Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 28

Macrophilia article

Editor Sage94 (talk · contribs) is engaging in consistent violations of the WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring policies at the Macrophilia article. The matter concerns whether or not the term macrophilia covers females who have sexual fantasies about male giants. The WP:Reliable sources restrict the term to males who have sexual fantasies about female giants (giantesses); if any of the WP:Reliable sources give space to male giants, it is minor space. See this discussion for backstory on Sage94's editing of that article: Talk:Macrophilia#Again With This. It includes Pandarsson (talk · contribs) trying to steer Sage94 in the right direction with regard to editing that article, and recent commentary from me as well. As can be seen at other parts of that talk page, people have been trying to give the topic of male giants space in that article for years. But, of course, we must go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with due weight.

Since in the aforementioned Macrophilia talk page discussion, I have already alerted Sage94 and Pandarsson to the fact that I would be reporting this matter here and have pinged them via WP:Echo, I do not see a need to notify them of this talk page section on their talk pages as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, the edit war covers whether the article focuses on male giants as well as female giants, not whether females have the same sexual fantasies as males. If you want to give the article reliable information, then just take away all the information that has to do with sexual play. The person who's editing the article is putting up information that focuses on sexual fantasies that objectify certain human beings and not the other. That makes no sense. The article should either focuse on BOTH genders, or neither. It's as simple as that.

I don't understand why you're putting this here in the first place, I already tried to talk it out on the talk page. Don't make me into the bad guy for trying to get things settled.--Sage94 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I characterized the WP:Edit war clear enough above; I made it clear that it is about whether or not the term covers male giants and, if so, how commonly that term is applied that way. And like I just told you here, I pointed out what Wikipedia considers fair with regard to WP:Neutrality; read its Due and undue weight section and the subsections to that (Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity"). The fact that you don't understand why I brought this matter here adds to the issues with your editing. I will report this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) if nothing is done here about your wholly inappropriate editing of the Macrophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody before me was editing it to make it inappropriate. I was just making it fair because the edit seemed to be there for a long time and I thought it was considered okay by users viewpoints. Please calm down and try to discuss this before jumping to conclusions.--Sage94 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. The policies have already been explained to you. And I have therefore reverted you. Do not revert and violate the WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is already a source on the page that asserts that Macrophilia sometimes refers to giant men. In this source, (Kenter, Peter (July 27, 2012). Driving. "Gongo crush all cars! YouTube videos cater to macrophiliacs". National Post. p. 14.), the "Gongo" in question is a male giant, and the article quote is "Some macrophiles derive particular enjoyment from seeing cars being crushed by giant men or women..." I'm sure people will consider the National Post to be a mainstream and reliable source and that they are not making up the existence of Macrophiliac-catering videos that feature giant men. I'm sure the article can reflect that it's "predominantly" or "primarily" about giant women fantasies, but it is completely undue to omit all mention of something covered in a reputable and current source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Elaqueate, no one stated that the male aspect should not be mentioned at all in that article. In fact, above I stated..."If any of the WP:Reliable sources give space to male giants, it is minor space" and "people have been trying to give the topic of male giants space in that article for years. But, of course, we must go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with due weight." WP:Due weight is quite clear about what weight to give minority views, that tiny minorities shouldn't be given any space at all, and that we should not try to give "equal validity" to matters. One source makes nothing mainstream. Macrophilia is not even mainstream. And Sage94 was trying to give "equal validity" to male giants throughout the article (in WP:Original research ways), as even Sage94 has basically stated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "equal space". Many of the sources claim that it's somehow about larger people, then give women as the most prominent example. That's not the same thing as saying it can only be women. It does not support using the term "giantess" throughout instead of the more neutral and inclusive "giant people", which would be more true to the sources on balance. Ignoring all divergent evidence that is also from reliable sources can be interpreted as Original Research as well. Right now the terms "Giantess" or "Female giant" have been over-added by an IP address throughout in every instance. It is clearly in contexts where the gender is immaterial or contradicted by the sources cited, such as insisting that Giant Foot fetishism must be specifically "the feet of a Giantess". This should be scaled back. And the lead should say something like "primarily" or "most commonly" at the very least. As it stands now, it looks undue-weighted and unbalanced.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I never stated that the term can only apply to women or only to females. I basically stated what has been commented on more than once by different editors at that article's talk page -- that the vast majority of sources concerning the term apply/mention it (the term) with regard to female giants only or mostly with regard to female giants. If the term applying to male giants is mentioned, it's almost as an afterthought. Otherwise, the term extending to male giants is generally not mentioned at all. I am considering the term with regard to what the WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight policies state. Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that? Rightdiagnosis.com, for example, is not a Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant source. You and I also have a somewhat different outlook on what can be considered WP:Original research, but, either way, no one who has argued for giving more weight or sole weight to the female aspect has ignored the male aspect of this topic; they have questioned the validity of mentioning the male aspect. Right now, by not mentioning that the term macrophilia extends to fantasies about male giants, the article is following the WP:Due weight policy. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm, you admit the male aspect is mentioned in reliable sources. That means the idea that it's not simply or only "giantesses" is an idea that's advanced by some of the reliable sources we already have.[1][2] And that means it's not an OR issue. It's also more neutral to use non-gender-specific language that reflects that. I don't see how any of it's an argument to reintroduce needlessly one-sided gendered language [[3]] that users like User:GorillaWarfare and User:Philip Trueman have previously reverted. I'd also say it looks like you have a bit of a history with this page, and I don't think the vague warnings to other users you gave in your edit summaries were completely helpful. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, I asked you, "Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that?" I have also made it quite clear that this a WP:Due weight issue, as well as a WP:Original research issue. Yes, it's a WP:Original research issue when an editor is engaging in WP:Synthesis (which is a part of the WP:Original research policy), and is exactly what Sage94 was doing. I reiterate that one source does not cut it when the vast majority of sources show or explicitly state otherwise. Neither do a few sources. You seem to be quite deliberately ignoring WP:Due weight and are trying to do exactly what it advises against. We should not use WP:gender-neutral language throughout an article when it is in stark contrast weight-wise with regard to the sources, which editors like Johnuniq and ‎Binksternet would tell you. It's not one-sided to follow what the vast majority of sources state. Do read the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections of the WP:Due weight policy; like the latter section states, "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." And I have very little history with that article, which its edit history shows (and which I also pointed out on that article's talk page in the aforementioned discussion). My warnings to Sage94 were not vague in the least, in my opinion; and since those warnings (the latest one more specifically) stopped Sage94 from engaging in more WP:Undue weight and WP:Synthesis thus far, they were quite helpful indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, macrophilia more so refers to sexual fantasy about giants than it does to any fantasy about giants. WP:Due weight also applies to how the term is most commonly used in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have occasionally seen a skirmish at Macrophilia (as periodically occurs at all articles related to sex), but the current issue appears very clear, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to debate it. If I have overlooked something, please correct me, but it appears that this diff is indicative of the proposed edit, an edit which essentially changes all mentions of "giantess" to "giant/giantess", while "female" becomes some variant of "male/female". That fails WP:DUE because it gives the impression that medically reliable sources suggest it is as common for females to fantasize about giants as it is for males to fantasize about giantesses. Where are those sources? Many news outlets are generally reliable when reporting observable facts such as that a certain event occurred at a certain date/place, however, the very brief definition offered by a news service as a convenience for its readers is not a reliable source concerning macrophilia. What proposed edit is being discussed here? Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

An IP address that was engaged in edit warring and the introduction of completely unsourced Original Research to related articles, also changed all the instances of giant people to the term giantess. Multiple sources describe macrophilia as dealing with more than just women subjects, as in "The attraction to giants, especially domination by giant women", and "Attractions to giants or giant creatures" (the gender of the people who do the fantasizing has nothing to do with anything here). The lead should be reverted to some pre-November version, in my opinion, in order to match sources not to ignore them. As per the academic title Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices, The Chicago Tribune, The National Post, and others. Maybe I'll clean it up in a little bit, if I find some time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the Macrophilia article, the IP was changing things back to the way that the article used to be. And are you not familiar with WP:Synthesis?. Stating "people" does not equate to "women." Nor does it necessarily equate to "men and women" or "males and females." For many things that are by far about men, the term people is often used. For many things that are by far about women, the term people is used; the term slut, which no doubt mostly refers to women is one example of that. Bottomline is that we have a variety of sources restricting the term macrophilia to female giants in one way or another, and we have significantly fewer sources that specifically extend the term to male giants and fewer that specifically state that women fantasize about male giants. So your point regarding use of the term people is flawed. And in any case, the points that Johnuniq and I have made is that WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should ideally be used for that article, unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter. Passing mentions in the popular press do not measure up, especially when trying to give more space to a term that applies to one sex so much more than the other sex. Flyer22 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

First, why are you bringing up the gender of the people doing the fantasizing? That has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Secondly, you admit some sources extend the term to fantasies about more than female giants. You also make it clear that there are no medical sources that make a specific claim that it's an attraction to only female giants. I agree with you that "passing mentions in the popular press do not measure up". This text is a reputable scholarly work, and it defines macrophilia as "Attractions to giants or giant creatures". That's not synthesis or original research, that's reference to scholarly sources. CRC Press is a reputable academic healthcare publisher. If you'd like to provide a reputable medical source that states it's only giantesses and nothing but, I'd be happy to review it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the diff that was questioned was the best way wording to keep the definition from being overly narrow, but it was addressing an actual problem of weight, it was backed up by sources that did not define the word as it currently stands in the lead. I think it should read "Macrophilia refers to a fascination with or a sexual fantasy involving giants, more commonly expressed as giantesses (female giants)." It addresses what's more frequent, without making it sound like it's only one type of expressed fantasy, which everyone here seems to admit is true, as well as being sourced. This would also be in line with a majority of the sources listed which do not use the word "giantess" when defining the word. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The gender matter, either with regard to how much weight the sources give female giants as opposed to male giants, as well as whether or not women fantasize about giants to the same degree that men fantasize about giants, was brought up above and in the discussions on the article's talk page. The first is clearly relevant to this discussion. The latter is also relevant and is something some sources concerning macrophilia discuss -- that men fantasize about giants far more than women do/that macrophilia is mostly a heterosexual male matter. But then again, paraphilias and sexual fetishism are far more common in men than in women anyway. Another solid reason that I specifically mentioned the gender of the people doing the fantasizing is because, to me, you were/are conflating "people" to mean "men and women." Like I stated above, it does not always mean that. And, no, I did not "make it clear that there are no medical sources that make a specific claim that it's an attraction to only female giants." I'm not sure where you got that from. And, yes, some sources extend the term macrophilia to sexual fantasies about male giants, but those sources are significantly fewer; the scarcity of such sources, in comparison to the ones, especially the medical ones, that focus the term primarily or solely on female giants, is the whole point of this discussion. That is why WP:Due weight comes into play on this. Actually read some of the academic sources on this topic, not just the abstracts. And since it does not appear that I have been clear on this next point, I will state this: I do not oppose mentioning in the Macrophilia article that the term macrophilia may also refer to sexual fantasies about male giants. What I object to, which I've stated more than enough times already, is giving WP:Undue weight to that aspect of the term and engaging in WP:Synthesis (an aspect of WP:Original research) throughout the article. I asked you do you understand the WP:Due weight policy (this means its subsections as well). And I pondered if you understand WP:Synthesis. I asked and pondered this because the fact that the term macrophilia can extend to male giants does not discount applying inappropriate weight to that matter and that WP:Synthesis can still be engaged in with regard to it. It does not discount the fact that Sage94 was engaging in WP:Undue weight and WP:Synthesis at the Macrophilia article. And for the last time, "one source does not cut it when the vast majority of sources show or explicitly state otherwise. Neither do a few sources."

All that stated, your suggestion of "Macrophilia refers to a fascination with or a sexual fantasy involving giants, more commonly expressed as giantesses (female giants)." is a good suggestion and should be implemented (without "refers to," per the WP:REFERS essay). Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll make the change to the lead; I should have clarified what I was suggesting earlier. And you say, "Actually read some of the academic sources on this topic", if they exist they should be included, can you point out a couple? I understand Synthesis and Due weight, I'm just not seeing that the majority of sources explicitly disallow non-female giants or define it only as women giants. Some do, but not a majority, and I think that's what your argument rest on. Beyond the sources, there are certainly many examples of male giant fantasies, so it doesn't seem so rare that it needs to be downplayed. Unless you think the heterosexual aspect is specifically defining above other aspects. Most of the sources listed , when defining the term, say it's a "love of the big" or "attraction to giants" even when they limit their discussion to anecdotal examples of fantasies of women. I would like the article to express the nuance and context found both in the sources and within your own comments here. Using "giantess" exclusively is distracting when it's clear it's not always giantesses. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Elaqueate, it's not about the sources explicitly disallowing male giants. It's about the sources on this topic usually giving a lot more weight or sole weight to female giants. That is why this matter has been a debate at the Macrophilia talk page for years. If it were easy to find sources (WP:Reliable sources) that give a lot of weight to male giants on this matter/women having sexual fantasies about male giants, then this debate wouldn't exist, now would it? It's why your wording of "more commonly expressed as giantesses (female giants)" is WP:Due weight (appropriate). Even some of the sources I have read on the macrophilia topic (years ago; can't recall the specific sources) that start out with what you consider a neutral descriptor of the term (applying it to male giants in addition to female giants, or simply to giants) have turned out to mostly focus on this attraction among men (clearly in a heterosexual context because of the focus on female giants). I'm certain that most of the sources on Google Books and Google Scholar, seen here and here, with regard to the term do as well (again, discounting if they start out with a "neutral descriptor"). All of this is why I brought up the fact that you will not find a source that mostly or solely focuses on this topic with regard to male giants. However, more than enough sources mostly or solely focus on it with regard to female giants; that should tell you right there how much more commonly the term is applied to female giants as opposed to male giants. Also, like I stated, simply fantasizing about giants is not macrophilia; otherwise, the term would include small children who fantasize about giants. Macrophilia is about having a sexual component to the fantasies (sexual attraction to the giants).

On a side note, macrophilia does not appear to be a heavily researched term. It seems like it is more so a cultural term (though not popular culture); it seems like it is a WP:Neolgism. Because of all of this, the call for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources is not very necessary. Somewhat necessary, yes. But not very. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I never said one wasn't more common than the other. If the sources say, "usually giant women" then we should say "usually giant women". If it, and you, say "more common", then we should say "more common". It's clearly not synthesis if it's in the sources. From the Google books search you provided, the majority of definitions seem to be "Macrophilia—Attraction to giants, being men or women", an analysis of male-on-male macrophilia, "sexual fantasy involving fictitious giants" "Macrophilia is the love of big things" with a mention of both straight and gay men. Can you see why it's not original research to give indications that giant men are fantasized about when it's in the sources? No one is saying that they are equally common, but using "giantess" for every mention is giving it more weight than is in the sources used, and the sources you point to here. I don't think you had a strong case to bring this here to this noticeboard. Your argument about what the sources do is not supported by anything you've actually pointed to. Anyway, some of the "Giantesses" should be changed as some point, because at this point, they're synthesis, and this thread should be closed as this user does not seem to have synthesized the idea that male giants are sometimes the subject of sexual fantasy. It's in the sources, notwithstanding a minority that only mention women giants. (Most sources on the article and on the searches you provided talk about both or are gender-neutral, there's even some male-only ones, which you assert are unfindable for some odd reason). If the sources do it, so should we. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how you are applying WP:Original research and WP:Undue weight, which is clearly why I have questioned how familiar you are with those policies. WP:Synthesis is about coming to a conclusion for text not explicitly stated in the sources used to support that text; that is exactly what Sage94 was engaging in. You stated "From the Google books search you provided, the majority of definitions seem to be 'Macrophilia—Attraction to giants, being men or women.'" You are wrong. Even just looking at the first few sources there on Google Books, those sources clearly give more emphasis to female giants and men's attraction to them. Some of the titles clearly indicate that they are specifically about men attracting women. Yet you are making it seem like those sources give equal weight to male giants, without having even read those sources in full (only snippets of them for the ones that provide access to the pages in question) and while disregarding where I stated above: "Even some of the sources I have read on the macrophilia topic (years ago; can't recall the specific sources) that start out with what you consider a neutral descriptor of the term (applying it to male giants in addition to female giants, or simply to giants) have turned out to mostly focus on this attraction among men (clearly in a heterosexual context because of the focus on female giants)."

It's not that Sage94 "synthesized the idea that male giants are sometimes the subject of sexual fantasy." It's that Sage94 extended the term to male giants in ways that are not supported by the references in the Macrophilia article. Look at those references in that article, including this first one (the first source used in that article); most of them focus primarily or solely on female giants. Look at the name of those sources; the titles clearly indicate what their focus is on (in other words, not on male giants), and some of them are WP:Dead links. And yet you are asserting that most sources in that article are "gender-neutral" with regard to the term macrophilia. No, they are not; accessing Internet Archive for the dead links should provide further proof. And if you are referring to the Further reading section in that article, you only pointed to one source from that section. How do you know that the other sources are gender-neutral? It's best not to make sweeping arguments that are clearly not supported, especially when those who are fairly researched on this topic, such as myself and Pandarsson, are clear that your conclusions on this matter are not entirely accurate. In what way is Sage94's edit supported by that first source? That's one example of his WP:Synthesis. The source states, "Macrophilia — it’s one of those wonderful words that means exactly what you think it means. 'Macro' means big, 'philios' means love. Put ‘em together, whatta you got? A lover of bigness, a connoisseur of the colossal. Simply put, male macrophiles — and almost all macros are men – get turned on by giant women." The only spot that I see where Sage94 did not engage in WP:Synthesis is with this poor source that should be removed; WordPress.com does not count as a WP:Reliable source. I went to two administrators about Sage94's WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring with regard to the Macrophilia article; those administrators are Bongwarrior and Barek, and here and here are those discussions; neither of them seemed to think I had a weak case with regard to accusing Sage94 of WP:Original research. Neither does Johnuniq. You are the only one making that claim thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

All the user did was add "giant" to some of the places where it only said "giantess". Some of these were already discussed here. The paragraph about the crush videos was clearly about crush videos that had male and female "giants". That's sourced. Some of the articles describe giants of indeterminate gender because they're big animals. Some of the sources are about escort work to accommodate the fetish, not the fetish itself; this user didn't revise the article where it was talking about Amazon escort work. Saying it must only say "giantess" because some of the sources only talk about giant women is the wrong end of the stick. The Salon source from the 90s does make the case that's it's mostly a heterosexual guy thing. Again, there were no revision to what that citation supported except for the lead, which we agreed wasn't perfectly representative of what the sources tell us on balance. And relying on the Salon article is weak. I will re-invite you to share the academic sources you mentioned if you can remember them, because it would be more convincing than pointing to i09 slideshows and the like. In the meantime, whether or not you agree they are a numerical majority or not, various sources in the article mention that the subject of this sexual attraction can be giant women, giant men, or giant creatures, and it wasn't wildly inappropriate to try to include that in the article itself. It's certainly not worth this much botheration on the notice board. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"All the user did was add 'giant' to some of the places where it only said 'giantess.'" Yeah, mostly in places that none of the references support, including what is still currently the first reference in the lead. WP:Synthesis is absolutely a part of the WP:Original research policy. It is absolutely WP:Synthesis to come to a conclusion for text/add that specific text when it is not explicitly stated in the sources used to support that text. It doesn't even matter if that text is covered in reference 7; we are not supposed to add text against reference 1 when reference 1 does not support it. Furthermore, I see no "various sources in the [Macrophilia] article mention[ing] that the subject of this sexual attraction can be [giant men or giant creatures]." Like I stated, look at those references in that article. "[M]ost of them focus primarily or solely on female giants. Look at the name of those sources; the titles clearly indicate what their focus is on (in other words, not on male giants), and some of them are WP:Dead links." But either way, since you don't see what Sage94 did wrong (except for the lead blunder) and are continuing to suggest that the sources concerning macrophilia extend as much to male giants as they do to female giants (when they quite clearly do not, as evidenced by more than just the Salon.com source), I'm pretty much done discussing this matter with you. It's a broken-record discussion at this point. No one has relied solely on the Salon.com source for this topic; so the fact that you are ignoring the non-Salon.com sources, including a few you cited earlier above and the ones on Google Books, that outright state that the vast majority of macrophiles are men, and/or focus on their sexual attraction to female giants, shows that your view on this topic is not too accurate and is ill-informed. I have already pointed you to sources, including academic ones (there on Google Books and Google Scholar), for you to review. Get access to them and review them, and review the academic sources you listed; I've reviewed material on this topic over the years, enough to know that the term is far more a man/female giant matter than it is a woman/female giant matter, woman/male giant matter or a man/male giant matter. I also pointed out to you that this term is not a heavily researched academic term; that's clear by the sources on Google Books and on Google Scholar. So it's a bit funny, after suggesting that I "share the academic sources," to suggest that "it would be more convincing than pointing to i09 slideshows and the like."...when that is the type of sourcing you started out with when making your arguments on this matter above. That you want to hold on to the fact that some of the sources start off with a "neutral" descriptor of what macrophilia is, despite those same sources then focusing almost exclusively on female giants or outright stating that the matter is mostly a man/female giant matter is not my problem. Nor is it a problem or "much botheration" that I brought this matter to this noticeboard. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Books only confirms that male giants are discussed: the first two hits deal with female giants, the third is purely male-on-male, the fourth is female, the fifth includes giant women and giant men, the seventh states "Attraction to giants, being men or women". You mischaracterize my argument as saying that the sources "extend as much to male giants as they do to female giants". I've repeatedly said that female giants are probably more common, but they are not the only subject discussed in the sources you keep pointing to. This is clear in your own language, as you say "mostly a man/female giant matter" and "almost exclusively" etc. Which is the essence of my point; the article should not imply "exclusively giantess" if it's somehow "almost exclusively giantess". You have also made some oddly contradictory claims. You insisted on medical sources, then rejected a strong need for them after I pointed to one; you claim years of reviewing papers but can't provide specific ones (and in a thread where you're complaining of Original Research). You say you have somehow provided academic sources to me by pointing me at Google at the same time as saying there is a dearth of academic sources. You make the strange request that I should "get access" and review the source I provided. Why are you assuming I haven't read a source I quoted the contents of? But ultimately, and in the spirit of constructiveness, if you have sources other than pointing to Google, you should share them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally wrong. And I meant it when I stated that I am pretty much done discussing this matter with you, but just to address a few points. For example, "mischaracterize [your] argument"? Well, now you know what it feels like. And if it's somehow "almost exclusively giantess," then that is where WP:Due weight comes into play. We do not then give "equal weight" (undue space) to male giants throughout the article. I have been over WP:Due weight more than once in this discussion with you (Johnuniq commented once thus far above, pretty much telling you the same thing), and, to me, you still don't seem familiar with that policy. My "claims" are not "oddly contradictory"; you simply don't pay good attention to them. For example, what you call my insistence on using medical sources for this topic is me asking and stating "Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that? Rightdiagnosis.com, for example, is not a Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant source... And in any case, the points that Johnuniq and I have made is that WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should ideally be used for that article, unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter." See where I stated unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter? I later re-characterized that as simply "cultural," since macrophilia is nowhere close to being mainstream. Re-analyzing some of the literature on this matter reminded me that this topic is not a heavily researched academic topic; therefore, there is not going to be much need for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for this topic. As for access to the sources, it's easy to see that you don't have access to them, which is why you responded the way that you did when I suggested that you read more than the abstracts. You certainly don't have full access to any of those Google Books sources, and you also certainly have not attempted to read the archived versions of those aforementioned dead links in the Macrophilia article. So, yep, not much more to state to you on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I obviously read more than the abstracts, as I quoted material not from abstracts. I also quoted from sources on the page that I dug up past dead links. Why are you claiming you know what I've read? That's just bizarre.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(I started writing this before the last comment was added, so consider it a response to the comment before that.) I think the point is that, like it or not, macrophilia is one of the many philias that have simply not had that much research into them. The required articles simply don't exist. Even the sources used on this page show it glaringly. Some of the pages no longer exist, one of them is simply a retelling of one of the others (it links to it, even) and the only ones show anything specific to male giants are on some random blog, an article about an artist who depicts homosexual macrophilia in their own imagined biblical context, and one is a fetish site for a furry artist that in no way satisfies any standards for sources. And that's it. Look at them. As for actual scholarly articles mentioning macrophilia, the few that exist are worthless to making an encyclopedia page or I'd have already suggested them. However, for you to see for yourself, look at this, this, and this. As you will see, none of these are very helpful and they provide little information. But that's as much information as is currently available. This is why I made an RFD and suggested before that this topic to be merged to one of the more general pages on paraphilias. Obviously, there simply wasn't enough interest in the page to generate a satisfying conclusion one way or the other, leaving the page as it was. You'll find a link to that old vote near the top of the page. And it's not that I have something against the topic. I wish there were enough sources to fill this page out. However, they don't exist. And what does exist says little to nothing about women who fantasize about male giants. Pandarsson (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"nothing about women who fantasize..."? Why do you keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer? You've done it in just about every comment you've made. That's a response to something that's really not being discussed here. Sexuality is probably important, but no one has made any edit or request to say anything specifically about women vs. men. For the other part I agree that many of the sources are weak which is why I was tying to point to academic writing and more of the sources in the further reading section. It will need some rewriting, some paring and some re-sourcing at some point, you're right about that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That was my first post on this specific page. And please refer to the first post on this page regarding this subject, particularly this line from it: "The matter concerns whether or not the term macrophilia covers females who have sexual fantasies about male giants." Also, if you have looked at the scholarly articles I provided, you will see that there isn't enough information there on the subject of macrophilia to make a full page out of it. I have seen a couple of other mentions in articles I've looked up in a library that I can't find online, but they were again mere mentions and even less than what you'll find in the three links I gave. You will also see that in those articles I linked, the descriptions of macrophilia involve female giants when the object (or one of the objects) of the fantasy is a human. Thus not only does it specifically not provide mention of male-gendered giants or female-gendered fetishists, there simply is not even enough information for a full page. I have to keep mentioning this because I do not think I would be doing any service by not reiterating it. I'm not going to do another RFD, but I guarantee you that if someone does not somehow find some obscure thorough scholarly source that does more than merely mention macrophilia, if someone does another RFD, I will be again voting to merge. Pandarsson (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Pandarsson does not "keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer"; I, Johnuniq and Pandarsson mentioned "the gender of the fantasizer" for obvious reasons, reasons I already told you -- sexually fantasizing about giants is mostly a male thing (something males do far more than females), a heterosexual male thing to be exact. The sources hardly attribute macrophilia to women as the ones doing the fantasizing. You make it sound like, well, if heterosexual women are hardly involved, then there's enough lesbian women and gay men involved. No, by "hardly attribute macrophilia to women," we mean "all types of women." See my "15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)" post for more on that. That you may have confused me with Pandarsson (who commented in this discussion for the first time with the "00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)" comment above), if your "Why do you keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer?" line is any indicator, is further enough reason to stop discussing this matter with you. You don't seem to be listening well to what others in this discussion have told you, and you every now and then misunderstand what they (we) have stated. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got things muddled. At the beginning of this conversation you pointed to this conversation where Pandarason mentions the gender of the person fantasizing multiple times. I hadn't confused this user with you (even if it wasn't clear otherwise, he said that scholarly works didn't exist while you said you provided me with some). Again, it's nice that you both assert that it's "mostly a male thing" but it's completely irrelevant and has not been disputed. The changes you were complaining about here had zero to do with adding any mention of women or removing any mention of its prevalence among men. The changes were about the subject of fantasy, not the person fantasizing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not completely irrelevant that it's mostly a male thing. Mostly a heterosexual male thing. And we have already addressed exactly why it is not; most importantly, it speaks directly to the fact that macrophilia does not equally refer to male giants. To state that it's irrelevant that macrophilia is mostly a male thing (a heterosexual male thing) is to suggest that heterosexual women, lesbian women and gay men sexually fantasize about giants as much as heterosexual men do. The sources do not show that; when they speak of the fantasizer being male, they usually mean that the fantasizer is fantasizing about female giants; you seem to want to imply that when the term focuses on men, it includes heterosexual and gay men, or, that when it states "female giants," it includes lesbian women fantasizing about female giants. The sources generally don't. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to say this but "male", by itself as it was in earlier comments, does not equal "heterosexual". Neither does "woman" by itself. And again, none of the diffs made any change to anything to do with the gender of the person doing the fantasizing. Completely moot. If a reputable source says males are more likely to macrophiliacs, you shouldn't then jump to the conclusion they are all heterosexual males unless the source states it. Otherwise you are engaged in Original Research.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you shouldn't have to state that, and no one here was stating exactly that either. It's been well addressed to you why mentioning the sex of the fantasizer is completely relevant to this discussion. You don't accept that. Fine. I don't need a WP:Original research lesson from you or anyone; for example, WP:Original research applies to article content, not to my stating here in this discussion to you that a source about males and female giants is speaking of males in a heterosexual context. And unless you are implying that gay males are sexually attracted to female giants, it is quite clear that the sources are speaking of the matter with regard to heterosexual males. Even if some of the males identify as bisexual, it is still a heterosexual matter when involving males' sexual attraction to female giants. Bottomline on this matter: The sources hardly ever cover heterosexual women, lesbian women and gay men. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Still immaterial. Look to the example of the crush videos, where the enthusiasts are "mostly male" are still watching a mixture of male and female "giants" as per the National Post source.[4] People with authority fetishes etc. can become aroused regardless of the gender of the object fantasy, so the gender of the enthusiasts is not some kind of lock the gender of the object of fantasy. But again, this user didn't edit anything about the gender of the people who have the attraction, you're drawing an assumption that isn't necessarily there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not immaterial; and it's clear why it's not, no matter how you try to present this matter. And I am not drawing an assumption that is not there; you are. Since you are barely listening to a thing that is being stated to you in this discussion and are more interested in being right and getting the last word, I'm done having this discussion with you. Hopefully, it is the last discussion I have with you. Oh, and your belief that "People with authority fetishes etc. can become aroused regardless of the gender of the object fantasy" is significantly flawed logic. Flyer22 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for acrimony or a lack of assumption of good faith. The main thing is that this user added mention of masculine giants and there are masculine giants in the sources cited by the article, whatever you thought of their quality. Everything else is just your opinion of appropriate weight versus others. I don't think there's any reason to spend any more time on it here. Wikipedia benefits from your other edits and I hope you continue to make them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, generally wrong...except for Wikipedia benefiting from my other edits (its benefited from my edits in this case as well). For example, I don't at all go on opinion with regard to appropriate weight when it comes to editing Wikipedia; otherwise, I would not have cited WP:Due weight (you know, that policy others agreed with me on in this discussion), which is very clear what to do in cases such as these. And again, last word thing; I guess I couldn't resist replying either. You can keep the condescending remarks (especially the ones in your edit summaries during this discussion), by the way; I don't need them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave you with the last word then.[5] __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

__ E L A Q U E A T E, please read the scholarly articles I linked to you (one of them you can only read the abstract of unless you have some way of accessing it, but the other two are available - the one on JSTOR if you have space on your 'shelf' and in the preview otherwise). You will see that the specific mentions of humanoid giants is of 'giantesses'. Even the sources on the page, if we take out the ones that simply shouldn't be there, when they specify, they mention giantesses. Read them. Don't just assume they say otherwise. Bear this in mind: I do not personally think this information is complete. However, it is only what is available in scholarly sources. It's what there is to work with. As far as bringing up the gender of the fetishists, that began in regards not to specific edits, but to things said in the talk page for that article. That was entirely within the realm of discussion and I brought it up within that context. Now look at the sources that are available to you and see what we're talking about. If you see sufficient mention there of male giants being the objects of fetish that we have missed, please bring it up here. Pandarsson (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to review sources if it's intended as a good faith discussion. The first academic source you cite, Jeffrey Cohen, writes overwhelmingly of masculine giants. Is there a quote from the book I'm missing? The other two sources are both quoting and relying on the same source, the "Deviant Desires" book by Gates. I'll take a look at it when I get the chance. The "Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Culture Society History." from the article cites both masculine and feminine giants and attractions; is that one of the sources that shouldn't be there? And I've already mentioned the Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices, which does not single out giantesses, and extends the focus of attraction to giant creatures. I appreciate the thought you've put into this, but I think you should reconsider the idea that the sources given "only" make specific mention of "giantesses". __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Biographical information at CK Morgan

I'm having difficulty verifying the biographical information at CK Morgan. While the later-life information seems to at least be somewhat supported by the given sources, I can't find any reliable sources about the information about birth dates and the subject's early life. Google turns up sources at [6] [7] [8], but because they match the grammatical structure of the article, I suspect that all those websites (especially the second one) have simply copied Wikipedia's text.

Furthermore, editors seem to have been changing the subject's birth date willy-nilly: from 1991 to 1993 at this revision, and then to 1992 here (the latter of which I had reverted after a cursory glance, suspecting BLP vandalism, before looking more closely at the context).

I've put maintenance templates on the page, with a citation needed flag right by the birth date, but the other editors (or editor editing under multiple accounts?) has been removing them without justification. Given that these are apparently new editors unaware of Wikipedia dispute resolution tools, it is not clear to me whether posting on the article's talk page would have any effect, so I am posting the question here to try to get a third opinion with respect to how to deal with this. Thank you! Joe Schmedley^T* 17:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a BLP, proper sourcing is required. If no one can find a source, simply omit the questionable information. This is OK. For example: while it is standard to include the subject's year of birth in a bio article, there is no rule that says we must include it... and it is better to say nothing than to give potentially inaccurate information. It can always be added back if someone can come up with a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted into Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. Could someone else take a look please? The editor doesn't seem to get it... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree... I have re-removed and tried to explain what is needed. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia promoting a RW response

A new editor has added what appears to be promotional material to two articles, Active shooter and School shootings. The additions promote one companies [9] manner of response in a dangerous situation without any secondary support that verifies its (the company or the response) reliability. Aside from self-promotion, the articles now promote Real World actions, by our readers, that places them in harms way should they encounter an "active shooter" or "school shooting". I will notify the editor, User talk:Aalexa1041, of this discussion and I have reverted the additions at the two articles awaiting a decision. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

POV synthesis on genetics being added to several articles

User:Andajara120000 is adding WP:SYN material to several articles. The exact text is

Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a, which "is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]"

Given the editor's other edits it's pretty obvious this is arguing for the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. It's not obvious why it should have been added to Egyptians and Archaeogenetics of the Near East as there is no context for it in those articles - it's much too specific. What the editor is doing is combining sources about studies of mummies with a source about the lineage of E1b1a. This is a complex subject and simply saying 'originated and expanded' is misleading, but the main issue is the WP:SYN.

Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am willing for editors to trash out exact wording, additional disclaimers but only as long as the study remains in the body of the article in the meantime. There have been far too many debates by countless editors and discussions over this since the paper came out. Now that I was able to get the direct quotes from the study and a direct quote from the peer-reviewed studies the banning of this study from these AE related-articles is no longer justified. I can understand if they are not appropriate to these particular pages (which all cite other DNA studies from ancient mummies so I really cannot see the argument for that but in any case), but that is not the point. This effective ban of this study from wikipedia has gone on far too long, DougWeller. You cannot ban these studies from these articles any longer. This is a peer-reviewed study. Discuss the exact wording on the talk page and what disclaimers you wish but keep it in the article-they are reliable sources. We are not going to have semantic debates for the rest of our lives, circling around arguments to keep these studies out of reader's eyes because you think anyone attempting to include these peer-reviewed studies is pushing a POV. Enough is enough. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, these studies are reliable sources, it's the way that they are used that can be pov. I have no idea what you mean by an effective ban, but I presume it's another one of the conspiracy theories you've been pushing in an attempt to get editors (including me( blocked or banned from articles relating to Ancient Egypt. And it's not 2 peer-reviewed studies, it's one, you can't count the International Society of Genetic Genealogy web page as peer-reviewed. And "Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a," on its own isn't appropriate. The conclusions of the BMJ article, " This study suggests that Ramesses III was murdered during the harem conspiracy by the cutting of his throat. Unknown man E is a possible candidate as Ramesses III’s son Pentawere." would be fine, but you are trying to use data in the article to prove a point. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not data, the study specifically states, as I indicate in the reference:"Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies; using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2?). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggest a father-son relationship." Please read things carefully before proclaiming on things. You are so blinded by your POV that nothing will ever allow you to accept this study being included in these articles. There will always be just something else you can't accept. Just admit it and we can all save a lot of time. I hope other editors can read the sentence above and see for themselves. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing "complex" about this subject, and the hyphotesis is what it is: a hypothesis. I don't see 120000 is "arguing" for any hypothesis anymore that someone not wanting it there would be "arguing" against it. What I do perceive is someone (Dougweller) having a problem with "conspiracy theories". What is wrong with hypothesis and conspiracy theories? This is an encyclopedia and hyposthesis is/are welcome as they expand human knowledge, which is what we do. This one has particularly caught my eye because of phrases like "I presume it's another one of the conspiracy theories you've been pushing in an attempt to get editors (including me( blocked or banned from articles". I can't read other people's minds; it sounds like the editor making the accussation here can? That's a pretty serious accussation to make without any solid proof. Mercy11 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to track DNA relationships this way is complex, but you are missing the point entirely about WP:SYN and the use of data from a journal. The quote above about E1b1a is not being used by the authors to say anything about the origin of these mummies or their ancestors. As for my comment on an attempt to get editors blocked or banned, I've explained this on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I can understand where Mercy11 might get that impression. However, the story has a lot more depth to it. If you track down Andajara120000, you'll see she's quite experienced with conspiracy theories- not on the topic of Ancient Egyptians as you might've taken Dougweller's statement to mean, but rather on the topic of other Wiki editors. She believes we are all part of a cabal to hide the truth.

In any case, I have no problem including the studies as they provide some useful information. HOWEVER, the current phrasing is very misleading. I would not draw any conclusions about the origin of the group, but just say "X's remains were examined by Y (YEAR). Y-haplogroup analysis revealed that X belonged to XNXNXN," or the like. Saying that XNXNXN is West African or assigning it to any geographical location is just...well...wrong and misleading. We don't fully understand E1b1a's current distribution, let alone 3000-4000 years ago.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• If User:Andajara120000 is quite experienced with conspiracy theories, how is that bad? We need editors that are experienced at conspiracy theroies! Otherwise how would we let the facts out? We even have entire articles devoted to specific conspiracy theories, for example, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. In the last count, there were 395 reliable secondary sources to back up all the conspiracy theories there. Trying to use claims like "it's too complex", without also showing "the beef", is not going to get anyone anywhere. Now, let's suppose that Andajara is not quite experienced in the matter of Ancient Egyptians and makes an edit to an Ancient Egyptians article. What's wrong with that? What matters is that his edit, whether of not it is a conspiracy theory based, does comply with applicable policies (WP:V, WP:RS, etc) as the 395 edits at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories can attest. Secondly, it is not up to a few of the senior editors in the article contributors list, the community, or Wikipedia at large to establish that Andajara is not experienced enough on Ancient Egyptians to make edits to ancient egyptians-related article. That behaviour is specifically forbidden at WP:BITE. Very likely Andajara has his/her guard up because s/he perceives his/her opposition as badly as his/her opposition is perceiving him/her. I am not here to defend Andajara; extending and olive branch takes more courage than staying in the battle. So it's all a matter of where each editor's priotrities are. I think Aua has taken a giant step above in zeroing in on the wording (the subject) rather than the more generic - an potentially more elusive - subject of the validity of conspiracy theorists (the controversy) or, worse yet, on Andajara him/herself (the person). Zeroing in on the individiual, unless it is a WP:RFC/U which this not, is counterproductive. I would go a step further and, before Andajara objects, I would even offer something like "X's remains were examined in YEAR. Y-haplogroup analysis revealed that X belonged to XNXNXN<ref>ref here</ref>" and the like, since the citation will always show who reported on the remains examination. Mercy11 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not quite getting my point. Andajara120000 makes up her own conspiracy theories about Wiki editors. That's bad and it's just considered personal attacks. Knowledge of conspiracy theories, like the ones you had above, is totally fine.

Either way, we can work something out to include the appropriate phrasing in the appropriate article. Just having that study everywhere doesn't really help much.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't Andajara's understanding of Ancient Egyptians - it is in part a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia handles sources, NPOV, etc. It is the case that Andajara has zeroed in on a group of editors but this isn't the place for further discussion of that. I repeat, you can't combine material from two sources to make a point, and although there are exceptions for most things, if an study is about how someone died, then that's what we should be reporting and that has a place on Wikipedia, just not the places and the way he/she has been using it. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I welcome these other voices and would like to hear more. These articles in question have been edited by just a few editors (4), so this outside input to fresh eyes is welcome. Regards,Andajara120000 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has kindly offered a link to the full Ramesses study for those who can only see the abstract:http://www.academia.edu/2308336/Revisiting_the_harem_conspiracy_and_death_of_Ramesses_III_anthropological_forensic_radiological_and_genetic_study

(RI) Andajara, I will explain this to you again, and will reference this post in the future.
Here is your problem in a nutshell: you're getting a study which predicted the Haplotype of someone who lived 3000 years ago, and then stringing it to a study about haplotype distributions now. Let me state that again: "now" and "3000 years ago" are separated by..you guessed it: 3000 years. You see, that's a lot of time.
Now, you might wonder: how can two facts be facts separately but POV together? Because you're implying relationships that may or may not exist and are pushing a POV unsupported by either source this way. Got it? Here is an example: "Johann Sebastian Bach was left handed (fact #1). Studies have shown that being left-handed is associated with a higher probability of mental problems (fact #2)." Now, the E1b1a fact alone doesn't tell you anybody's race for reasons I have explained to you before (one male ancestor 1000 years ago could have carried it, and it just remained in the DNA despite the fact that the descendent is a completely different race). A simplified way to see this? Obama carried his mother's mtDNA. It's probably European. Does that make him European? No. Now, imagine this over many, many generations and you see the problem. Now imagine the same problem, but this time, you're trying to imply a fact about someone not now, but 3000 years ago. BIG, HUGE problem. Find a paper about haplotype distributions 3000 years ago and you might have a case. As is, you're WP:SYN. Solution? Try not to draw conclusions based on the E1b1a fact alone. You're stringing two things together to make a point and it's just wrong. I simplified this as much as I could. Hope it still makes sense. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 04:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to hear other editors' takes on it because you are mischaracterizing the science. Isn't that the whole reason why DougWeller filed this case? If it was only so the exact same group of editors from the talk page could come and shout down other volunteer editors,than what was the point, dougweller? (But please provide one reference supporting what you have just said. It is against the science and you will find none. Copious notes and green-colored text does not a peer-reviewed reference make. You are basically requesting we disregard two peer-reviewed studies based on your words and the use of green font. Sorry, please bring some references for your claims. I have provided mine- the two peer-reviewed studies and direct quotations therefrom.) But I am eager to hear other editors' viewpoints as I assume that is why DougWeller filed this case and not so you, Aua, Dougweller, WdFord and I can talk onlyamongst ourselves. So other editors, your thoughts are sorely needed-I don't know about the other editors, including the one who even filed this case, but I am all ears. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, we need other input, but you have one peer reviewed study and you don't seem to have read WP:SYN - it's your job to explain why this isn't synthesis. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So because of synthesis you have a right to delete the entire section at once? I think that goes against Wikipedia policy. Let us hear what other editors have to say regarding whether a sentence: X has y, <ref-peer reviewed article-direct quote> y is from z <ref-peer reviewed article-direct quote> is synthesis. I think the best option to save us all a bit of time is to agree to break this up into two sentences : x has y. <ref-peer reviewed article-direct quote> Y is from z. <ref-peer reviewed article-direct quote) That should solve the synthesis issue. Do you agree to that? If no, what is your particular issue with each peer-reviewed study in turn. But yes other editor input is key and why you filed this case in the first place. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I'm another editor. I have seen no objection to putting in the facts from the study. The objection though is drawing a conclusion from it which isn't stated in the study. That objection is the SYNTH part of the Original Research policy. It is a strong fundamental policy in Wikipedia. No inference should be drawn of any link to any race for the simple reason that the study did not draw one. Any going over that line just turns this place into yet another internet forum full of silly conjectures. According to SYNTH we may not even stick the two sentences "Johann Sebastian Bach was left handed", and "Studies have shown that being left-handed is associated with a higher probability of mental problems" beside each other because they imply a SYNTH never mind going out and actually drawing one ourselves. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good example. In any case, Andajara120000 has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and a long, long list of forum shopping (not here, I brought this one). The block was inevitable. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking Over album sales figures

(I have moved this from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Album sales figures.2FWP:SYNTH)

At the article for Taking Over, an album by the band Overkill, User:Paranoid90 keeps adding a source which he insists is adequate proof of the album having sold a certain amount of copies. Currently, his addition to the article reads:

"As of 2011, Taking Over had sold over 100,000 copies in the U.S."

However, a simple browser search reveals no mention whatsoever of Taking Over within the source provided. A very fleeting mention of album sales is made at some point by the interviewee, who is a bandmember:

"How I could have sold over 100,000 units on Atlantic records and not received one penny!"

... but in context, these 100,000 units do not explicitly correspond to Taking Over. How could it, when the album itself is not even mentioned in any shape or form? Therefore I maintain that the source is NOT reliable in confirming such a definitive statement regarding album sales figures, and that I am correct in removing it. Nonetheless, User:Paranoid90 chooses to edit war over it rather than find a more reliable source. At my talk page he has put forth some half-assed rationale about record labels and timeframes, which he somehow expects other users to "know" in advance and even to disregard the content of the source. In his words, "The readers almost never care about the source, they just read it". Surely his grasp of WP:RS is lacking, and that he is violating both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No input on this? If I go ahead and remove the source, he'll simply add it back again and the stalemate will continue. Some opinions here could at least provide a platform to move things forward. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

United Pentecostal Churches of Christ

Diakonias (talk · contribs) has created three separate articles, United Pentecostal Churches of Christ, United Covenant Churches of Christ and Pentecostal Churches of Christ, in which he attempts though various interpretations of documents, web histories, etc., to suss out a link between the three organizations. His citations include rafts of interpretations that can only be considered WP:SYNTH. My original thought was to nominate all three articles for deletion, but each individual group may well be notable in their own right and deserving of a Wikipedia article. It's just that the articles we have are not valid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello WikiDan61. Clearly, I didn't do very well. Oh dear. Apologies. And, thank you for your attention and for your comments. I have done further work on all three articles. Hopefully this may have addressed your comments and may moved the articles in the right direction. Happy New Year, and all that. Diakonias (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC).

I don't think the changes that have been made address the issues at hand. There still appears to be an attempt by the user to create connections between these organizations that the organizations themselves (nor any other recognized authority) do not claim. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear WikiDan61

Thank you for your further comment.

PCC and UCCC are both claimed as deriving from the organization that was formed (by Ellis & others) at Cleveland on May 29, 1992, i.e. from UPCC. The articles I have written/edited now (9 Jan) evidence this very clearly indeed.

UCCC published a full-color pamphlet (the pamphlet called "A New Paradigm") headed/titled "The United Covenant Churches of Christ International (Formerly The United Pentecostal Churches of Christ)", and with an opening statement by the then presiding bishop, Bishop Trotter, (Trotter was the guy appointed by Ellis and the other UPCC bishops to lead UPCC when Ellis fell sick and resigned in 2004) and also containing a brief history from the May 29, 1992 meeting, and also a statement about why they were changing the one word "Pentecostal" in the name to "Covenant".

The 2012 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches published an entry for Pentecostal Churches of Christ in which it is stated that a group came together on May 29, 1992 at Cleveland "to form what is now called Pentecostal Churches of Christ". The entry goes on to refer to the Pentecostal Churches of Christ as organized and established by Bishop J Delano Ellis. Further, if one turns in the same Yearbook to the entry for United Pentecostal Churches of Christ, it reads simply: "Please see Pentecostal Churches of Christ".

I had considered (and actually I do still consider) that in the changes I had made after your 3 Jan comment, I had evidenced the connections (i.e. (a) the connection between UPCC and UCCC, and (b) the connection between UPCC and PCC) clearly. However, following your further comment (your 7 Jan comment), I have now looked again, and I have now introduced further adjustments, -- hopefully they are improvements --, with the aim of satisfying you, and of fully allaying your concerns.

Kind rgds and all best wishes. Diakonias (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

List of Pantheists / Pantheism Articles

I need help with a user, Bladesmulti, who is editing the Pantheism and List of Pantheists articles with original research, using sources that often have limited to no support for edits. He seems convinced that Hinduism and pantheism are pretty much the same thing (they are not) and he does not accept any reverts from me. Thanks for any help anybody can bring to these articles. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A brief glance at the 'list' showed that it included two living persons, despite the source cited not having them self-identify as such. I removed both, per WP:BLP policy. If the sourcing for the rest of the article is as questionable, it needs serious attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems too with anyone prior to Spinoza, when the concept did not exist. From Pantheism, Lao Tzu is sometimes called a pantheist. He is included in the list, with an academic source, but is one mention sufficient for that inclusion? The alternative description of Lao Tzu's philosophy, is, of course, Taoism - if he existed in the first place. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Some other guy added them, and it has been described above the summary of the list "or those who have significant influence on pantheism." Probably, Lao Tzu fits here. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the well-documented doubts amongst scholars as to whether he ever existed, how could Lao Tzu be said to have had a 'serious influence' on anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is surprising to me if he ever existed or not, AndyTheGrump, sorry but can you provide some source about him not existing? Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Popular legends say Laozi was conceived when his mother gazed upon a falling star and stayed in the womb for 62 years before being born while his mother was leaning against a plum tree. He is said to have emerged as a grown man with a full grey beard and long earlobes, both a symbol of wisdom and long life.[15][16] In other versions he was reborn in thirteen incarnations since the days of Fuxi; in his last incarnation as Laozi, he lived nine hundred and ninety years and spent his life traveling to reveal the Dao.[17]" Style of thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice, removed Lao Tzu. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this dispute took turn before it was expected. Now the NaturaNaturans is trying to claim that there's no proper assertion that Lao Tzu didn't existed, and he just made 2 reverts. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Lao Tzu being singled out for his possibly mythical status when the biographies of Vyasa, Heraclitus, Adi Shankara all point to their possible non-existence as historical people? We aren't going to take Moses off of List of Jews or Homer off of List of poets because we don't have a unified scholarly agreement on their existence. If there are scholarly reputable sources that put Lao Tzu on a list of influences on Pantheism, then I think we should include it, and keep debate over existence to the main article where it can be sourced and explained. And again, for the list, only if there are sources that ascribe that influence. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on reviewing the page I notice that it's a list that has room for description. I'm going to add something that cites the influence (as per the source) while reflecting the possible non-existence. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate... Not even a single author/historian/scientist or anyone ever said that Vyasa, Shankara never existed, in fact they have wrote so much in their life that weighs tons of KGs, Scholars like Max Muller, Macdonnel, Pathok, Deussen and Radhakrishnan etc have further extended collecting the materials/mentions of these people.. So no, this point is refuted. Heraclitus may haven't been greatly documented, but he did existed. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Vyasa is traditionally attributed authorship of the Vedas. I think if you look at the academic sources, you'll find scholarly disagreement about when or how or (sorry!) if he actually lived historically. That doesn't mean a person didn't write the Vedas and that sources don't traditionally call him "Vyasa". It means that the stories we tell about him (beyond the writings we have) are deeply debatable. That's also a different thing than saying a person didn't exist. And it doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't follow sources about how they describe those ancient people we know little about for certain. You assert these historical figures existed, when what we really have is "these figures have been traditionally claimed to have existed by academic sources, with a qualifier that some academics consider the stories about them to be legends." Scholars still name people even if they disagree in fundamental ways about the conditions of their lives. It would be original research to be somehow more certain than the balance of the sources themselves.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No doubts that he didn't lived, he actually lived. It's easily digestible, unless you are proponent of some background which is generally new, but it happens with only those who are not capable enough to explain the historicity of the things, and they are no where regarded either. There's no fairytales in this regard either, we are talking about Lao Tzu here, don't bring up others unless you got strong evidence. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My original point was that there are problems with inclusion of anyone who lived before the concept "pantheism" was formulated. Even more so when legendary personages are bundled together with historical ones in a way that skims over enormous philosophical problems. If Shintoism and Daoism are both "pantheism, the what of the differences between them? If Eleaquate can come up with well-sourced entries, we should consider them, but they would have to reflect the balance of scholarship on the question of their "pantheism" - or lack of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a better question. To begin with though, let's separate (person who had legends told about them) from (person whose writings formed the basis of a philosophy). St Thomas Aquinas was both a philosopher and someone claimed to levitate. There are other historical people that spring to mind who have fantastical stories told about them, as well. As far as what Pantheism is considered to be here are some useful papers. From many of the sources, the specific word "pantheism" is described as a word formulated by Toland but that the doctrine existed in previous theologies. The concept of pantheism is said to be earlier than the word 'pantheism. Like "monotheism", the theologies don't have to be related; it's describing a theological doctrine and approach, it's not a religion in itself. See List of deists for something similar that includes people of unrelated theologies and eras, but were notable for something to do with the specific doctrine, which also predates the word "Deist". __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Added note: I just twigged to something. I was wondering why you had mentioned Shintoism as it seemed completely unrelated to the discussion here. I had no idea that there was a parallel discussion full of overboard and unsourced claims. I think I should let you know that I'm not making any kind of claim that "Daoism = Pantheism". I was just dealing with the idea that whoever wrote the Tao Te Cheng was examined as a writer of pantheistic thought in sources such as the most current edition of Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion. No larger claims beyond the individual (for the purposes of a list of notable individuals) and academically sourced.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No idea about the list of Deists, but the list of pantheists include those who called themselves pantheist, or had significant influence. Our editors doubted that if someone is also noted to have been never existed, how it can be added to the list. Thus Lao Tzu were removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been active in the Asian section of the pantheism article of late, and we are having major problems with the text and the sourcing. At least there the issue isn't so much OR as it is that User:Bladesmulti is on board with the common popular view that Asian religion in general leans to pantheism, and therefore we've been subjected to a series of poor citations which express this popular view. Scholarly works express a more complex position and for instance for Shinto (which is what I know best and for which I have the best set of sources) it's easy enough to find works which flatly state that Shinto is not pantheistic. We also had a brief round in which the same editor insisted that Zoroastrianism is pantheistic, which is flatly in contradiction to the first few references I found. My impression is that the situation for every Asiatic religion is complex because pantheism is a western category and has to be elucidated in religions texts rather than being something plainly stated. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is talking about religions here, they are only talking about the existence of Lao Tzu, stop bragging about everything that you have faced on similar pages, and talk about relevant, only if you can. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The initial post in this section mentions your problematic editing in pantheism. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Where and who? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Merchant sharing

This newly created page looks a lot like original work. I'm not that familiar with wp.en standards, so I didn't do anything by myself, but I thought I should raise a flag. Pythakos (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a write-up of a paper published back in November which proposes "a new field of economics" [10]. If it takes off we could have an article, but this is obviously WP:TOOSOON given that GScholar shows no cites of it. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Family tree

Is this family tree here consider synthesis/original research anymore than Stephen_I_of_Hungary#Family? I need this answered. I even went out of my way to exclude the disputed fathers. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Infographics

In the article Aquatic ape hypothesis it has an infographic File:Human Aquatic Adaptations.png which has a large number of conjectures from that theory in it. I have a number of different problems with it

• It tends to promote the theory excessively as in a picture is worth a thousand words so overriding all the objections in the text.
• It has a large number of things in it. Graphics are hard to edit and that means that either the whole image needs to be removed if there is an objection to one point or or it needs a graphics edit which goes against the business of Wikipedia being the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. A few different pictures with only a couple of things each would be better for inclusion or removal.
• Also because of having a number of things in it it is hard for a user to tie each point to its citation and any discussion about it.

What do people here think about infographics like this? Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dreadful. Unless it is lifted from a copyright-free source, and can be referenced, then it should be summarily removed. Could folks also have a look at the tables in Evolutionary psychology? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The copyright issue is not one for this noticeboard... the questions for this noticeboard are:

a) does the image accurately illustrate the hypothesis that is presented in the text of the article, and is that text properly sourced? (If so, then the illustration actually is sourced, and is not Original Research... it is simply that the citations are found in the text and not in the image).

b) does the infographic contains information not found in the text (if so, then we do have an OR problem.) Blueboar (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree on Blueboars considerations. If the infographic is including the hypothesis in the given sources in a non biased/falsified way, in a manner that is neutral even if a novel presentation, its not an immediate OR problem. A question is more if the sources given in that are a fair cross section of viewpoints to avoid npov issues. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I had wondered where this should be considered. I know the stuff itself more comes under fringe and undue but I still wouldn't be happy with the image even if I agreed with the contents and considered it was all backed up properly by good research. I feel it goes against the basics of WIkipedia as an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. AN illustration that does a couple of facts is fine. The closest I can find though in the policies to what I feel about this is SYNTH, putting together a load of things to come to a conclusion. Dmcq (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The creator of the image here. I was thinking to make a diagram that plainly illustrate most of the claims made in the hypothesis, as how they were originally claimed, leaving out all the pro/con arguments. Opinions may change over time, new evidence (for or against it) may come out from time to time, but the original claims should stay stable and neutral. Citation is given for each point, I hope these will keep it RS and NPOV.

I've made a similar diagram for the Endurance running hypothesis. My desire to illustrate a hypothesis in a neat way has no relation to its reception or how I feel about it.

We could discuss how many things should be included in the diagram, but one thing to note is that, while some consider such a "big picture" favors the hypothesis, some others consider this a weakness as trying to explain too much. My intention is just to make an (almost) exhaustive list of claims. Chakazul (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A bunch of editors have now descended on the article and deleted every single image without engaging in any discussion. Surely we can have a proper discussion about this point if doing something like that is felt to be worth doing? Dmcq (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a pity. If my illustration invoked such reaction then my apology. And totally fascinated by such extreme reaction. Chakazul (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a bunch of editors who have a real problem with any fringe ideas, they react like some religious sect abominating and excising blasphemy rather than trying to just documenting it with due weight and outlining the mainstream position. I wanted a more general discussion about what I saw as problems with infographics irrespective of the fringe angle. I think the most relevant pointer I've seen is WP:MOS#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images Dmcq (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a user-generated infographic that wasn't original research, more specifically an original synthesis. If a graphic is worth making, then reliable sources will probably have made it already. In controversial articles, infographics are usually an attempt to push a particular POV. Years ago, someone produced graphics for solar energy, and it went to mediation. It seemed to me that the editor concerned had made simple errors of arithmetic, and glossed over enormous problems of comparability. So, I'm generally predisposed against infographics, especially when use to promote fringe ideas, but also in general. In the solar energy case all editors were well disposed towards solar, we just disagreed about how to present info. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,I'll see if I can find that. I wonder if something can be put in this policy or where would be the right place to warn about them if it is a recurrent problem and has gone into mediation before.

Two other infographics have been mentioned at that talk page File:Geological_time_spiral.png, and File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg. They both are based on outside reliable sources. The first was a featured picture but it still gives me the feeling of why on earth do we need that, wouldn't a table do better. The second I think is much more the sort of thing that illustrates information in a good way, and even that one can't do what it does with the text properly. Both have have very much less text an have more of a single theme than the infographic which started this discussion.. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the mediation on solar energy is here. Thanks for bringing those other two infographics here. The first I think is beautiful and I could see it being used in a school textbook, but actually it isn't informative because you can't make sense of the scale, and also you wonder whether there are other geological eras/epochs hidden in the spiral. The second shows the information in a way that would be impossible in text, but still has limitations. For one thing the projection isn't a common one, so it takes some time to orient yourself to it, even though it's logical to have East Africa at the top. And also the legend isn't complete; there's no explanation of what the blue lines are. I suppose we need to say to people: think first before you spend a lot of time preparing an infographic. We might not be able to use it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think infographics should be used with extreme caution, and certainly the one that started this discussion should be avoided. I like WP:MOS#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images but the potential OR and perhaps WP:UNDUE issues are even more important. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's consider the WP guidelines:

OR -- I see somebody quoted WP:OI that "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Therefore I'm quite sure that the illustration is not OR as long as every bit is well-sourced and the caption contains clarification.

SYNTH -- It can be argued that the illustration is not an original synthesis, but the hypothesis itself is such a synthesis (or an "umbrella hypothesis" as described by some) that tried to integrated widely different features into one picture. The illustration merely presented this property as such. It doesn't make the hypothesis looks more coherent or not.

UNDUE -- Two similar illustrations have been made for the two most popular hypotheses (Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and Endurance Running Hypothesis), although AAH is considered fringe and ER more mainstream, actually they are quite similar in terms of theoretical building and evidence support. As long as they both enjoy such illustrations, there's no UNDUE weight towards the fringe idea (AAH) nor the more mainstream one (ER).

Also, if there's no problem in the ER illustration, why problem only for the AAH one? Chakazul (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Selective Quotation at David Jewett

In this version of the article [11], an editor makes the claim:

"Some historians believe that Jewett choose this name to honor his Chilean lover Javiera Carrera,[8] acclaimed by some countrymen as a "heroine" of the Old Republic."

I pointed out this is dubious a in historical accounts the ship was named Heroína in 1819 by Patricio Lynch, the ships owner. Jewett was not appointed Captain till 1820, so the ship was named before he became captain. Instead of accepting this, the editor responsible has edited the material back into the article but has omitted the reference to the Jewett connection to assert only that Lynch named the ship after Javiera Carrera. The article now states:

"Some historians believe that Lynch choose this name in honor to Javiera Carrera,[8] acclaimed by some countrymen as a "heroine" of the Old Republic."

The editor appears to be inserting dubious material, justifying it by selectively quoting from the same source which he acknowledges is wrong. I for one am baffled by this, I really don't understand why an editor would do this? BedsBookworm (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Images at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

A WP:FRINGE proposal called the Aquatic ape hypothesis once contained a number of images of various items that were not at all "aquatic apes" but were being used to promote various ideas associated with the proposal. For example, the lede image right now is of a baby being held by an adult underwater and the caption is trying to make a claim that certain instinctual behaviors of newborns underwater is evidence in favor of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (never mind that human beings drown in water every day). I think that images should be directly applicable to the topic at hand; that is the images should be directly related to publications about the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. For example, pictures of the main proponents. Images that had been famously used to support the hypothesis, and so on. Other images of horse, babies, gorillas wading through ponds, and the like should be excluded on the basis of original research: namely in light of the fact that fringe promotion of ideas is a problem at Wikipedia and has been historically at this article.

Please see also WP:FTN#Aquatic ape hypothesis.

jps (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"a baby being held by an adult underwater" - already jps's description breaches WP:OR, since it's arguable that the baby is being *supported*: of course to say so in the caption would be equally WP:OR. But the point is jps's description of the picture appears, even assuming good faith, non-neutral and partisan. The caption read before being knocked about by edit warring: "Newborns float and hold their breath instinctively when submerged. This is argued to be one of many aquatic adaptations by proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis." This is, it seems to me, a perfectly neutral way of illustrating one of the claims of AAH proponents - the claim is clearly attributed to the hypothesis, and not presented as fact. Alfietucker (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

An ape wading through water is a common image for the hypothesis and probably should have been the lead image. You removed illustrations for points against the hypothesis as well as those illustrating points pointed out by advocates. The component of original research in images is covered by WP:OI, all they have to do is be faithful to the accompanying text and not introduce new ideas. Only ones introducing new ideas not in the text are covered by the full weight of WP:OR. Promotion is a different policy, you're probably wanting WP:DUE which covers the fringe guideline. The article Little green men is perfectly okay with an artists impression of a little green man at the top. Dmcq (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the "points" were "for or against" the hypothesis. All that matters is what the sources indicate are directly related to the topic. If we could find an image of an ape in the water that is used in sources about this topic, that would be great. However, no such images have been proposed. jps (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:OI. We don't have to use the actual images used in the sources. Images like that are used in sources but even that is not required. Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly if we don't use the actual images used in sources we are free to use any illustration whatsoever. So how do you decide which of the millions of images are relevant and which are not? Purely by consensus? Great, then we can remove the images when there are objections and use another! jps (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:PERTINENCE. Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a rather lame argument. For example, you rejected my claim that images of drowning babies were pertinent even though there are points made in our article which indicate that drowning of humans certainly casts a pall on this proposal. So images of drowning are not pertinent but swimming babies are? You'll forgive me ask you to explain how you made that conclusion. jps (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What the AAH proponents said was that there is a reflex to hold the breath when submerged. Showing that people drown is not an argument against that. You however removed an image I put in of a sweating horse which acdtually does argue against the idea that sweating is something human as said by some AAH proponents and the example of a sweating horse was raised by those against the hypothesis.

The business about people drowning was raised by those against the AAH hypothesis and then the proponents pointed out that for instance seal pups will drown if not looked after properly. I don't see it as being part of the basic AAH hypothesis and it has little to do with the reflex holding of breath so I would be against any sort of illustration in the section that deals with it. Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The illustration in question does not show the reflex to hold breath. The baby could be drowning. How do we know? This is not simply argumentative posturing, this is interpreting an image to fit a claim which is something to be avoided. That there are sources dealing with AAH which point out that the prevalence of drowning deaths means that humans are maladapted to aquatic environments is just as much a reasonable approach as one promoting the ideas of AAH proponents. jps (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also could I ask you please not to carpet bomb single sentences with cn who etc. One is quite enough, you can fill in the reason parameter if you want to say more. In fact just looking at your page I see you have been around for a while under different aliases so you should know better on these points by now. Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a separate issue completely. I don't know why you are bringing it up on the noticeboard. Hmm.... seems like you didn't read the policy for this noticeboard. I'll wait for someone who doesn't make this kind of newbie mistake. jps (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Were Carvaka and Ajivika hindu movements?

There is RFC regarding nature of carvaka religion at the talkpage. Similar discussion is also there at Talk:Ājīvika. It seems that original research is involved in these pages. --Rahul (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

99.41.173.202 - almost all edits refer to editor's own book of interpretations (not facts)

It appears that almost every edit made by user 99.41.173.202 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.41.173.202) are references to (or excerpts or summaries from) his own self-published book, which contains his own interpretations of poems. (Either this user is referring to his own book, or the user is interested only in adding citations and summaries from that one book.) In spirit, if not in the letter, these edits seem to be in violation of multiple policies; instead of original research, the editor cites his own interpretations (not facts) from his own book, which comes to the same thing. Could an administrator possibly look into this? Thank you.

Further detail: this user reverted an edit in which I removed a citation to his self-published book. I don't want to start an edit war, so I hope an admin might decide on what to do next. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that this should probably be dealt with at WP:ANI, rather than here. From what I can gather, the author, Kenneth B. Newell, has some academic credibility, including a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania, [12] but the work itself seems not to have been the subject of any significant reviews, and the publisher, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, seems to be fairly non-selective in what it publishes. Accordingly, it certainly looks like undue promotion of the work, and it is difficult to believe that the IP doesn't have a conflict of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I left a block warning for the IP and invited him to reply here, but he has not edited for five days. Let me know if this editor resumes his activity without waiting to get consensus for his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Since you've already taken some action, should I post something at WP:ANI or leave it alone? (And I'll come back here if he resumes editing.) - Macspaunday (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is more of a WP:COI issue than a WP:NOR issue. The material is supported by previously published sources (no opinion on whether they are reliable published sources or not), and if any other editor had made the edits and cited those sources, we wouldn't deem it Original research. The information would not have originated with the editor who added it. What makes this an iffy case is that the editor who added the information is also the author of the source. WP:NOR does not really address this. I would certainly say that there is a greater likelihood of (perhaps unintended) OR in such a situation, but that does not necessarily mean the edits are automatically OR. It really depends on what the author/editor tries to say in our article, and how he/she says it. A lot depends on how closely he/she sticks to the cited published source. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It is probable that this is a case of COI editing, but making charges of COI is usually tedious. It is simpler to view it as a case of promotional editing. Repeatedly adding material from a fixed source, so consistently that the goal appears to be promotion of the source, is blockable unless the editor will wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it also relevant that all the added paragraphs are literary interpretations that merely reflect one person's point of view? There's no place in an encyclopedia for random interpretations introduced by individual editors as if they were posting their papers in Freshman English. It's certainly appropriate to include an encyclopedic report on existing interpretations, but WP surely is not a site in which anyone can post their personal interpretations of literary works. - Macspaunday (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Not just anyone, no... but a published PhD? That's a bit different. That's not just a "random interpretation" by some nobody. There is at least a possibility that this guy qualifies as an expert. There are multiple policies and guidelines that might apply here (WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUBLISHED, etc.)... the question is whether they do or do not. Whenever we find someone citing their own works, we have to ask... if someone else had made the exact same edits, citing the same sources, would we consider the edits and citations problematic? (if so, why?... if not, why not?)... and then deal with them in that light. Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edits, I think you'll see that they would be problematic no matter who made them; they are interpretations of poems (in some cases, the only interpretations on the page) made by a single author. As far as I can tell, no one - and I mean no one - has cited this user's work (published by a vanity press - a press that you pay to distribute your work, not peer-reviewed) anywhere else, so the only citations for it are his own on WP. He even identifies them in his edit notes as "interpretations." Basically, he's using WP as a place to publish what he thinks about some poems. - Macspaunday (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia

Hi all, I would welcome editors looking at a sentence in the article Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia that I believe is based on original research.

The sentence in question is the following:

The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page.

This was originally sourced to a secondary source, Owens, which says something rather different:

Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.

Editors objected to my replacing the present wording with a sentence quoting the cited secondary source. Herostratus then changed the sourcing to various primary sources, namely:

1. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
   • Quote: All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one... has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.
2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
   • Quote: [C]ontent hosted in Wikipedia is not for... Advertising, marketing or public relations.
3. Wikipedia:Spam
   • Quote: Articles considered advertisements include those that are... public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual.
4. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
   • Quote: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships.

The problem I see with this wording and primary sourcing is that Wikipedia has paid editors in good standing who work transparently to "manage" their clients' Wikipedia articles for them, in a way that is compliant with policy and does not violate WP:OWN. These paid editors act as talk page advocates for their clients, in a way that even Jimmy Wales welcomes. Jimmy Wales is for example quoted in Owens' article as saying,

“I am opposed to people who are paid advocates being allowed to edit in article space at all, and extremely supportive of paid advocates being given other helpful paths to assist in our work usefully and ethically."

To me, the present article wording is apt to create the impression that this sort of arrangement is forbidden. In addition, one of the primary sources cited, WP:COI, contains the following passage explicitly saying that paying someone to write an article about you in Wikipedia can be benign and unobjectionable:

The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.

Isn't the WP:COI quote in the sourcing rather selective, to an extent that it amounts to a Wikipedian's interpretation of a primary source? And not only that, but an interpretation that directly contradicts statements in the secondary source (Owens), and parts of the primary source itself? This is exactly what WP:PSTS forbids.

As far as I am aware there is no policy anywhere on the English Wikipedia that says that a company cannot pay someone to manage their Wikipedia entry for them, at least in the sense of getting a paid advocate who is more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to fight their battles here for them, rather than having one of their own employees wading into a dispute here.

I'm not sure how best to solve this. Discussions on the talk page have stalled. However, I feel certain that present status is not in line with WP:OR, and would welcome editors' comments on that aspect.

Disclosure: I am not a paid editor, never have been, never will be. I believe if paid editing is done in Wikipedia, it should be done transparently, with full disclosure, using registered paid-editor accounts that are flagged in edit histories, and with articles, too, flagged for readers if they contain such edits (as tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles currently do, without disclosure and transparency). --Andreas JN466 12:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think the sentence was ever ref'd to Owen. It was just an unsourced statement, the Owen ref was for following or preceding sentences (don't recall which); this sort of thing is often unclear with refs. The sentence is "The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page. It doesn't use the phrase "paid" anywhere, so some of the original poster's points are somewhat tangential. (Anyway "paid editor/editing" is deprecated because technically it doesn't exclude GLAM participants, professors working in their field, and so on; the preferred phrasing is something like "paid advocacy editor/editing" or "commercial editor/editing", I think.)

The meaning of the passage hinges on what is meant my "manage" I guess. The first two meanings for "manage" in Wiktionary are "To direct or be in charge of" and "To handle or control (a situation, job)" and this is the common meaning and clearly what's meant. WP:OWN forbids this. "Company" also has several meanings. "An entity that provides services as a commercial venture" or "A corporation" or "Any business" are the common meanings and what is meant here.

OK WP:OWN, but it says "violates several Wikipedia rules", so need another. It is true that "a company managing the content" does not violate any other rules AFAIK under, and only under, the following two scenarios:

1. The company is engaged to manage some pages unrelated to the interests of the engaging party. For instance the company is engaged to manage pages on first-century Roman poets, with no prescription regarding how they will be managed, purely as a gift to humanity.
2. The company is engaged to manage some particular page(s) but doesn't do it.

and any other situation is by definition a violation of WP:COI at least. If one wishes to engage in semantic hair-splitting then "use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia" could be taken to include either of these two situations, just as ""The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules" could be taken to mean "The use of a unit of firefighters to train Wikipedia articles in the manège violates several Wikipedia rules". All this is ridiculous semantic prollygastering of course, which is not usually helpful IMO.

I gather that original poster wishes very much that "The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules" was not true. He makes a cogent case that having such rules would be very foolish, and who knows maybe he's right. It's only human to make the leap from "if statement X was true, that would a very unsatisfactory state of affairs" to "statement X is not true" and I understand that. But it is true. Since it's true and we have excellent refs showing that its true and its germane to the article we can say it and should.

I apologize for not engaging further on the article talk page. Personal real-life stuff is impinging on me right now, sorry. It's a contentious issue. I've made my case and of personal necessity I'll disengage; I'm confident that fair-minded editors will come to the best solution here. Herostratus (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, this hinges on what we mean by "manage". A plausible meaning – to me, the most plausible meaning – is that a company employs someone to "handle" everything connected with their Wikipedia article for them. This in itself does not violate WP:OWN at all, especially if the paid editor restricts himself or herself to talk page advocacy, raising matters at noticeboards, and so forth. Even if the paid editor edits the article, this in itself is not a violation of WP:OWN. We have thousands of company articles that have been edited either by a company employee, or by someone acting on behalf of the company, without there having been a complaint that WP:OWN has been violated. It all depends on the individual editor's actions, and how they respond to disputes that arise in collaborative editing. Hiring someone in itself does not violate WP:OWN, as Jimmy Wales' statement quoted above ("I am [...] extremely supportive of paid advocates being given other helpful paths to assist in our work usefully and ethically") makes abundantly clear. Andreas JN466 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research and misuse of sources in articles about the number of Buddhists

Articles such as Buddhism by country or List of religious populations have been constructed through misuse of sources and original research (for example combining statistics of different religions), in order to enormously inflate the number of Buddhists in the world.

Chart created mixing the statistics of Buddhism with those of other religions (Shinto, Chinese religion, Dao Mau, Tengrism, etc.).

Inflated numbers: according to surveys China and Vietnam should be in the 10-20 tonality, Taiwan and Japan in the 30-40, Mongolia in the 50%.

For example, in the article Buddhism by country statistics of Buddhism have been mixed with those of other religions of East Asia (Chinese folk religion, Taoism, Shinto, Dao Mau), that have more followers than Buddhism in the respective countries, claiming that they are "related" to Buddhism, when this is utterly false. In the case of China and Vietnam, where Buddhism is followed by little more than 10% of the population (see religion in China, religion in Vietnam), mixing this statistics with that of indigenous religions, the article says that these countries are 50% to 80% Buddhist. In the case of Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Mongolia, where according to censuses or surveys the Buddhists are, respectively, 35%, 22%, around 30% and 53%, the article says that they are over 90%, 50%, 90% and 90% respectively. The authors of this type of edits also use unreliable sources (tourist and travel websites, for example). The same hyper-inflated fake numbers (over 1 billion Buddhists in the world) have been cited also in the main article, Buddhism (which even reports 1.6 billion Buddhists!).

In other cases, List of religious populations#Buddhists, the same author uses reliable survey statistics (those reorting lower numbers) claiming that thair count is only of "practicing Buddhists", while uses the hyper inflated numbers claiming that they represent both practicing and non-practicing Buddhists. East Asian Buddhism has been created using the same type of unreliable sources mentioned above to sustain the high statistics, claiming that East Asians practice "mixed religions" ultimately resulting in this "East Asian Buddhism". Also, many charts have been created by the same authors: I have inserted some of them here on the left.--79.54.76.129 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation and chiropractic

In general, can studies of spinal manipulation be used to make statements on Wikipedia about Chiropractic, even if they do not mention chiropractic? A particular instance of this question is: can PMID 24412033 be cited in the Chiropractic article's "Effectiveness" section? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This was previously explained in the previous RfCs the sources are directly related to the topic at hand and directly supported by the material being presented.

See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 27#Request for Comment.2C Possible OR violation at Chiropractic Effectiveness.

See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 27#Futility of .22effectiveness.22 discussions.

See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 27#Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews.

See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 27#Outside view by WhatamIdoing.

See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 27#Outside view by TimVickers.

The current discussion is at Talk:Chiropractic#A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CCC. As WP:NOR is a foundational policy, questions of synthesis are of pressing concern and there should be a low bar to revisiting discussions where they clearly relate to a significant concern by reasonable, uninvolved people that the content may violate the policy. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Those original discussions did not even seem to be conclusive. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your question was previously addressed on the talk page and prior RfCs addressed the concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Some people have said some wrong things, sometimes many years ago. What we need now are decisions backed by our policies and guidelines, and informed by the better sources that have become available. From these, it look like including SMT in the chiropractic article when a source does not mention it, is OR at every level: Both on the face of it (because there is no direct connection), and when one digs deeper (because secondary sources say that chiropractic cannot be equated with SMT in general). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A blog post from Ernst that Alexbrn mentioned on the talk page says that not all professions (i.e. PT's, DO's and DC's) use SMT the same way. Given that fact we'd have to use editorial discretion as to including a given source. But I don't think it would be a blanket yes or no. Some aspects of SMT are common denominators among different professions. Common sense dictates that we shouldn't require that every source relating to a part explicitly mention the whole, especially when the connection between the two is well-established. For example, an article on the outcomes of foot wound debridement that doesn't specifically mention podiatry could still be cited there. There, the connection is uncontroversial and total; for chiro and SMT, it depends. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Common sense" (interesting variable concept) does not dictate we can decide for ourselves in an area where it is vital our information is correct. Quite apart from anything else we risk turning Wikipedia into a bizarre kind of publication where it (and it alone) relates certain studies to certain areas. If the relationship is really "common sense" and notable, other publications will have made it, and we can use them. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SENSE certainly applies to editorial discretion. Lots of medical articles talk about modalities that are within a profession's scope without mentioning the profession specifically. Do you really disagree with my comment above that we may cite an article on foot care in podiatry even if the article doesn't specifically mention podiatry? I'd be surprised, since all aspects of foot care come under podiatry. OTOH, some aspects of SMT are unique to chiro and some aren't, so it would depend, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we be considering some specific source(s) here? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously it depends - on whether chiropractic is mentioned. Many general SMT reviews "mention" chiropractic because (for example) they have included it as a search term when looking for evidence. The article that sparked this query does not even do that - it makes *zero* mention of chiropractic. Why should Wikipedia be conjuring a connection the source itself does not make, and no other respected source does? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have the source now (URL; non-paywalled PDF). Alex, it does mention chiropractic; see chart on page 4 (of 17) of the PDF where it refers to manipulation is chiro a/o osteo. (I almost missed it; it didn't show up with my browser's "find" function until the page had loaded.) We can just move on, but the larger principle is worth considering for a moment. I'm not convinced by your argument that we shouldn't cite a source on SMT in the chiro article unless the source specifically mentions chiro. What if we had an article on risks of SMT, including "high-velocity" techniques where they "crack" your neck and risk causing a stroke, but it didn't mention chiro specifically. We'd want to use the article anyway, since we know chiros use that technique. And we'd also use the podiatry example. The razor cuts both ways, for benefits and risks, and it shouldn't depend simply on whether a source mentions the specific profession, but on whether the treatment that it discusses comes under the profession. Does this make sense? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha right - my "find" missed it too: nice (err) find. I think your theoretical article couldn't exist - surely the authors would have "joined the dots" and mentioned chiropractic in relation to their findings? Maybe there are possible exceptions, but where a source doesn't even mention a medical procedure, and we decide it applies anyway, we're moving into problematic areas of originality and weight, I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right about the chiro example being unlikely, but the podiatry one is highly likely (i.e., a review on foot surgery outcomes or whatever, that doesn't mention podiatry). Would it be an OR vio to cite it in our podiatry article? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 08:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about podiatry, but in general I would be reluctant unless there were very strong grounds. It is a frequent PR gambit of new medical movements to define themselves as "extensions" to some existing body of work, thereby claiming the benefits from it. My general feeling is that if a connection is so strong and obvious, it will be mentioned in some RS. If some new movement called "podropology" sprang up tomorrow and combined podiatry and astrology, would we claim it was "obvious" all the work on podiatry could be cited for it? I think the problem in this sort of case is that we create an area of writing that has no parallel elsewhere. If other RSs are not making these connections, why should Wikipedia? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get it; the "podropology" example is perfect, and pretty funny too, in no small part because anything one can imagine in these realms probably has existed or will exist (cf. medical astrology, still actively practiced in India). Thanks for hanging in there. Sure, the connection should be well-documented in RS ... not necessarily the specific source under consideration, if the connection is airtight, which it is for pod's -- they're simply docs/surgeons who just treat feet, and are mainstream -- and isn't for chiro. All good. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 11:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Routine calculations or OR – Advice needed

This is no complaint, and no request for arbitration. It’s a request for unbinding guidance. As an editor, I sometimes find myself in a grey zone between Routine Calculations and WP:OR. Please help me find my way. These examples are real life examples, pulled from articles I am working on.

Case 1: List of whole city populations. Can I decide that some cities are too large, and to put them in relation with other cities, can I pull a set of core districts from source A, and their populations from source B (census results), add them up and list the total as the city’s population? The result will be different from that in the census. Routine calculation, or OR?

Case 2: Population again. I have the metro population of a city from Source A (census result.) Source B says 80% of the metro population lives downtown. Can I use the 80% of source B, apply them to the Source A count, to arrive at the downtown population? A downtown number was never published, otherwise it would be used. Routine calculation, or OR?

Case 3: List of railroads. I want to arrive at the total of a railroad’s trackage in a given metro area. I have the railroad’s trackage per province of a country. I have from another source the list of provinces that make up a certain metro area. Can I add up the per province trackages to arrive at the metro total? The result will not clash with a published result. None was found during an intensive search. If it would have been found, it would have been used. Routine calculation, or OR?

Case 4. Different list of railroads. List inclusion criteria say that rapid urban transit must be electric. It is found that in one instance, a train on a certain rapid transit network is diesel-powered. The railroad publishes the length of the total network. Can I deduct the 20 or so km diesel tracks from the several hundred km total to arrive at a for a pure electric system? The result will be 20km less than that in the source. Routine calculation, or OR?

Case 5: Rapid transit. A live example for a change. Total rapid transit systems statistics by country provides "total length of rapid transit systems, total number of stations" per country. It has no references. It generates its data by adding up the data provided by List of metro systems. The latter list does not reflect "rapid transit systems," but narrower cast "metros." The data generated by Total rapid transit systems statistics by country usually don't even come close to the real stats of rapid transit systems in many countries. Is it OK to have a list without references, based on another Wikipedia page? If yes, is it OK to generate a country total, which is not in the referenced list?

If any of these are OK, what is the proper way to reference the edit?

Thank you!BsBsBs (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Number 3 looks the only one that might be acceptable to me if metro area maps reasonably well to provinces, why not just give it for each province as in the original though. Going from some metro's figures to getting a population is not safe. As to the rest they look like things that you need to apply judgement to so I would say they were OR. Dmcq (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The trick with these is whether the numbers from different sources are strictly comparable. Are district boundaries the same, etc.? If boundaries, census dates, and similar parameters are identical you could do these, if there is a need. It could be explained in a footnote. A need might be creating a table comparing several entities, where the sources for the entities present data in different formats; that's what summarizing data is all about. But if you are only writing about one entity, there is no need to transform data, so it's better to leave it in the original format. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This was very helpful. I will store Dmcq's "if you need to apply judgement, it looks like OR" into my trove of wisdom.BsBsBs (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what's already been said. That boundary is a difficult one. The thing to bear in mind all the time is that we don't want to mislead the reader. I felt that No. 2 was a possibility IF the following are also done. 1) Include a footnote to explain how the figure was calculated. If the footnote is difficult to write, that's another red flag for a non-routine calculation. 2) Ask on the talk page if other editors think it would be a useful addition to the encyclopedia. Because the borderline between routine calculation and OR also depends on whether the result could be in any way controversial. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I rather don't want to speculate whether there is a possibility that something is controversial, which would make it OR :) I alredy see the talk page: "Pure WP:OR!" "No, its NOT. It's only OR if it's controversial." "It IS Controversial, hence OR!!" "No, IT'S NOT!! DAMMMIT!" "You expletive deleted are a walking OR!!!" "ANI!!!!!!"  :) BsBsBs (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Low-background steel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

Article includes original research, is mostly missing references.

It does contain references at the end. What you are asking for is inline citations and I see tags have been added asking for some.

As to original research in the article, no purported original research is identified by tags in the article, talk page or here. It is not something one can just wave around as a general criticism, it needs to have some identifiable basis. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Hard to tell for an outsider whether it is just badly referenced, or mostly made up. To bring out the OR would be a long process. One would have to challenge the content and ask for references. I would start by asking for a definition for "low-background steel". I would then ask for cites for the core claims. If someone answers "I have been doing this all my life, and I just know," then it smells like OR. If you are told that source A says that the steel comes from sunk U-boats, and source B says that "Nazis had U-boats", hence it is crystal clear that Nazi U-boats are a prime source, then it's most likely OR. It will be a lot of work. And please sign your messages. Thank you! BsBsBs (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

List of metro systems

I'm very concerned about an invented rule to list metros by operators that was created out of the air by a group of editors at List of metro systems, which as its name suggests, is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators. The rule goes against the purpose of that article and is basically original research, completely unreferenced and from the talk page, it appears as if it was added deliberately in an attempt to split the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is considered by by the official operators' sources and a reliable secondary source to be one system. It was added yesterday by User:BsBsBs (see the diff here), which I have strongly opposed as inventing rules out of the air is a clear breach of WP:NOR. However, editors ignored this and this is the rule that was invented: "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies." This may work to list metros in North America when there's usually only one operator, but in other regions like Asia, there are multiple operators for one system. The official operators of the system define Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal laws:

제3조(정의) Article 3 (Definition)

5. "도시철도"라 함은 도시철도법에 따라 서울메트로구간과 연락운송하는 노선(이하 "도시철도구간"이라 합니다) 및 그 부대설비, 열차 등을 통틀어 말합니다..
Translation: The metro, as constituted by the metro law, refers to the jointly operated lines with Seoul Metro (called "sections of metro" from now) and its supplementary equipments, trains and etc. collectively.
4. "연락운송"이라 함은 도시철도법 제17조에 따라 서울메트로구간과 한국철도광역전철구간, 서울도시철도구간, 인천교통공사구간, 서울시메트로9호선구간, 코레일공항철도 검암~서울역, 신분당선구간을 서로 연속하여 여객을 운송하는 것을 말합니다..

Translation: "Joint operation", as defined by metro law Article 17, refers to the continuous transport of passengers by the sections of Seoul Metro, Korail Metropolitan Subway, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~Seoul Station and Sinbundang Line.

Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metro, Identical definition from SMRT's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit and Sinbundang Line's legal law: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, DX Line

제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.

1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~Seoul Station, Sinbundang Line and Korail's metropolitan subway.

〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉

Source: Terms of Passenger Transport, Incheon Transit.

제2조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음과 같습니다.
Translation: The definition of the terms used in this provision is as follows.

“수도권도시철도”라 함은 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 인천교통공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 도시철도구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철구간을 말합니다. <개정 ‘13.12.13>.

Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metro operated by Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro Line 9 and Sinbundang Line and metropolitan subway operated by Korail. 〈Amended ‘13.12.13〉

Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Korail Airport Railroad.

I also brought this reliable secondary source to them (with system marked in bold), which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website:

Seoul subway serving the Seoul Metropolitan Area is the longest subway system in the world. The total route length of the system extended as far as 940km as of 2013. The first line of the subway was opened in 1974 and the system presently incorporates 17 lines (excluding the Uijeongbu LRT and the recently opened Yongin Ever Line). The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators.

Source: Railwaytechnology.com

Clearly, the source is defining this metro system very differently from the way it is listed on that article because of this invented rule that is pointing to a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. One of the editors has claimed that inventing a parameter for the list out of the air is fine - Is this true? I need the inputs of editors not associated with that article to assess whether this group of editors' original research that they claim "consensus" is acceptable. I would appreciate links to Wikipedia rules or policies, Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For background, this has been viewed by nearly everyone else as a content dispute. --IJBall (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

According to what can be seen on the talk page, nearly everyone else except this editor supports the splitting up of the list items described above (Seoul Metro, SMRT, Line 9, Korail, NeoTrans, and Incheon Subway). Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is going against what the sources define above. Also, only uninvolved editors comment please, because the heavily biased involved editors have violated WP:NPOV several times and seem to have a personal issue with me. Massyparcer (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As user:IJBall correctly notes, this is an edit dispute, and the dispute is, at its core, as old as the list. The matter on hand is not a WP:NOR matter, it is a list criteria matter. It has been a long-standing practice at List of Metro Systems that a separate system operator denotes a separate system. Please see the list's entries for Bangkok, Berlin, Copenhagen, Hamburg, London, Munich, New York City, Tokyo, Yokohama. One may not agree with this approach and wish for a more holistic view, but this is how the article approaches the subject.

List of Metro Systems practiced, but failed to spell out this important inclusion criterion. After considerable discussion, I added the criterion to the list definition. It is not an “invented rule.” It is a criterion that has been practiced at List of Metro Systems, and this practice was reflected by all separately listed entries. The edit simply did what the guidelines suggest, namely provide unambiguous inclusion criteria, don’t keep editors and readers guessing. The edit also tries (but sadly fails) to restrain rampant OR.

The inquiring editor should attempt to understand that a list criterion (to paraphrase: “This is a list of Metro systems. This list shows metro systems by operator, not consolidated by city. For the purpose of this list, if a metro has a separate operator, it is a separate metro”) does not necessarily need a source. What is listed as a Metro, and its required stats, on the other hand definitely needs a reliable source, and it definitely may not be produced using OR. Likewise, whether a certain “metro” actually is a metro, or rather a collection of tram lines, must be based on reliable sources, and not on the whim of an editor.

If one would want to characterize a city's metro as the world's largest (and this appears to be the core of this long-running dispute, not unusual for lists of this kind), it would of course be advantageous if a city's many metros are treated as one with many stations and a large network.

User:Massyparcer promoted an entry for Seoul which

• consolidated approx. 8 separate metro systems into one “Seoul Metropolitan Subway.”
• had data that purportedly were a summation. It was not explained how the summation was produced, and on what data it was based.
• There were no in-line citations
• The only “citations” were wikilinks to separate articles of separate Seoul metros.
• The articles themselves had no references for the data.

User:Massyparcer had argued that all these eight metro systems had one owner, the Korean government, and that they should be seen as one. Even if this were the case, the data for this consolidated metro should come from one authoritative source, and should not be synthesized from eight Wikipedia pages which have no references themselves.

As for the theory that all eight have one owner and should hence be seen as one, editors could not verify the first source presented by Massyparcer in this inquiry. Editors did not want to rely on User:Massyparcer's own translation/interpretation. The second source appears to suggest that the Seoul metros in question are “operated by multiple operators.” BsBsBs (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have said that I want input from uninvolved editors here. You're always questioning my motives, which shouldn't be a part of consensus gathering. I would appreciate if you would stop making groundless claims that I "promote" anything. You have just made up a textbook example of original research - The sources above clearly define there is only one metro system, so I don't see why you're inventing an original research right here claiming they're "separate systems", and alleging that I somehow reference Wiki articles (which I have never done, I have only used the sources as shown above). The article uses references from many other languages and shunning it simply because it is a foreign language is unacceptable. WP:NOR makes clear that "faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." If you're in doubt, I would ask a translator from Wikipedia:Translators available who can confirm the above. Also, the second source clearly says that it is a "subway system" and if you haven't read the title of this list - List of metro systems - We are suppose to list them by systems, not operators. As the title of this article says - This is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators. So that "practice" that this article has been doing is clearly flawed. It completely contradicts with the purpose of this article. Neither do I think "consensus" from a group of biased editors who are personally attacking and questioning my motives all the time, can override the sources. Massyparcer (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the complaintant has filed a DRN after his ANI in a related matter was denied. The DRN was denied with the message "Pending in another forum (NOR noticeboard). Per the instructions, DRN does not accept matters which are pending in other forums." Please close this NORN, as its pendency blocks the user from seeking other avenues. Thank you.BsBsBs (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this discussion. This board is for discussing original research practices, not about user behaviors. Massyparcer (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This dispute is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not here. Epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have only asked for input from uninvolved editors. Massyparcer (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. I have not commented in this discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about editors uninvolved with List of metro systems, which you're not. Massyparcer (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you speak Korean? Epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked for uninvolved editors' input on this issue and now you're asking a personal question. Talk to me on my talk page if you have a personal question. Massyparcer (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

not a personal question, I want to know if you are skewing the sources or not Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, questioning an editor's motives doesn't help and if you don't trust my translation, you can ask other translators from Wikipedia:Translators available who can confirm. Massyparcer (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't need a translator, I can read it finely, thank you very much. Epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So you can read Korean then. Massyparcer (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you are still missing my point. Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you saw my user page, you will see I'm pretty good at Korean. Massyparcer (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You created a user page less than a day ago. How would anyone know if they only saw your user page before today? Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You asked whether I speak Korean just a couple of hours ago. Massyparcer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, so what? Can't I ask that? Epicgenius (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I asked for input from uninvolved editors only. But by now we are already drifting away from the core of this issue.. Massyparcer (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Myspace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#New_Myspace the very last portion of this section contains a lot of original research and dubious sources for its citations.

• Please sign ("~~~~") your contributions.
• Please make clear what exactly supposedly is OR, and why. BsBsBs (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Marian Dawkins COI editor adding OR

− The case was on NPOV noticeboard. Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have conflict of interests and OWN problems(concerned by multiple editors) are adding propaganda for Marian Dawkin or removing critisim about her. The content they added has clear violation of policies, such as injection of original research and removal of critisim from reliable sources .

For example this sentence 'Her views on animal consciousness have been criticised by evolutionary biologist, Marc Bekoff, who argues that she too readily rejects anthropomorphic research on animals.' This is not Bekoff's opinion. The editors watered downed Bekoff's criticism. This version contain proper sumary of bekoff's criticism. More OR can be found here

• Please sign ("~~~~") your contributions.
• Please make clear what exactly supposedly is OR, and why.
• If Bekoff was simply misquoted, then this would be a WP:SOURCES matter
• The NPOV case still appears to be open, and one should not interfere with another case while it still is running. BsBsBs (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, 'too readily rejects anthropomorphic research on animals' Beckoff did not say that. He vigorously criticized Dawkins for denying a large body of solid scientific data, Beckoff also criticize Dawkins for unprofessional academic conducts, such as personal attack and misrepresentation of others' opinions. He called her view "Dawkins' Dangerous Idea". See Beckoff's article.
• In the article's info box 'Known for: Animal welfare science'. MD is known for animal behaviour, not animal welfare science. You can see this from the criticism about Marian Dawkins from Beckoff and Dr Karen Davis. Dr Karen Davis wrote: "Dawkins's stance does not elevate science; instead it belittles the behavioral science she adheres to as a sterile endeavor, hostile to kinship and blind to reality."
• The second paragraph of awards section only cited a dead link.
• The link to the NPOV case is a old version, the case is archived.

124.170.208.102 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Journalists

I think the no original research policy could use some clarification for the case where the subject of the article is themselves a journalist. I've seen some of these cases (Touré, and now Chuck Philips) where you have an article that lists all the articles written by the subject like a resume, and for references they use the articles themselves. It's a subtle point, but I believe that constitutes original research. The article appears well-cited, but the citations are non-independent primary sources. What is needed to meet notability standards is a news article about the news article. My apologies if this has already been mentioned in a guideline somewhere (I looked). Fnordware (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While these cases may raise questions about other issues not within the purview of the noticeboard, I see no OR issues in listing articles of a journalist, as long as they exist. It would be a different matter if the article comes to a conclusion that is not born out by the article referenced source [edit, 27. Feb 2014] .BsBsBs (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better place to discuss this? It's not just that there is a list of articles, but most of the narrative of the article is composed of that list. Really, you could take any professional journalist and make them an article saying, "In 2008 they wrote about X in Y newspaper. Their essay on A was published in B." But clearly not every journalist is notable; most of them aren't. A key distinction is that news articles written by them are not actually about them. That's why I say that the citations should be news articles about the journalist's news articles. Seems like links to their actual articles might be more appropriate in an external links section. Fnordware (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing, attributing and synthesis

Does the second sentence below (in bold) violate WP:SYNTH?

During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Russian historians argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.

It is based on these quotes from sources:

Senyavskaya (2006), Advesaries of Russia in the Wars of the 20th Century: Evolution of the "Image of an Enemy" in the Minds of the Army and Society:

In this context, the mythology relating to the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, with the alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies, is noteworthy. This topic, in the context of the general political pressure on Russia, is actively exaggerated in the Western media... Consequently, we can speak about individual (especially compared with the actions of the German side) violations of international law in the conduct of war. Moreover, all these events were spontaneous and not organized, and were strictly suppressed by the Soviet army command.

Rzheshevsky (2002), "The Berlin Operation of 1945: Discussion Continues" (World of History):

In different areas where the Red Army entered, its relationship with the local population varied. Violence could not be prevented, but it was contained and then reduced to a minimum.

Gareev (2005), "Abuse of Facts" (Trud):

Of course, instances of cruelty, including sexual, occurred. They simply could not be absent after what the Nazis did on our land. However, such cases were strongly suppressed and punished. And they did not become widespread. As soon as we occupied a town, a commandant office was created. It provided the local population with food and medical care. Order was controlled by the commandant patrol. I personally took part in the liberation of East Prussia. I say this honestly: I did not even hear of sexual abuse.

Braithwaite (2006), Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War:

Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany at the end of the war. Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.'

Basically, the sentence is a summary of what three Russian historians say and this summary is also directly backed up by the fourth source. It should not be synthesis because it summarizes the points made by the historians (per WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_summary).
However, is it synthesis because the statement is attributed to Russian historians? Does it imply that all Russian historians think this way?
I think that simply saying "Russian historians" does not imply that absolutely all Russian historians have this view. The last source also directly says "Russian historians". -YMB29 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the Russian historians really said that, and that they were not cherry-picked while many others said the opposite, I see no OR in such a summation, as long as it comes with plenty in-line references. How about this: "Some Russian historians argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread (ref1), (ref2), (ref 3). Rodric Braithwaite, former UK ambassador in Moscow, asserted that “Russian historians [...] have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.”(ref)" BsBsBs (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the comment.

No, the sources are not cherry-picked. I have not seen an opposing view from a Russian historian. It is safe to say that most Russian historians have this view (based on many other sources).

I think "Some Russian historians" implies a minority view, so that is why I think it should be left as "Russian historians" or maybe "Many Russian historians". -YMB29 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

With "Some," you would be on the safe side (as safe as possible in a highly charged environment.) Three cites would prove "some." I see no minority view in "some," just cautious writing. "Many" would definitely invite opposition.BsBsBs (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so "Russian historians" does not violate WP:SYNTH, but it is safer to add "Some"? -YMB29 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it violates WP:SYNTH. From the quotes above, it is an undisputed fact that different historians are saying different things. And, assuming that your references above alone are representative of what historians WP:RS have written (vs. these were cherry-picked to puch a POV), this appears to another example of the classical East-West divide. As such, what we need to do in this case is either (1) to add a Controversy/ies section to the article in question where each side is presented, or (2) to incorporate statements such as the cites above into prose of the article qualifying them into a form like "historian A said X, and historian B said Y, but historian C said Z, while historian D said R." No one can dispute facts and these are the facts. No POV, no BS, and end of the dispute. Mercy11 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the first sentence ("During, and in the days immediately...")? I think it violates WP:NPOV rather than WP:SYNTH, in that it presents a disputed view as a fact. That is a different issue though.

Yes, there is an East-West divide on this issue, so that is why I am trying to add the second sentence ("Russian historians argue...").

I am asking about that second sentence. Is it synthesis to summarize what Russian historians I quoted say and to attribute it to Russian historians?

Attributing statements to individual historians may not be the way to go since that would give too much weight to the topic in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus)

This article contains a section titled "Specific references" that only cites one secondary source for the dodgiest of its claims, and lists seven books in the New Testament where Mary is "specifically referred to", providing only primary references for all of them. Mary is named in four of these books. One (the Gospel of John) mentions Jesus' mother but not by name; one (Paul's letter) simply says Jesus was "born of woman"; and one (the Apocalypse of John) doesn't mention her at all but some Roman Catholics have read her into it. I removed the Paul reference because no one could possibly interpret "Christ was born of a woman" as being a specific reference to Mary; Paul doesn't mention Mary once in any of his letters.[13] I was reverted within a matter of hours.[14] In fact, the only independent source that names Jesus' mother as Mary is Mark (virtually all scholars agree that the authors of both Matthew and Luke-Acts used Mark as a source).

I think changing "Specific references" to "New Testament references" could work, but honestly I think each point in the section should be backed up by a reliable secondary or tertiary source.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• If a reference does not back up a statement, then, in most cases, it can be challenged. This would not necessarily be an OR matter, it would primarily be a matter of an unsourced statement.

• Secondary sources are always preferred, especially in cases where the primary source is interpreted by many secondary sources. The article should not add yet another interpretation, which would definitely be OR.

• Counting how often Mary is mentioned in a gospel could be construed as a mild form of OR, I personally would not go that far, but I would also not defend the position.

• Where I would draw the line is at "Luke's gospel mentions Mary most often." Superlatives definitely need a good secondary source.BsBsBs (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Virtually all counting statements should be referenced. Numbers of all types that aren't sourced frequently get changed and are virtually always OR. And Hijiri is obviously right about Paul not being a specific reference to Mary. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable clarification. To clarify even more, when you say that "virtually all counting statements should be referenced," should I read this that they should be

• simply referenced to the source on which the counting is being performed (like here Luke's Gospel)?
• referenced to a secondary source that did the counting?
• referenced to the primary source, along with a big footnote that explains how the counting was done?

BsBsBs (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

BsBsBs, Sorry to be slow in replying. Referenced to a secondary source that did the counting. That way the actual source can be checked if anyone wants to verify the number at any time. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, on principal I think that where a reliable secondary source can be found, both the primary source and the secondary source should be cited, but when no reliable secondary source can be found the information should be removed. I like leaving the primary sources in because that way readers can check where the secondary source got its information. Just to clarify that I'm not generally in favour of removing primary sources for circumstances like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller:: Thank you for the clarification. I agree. I think the operative phrase is "checked if anyone wants to verify the number." Verifiability is key, meaning that a cited number MUST be found in a reference.

@Hijiri88:: I don't know whether this is the right place for a deep discussion about primary/secondary sources, but since it has been brought up here: It's a matter of context. For numbers (especially changing ones) I like to get as close as possible to the actual source. For value statements, or comparisons, I'd like a secondary opinion.

On a page about Global Widget Co., statements like "Global Widget makes the world's best widgets," or "Global Widget is the world's largest maker of frammel-class widgets, before National Gadgets and China's Dragon Doohickey (Donguan) Co." should be backed-up by an authoritative secondary source (if they can't be totally avoided.) For "Global Widget's 3Q operative profit was ..." I'd like to go straight to their quarterly report. In the specific case about counting, then yes, we should absolutely leave the actual counting to a secondary source that can be cited ("According to Widget Weekly, there are 87 frammel-type thingamabobs in Global Widget's catalogue"[ref]), if only because it would put an undue burden on the verifying editor who can't find "87 frammel-type thingamabobs" in the primary source, who would have to count them, and who would have to judge whether they are frammel-class widgets, or not.BsBsBs (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Consulting the Subject

Is asking the subject of an article (via email) for strictly factual information (such as (regarding actors) did he or she appear in such or such when in dispute) considered original research? If so, such seems ludicrous and I think the rule should be changed. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That is original research. Material that can't be sourced to a reliable secondary source doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and if two reliable sources contradict each other then use the talk page to determine which reliable source is more accurate. Contacting the subject and saying so on the talk page in order to help determine which reliable source is more accurate is OK, but bear in minf@d that unless you can prove you did so other users are not obliged to believe you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

However: Would I be right in assuming you refer to this article? No one has disputed you, but it seems you're comparing information from two unreliable sources. We are of course not supposed to contact the subject to verify information that otherwise is only found on a site "similar to" IMDb. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, which is most appreciated. Yes, no one challenged my recent edits but in the last case the change I made was at least supported by third party sources. I am also uncertain if the erstwhile actor was actually in the final movie that IMDB asserts that he was. As I said on the talk page, I’m skeptical of that assertion, though not certain. Therefore, I made an inquiry to the subject and wanted to know that if he chooses to answer me if I would be justified in changing his years active in the profession should he confirm that he did not appear in that movie. If he chooses not to answer me, then of course the IMDB reference must stand until someone can produce a definitive alternative source disproving the IMDB assertion if it is indeed incorrect.

On one hand, not allowing “from the horse’s mouth” input seems ridiculous regarding strictly factual matters such as this; on the other hand, I do recognize the validity of your point that it would be difficult to prove my source without reproducing a private email which I am not willing to do. It would just be frustrating to leave information about the subject on the article stand that I would know for an absolute fact to be incorrect. Such things happen, I guess.

Thanks again and best regards.

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I wanted to please ask you something regarding Wikipedia protocols since you seem well-versed in such matters. I was recently taken aback when I was invited to vote in a Wiki election for officers and was able to do so. Was that because last year I created my first article? Does such endow some sort of stature upon a Wiki editor? Other than that, I have restricted my input to editing, usually regarding trivial matters such as correcting typos. (Just as a note of interest, the subject of the article that I wrote is one in which I have absolutely no interest. I just stumbled upon him by happenstance and noted that he didn’t have a Wiki article as yet but seemed to meet Wiki’s notability guidelines; so I viewed it as a rare opportunity to actually create an article. As my interests generally lie in more substantive, academic matters, I almost find this embarrassing!) HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We can all vote. You're just as much a member of the community as the rest of us. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, once before I received a Wiki email inviting me to vote, but when I attempted to do so I was informed that I lacked sufficient edits to vote. This was before I had created the article but had made many edits. That is why I thought that possibly creating an article is deemed worth a lot of edit points or some such thing. I was just curious. It’s not important. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A purported email reported by a Wikipedia editor is not straight from the horses mouth, it is from an anonymous Internet user who's credentials cannot be verified. That is why the email is not a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:HistoryBuff14 The reason we have WP:GNG is so we can't create articles that can only be written by consulting the subject. I personally would prefer if GNG said "if it doesn't have an article in any print encyclopedia, it doesn't get an article on Wikipedia", but that's just my opinion. If there is a factoid that can't be backed up by a reliable secondary source (published interviews and the like are also acceptable), then don't add it to Wikipedia. IMDb should never be used as a source, btw; if the subject himself did in fact tell you that IMDb is wrong, that's just one more reason not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88, please stop saying everything must be verifiable in reliable 'secondary source. Reliable primary sources may also be used, although greater care is needed with primary sources. (But the reliable primary source must be published, and when a Wikipedia editor checks directly with the person who is the subject of an article, that interaction is not published.) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment, particularly between the parentheses. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrace Garden, Rome by John Elliott

I would like some clarification on the page for John Elliott (artist) , in reference to Terrace Garden, Rome . As a new user of Wikipedia I would like to make sure that I have not violated this rule. I wrote: "Terrace Garden, Rome, an oil painting on canvas depicting the artist's terrace at his apartment in Rome. It was painted at the request of Larz Anderson, who met his wife Isabel Weld Perkins for the first time at this location"

The two references for this information are as follows(for more detail, see the links on the actual wikipedia page)-

From James Sansum Fine and Decorative Art : Terrace Garden, Rome Circa 1880-1900 Oil on canvas, original frame H: 23 W: 19 D: 1 inches (framed) Signed with initials on lower right of recto: J.E. Inscribed on stretcher: Elliot (sic) Terrace Rome/Return to Mrs. Anderson, Weld, Jamaica Plains Provenance: Mrs. Larz Anderson (Isabel Weld Perkins), Weld, Brookline, Massachusetts

From John Elliott: The Story of an Artist

"The terrace is intimately connected with the romance of our young friend Isabel, for here she often received her admirers, and met the man for whom she was destined.... As a souvenir of the happy hours that he spent there, Larz Anderson asked Jack to make a painting of the terrace. This picture now hangs at their Weld country home."

I wonder if it is to much of an inference to link these two references as one coherent statement about the painting.

Arkabaker (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is unproblematic because there is nothing controversial about the material. You could make a note on the article talk page about what you have done. If someone objects then they can read that and find another solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

treehouse attachment bolt

I have noticed that a few of the facts on the treehouse attachment bolt page, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_attachment_bolt, seem to contain some origional research. Specifically those that are linked to the 2nd reference. Both can be found at the end of the paragraphs in the history section.

• Please sign ("~~~~") your contributions.
• Please make clear what exactly supposedly is OR, and why. BsBsBs (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what the OP means, but "Shear plates provide a larger load-carrying capacity in shear than can be otherwise achieved by a bolt alone", linked to [15] looks like OR. The linked article doesn't mention tree house attachment bolts, and the reference just before it,[16] doesn't mention sheer plates. Then there's the stuff about the "Garnier limb" sourced to[17], The Complete Guide to Building Your Own Tree House: For Parents and Adults Who Are Kids at Heart and [18] none of which seem to use the phrase "treehouse attachment bolt". Indeed it appears that the article could be seen as publicity for the Garnier limb. At the recent AfD, User:Mangoe commented that "I find some slight book coverage of Garnier limbs; none of "treehouse attachment bolts". I think an article on the former might be (barely) justified, but not for a general term" while User:Andrew Davidson said "This good source explains that "As a whole, limb system designs have been referred to as “tree anchor bolts” or TABs. But it's the GL that started it all." As there are obvious alternatives to deletion, such as merger with treehouse, our editing policy indicates that we should not delete this page." We do expect sources to specifically mention the subject of the article, and these don't. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am reminded of the tree shaping case. But, as Treebeard said, "...we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say." Andrew (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC including a question of original research at Talk:Pathology

For the past week, a small debate -- to which I have been taking part after receiving a random invitation via the Feedback request service -- has been underway concerning the scope of Pathology and whether it is in fact a broad-concept article. Most all of the editors involved believe that in fact the article space should cover the entirety of pathology as a scientific and medical domain, whereas one contributor (whose removal of large portions of content instigated the debate - no user name, but identifiable as the only IP editor involved) contends that the page should contain only content on specific medical specialties. However, despite the importance of the subject and article in question, involvement in the RfC has been limited to some half-dozen editors, which is lower than what I feel should constitute a consensus for such an important article, and as such I'm trying to attract some additional commentary, through noticeboards and Wikiprojects that are relevance to the article and the policies being debated. I've brought the issue here specifically because I feel that the sources we have on the article clearly denote that many of the subjects which the afore-mentioned IP editor has removed are treated as part and parcel of pathology in our sources and that by removing this content to fit a narrower and arbitrary personal standard, in conflict with what our sources state, is a blatant exercise in original research. Any additional editor involvement would be of use in establishing some valid consensus on the matter. Snow (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Najahid dynasty

There appear to be quite a few problems with Najahid dynasty. One source in particular (Yaman its early medieval history by Henry Cassels Kay) seems to be consistently misrepresented, and it is used for most of the assertions on the page. For instance, it is indicated in the wiki-text that "Najah was not recognized as a sovereign by the tribal elements in the Yemeni highlands," and this is attributed to page 21 of Kay's book. Kay, however, doesn't mention Najah at all on that page [19]. In fact, Kay indicates the opposite a few pages earlier i.e. that Najah "was empowered to appoint as Kadi whomsoever he chose, and to administer all the affairs of the country of Yaman[...] he continued to rule over Tihama, and to exercise control over most of the people of the Highlands, and he was styled King, both in the Khutbah and in official documents, with the title of Our Lord" [20]. Another example is a section on the wiki-page titled "Legacy", where through what appears to be synthesis an attempt is made to associate the Najahids of yore with the modern Al-Akhdam low caste group. However, none of the links in question actually make this association; and indeed, the wiki-text itself at one point rather sheepishly concedes this ("it is difficult to establish some link between them and al-Akhdam (servants) or "Hujur" in southern Yemen"). These are just two of the more glaring instances of problems affecting the page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as relates to reporting %sun

Is it either original research and/or synthesis to include the %possible sun if a meteorological agency only lists the total monthly sunshine duration and then one proceeds to use another reliable source to state the following, as an example: in London, during March, the sun shines 29% of the time? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If both bits of information are available from the same source, then it would not be OR via WP:CALC. If they are from separate sources, its iffy, because there may be differences in measurement methodology or definitions etc between the two sources, which makes combining the information apples to oranges. However, if the only bit of information from the second source is something "well known" like "The number of days in March", then I would say it is not OR just to convert the number of sunny days to a %. If there is some other bit of info that is not obvious that the second source is providing then its less likely. Can you give more info about what the specific bits of info are from each source? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The climatological source reports sun duration (total hours/month or average hours/day), and the Solar Calculator provided reports the sunrise and sunset times, from which the maximum possible sunshine can be derived. Using the above example, London averages 107.1 hours of sun in March, and the solar calculator states on 15 March, there are 11 hr 50 min of sunshine; and using the 15th (or 14th in February) of each month as an approximation, the percent possible is thus about (107.1/31)/(11.83) = 29.20%.

The only "apples vs. oranges" situation I can envision is a problem with station placement: for example, if a solar instrument is obstructed from the sun by buildings, which of course is definitely against NWS guidelines to station placement. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 20:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this exceeds WP:CALC as there is WP:OR in the picking of the day, its assumption that it is a valid approximation, etc. One could perhaps argue that you could do the calculation individually for every day and sum them, but that level of complexity probably also exceeds CALC. However, Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition. You can state the individual facts side by side, each cited separately, and let the reader do the math. It may be better to use a source that does the sunrise/sunset calculation for you such as http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/Dur_OneYear.php (It may be possible to get this site to generate the entire result you want, in which case, that resolves the problem completely) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

74th Academy Awards

MasonBanks keeps adding an fact that seems to be of original research and does not have any proper source explicitly say so. The fact says this:

This was at the expense of Russell Crowe, who became the only person in history to win the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG Award and Critics Choice Award for Best Actor but lose the Oscar to another performance.

While it is true off the bat, there is no proper resource explaining the fact specifically. Even if you looks at the official websites for each of the organizations in charge of the awards (they have winners lists), they do not explicitly state the fact that Crowe lost the Oscar despite winning those precursor awards. I would like to know, and if not please contact MasonBanks and tell him to not put that fact up due to Wikipedia standards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is that not a relevant fact? So what if no one else explicitly recognised it, its an easy pattern to see and its an interesting piece of trivia. I don't understand the issue? MasonBanks (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all Wikipedia is not a trivia list (WP:Trivia). Second, this list has been identified as a featured list meaning it has to comply with Wikipedia's high quality standards. Lastly, Wikpedia does not allow original research. Even if other articles may have random facts or fun trivia, this list does not have to have one. I strongly believe in quality over quanitity. Read WP:Manual of style and WP:No original research for more guidelines.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So if I were a journalist, I could publish an article on this tomorrow and then you'd let me add it to the page? MasonBanks (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, assuming the article is in respectable media and not in your personal blog, see WP:RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. What a load of nonsense. Fine, leave it off the page. MasonBanks (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Routine calculations

What constitutes basic arithmetic per Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations? I am asking the question in relation to musical artist articles and related discography articles, specifically regarding arriving at a sum of the artists' RIAA certified units. Typically in such articles the certification level for any given album is referenced by the RIAA web site. For example, the Paul McCartney discography contains this link to riaa.com as a reference for each album. As the certification levels are in fixed increments (.5 million for Gold, 1 million for Platinum, 2 million for 2xPlatinum, etc.) a sum of all album certifications can be found by adding .5 + 1 + 2 = 3.5. In the case of the Paul McCartney article, the total for 26 certified albums listed at riaa.com comes to 26.5. Would this be considered basic arithmetic or is it original research? Piriczki (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OR, for the simple reason that you are drawing conclusions that are not backed-up by the source. The total will never be right. BsBsBs (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Synth to infer RS mentions individual by name when doesn't??

Note: Moved the below from WP:BLPN where no response. Guess it's too minor a problem for that noticeboard, but it is annoying and would like an opinion. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that policy demands we be very careful to give proper context to any use of material about individuals. Here the question is: a Nobel Prize winner in a NY Times article does not mention an individual's name but only links to a personal blog where that person is mentioned. Editors insist we can write it as if he mentions the individual by name in a New York Times article. This has been reverted back and forth numerous times on article, and discussed a few times, but not addressed by non-involved editors when it was brought here as part of larger issue in November. Since creeping synth is a problem in many BLPs, uninvolved editors' opinions would be helpful this time.

At this diff my change of

• "In December 2012 New York Times column Paul Krugman wrote that University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong had attacked "a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same" and linked to DeLong's column naming Murphy."
  

was changed back to

• "In a column criticizing economists "who stick with their ideology no matter how badly it performs in practice", Paul Krugman noted that University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong had attacked Murphy..."

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not all synthesis is contrary to policy. If we're going to abandon all common sense and discretion, and label it "synthesis" to say x referred to y by quoting a comment specifically and exclusively about y, we're going to have to call a lot of things synth. (E.G. it is "synthesis" to infer from surrounding context that a specific individual is being referred someone is being referred to if a pronoun is used.) Steeletrap (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

side comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Non-involved editors' comments appreciated. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Carolmooredc appears to be forum shopping after her (patently absurd) complaint was ignored at another notice board. Steeletrap (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly – you both agree there is synthesis? If so, can you explain what are the A + B sources and what is the inference created by the combination which is not in the independent sources? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I would have to lean to the not synth side here. Carol's wording is more confusing, and means the same thing. Id say this falls under some textual version of WP:CALC. Steeltrap's pronoun reasoning is quite sound here. Because Krugman use a pronoun ("guy") instead of naming the person, does not in any way mean Krugman was not obvious about who he was discussing. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Gaijin has put his finger on it. Synth refers to juxtaposition which leads the reader to some new meaning which was not intended by the sources. Clearly that's not the case here. There's no problem with the text which identifies Murphy. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

First, this is not a mathematical calculation, but a BLP where an RS leads people to a self-published blog to find out who they are talking about. I have no problem with a better written way of commenting that Krugman did not name Murphy, just think it's helpful - at least in the reference itself, another option. Also note I changed the paragraph to make it clear that the very next day Krugman DID name Murphy (as well as other clarifications of chronology) but that fact was obsfucated in a revert, which makes no sense at all. (And SRich, how many times do we have to ask you to stop hiding other people's comments? And don't hide my question.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, it's pretty clear by now that no other editor agrees with your view or concern on this point. Time to move on... SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

First, Srich did ask a question that remains unanswered. Otherwise, I haven't yet seen a comment from a totally uninvolved editor who has never (to my knowledge) commented on articles in the Austrian economics/libertarian area. One comes to noticeboards for totally uninvolved editors opinions. . Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally uninvolved editor here.... You just have to ask yourself the question: "Is there any doubt about who is being discussed?" If not, then just find a way to add their name. That is not an improper synthesis. It's common sense and good editing. This still requires using sources which contain the information. If there is no doubt that a pronoun in one article refers to a name in another, then go for it. If later confirmation makes it even clearer, then great. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BullRangifer. Because there was such a brouhaha on use of the SPS blog in a BLP, it was just hard to look at this from an untainted perspective! :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are generally not rs, particularly for BLPs. Furthermore when reporting factual uinformation, in this case that one economist criticized another, it is wrong to provide in-text attribution. I would also point out that if Krugman failed to name the criticized economist, it lacks significance to include. The wording is not synthesis, but it is incorrect, because it implies Krugman mentioned someone by name. That could be corrected by adding something like "although he did not mention him by name." TFD (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think the text implies that Krugman said Murphy's name out loud, or wrote it? Who will infer that? All anyone will infer is that he's referring to Murphy, which he is.

Also, Paul Krugman is an RS for critical economic analysis. Here he is being used to endorse a criticism of Murphy. That is not a BLP violation; opinion pieces are just not supposed to be used to establish statements of fact. (we've been over this) Steeletrap (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TFD for reminding me we must be meticulous in BLP and at least mention that Krugman does not mention Murphy by name. I would call for removing reference to DeLong altogether if Krugman had not brought Murphy up explicitly the very next day. Probably the most "Wiki-correct" way to do it would be to emphasize the second day's comment, and the first day's comment only in that context. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Separating the material would avoid the SYNTH issue a bit:

In December 2012 New York Times column Paul Krugman wrote that J. Bradford DeLong, a University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics, had attacked "a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same." Krugman cited DeLong's column which named Murphy.

though it is quite possible that Krugman's second-hand assessment is being given excessive weight in the BLP as it is certainly an opinion piece and pretty much only usable for Krugman's personal opinion and not for him reporting that someone else had a specific opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

The Krugman piece should not be used because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Krugman refers to DeLong, and indirectly refers to Murphy. (Emphasis on direct support is in the guidance.) But why not cite DeLong? Could it be that his piece is an unacceptable SPS blog? – S. Rich (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Srich, mi amigo, it doesn't really help for involved editors to thread the needle here on a Noticeboard where uninvolved and fresh opinions can be gathered. Your wikilink actually proves your statement incorrect, as several editors have stated here. "direcly support" is not the same as "explicitly state the words used in article text." Do you have any doubt that Murphy's view was the one referenced by Krugman? If so why, if not, why not? That's rhetorical. Let's hear what uninvolved editors have to say. Frankly, these forumshopping tours are not a good use of WP resources. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Carolmooredc is correct. The policy is very clear, "you must...cite...sources...that directly support the material being presented". Otherwise, it is just a good faith, albeit unintentionally sneaky, WP:SYN and thus, WP:OR. Find a source and the claim stays; otherwise it is out. That's policy. And then by an order of magniture for being a BLP: there is no tolerance for any error when the article is a BLP. Mercy11 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No she is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_policy "If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research." There is no original research here by any reasonable construal of the term. We just looked at the link and saw who he was referring to. It's an objective fact that doesn't require original research or thought. Steeletrap (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The essay may use the subheading "SYNTH is not a policy", but SYNTH is part of the NOR policy. And the policy says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." What are the multiple sources being presented? Krugman and DeLong. But we cannot use DeLong because it is a blog. And since we cannot use DeLong, we cannot combine it (through the back door) with Krugman. Why? Because Krugman does not explicitly or directly say anything about Murphy. As the article is a BLP and as it is subject to sanctions, the best course of action, policy wise, is to leave out the Krugman material. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Summation: Two editors do not believe the edit is SYNTH. The rest all consider SYNTH to be a potential or real problem. Collect (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (as a totally outside observer who commented here)

Hey Collect. You aren't uninvolved because you have personal issues with some folks here (recall your SPI against lil ole me). Check your math regarding "two." Steeletrap (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect's arithmetic is good. Specifico seems to say it's not synth because it's okay (rhetorically) to infer from Krugman's article that Murphy is the one he's referring to. Gaijin is clear in saying not synth. You, Steeletrap, seem to say it's synthesis, but acceptable synthesis. Also, Collect didn't say s/he's not involved, only that the observation is a new one. (Besides, involvement does not change the SYNTH argument or the addition. – S. Rich (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)14:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH or OR by using second source for more detail?

In the Paul McCartney article, I have been attempting to add certain details without which I believe the article can viewed as misleading. However, my changes have been reverted because they are deemed WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by another editor, apparently because I am using two references, the second of which adds detail not included in the first. The passage in question currently reads:

In 1979, Guinness World Records described McCartney as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and as the "most successful songwriter" in United Kingdom chart history.

I have suggested that the statement is misleading because it gives the impression that McCartney himself had achieved these feats when, in fact, they are actually mostly or wholly attributed to the Beatles. For my first reference I want to cite a newspaper article covering the event, "McCartney Cited For Successes". The article, like other widely published wire reports of the event, did not include complete details of the Guinness records mentioned. As an additional source, I am using the 1980 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records directly referred to in the newspaper article to provide more details of those records. According to the 1980 Guinness book, the three entries involving McCartney are:

“Most Successful Song Writer. In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney (formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings). Between 1962 and January 1, 1978, he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold 1,000,000 or more records.”

“Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.”

“Most Golden Discs. Out of the 2,390 R.I.A.A. gold-record awards made to January 1, 1979, the most have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 16 awards both on his own and with the group Wings.”

Based on these two references, I would like to change the passage to read:

In 1979, the Guinness Book of World Records recognised McCartney as the "most honored composer and performer in music", with 60 gold discs (43 with the Beatles, 17 with Wings) and, as a member of the Beatles, sales of over 100 million singles and 100 million albums through 1978, and as the "most successful song writer", he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold one million or more records between 1962 and 1978.

By citing these two sources am I employing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or is this an acceptable use of previously published sources? Piriczki (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI to anyone, I'm helping on Talk:Paul McCartney via WP:3O regarding this issue. GRUcrule (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Phrase in the article has been updated to play it safe, yet still retain accuracy per consensus at Talk:Paul McCartney via WP:3O. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate sex joke added for fun

Entry: Thaïs (novel)

Thaïs is a novel by Anatole France.

The text reads as such:

Paphnuce, an ascetic hermit of the Egyptian desert, journeys to Alexandria to find Thais, the libertine beauty whom he knew as a youth. He seduces the Queen of Sheba, who then performs fellatio on him. Masquerading as a dandy, he is able to speak with her about eternity; surprisingly he succeeds in converting her to Christianity. Yet on their return to the desert he becomes fascinated with her former life. She enters a convent to repent of her sins......

This line is clearly a joke of the middle school variety:

He seduces the Queen of Sheba, who then performs fellatio on him.

This is clearly a joke, since the Queen of Sheba died in the 10th century B.C.E. and Paphnuce was a 4rth century member of the council of Nicaea.

Also, Paphnuce didn't get NO action in that book. In fact, just the THOUGHT of getting some action sent him off to live on top of pillars or in desert tombs. That was kind of the point.

I didn't know where else to report this 'original' idea, since I couldn't find the section "Teenagers Found This Vandalism Funny."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.25.242 (talk • contribs)

It was just vandalism from a few days ago [21]. It has now been removed. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Observation that branding deemphasizes an acronym expansion although it does not officially retire it

All right, here goes—I was advised to bring this here, but I almost didn't because I don't have time to spend on it. But the particular instance (which is not worth the time) raises the general case (which might be). Here goes:

Some organizations officially retire the expansion of an acronym, which means that from now on, their brand name, although it used to be an acronym, and still "looks like one", no longer stands for any expansion. For example, if you look at ASTM's website (www.astm.org), it says "formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials".

Other organizations do not make any statement about officially retiring the expansion, but their brand management omits all mention of the expansion; you cannot find any mention of the expansion anywhere on their site. I believe KFC is one of these (maybe they mention it somewhere on their site (KFC.com), but it is very hard to find if you go looking for it—last time I tried, I could not find any mentions there).

Regarding IBM SPSS, although you can find a few mentions of the expansion "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" buried within user manuals or other documentation, you can tell from clicking around their website that their brand management no longer emphasizes the expansion.

Consider if, on its SPSS article, Wikipedia said, "The software name stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS),[2] reflecting the original market, although the software is now popular in other fields as well, including the health sciences and marketing. The branding no longer emphasizes the expansion."

My question is, does that last sentence have to be removed because there is no publicly available document to cite as a reference in which IBM communications people say to each other, in so many words, "don't include the expansion, just say 'SPSS'. Focus the brand on 'SPSS', not the expansion." The sentence has been removed, and I don't care if it stays deleted forever. I'm not asking you whether you feel it's worth Wikipedia saying that sentence, or whether you yourself would feel a desire to add it. I'm just asking you whether that sentence must be deleted because it is unreferenced. In my opinion, there is no way it is not covered by Wikipedia:Common knowledge > Acceptable examples of common knowledge at "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property". I'm not saying their website is public property. I'm saying anyone, standing anywhere, can look at their website and state an observation about whether it emphasizes the expansion. Saying that writing that sentence was "disruptive" because it violates WP:VERIFY, and implying that I'm stupid for thinking it doesn't, feels like an undue appeal to authority to me. I recognize that not all mentions of authority are undue, but sometimes a spire is just a spire. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who disputed this material. It raises an interesting question although IMHO it is clearly covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The context is the software product SPSS, which was originally, and verifiably, an acronym for "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences". QS believes that its current owners, IBM, prefer not to expand the acronym, and that the official name, according to IBM, is nothing other than a four letter word in capitals. QS wanted to write The branding no longer emphasizes the expansion. This sentence claims two things: that at some time in the past IBM (presumably) did emphasize the acronym, and that now, in 2014, they do not. This is very far indeed from being common knowledge of the sort covered by Wikipedia:Common knowledge#Acceptable examples of common knowledge. Neither of these assertions are obvious. There is nowhere in the world, public or otherwise, I can go to make any kind of observation for myself about the past views of IBM brand management, and there is nowhere I can reasonably go personally to find their current view. That current view, if it exists at all, is presumably enshrined in some kind of document, which might be capable of being a primary source if it were published. Claiming that we can deduce from looking at a website what that policy is, is asking us to guess that policy from evidence, or rather, absence of evidence. This is most clearly original research: "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Deltahedron (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse

The article Whoniverse was a rambling unsourced mess for some time. In recent weeks certain editors(including me) have attempted to tidy it up. Unfortunately, one editor User:G S Palmer has ignored all Wikipedia Policies, and continues to push his/her version of the article.

The problems are: i)adding totally unsourced material, ii)adding material "sourced" from non-RS fansites, iii)taking material from websites that never mention anything about the article's definition, name etc. iv)using material where the term is used with a totally different meaning to act as a RS.

This dispute has already been taken to Edit Warring, Edit Disputes, reported to 2 Admins. The discussion page of the article now consists of the same "discussion" over and over, where I point out Wikipedia Policy such as WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS, and User:G S Palmer and another user called User:Mezigue say they don't care, and then keep reverting it to their OR version. I even copy and pasted sections of Wikipedia Policy on the discussion page(obviously word-for-word), and the User:G S Palmer stated that this word-for-word Policy was "[my] overly harsh interpretation". Other shave attempted to clean up this article, but it is getting harder and harder with User:G S Palmer's relentless reinsertion of unsourced, OR and SYNTHESIS material. While he/she has added links to the "References" section, most of them never mention anything to do with the article's title, definition or scope at all. And other whole sections are just his/her thoughts and beliefs. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:G S Palmer refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia Policy. [22]. He/she continues to add unsourced material, use "sources" that never mention they have anything to do with the subject of the article, remove "citation needed" and other tags, and blanket-revert any attempts to try and fix the article. He/she also refuses to engage in any discussion on the discussion page, despite several attempts from me to try and discuss this, using Wikipedia Policy. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Now he's removing the template to push his OR POV: [23], [24]. Guess he's referring to this [25]... 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And now he's calling in his meatpuppets: [26]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And now his MEAT is taking it up : [27]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mezigue is not a meat-puppet: he was engaged in the discussion before I was. An extract from the article about sock-puppetry/meat-puppetry: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy." If you continue to throw the term around in bad faith, then you will find people's opinions toward you souring. G S Palmer (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian aurochs

The description of File:Indian Aurochs B p namadicus 3.jpg seems to hint that it was created based on various other images of live cattle and an auroch skull. I guess including this in Indian aurochs is original research? -- Paddu (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this would be considered original research, as the artist isn't trying to put forth an unpublished pet hypothesis or idea about Indian aurochs. The artist appears to be simply providing the references used in creating the photomanipulation. Having said that, the picture (still) looks too much like a zebu to be of use to the article in my opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Najahid dynasty

There appear to be quite a few problems with Najahid dynasty. One source in particular (Yaman its early medieval history by Henry Cassels Kay) seems to be consistently misrepresented, and it is used for most of the assertions on the page. For instance, it is indicated in the wiki-text that "Najah was not recognized as a sovereign by the tribal elements in the Yemeni highlands," and this is attributed to page 21 of Kay's book. Kay, however, doesn't mention Najah at all on that page [28]. In fact, Kay indicates the opposite a few pages earlier i.e. that Najah "was empowered to appoint as Kadi whomsoever he chose, and to administer all the affairs of the country of Yaman[...] he continued to rule over Tihama, and to exercise control over most of the people of the Highlands, and he was styled King, both in the Khutbah and in official documents, with the title of Our Lord" [29]. Another example is a section on the wiki-page titled "Legacy", where through what appears to be synthesis an attempt is made to associate the Najahids of yore with the modern Al-Akhdam low caste group. However, none of the links in question actually make this association; and indeed, the wiki-text itself at one point rather sheepishly concedes this ("it is difficult to establish some link between them and al-Akhdam (servants) or "Hujur" in southern Yemen"). These are just two of the more glaring instances of problems affecting the page. Middayexpress (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Boomerang

A few days ago, I saw that the List of programs broadcast by Boomerang contained absolutely no references, yet described a lot of detail about when this or that cartoon series was shown by the classic cartoon TV network Boomerang. I greatly reduced the information offered in the article because of the NOR problems, and I added a reference to support current programming.

I would appreciate more eyes on that page! The editors who are interested in the topic have been reverting my drastic reduction. They don't seem to see any problem with maintaining a Wikipedia article which is in violation of WP:V. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's heating up over there. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic original research on Bundy standoff

OO9o9 keeps adding [30]. The Hage case has no connection to the Bundy case but is added to confuse readers into thinking that it affects the Bundy case. The user was warned about it and persists. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 East Ukraine crisis

Volunteer Marek added this in what looks like an attempt to blame Russia and personally Vladimir Putin for the events in the eastern Ukraine.

Is it original research? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian troops have been identified in eastern Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is the commander in chief of Russia's army. --Львівське (говорити) 19:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as delete, so that the issue is moot now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dueling polls

Hi, I have a question about the article "Gun politics in the United States". In this edit, another editor added the following bolded italicized material to a section titled "Security against tyranny":

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny,[1] but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that 60 percent of Americans gun owners own them for personal safety or protection and only 5 percent own them for Second Amendment reasons.[2]

[1]65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny, Rasmussen Reports (January 18, 2013).

[2]Swift, Art (October 28, 2013). "Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today: Second Amendment rights, job with police or military are lower on list". gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved March 31, 2014.

I explained at the article talk page that, unlike the Rasmussen reference, the Gallup reference does not say anything about "tyranny" and is therefore very ambiguous about it. Nonetheless, the other editor wants to use this Gallup result to rebut or balance the Rasmussen result. I explained that it's WP:OR to use the Gallup result in that way, since the Gallup reference says nothing about "tyranny" and is thus ambiguous about it. (I am fine with including the Gallup reference elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, and am also fine with including poll results rebutting the Rasmussen result if such a poll result can be found.)

Morever, the bold, italicized material is written is such a way as to deny that the "protection" refers to protection against tyranny, which again seems like WP:OR to me.

I've never been to this Noticeboard before (as I recall), and I hope this question will not be found burdensome. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Gallup poll info was added on 31 March 2014 for WP:BALASPS.[31] The sentence/paragraph in question has been reworded since then, but the info has stayed. The last version of the sentence was:

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny, but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that only 5 percent of American gun owners own them for Second Amendment reasons.

(using the Rasmussen and Gallup sources given above). Then, today, A. removed [32] the Gallup part of the sentence, so what remained was this:

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny.

His edit summary was, "Per talk page and per WP:OR, removing ambiguous poll material that doesn't mention tyranny explicitly." I disagreed with the removal of the Gallup info, which I explained on the talk-page discussion (also linked above). But rather than simply reverting A's removal, I added it back along with the other Gallup info [33] that he mentioned on the talk page, hoping that would address his concern, and I wrote the edit summary: "add the Gallup personal safety/protection results too, and the 2A results, and let the reader decide."

This simply gives information, relevant in context, from which readers can draw their own conclusions. Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that your chronology adds anything pertinent to what I already said. As to your last sentence, no, you have phrased (using the word "but") the material so that it denies the "protection" mentioned by Gallup includes protection against tyranny, and of course we cannot determine that one way or the other because the cited Gallup source does not mention tyranny (which is what this subsection of the article is about). If this original research is kept, then I will also include poll results regarding support for the Second Amendment, regardless of whether it mentions tyranny. And we can thus have a subsection that is predominantly not what its header says it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my post didn't seem to you to add anything to the discussion. I thought that it did, or I wouldn't have written it. Anyway, instead of just deleting the material, why not reword it - but without WP:SYNTH? Lightbreather (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving the Gallup info to the subsection on the Second Amendment. That would take care of the Synthesis/Original research problem nicely, and then I can also put a poll result about the popularity or unpopularity of the Second Amendment into that subsection on the Second Amendment. Alternatively, I have just rephrased to rephrase the material to reduce the original research problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a workable compromise in place now, we'll see if it holds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)