary sources to explain how "what he said" has been interpreted through the ages. Blueboar (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute on Beitunia killings page

Sentence:

Video footage as well as many first-hand accounts, including those of international journalists reporting on the protest, confirm that the teenagers who had been killed were unarmed, posed no threat

References

The quotes from the first source (HRW) are "Video footage, photographs, witness statements, and medical records indicate that two 17-year-old boys whom Israeli forces shot and killed on May 15, 2014 posed no imminent threat to the forces at the time." It gives various eyewitness accounts and so on.

The second source (Beaumont) says: "Video footage indicates killed Palestinian youths posed no threat" in the headline. In the article body, it says: "The two boys are seen walking near the building, apparently unarmed,"

Here is another quote from Haaretz: "The video, distributed by Defense for Children International Palestine, shows both youths the moment they were shot. It doesn't appear as if they presented any threat at the time of the shooting. One of them was shot when his back was turned to the soldiers"

Shrike is arguing that since no sources use the exact phrase, this is WP:OR. This seems bizarre to me. This is a straightforward case of WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. The Israeli response is included in its own section, just below. Kingsindian (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not just a simple calculation its here to advance position that there is some consensus among all the experts and sources but no authoritative source explicitly say it or make such a blanket statement hence it WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What about "indicate" instead of "confirm"? Kingsindian (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For onlookers, there were two Israel squads, one at a 50 metres distance the other at least 150 metres from the spot where three youth were, successively, shot through the chest as they were either walking, one away, another towards those positions, and a third just standing. CNN and local surveillance cameras catch both the moments when the two drop dead, or drop mortally wounded, and some footage also captures, almost simultaneously, as the camera pans, firing from the Israeli positions in their direction. Fast shutter action shots by a photographer also captured the Israelis firing. For Shrike, there is no consensus, because the IDF caught on film as it fired, and observed by local and foreign reporters, denies responsibility. The rest of the world has a consensus, but there is this IDF holdout, while all Israeli NGOs finger the IDF. They said they would present the preliminary conclusions of their investigations on May 29. They did, to the Defence Ministry, who to this day has not published or mentioned the findings, but simply had one soldier suspended for 'unauthorized use of a rifle'. Three months, silence. But Shrike is determined that this silent hold-out means there's something fishy about the world consensus, which is just stating the obvious. The IDF apparently had a film crew in one of those positions. It won't release its own footage to reveal their version. Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)