Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 30

Materialization (paranormal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR essay about shamanism repeatedly pasted into Haruki Murakami

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

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

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

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

What Maimonides stated about masturbation

Resolved

 – Debresser and Tgeorgescu seem to agree. Kingsindian (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

From the article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that Debresser has stated that he has no further objections. I am not sure if there is even a dispute anymore. Kingsindian (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable but still OR...

Resolved

 – Seems a general agreement that it is OR, and verifiability is also generally considered dubious. Kingsindian (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

References

Hi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we all agree, it's OR, and nothing can be done under policy, beyond what I originally noted. OTOH, I'd readily bet it won't be fixed soon (say, in the next release, or the 2 after that); any takers? I've seen Adobe leave properly reported security holes like this in Flash open for years. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, I'm not even sure this problem appears anywhere outside your own computer. There is a reason that Wikipedia has banned OR: Most of the time, without a peer review, an OR is flawed. In this case, by skipping steps 1, 2 and 3, you are conducting an experiment in a non-controlled, non-pristine environment where there is the potential for intervention of elements that are unaccounted for and may alter the result. Using HOSTS redirection is yet another dangerous practice. A connection to 127.0.0.1 is not normally timed out.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute on Beitunia killings page

Sentence:

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain what your comment has to do with WP:OR discussion or you came here to use this board as WP:FORUM?--Shrike (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I think you make a good suggestion with changing "confirm" to "indicate." As it is, the Wikipedia article makes a much stronger, more definitive statement than the references you quoted above do. This might be why Shrike feels this is OR. It could be interpreted that we are synthesizing a bunch of weaker statements to determine that there is a consensus that confirms what happened. If you softened the language to "indicate" or "suggest" I think it would avoid the OR or NPOV issue.Onefireuser (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with "indicate" which is the word used in one of the sources. But I am not sure if this is what Shrike is objecting to. On the talk page, he is objecting to the phrase "as well as many first-hand accounts, including those of international journalists reporting on the protest". If Shrike is fine with "indicate", he can let me know. Kingsindian (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly I want understand if policy allows such general statement in the body of the article.--Shrike (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Bump. Kingsindian (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MechWarrior Tactics

The game is currently subject to a degree of controversy due to apparent closure. Some of the edits introduced to it painted an extremely innacurate portrayal of the situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MechWarrior_Tactics&diff=624796975&oldid=598981597

I have attempted to correct that and portray the information in a more neutral light: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MechWarrior_Tactics&diff=624955015&oldid=624796975

At the present, there is no coverage from reliable secondary sources. I am concerned that as a participant of the game's beta test, I may be taking information for granted that is not widely available and as such violate the OR policy.

Does any of the article's current content violate the OR policy and if so, how should I correct that?

--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely looks like OR to me. Pretty much everything that uses Facebook or the game's discussion forums as sources in probably OR. Wikipedia should not be reporting on forum or Facebook discussions unless those discussions are first being interpreted by a reliable secondary source.Onefireuser (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, see WP:RS. Facebook is not one. Kingsindian (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edited the page removing most of the Facebook-related content, with the exception of Blue Lizard Games' statement regarding the cancellation of the contract between themselves and IGP. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MechWarrior_Tactics&diff=625838741&oldid=625512855 What next? --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How many of Sone no Yoshitada's poems were included in imperial anthologies?

I'm not sure if I violated WP:SYNTH in my recently-started article Sone no Yoshitada, since the sources I used contradicted each other on this point. The Japanese encyclopedia Britannica Kokusai Dai-hyakkajiten says "close 90 of his poems were included in imperial anthologies starting with the Shūi Wakashū", with the slightly-less well-known encyclopedia MyPedia giving "94 of his poems were included in imperial anthologies starting with the Shūi Wakashū". Peter McMillan's note on him says "eighty-nine of his poems appear in imperial anthologies". I'm not sure where this contradiction between McMillan/Britannica and MyPedia arises -- MyPedia might have included disputed attributions -- but both McMillan and Britannica essentially say "almost 90".

None of the sources directly say "roughly 90", but this is how I worded the article. I'm concerned I may have SYNTHesized three sources that contradict each other. Should I just say "89" and cite McMillan (or "almost 90" and cited Britannica)?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. You can simply cite both of the sources in your sentence. If any person can get to your version simply by making a logical deduction or straightforward calculation from the sources, it is not OR. I hope this helps. Kingsindian (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Hijiri. McMillan's 89 is repeated also by Joshua S. Mostow,Pictures of the Heart: The Hyakunin Isshu in Word and Image, University of Hawaii Press 1996 p.278. I think the best solution is simply to use the provisory form

'the number of his poems collected in the Imperial Anthologies varies according to sources, from 89 (n=sources) to 94 (n=sources).'

Or of course you could write, rather colloquially '90 odd'.

I checked just the Shinkokinshū and it alone has 16 of his. It's just a stub, so don't worry about getting the precise figure at the moment. You might like to look at Brower and Miner's still indispensable Japanese Court Poetry, Stanford UP (1961) 1975 pp.179-185 which has a very good sketch of what Sone no Yoshitada's brilliantly innovative poetry was doing, picking up from 白居易 and why the snobs resisted it in his time, until the anthologies began to pick it up. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

ps. I've had an ove- the -dinner table hunch that the difference may reflect time points, i.e., how late the ref is, 1206 or through to the last imperial anthology. From the Shūi Wakashū through to the Shinshoku Kokinshū according to this source (拾遗集から新続古今集に至るまでの勅撰和歌集に採られた曽禰好忠の歌九十三首, 古典文庫219, Volume 2 p.287) 93 poems are included. The 89 implies an earlier cut off time (1206?)Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I second Kingsindian; this is not original research. You are not combining disparate facts, which would be synth. You are providing an accurate reflection of the sources. So it seems it would be fine to say either "roughly 90" or "between 89 and 94." Onefireuser (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

About the SYNTH question, I agree that it's fine to give two sources and say "from 89 (footnote1) to 94 (footnote2)". About the "how many" question, if you want to explain why the sources differ, another possibility is a discursive footnote on attribution. This is beyond the scope of this board, but I'll send you a link on your talk page to an article that has a detailed discussion of the attribution issues (with the high end being about 100). --Margin1522 (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Young Lords

This entire article seems to be based upon independent research by the contributors of the article. The length of the article is quite massive and reads like a story narrative favorable to the subject of the article and virtually nothing is sourced. Would recommend a heavy revision for the article. --xcuref1endx (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Are you referring to this article? Onefireuser (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that is the article, it is almost indeed entirely OR. There is one NYT article which is quoted as source for some parts, but for the rest, it is based on "nationalyounglords.com", hardly WP:RS. Kingsindian (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There are three books included in Further reading, and the obvious thing to do would be to base the article on those sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Shellshock (software bug)

A new computer vulnerability was recently announced by the makers of Red Hat Unix, that has been named Shellshock (software bug). Edprevost has repeatedly placed inappropriate WP:OR content onto this page, including at one point a gallery of "logos" for the bug (basically, a collection of fan art that had popped up across the web following the announcement). The original title of the article BASHINGA itself represented OR: the author's own idea about what this bug should be called. Lately, Edprevost has posted a snippted of code on the article that he purports to represent the bug in question, and discussion on Talk:Shellshock (software bug) (specifically in this section) indicate that the code snippet in question is Edprevost's own attempt to reproduce the bug on his own Unix machine. I have indicated that such attempts represent original research, but Edprevost has asserted his authority in this area and questioned my own expertise in the area. I will admit, I do not have expertise in the area. But the whole point of the OR policy is that we have no knowledge of Edprevost's expertise in the area either, which is why we rely on reliable sources. I have recommended removal of the OR section from the article, but have met with resistance from this editor who appears to feel a sense of ownership over this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The examples provided by myself and others in the article are in the references. I'm very new to wikipedia, and am not sure how to handle WikiDan61's apparent issue, if he is unwilling to do some due diligence and read the references. Edprevost (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You need merely cite the reference from which your code snippet is taken using the <ref></ref> syntax. The fact that you and chridd are discussing the snippet in question lead me to believe that it is of your own invention rather than taken from any of the available reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference added by User:Dwheeler, thanks. Edprevost (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Edprevost: The example provided in the article is similar to, but not identical to the example provided in the cited reference. The differences are enough to constitute OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The slight difference is NOT significant, and gives clarity to the reader.

X='() { (a)=>\' bash -c 'echo date'; cat echo

the above is ''identical'' to

X='() { (a)=>\' bash -c 'echo date' 
cat echo

see [12], [13], [14] Edprevost (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There are other differences between the cited source and the listed example, but I'll leave it to others to evaluate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum and drbogdan as very active editors on this article, could you weigh in here. I believe this to now be moot, but WikiDan61 is adamant. Ed Prevost profile|contributions 01:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OVERALL and AFAIK - the article seems excellent and *very well* cited with references from reliable sources - my own role in the article has been largely supportive - although more so in the editing aspects and less so in the technical code aspects - at least atm - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will concede that the article as it is now written is sufficiently cited. My concert was legitimate when raised, but has been addressed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just giving my opinion as someone who knows code. The two snippets are functionally identical. It is a purely cosmetic change. Chillum 16:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why this policy?

Could someo e refer me to a disxussion of why this is a wise or necessary policy? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: You'll want to take that conversation to Wikipedia talk:No original research, or perhaps to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

In, RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?, one participant has said that stating which chapters were adapted into which episode would be WP:SYNTH if the favored source, Westeros.org, is used.

This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. This particular discussion is about the single episode "Oathkeeper," but the outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. This RfC is less about sourcing and more about whether the line should be included or excluded on its own merits. Feel free to come and take a look and weigh in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ruthenians in Galicia

We are having several problems with tag team OR on the Galicia page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)

The first OR pertains to conflating ethnicity and religion in Galicia: People

"It is, however, possible to make a clear distinction in religious denominations: Poles were Roman Catholic, the Ruthenians belonged to the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church (now split into several sui juris Catholic churches, the largest of which is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church)."

No RS has been given for this assertion. The burden is on the person or persons posting this to have provided RS. I have cited two RS in the talk section who have noted that religion did not predict ethnicity between Poles and Ukrainians. (Galicia: A Multicultured Land (Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors) (2005) (Stepien, pp. 54-55; Hann, p. 220)) The response from was to assume bad faith, and revert without providing RS for the asserted "fact": "Am getting a cite check for the pages you have referenced. Reverting until this can be confirmed one way or the other. Your your arguments for deleting and removing all references to religion other than Jewish left the section as nonsensical. What does Jewish as the third largest religious group mean when there are no references to other religious groups? At worst, a request for a reference could have been inserted. The rest of your logic translates as WP:OR resulting in WP:POV blanking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=625040224&oldid=624886751 Without a RS this comment is nothing but OR based upon this editor's "logic". Rather than support the assertion, OR accusations are made against me, despite the fact that I have provided RS and others have not, along with other uncivil comments. This appears to be contentious editing as well, but without RS, it is nothing more than OR. After I reverted to remove the OR, Faustian enters the page and reverts back to the OR with the edit summary of "rv POV edits seeking to erase word "Ukrainians". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=625941453&oldid=625935356 (It should be noted that "Ruthenian" and not "Ukrainian" was the proper contemporary term for the time period, as I have cited:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#mediaviewer/File:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg) Since there was no source given for the edit, I reverted "noting Faustian replaced sourced material with unsourced without explanation or discussion" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=626028273&oldid=625941453 Faustian refused to give a source, reliable or not, for the assertion, and again reverted with the comment, "restore version prior to Polish nationalist POV". Apparently, his opinion that something he just doesn't like is a Polish nationalist POV entitles him to engage in his own OR and not provide any sources for discussion.

We also see OR with the frequent removal by these editors of the contemporary word "Ruthenian" and replacing it with "Ukrainian", as if they are historically interchangeable. (Irish are Gaels, but is it therefore accurate to refer to all Gaels as Irish?) No source has been given for the assertion "Ruthenians (most of whom would today be regarded as Ukrainians)". This is nothing more that the opinion of these editors. (Nor is there any RS that most of these Ruthenians had actually considered themselves to have been "Ukrainians" during this time period.) There is no source cited on this point to discuss. Therefore, this statement and the substitution of "Ruthenian" and replacing it with "Ukrainian" is OR.

The Modus operendi of these editors is to make claims without RS, then demand proof what they believe is false. This reverses the burden of persuasion. However, there is a RS to the contrary. Respected historian Paul Robert Magsosci, Professor, Chair of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto, Ph.D. in History has written extensively on the "East Slavic people called Carpatho-Rusyns, or simply Rusyns (sometimes in English: Ruthenians)." He is quite emphatic that they are not "Ukrainians", and nor is their language: "Ukraine must, in turn, guarantee the individual and corporate rights of Rusyns — or those citizens of Ukraine who wish to call themselves Rusyns... Ukrainian authorities must accept the fact that within its boundaries, primarily in its Transcarpathian oblast, there are people who define themselves as Rusyns in the sense of a nationality distinct from Ukrainians. Such people should have the right to declare themselves in their passports and internal documents as Rusyns, and the state census bureau should publish data on the number of persons who identify as Rusyns and not simply classify them, as has been done until now, as Ukrainians." (Magosci, "The Rusyn Question" Political Thought 1995, №2-3 (6) P.221-231, :http://www.litopys.org.ua/rizne/magocie.htm

Thus even if these editors might claim to find a RS for their POV, it would not be a NPOV. The forced submersion of ethnic Rusyns into the Ukrainian identity is the result of the communist takeover of the region: "As we know, the Communist era with its anti-democratic approach to the nationality question was to last until the revolutions of 1989 and 1991. The only exception was the case of the small group of Rusyns in the Vojvodina region of Yugoslavia. Although a Communist regime was installed in their land as well, the Yugoslav government allowed the Vojvodina Rusyns to decide their own national orientation. This was not to be the case for the Rusyns living in the Carpathian homeland. In short, the Soviet regime declared that further debate was unnecessary because the nationality question was supposedly solved long ago. Based on a decision made in 1924, all Rusyns, regardless what they may have called themselves, were declared to be Ukrainians. All those who opposed the Ukrainian viewpoint were accused of having "anti-historical" and, therefore, "anti-Soviet" opinions: they often were removed from their jobs or were arrested as "counterrevolutionaries." Closely connected with these developments was the liquidation first in Soviet Transcarpathia (1949) and then in Czechoslovakia (1950) of the Greek Catholic Church, which by the mid-twentieth century had become the center of the Rusyn orientation." (Magosci, supra) And also the ethnic cleansing of Nazi allied Ukrainian nationalists during the war. (The Rusyns who refused to identify themselves as Ukrainians committed an act which was punishable by the death penalty. Henryk Komański and Szczepan Siekierka, Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach w województwie tarnopolskim w latach 1939-1946 (2006) 2 volumes, 1182 pages, at pg. 203.) What has resulted from these authors is a chauvinistic Ukrainian POV regarding the Ruthenian question.

There was a link provided to the Wiki Ruthenian page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians [Ruthenians] Presumably, that should be enough for any reader who might be motivated to explore the topic further. However, these editors have decided that Ruthenians in Galica are somehow severable from the other Ruthenians in the region and are all simply Ukrainians. Again no RS have been provided for this opinion, and again RS are to the contrary: "As problematic is the nomenclature and identity problem among those Americans whose ancestors came from Galicia, where the term Rusyn as a self-identifier was also widespread until as late as the third decade of the twentieth century. In the United States, these Galician-Rusyn immigrants and their descendants, often from the same village or even same family, have identified themselves either as Carpatho-Russians, Russians, or Ukrainians. These varied identities are also found among Galicians and their descendants from villages in the Lemko Region, who have interacted particularly closely in America with Rusyns from south of the Carpathians. Therefore, one can encounter in the immigration Rusyn Lemkos, Russian Lemkos, Ukrainian Lemkos, or those who simply identify as Lemkos." (Magosci, "What's in a Name?" http://carpatho-rusyn.org/what.htm, Adapted from: "Our People - Carpatho-Rusyns and Their Descendants In North America" (1995).) Furthermore, by refusing to move this discussion to the Ruthenians page [Ruthenians], these authors appear to be attempting to carve out their own little empire on the Galicia page to engage in their own version of history. I thought that the Wiki idea was that more editors would enable a better result, rather than promoting a narrow, parochial view of history. After the repeated refusal of these authors to provide RS for their OR, I can only conclude that a Ukrainian nationalist POV is being put forward and being supported by OR. The battleground is that they wish to employ the Stalinist definition of "Ukrainian" to include all Ruthenians and ignore ethnic cleansing from Nazi allied Ukrainian nationalists and Stalin’s deportations to retrospectively assert that Eastern Galicia was in fact "occupied Western Ukraine" as Faustian has referred to the region in previously on the Bandera page:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&diff=prev&oldid=557869288

This is clearly also Revanchism. Thus, we see in People not a total of all ethnic groups in the kingdom as a whole, but instead only two separate percentages for the Eastern and Western halves. We also see the need to replace the broader contemporary category of "Ruthenians" with the chauvinistic communist/Ukrainian nationalist invention of all as "Ukrainian" (regardless of whether these people had identified themselves that way, or even may have objected to the term) in the respective East/West ethnic percentages. We also see the need to claim that most of these Ruthenians would presently be regarded as Ukrainians, without discussion of why that confusion might remain in the post-communist world, or how we might travel back in time to know this.

Lastly, these editors have been working as a tag team and are uncivil. They assume bad faith, demand proof of the negative, fail to provide RS for what must be considered OR since it is based on their own “logic”, i.e., proof of the negative. Samples of the “discussion” from the talk page are below:

Am getting a cite check for the pages you have referenced. Reverting until this can be confirmed one way or the other. Your your arguments for deleting and removing all references to religion other than Jewish left the section as nonsensical. What does Jewish as the third largest religious group mean when there are no references to other religious groups? At worst, a request for a reference could have been inserted. The rest of your logic translates as WP:OR resulting in WP:POV blanking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not stalinism to state the obvious: that Ruthenian in Galicia was the old word for UKrainians. You claim that in the context of Galicia "not all Ruthenians were Ukrainians." Do you have any evidence of significant numbers of ethnic Russians in Galicia?Faustian (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

85.154.245.172, this is a talk page, not a soapbox for your personal opinion. Please do not leave walls of text advocating your biases. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. When a source described a number as "two squared" and the wikipedia article reads "four", it is not original research by the editor who wrote "four" rather than "two squared" when posting the info from the source on the wikipedia article. It is making the article clearer for readers. There are plenty of reliable sources demonstrating that Ruthenians was simply the old word for Ukrainians in Galicia, this is a well-known fact (just as it is undeniable that two squared is indeed four).Faustian (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC) We're not simply talking about Ruthenian and Ukrainian: the first edit made blanked information regarding religious affiliations, leaving a nonsensical. I find it difficult to believe that removing,”It is, however, possible to make a clear distinction in religious denominations: Poles were Roman Catholic, the Ruthenians belonged to the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church (now split into several sui juris Catholic churches, the largest of which is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church).” was a constructive edit and could be justified as anything short of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the IP's rants, it can be safely assumed that he is operating with a Polish nationalist POV. You are correct about the labels but is the purpose of the demographic section of the article to describe the proportions of peoples in East Galicia for readers to know them, or to describe the census? Of course it is the former. The article on Czech demographics doesn't list "Bohemians" but Czechs: [6], for example, and the article about the history of Prague describes "Czechs" going back to early middle ages, rather than "Bohemians" for understandable reasons - readers ought to know what Czechs were doing and not get confused by the term "Bohemian", implyng that these were different people and Czechs weren't around.Faustian (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is one instance of wikihounding from Faustian, were without discussion he reverts an edit by simply claiming “rv POV by Polish nationalist IP”: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lviv&diff=625941959&oldid=625868798

In conclusion, Faustian and Iryna Harpy are not following the rules here. They have provided no RS, and are hostile when RS is cited. Having failed to provide RS, they have refused to engage in discussion regarding the same. They are claiming the page as their own Wiki-fiefdom to promote their own POV as “fact”, regardless of RS. They are aggressive, uncivil, and are push a chauvinistic, anachronistic Ukrainian Nationalist POV that all Galician Ruthenians were nothing more than modern Ukrainians. They have no RS for any of this, and RS is to the contrary which demonstrates a lack of NPOV. (The only source to which Faustian refers in the discussion is an argumentative reference to Polish census, years after the end of Galicia, WWI, the Polish-Russian War, and conflict with Ukrainian nationalist farmers.) There has been uncivility, edit-waring, and cyberhounding from this tag team. At this point, I am requesting sanctions for the OR, lack of NPOV and disruptive editing.

85.154.245.171 (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

{{Faustian:NORN-notice|topic|thread=section header of discussion}} --85.154.245.171 (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC) {{Iryna Harpy:NORN-notice|topic|thread=section header of discussion}} --85.154.245.171 (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Notice served to Faustian and Iryna Harpy by posting on each's talk page and also notice served on Galicia talk page.85.154.245.171 (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a disruptive IP operating against consensus of three experienced editors and pushing his nationalist POV. He failed to get consensus on the article so he is coming here. From the article's talk page:

The version you implemented looks very good. Thank you for it. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see if he is a sockpuppet. He wrote "you want Wikipedia to follow the example of Stalin, and the Nazi allied Ukrainian nationalists" so he is hardly a model of civility.Faustian (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I added some references describing that population as Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again, Faustian. As an addendum to the 'disruptive IP', there's something conspicuously WP:DUCK about an IP who has only ever made two edits to Wikipedia (both fitting a WP:SPA extremist POV profile) before engaging (or, should I say, attacking editors) on the Galicia talk page with an uncanny familiarity with policies and guidelines before opening this OR/N. I know, of course, that we do not 'bite' newcomers, or judge them on their lack of experience but, for me, it was evident from the outset that this is no newcomer. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note before replying further, Wikipedia has formed a consensus on the Ruthenian page that in the context of Hapsburg Eastern Galicia, that Ruthenian had a meaning which included both ethnic Ukrainians and Rusyns, and that only after WWII were the Rusyns merged into the Ukrainian endonym due to Soviet expansion. This is the same as Magosci, supra. Rather than comport the Galicia page with this explanation, the editors noted here have continued to refuse to comport themselves with the larger community consensus for the term for this period in this place. Instead they persist in following the 1924 Soviet practice of refusing to recognize Rusyns as a coequal subset of Ruthenians, with their own language, culture, etc. This is contrary to RS, not NPOV and disruptive.

No RS has yet been given for the statement claiming that it was possible to distinguish Poles from Ukrainians based upon religious preference. I am aware of some scholarly discussion of the matter, as I have noted, but I am unaware of anyone claiming it was a hard fact. This debate may be the source of reference by Snyder, and the other source. I have checked a census sheet from the 1900 Galicia census and it did not ask for ethnicity, but it did have a column for a person's religion. As I have noted that other scholars have rejected this correlation. However, even if this is the secret source which these editors cannot reveal, Snyder did not then write that all Ruthenians became Ukrainains. By having referred to the religious data in the census, it would mean that all Greek Catholics were Ukrainians. Therefore, Snyder does not support that Ruthenians are exclusively synonymous with Ukrainians as these editors wish to assert. Therefore, their result is OR. 85.154.245.171 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You were wrong from the start. The people known as "Rusyns" did not/do not live in eastern Galicia but in Transcarpathia. But keep "proving" that black is white. Timothy Snyder in his book published by Yale University Press clearly gave percentages of Ukrainians vs. Poles in Austrian Galicia and the percentages given by Snyder corresponded exactly to the original census data (the primary source) that labelled Ukrainians in Galicia by their name Ruthenians and/or national religion, Greek Catholicism; he simply rounded. You may personally think that by equating Greek Catholics with Ukrainians in Galicia, Snyder was wrong but that is purely your own Original Research.Faustian (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As the above clearly demonstrates, Faustian disagrees with Magosci on the issue of Rusyns in Galicia. Since he refuses to read what I wrote above, I will again repeat it below for all to see AGAIN: "As problematic is the nomenclature and identity problem among those Americans whose ancestors came from Galicia, where the term Rusyn as a self-identifier was also widespread until as late as the third decade of the twentieth century. In the United States, these Galician-Rusyn immigrants and their descendants, often from the same village or even same family, have identified themselves either as Carpatho-Russians, Russians, or Ukrainians. These varied identities are also found among Galicians and their descendants from villages in the Lemko Region, who have interacted particularly closely in America with Rusyns from south of the Carpathians. Therefore, one can encounter in the immigration Rusyn Lemkos, Russian Lemkos, Ukrainian Lemkos, or those who simply identify as Lemkos." (Magosci, "What's in a Name?" http://carpatho-rusyn.org/what.htm, Adapted from: "Our People - Carpatho-Rusyns and Their Descendants In North America" (1995).)

Thus, Magosci's source for the fact that there were Rusyns in Galicia is not a Hapsburg census which recorded only the population's religion. Magosci uses U.S. immigration records which recorded what these people declared their nationality and language was. This is more powerful evidence of ethnicity than what someone else wants to label them a hundred years later based upon their stated religion. Faustian is also wrong by stating that Rusyns are only found in Transcarpathia. Magosci makes clear that they are found from Yugoslavia to the Czech Republic, as well as in Romania. He also notes that many former Galician Rusyns and their descendants now live in former German portions of Poland, where their language and culture has been insulated from Ukrainian influences.

Lastly, from the very start of this edit conflict, I have cited two RS who have disagreed with the assumption that all Greek Catholics in the Hapsburg 1900 census were Ukrainians: Galicia: A Multicultured Land (Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors) (2005) (Stepien, pp. 54-55; Hann, p. 220). Faustian is still disruptively claiming that these distinguished scholars in this important work are somehow my OR. I cannot and will not take credit for their work, but my own fact checking agrees with them. Faustian appears to wish to infer more from census data than what census takers recorded in the region. I suspect that this is not the first case of his OR in support of his Nationalist POV of "occupied Eastern Galicia".85.154.245.171 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(Edit to note that Snyder attempted to cover 400 years of history of what is now Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belarus in 384 pages. He did a very good job of giving a historical overview of the region, but it is hardly comprehensive. Faustian prefers to cite Magosci when it suits him about the Second Polish Republic, but ignore him when he doesn't agree with him, or his colleagues.85.154.245.171 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC))

As is clear, Magocsi's quote was about American immigrants and children of immigrants, not about people in Galicia. Your using this to prove something about people in Galicia is simply original research. Moreover, your quote actually confirms the fact that Ukrainians and Ruthenians are just different labels for the same people - otherwise, people from the same family would not calling themselves a Ukrainian or a Rusyn. Thanks for providing more evidence! The issue is, do we use a label that will allow the reader to understand who these people are, or do we use obscure labels in order to create an impression for readers not experts in this topic that there were no Ukrainians in East Galicia, but only a people called "Ruthenians." The consensus among editors there, is to use the modern name "Ukrainians. And this is indeed what historians do when writing about these people. Again, Yale historian Timothy Snyder uses the primary source of the Austrian census and: 1. Describes these people as Ukrainians, not as "Ruthenians" and 2. Uses numbers for Ukrainians that match what the primary source (and you) label as "Ruthenians." Magosci also described "Ruthenians", in the Galician context, as simply the old word for Ukrainians and as we see above through your quote, Ukrainians and Rusyn are indeed the same people, in the past members of the same family would be a Ruthenian or a Ukrainian.

Your citations of Galicia: A Multicultured Land (Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors) (2005) (Stepien, pp. 54-55; Hann, p. 220) don't help you either. Hann only cites some anecdotal examples and makes no wide claims. As for Stepien - I really hope you didn't list pp.54-55 in bad faith. Because on pg. 53 Stepien states ""then, as later [referring to Austrian census of 1775], religious divisions more or less coincided with national divisions, that is, Poles were roman Catholics and the Ruthenians (Ukrainians) were Greek Catholics." So on pg, 53 Stepien stated that Ruthenians and Ukrainians were the same people and that the Greek Catholic faith indicated their nationality. Isn't it funny that you forgot to list that page?

This is unrelated but since you keep bringing it up - it is clear Polish nationalist POV to consider lands in which the Ukrainians were the majority, and which Poland took by military conquest, to not be occupied lands. Thanks for revealing yourself.Faustian (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well there he goes again! More from Magosci

“The twentieth century also witnessed three short-lived efforts at Rusyn independence. The first of these came in 1919, when after being successful in their bid to join fellow Rusyns of the mountains, the Lemkos living in the former Austrian province of Galicia created an independent republic that functioned for sixteen months before its government was arrested in March 1920…When Communist regimes were established in Poland (1945) and Czechoslovakia (1948), they adopted the Soviet line and decreed that the Rusyn minorities within their borders were Ukrainians. They forbade Rusyn publications and the use of the name Rusyn in official documents. The situation was particularly bad in Poland. Not only were the Lemko Rusyns declared to be Ukrainians, they were forcibly deported en masse from their Carpathian homeland in (1947) and scattered throughout the former German lands of (post-1945) western and northern Poland.(8) It is ironic to note the advantages that accrued to the governments in question through their use — or, more properly, misuse — of the name Ukrainian. For example, by declaring that the population was Ukrainian, this allowed the Soviet Union to justify the annexation in 1945 of Subcarpathian Rus’, a territory that throughout the war it had agreed should be returned to Czechoslovakia. Nationalist ideology could now conveniently serve Stalin’s political designs on the international stage. In any case, could the Soviet workers’ state refuse the request of fellow "Ukrainian workers" in Transcarpathia who "voluntarily" were demanding to be united with "Mother Ukraine?"” Magosci, supra

Also, Ukrainian scholar Yaroslav Hrytsak uses the term Ruthenian, not Ukrainain for this time

"In Galicia, a significant proportion of Ruthenians did not (or did not want to) define themselves in national terms for most of the nineteenth century. Their Polish opponents referred to them maliciously as POPY i CHLOPY (priests and peasants). Indeed, as late as 1910, not even 2 percent of Ruthenians were living in towns or cities. Moreover, 61 percent of them were illiterate, a proportion that in the Habsburg Empire was exceeded only by Serbs (61 per cent) and Croats (63 per cent)." ( Galicia: A Multicultured Land (Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors) (2005) p. 192). Faustian twists things around quite a bit.85.154.245.171 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit to note that on his web page, Stanisław Stępień lists the title of the work in Galicia: A Multicultured Land as "Borderland City: Przemyśl and the Ruthenian National Awakening in Galicia" NOT "Borderland City: Przemysl and the Ukrainian National Awakening in Galicia": http://www.pwin.pl/Organizacja/dokumenty/prezes.html 1

Much of your quotes refer to Transcarpathia, a different region from Galicia. This has already been pointed out to you, yet you keep bringing it up. With respect to Galicia, usage of "Ruthenian" (the old word for Ukrainians in Galicia) is often used for academic purposes; Stepien himself quite clearly states on pg. 53 "then, as later [referring to Austrian census of 1775], religious divisions more or less coincided with national divisions, that is, Poles were Roman Catholics and the Ruthenians (Ukrainians) were Greek Catholics." So on pg, 53 Stepien stated that Ruthenians and Ukrainians were the same people and that the Greek Catholic faith indicated their nationality. Wikipedia isn't a project limited to academics with expert knowledge on the subject, it's something for the general public. Since Ukrainian is a far,far more widely used term to refer to these people than is Ruthenian, and since as we see reliable sources state that in Galicia Ruthenians and Ukrainians are the same people, it is the term that ought to be used. And, indeed, that's what the consensus is on the article, your attempt to forum shop here nothwithstanding.Faustian (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder of Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)

"Self-identification-How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." As noted by Magosci (Supra), the group self identifies as Rusyns, not Ukrainians. In fact, they find the label offensive. It is certainly unique to use OR to offend an ethnic group and refuse to comply with other relevant wiki rules. It appears that the title of Stępień's work was changed by editors from the original, which likely explains the parenthetical information as well. However, even if he had included the parenthetical information himself, he did not write that Ruthenian was exclusively synonymous with Ukrainian as Faustian wishes to assert, anymore than "Gaels (Irish)" would indicate that other Gaelic ethnic groups do not exist.85.154.245.171 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Except Magocsi was writing about Carpatho-Rusyns, from a completely different region than Galicia, and that "Ruthenian" is not commonly used in English to refer to the Ukrainian people of Galicia, and hasn't been for over 80 years.Faustian (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Except Magosci was writing about Rusyns in Galicia AND in other parts of their traditional Carpatian homeland. Magosci also noted that Rusyns are called Ruthenians as well. So one half-truth from Faustian, and one irrelevant statement. The Rusyns are/were also Ruthenians, but they don't identify as Ukrainians.

Quote him where he stated "Rusyns" from Galicia found the word offensive. Also as a note, 98+% of "Rusyns" identified themselves as Ukrainians on the census[15], so only a tiny fringe of these people could consider themselves to be offended.Faustian (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Faustian has again failed to quote HIS source, and it is the accuracy of how faithfully he has cited the source without adding his own POV, inferences, and synthesis which is at issue here. He prefers to evade, dodge and weave to avoid the issue at hand. However, he is confirming his nationalist POV by referring to a recent census of Ukraine to attempt to prove what existed in Hapsburg Galicia 114 years ago in the 1900 census of Galicia. This is just another example of his OR, and the "logic" of how he edits here on Wikipedia. (Also remember that the Western half of Galicia remains in Poland, that many Rusyns were relocated from Polish Galicia to settle pre-war German lands along with the Poles, and many others also emigrated to the West.) Lastly, I note that Faustian's cited authority to challenge my references from Chair of Ukrainian Studies in the History Dept. of the University of Toronto is an ethnic Ukrainian who does not have a degree in History. 37.200.224.205 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't provide the quote in which Magocsi claimed that Rusyns from Galicia found the word "Ukrainian" offensive. Did he do it?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. I didn't read most of the IP's comments, but the parts I did read, do not persuade me. Kingsindian (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to make it simple. This is about sets and subsets. Think of Great Britain. Some Irish don't like being called British. Does this mean the English, Scottish, and Welsh aren't British? This is the same illogic being used here. So, there was a larger ethnic group known as Ruthenians. In Galicia Ruthenians had at least two subsets: Ukrainians and Rusyns. Many Ukrainians objected to being called Ruthenians during the interwar period. Does this prove that only Ukrainians were Ruthenians? Nothing in Faustians source says any such thing. (and he refused to give a source until after I posted this here.) Faustian wants to infer that because some Ukrainians didn't like to be called Ruthenians during the interwar period, that there were no other subsets of Ruthenians in Galicia previously. This is his own OR which also requires time travel. Furthermore, Dr. Magosci, Faustian's source for his premise, explicitly wrote that Rusyns (or Carpo-Rusyns) lived in Galicia. Furthermore, Dr. Magosci wrote Rusyns are also called Ruthenians, but are not Ukrainians. If this is confusing to you try the visual. Here is the map showing all Ruthenian areas of Galicia in 1910:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#mediaviewer/File:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg and here is the map of the traditional Rusyn homeland which includes Galicia but extends beyond it:http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/setmap.htm

Secondly, Dr. Magosci wrote that Rusyns in Galicia were Greek Catholics, (the same as Ukrainians) and had achieved prominence in the Greek Catholic Church. Faustian has referred to a historian referencing a census which, from what I can see, asked only for religion, not ethnicity. (He has not provided us with a direct quote, or link for the source to support HIS editing, which I question.) Since both Ukrainians and Rusyns were Greek Catholics, how do we know how many there were of each? Even if Prof. Snyder had conflated Ukrainians and Rusyns for brevity, it isn't NPOV because Dr. Magosci, the chair of Ukrainian studies at the University of Toronto is to the contrary. (and two other respected historians question that no Poles were Greek Catholics.) Faustian's claim regarding the "Ukrainian" population appears to be worth investigating for embellishing, inferring, or synthesis, all of which is OR. (referring to a recent Ukrainian census result does not prove the ethnicity of people in the region 100 years ago, especially because part of Galicia remains in Poland, as are many Rusyns and their descendants who were settled along with the Poles from the East in former German lands. See Bogdan Horbal in Paul Robert Magocsi, Ivan Pop, eds., Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2nd revised and expanded ed. 2005) . This is more of Faustian's OR.)

You do realize the above is just your original research?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, understand that Faustian made these claims, but did not support them until this OR Notice was posted. When challenged he makes allegations of puppetry and demands proof of the negative. It was his burden to produce the RS, and with all his writing he still has not produced the original quote upon which he based his edit.85.154.245.172 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I provided references. You still refuse to provide a specific reference or a quote in which Magocsi claimed that Rusyns in Galicia found the term Ukrainian to be offensive. And it would have to be many of them finding it offensive, not some individual cases. You made the claim. back it up with a reliable source. And while you're at it, find a reliable source proving that the word Ukrainians is itself offensive, which is what wikipedia policy is focused on.Faustian (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also TLDR. This isn't the place to request sanctions and it isn't clear what else is being requested. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is too long for you to read, please follow the link for the picture, which clearly demonstrates what was written about Rusyns in Galicia:http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/setmap.htm37.200.224.205 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Already addressed by Faustian virtually directly above your comment: "... Magocsi was writing about Carpatho-Rusyns, from a completely different region than Galicia." The article in question is about Galicia (Eastern Europe) where the Ruthenians refers to Ukrainians, not the Rusyns. You're conflating two issues into unadulterated WP:POV WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

More double talk. So one half-truth from Faustian, and one irrelevant statement. See above.37.200.224.205 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: So four days later, and still no source cited for the assertion: "For inhabitants who spoke different native languages, e.g. Poles and Ruthenians, identification was less problematic, but widespread multilingualness blurred the borders again." This is their edit, and without RS, this is OR. (Again, in addition to the two previous RS to the contrary, I can add W. Lutoslawski, et. al., (1919) The Ruthenian Question In Galicia, pg. 7, who noted an intermarriage rate of aproximately 30%.)

The authors have refused to provide the actual text for the census assertion, "The respective data for Eastern Galicia show the following numbers: Ukrainians 64.5%, Poles 21.0%, Jews 13.7%, Germans 0.3%, and others 0.5%." belatedly attributed to a reference book, and Timothy Snyder. Timothy Snyder. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 123 and M.E. Sharpe, (2003)Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, analysis. pp.92–93. ISBN 978-0-7656-0665-5

Also refused is the actual text for the assertion that ", Ukrainians (whom the Austrian authorities described as Ruthenians" and the implication stated here that the word "Ruthenian" referred exclusively to ethnic Ukrainians, but not Rusyns, in Galicia. Paul R. Magocsi.(2002). The Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism: Galicia as Ukraine's Piedmont. Toronto: University of Toronto Press pg. 57

I just found this online:

“Particularly problematic were the terms Ruthenian and Ukrainian, which some authors may consider synonyms and others view as distinct concepts. In general, Ruthenian refers to the East Slavic population of Galicia and neighboring lands at a time when that population had not yet adopted a consciousness associated with a particular nationality. Ukrainian implies that the given East Slavic population (or portion thereof) had adopted a clear Ukrainian national identity. This process was a gradual one that occurred during the late nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth century. Therefore, in general, Ruthenian is used here to describe the East Slavs of Galicia until the end of the “historic” nineteenth century (1914), and Ukrainian thereafter.” Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors ) Galicia: A Multicultured Land (2005) at pg. ix. This introduction is available online here:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/080203781X/ref=rdr_ext_sb_pi_sims_2

It is difficult to believe that Magosci wrote something different elsewhere. By the above definition it was not appropriate to refer to a population as Ukrainians until 1914. Therefore Faustian's edit of the 1900 census of Galicia reads as Ukrainian nationalistic POV inference, embellishment and synthesis of a source, (WP:POV WP:SYNTH) and thus OR. By this definition, Faustian's edit is also clearly not NPOV.37.200.224.204 (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Assistance is requested checking these references please.

Sure. Quote form Magocsi, Paul R. Magocsi.(2002). The Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism: Galicia as Ukraine's Piedmontpg. 57. : The Hapsburg clearly distinguished Galicia's Ukrainians, whom they called Ruthenians (Ruthenen), from Russians."Your other quote merely supports the fact that Ruthenian and Ukrainian describe the same people in Galicia. Ruthenian is simply the old word which was replaced by Ukrainian. The consensus on the article is to use the new word, commonly used in the modern world, rather than the archaic one that general readers would be unfamiliar with. That way readers will understand what we are writing about and not get the false impression that the population there were not Ukrainians but some totally different people called Ruthenians who somehow disappeared. "Ukrainians" is how the Eastern Slavic people of 19th century Galicia are described in books including Magocsi's general history book about Ukraine and Yale historian Timothy Snyder's books. It's how Britannica refers to them: [16] "From the Austrian period, however, the Galician Ukrainians brought a long history of self-organization and political participation and inherited a broad network of cultural and civic associations, educational establishments, and publishing enterprises." [17] "Although, on balance, Habsburg policies favoured the Poles, Ukrainians (Ruthenians in the contemporary terminology) in Austria enjoyed far greater opportunities for their national development and made far greater progress than did Ukrainians in tsarist Russia." "The revolution of 1848 that swept the Austrian Empire politicized the Ukrainians of Galicia (see Revolutions of 1848). The Supreme Ruthenian Council, established to articulate Ukrainian concerns, proclaimed the identity of Austria’s Ruthenians with the Ukrainians under Russian rule; demanded the division of Galicia into separate Polish and Ukrainian provinces, the latter to include Bukovina and Transcarpathia; organized a national guard and other small military units; and published the first Ukrainian-language newspaper." Magocsi, History of Ukraine, University of Toronto Press pg. 418. , about Galicia: "the eastern, or Ukrainian, half" Pg. 419. "In Galicia East of the San River the Ukrainians comprised a 71 percent majority of the population." Etc. etc. Only in more academic texts (whose readership already knows that Ruthenians = Ukrainians in Galicia) not geared towards the general population Ruthenian is used. Wikipedia is geared more for general readers, so it follows usage that is appropriate. That was the consensus on the article. You failed to achieve consensus there, and thus your forum-shopping here and elsewhere.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please also note that Faustian has received a warning for similar nationalist POV behavior here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=620155742#Faustian_and_COD_T_337.200.224.204 (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the other editor, a Polish nationalist like you, was eventually banned, and that I was not sanctioned.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, Faustian, I commend you for having made more than an airtight case for the definition of Ruthenians in Galicia as referring to Ukrainians. IP 37.200.224.204 / IP 85.154.245.172 has made no case other than being a tendentious editor who refuses to drop the stick. I've really had enough of his/her gaming the system by forum shopping from article to article, posting to administrator talk pages, trying to discredit you by harassment in specifically searching out anything s/he can add to their arsenal, and so forth. Should they not drop it right now, it becomes a case for WP:AE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately the process of going through with that is more difficult for me than what I've been doing, although it would probably save a lot of time. Faustian (talk)

(off-topic) I am constantly amazed at the patience of some people, dealing with total strangers on WP. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE2: Now ten days later, these editors have followed a "cheat and retreat" strategy, and still no source cited for the assertion: "For inhabitants who spoke different native languages, e.g. Poles and Ruthenians, identification was less problematic, but widespread multi-lingualness blurred the borders again." This is their edit, and without RS, this is OR. (Again, in addition to the two previous RS to the contrary, I can add W. Lutoslawski, et. al., (1919) The Ruthenian Question In Galicia, pg. 7, who noted an intermarriage rate of approximately 30%.)

The authors have refused to provide the actual text for the census assertion, "The respective data for Eastern Galicia show the following numbers: Ukrainians 64.5%, Poles 21.0%, Jews 13.7%, Germans 0.3%, and others 0.5%." belatedly attributed to a reference book, and Timothy Snyder. Timothy Snyder. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 123 and Piotr Eberhardt Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, analysis. (M.E. Sharpe, 2003) pp.92–93. ISBN 978-0-7656-0665-5. Eberhardt is an author with a degree in geography who illustrated the official communist era claims of ethnicity, but that author himself wrote “The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography. The book therefore contains broad statistical documentation of ethnic structure and ethnic change within the various pertinent national boundaries and administrative subdivisions.” supra at Pg. 3. That statistical documentation was what the communists had said it was. Eberhardt offered no analysis confirming that the ethnic determinations had been correct. He simply illustrated them with pie charts superimposed on maps. The author doesn't support what the editors claim that he does.

Also refused is the actual text for the assertion that "Ukrainian" is a modern synonym for Ruthenian, and the implication stated here that the word "Ruthenian" referred exclusively to ethnic Ukrainians, but not Rusyns, (i.e., those Ruthenians who did not consider themselves Ukrainians), in Galicia. Faustian continues to push a chauvinistic Ukrainian nationalist POV that the Rusyns who were persecuted by the Nazi allied Ukrainian Nationalists, and the communists for asserting a different ethnicity, were all just really Ukrainians. Again, there is authority to the contrary. After WWII communist authors combined all non-Polish speakers in South-Eastern Poland (namely Ukrainians, Belarusians, Rusyns, Hutsuls, Lemkos, Boykos and Poleszuks) into one category of "Ruthenians". Henryk Zieliński, Historia Polski 1914-1939, (1983) Wrocław: Ossolineum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.200.224.204 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you be advocating the use of this Henryk Zieliński who isn't cited by any scholars outside of Poland? I have no idea of who he is, nor whether he is considered a neutral source in any form. The only information of any note I can find on him is here, in English Wikipedia, in Russian Wikipedia and, of course, in the Polish Wikipedia. Most notably, when checking to see who developed the articles in the three Wikipedias, they are all Polish editors (home pages on Polish Wikipedia). All of the articles are badly sourced, yet go into remarkable detail as to his life and purportedly irreproachable integrity. Was he a Polish nationalist? Reading between the lines, it would certainly seem so. Sounds like more POV pushing here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To the strategy of "cheat and retreat", obfuscate must also now be added to the contentious editing tactics demonstrated by these editors. Unable to support their edit with RS for the above points, we now see an attempt to shift the burden of proof for their unsourced claims and attack sourced claims to the contrary. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources:

"Citations are used to identify the reliable sources on which an article is based. In most cases citations appear in the form of footnotes, although they can also appear within the body of an article. Citations indicated by a superscript number or other means in a line of text are called inline citations.

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed.")

It is worth emphasizing that the Galicia article has been determined to be lacking citations to support its content. Rather than citing sources, these editors proclaim themselves oracles of truth with out sources, and therefore no source can be accepted which is contrary to their nationalist POV. They have followed the logic of declaring that the moon is in fact made of green cheese, and those who disagree with them must disprove their self-declared "fact". This is nothing more than OR and self-publishing. These editors are now engaging in similar OR on the Ruthenians page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians When respected authors like Dr. Magosci, Chair of Ukrainian studies in the History Department of the University of Toronto, or Dr. Zieliński (published posthumously by the Ossolineum Press) are to the contrary, they engage in lawyerly contentiousness, shamelessly ignoring of their own lack of cited authority. They refuse to follow the rules here, refuse to assume good faith of other editors, and are simply promoting a chauvinistic, nationalist Ukrainian POV contrary to all authority which I can find. (Although not my burden of proof, I will also add, in addition to other sources listed above and on the talk page of the Galicia page, Dorota Michaluk and Per Anders Rudling, "'West Ruthenism', or zapadnorusizm, also became an element of the Belarusian national idea...It appealed to the Orthodox heritage and the tradition of Kievan Rus'-Ruthenia, and negated links with Catholic Poland. Excluding the Poles, this tradition assumed that Orthodox Belarusians (White Ruthenians), Ukrainians (Little Ruthenians), and Russians (Great Ruthenians) formed the three branches of the 'tri-singular' Russian nation...This tradition came to have a significant influence on Belarusian nationalism as it developed a modern concept of nationality." D. Michaluk and P.A. Rudling, "From The Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Belarusian Democratic Republic: The Idea Of Belarusian Statehood During The German Occupation Of Belarusian Lands, 1915-1919" (The Journal of Belarusian Studies 7:2 (2014)) pg. 5-6: http://www.academia.edu/7552546/_From_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_to_Belarusian_Democratic_Republic_the_Idea_of_Belarusian_Statehood_1915-1919_The_Journal_of_Belarusian_Studies_7_2_2014_3-36

Since the last point is contrary to an interpretation of one other editor on the Galicia talk page, RGloucester, who thinks that distinguishing contemporary Ruthenians from modern Ukrainians would only confuse the reader, I am now naming him in this discussion and sending due notification. I should note that he does not appear to be intentionally disruptive, but simply the product of a British culture which has attempted to distance itself from the results of its nation's approval of what we now call ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Wikipedia is not a British dictionary. It does not need to repeat errors or omissions from British reference books, or engage in Weasel words to avoid discussing unsettling topics. Dumbing down WP to avoid "confusing" readers is simply OR.37.200.224.204 (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you god-damned mad? I'll tell you right now, that if you're referring to the population and territorial changes that destroyed Europe after the Second World War, I can assure you that I do not support them in any respect. You are not a "reliable source" that can contradict the number one dictionary of the English language. Please stop this nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 12:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have yet to see you cite your RS for the claim that Ukrainian is simply the exclusive modern (post WWII) term for Ruthenian, and that the two can be used interchangeably contrary to academic usage . Let me refer you to the rules Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history)#Reliable_sources_for_individual_claims

Nutshell

1.Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible.

2.Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used.

...

Reliable sources for weighting and article structure

To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted.

In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used.

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1.Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic

2."Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.

3.Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography

4.Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.

5.Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic

6.Single item "book reviews" written by scholars that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.

7.Introductions to major scholarly works on the topic or introductions to edited collections of chapters often represent a survey of the historiography

8.Signed articles in scholarly encyclopaedias

Surveying these documents should provide you with an understanding of the current scholarly consensus, or the multiple scholarly consensuses held. Views lying outside of these discussions should be considered as non-scholarly opinions and weighted as such; they should generally be relegated to sections titled "Popular reactions to..." or the like. In the case that the views are fringe and that the fringe views are not a central item of historiographical debate, the fringe content should be relegated to its own article entirely, discussing the dismissal of the views as fringe views by the scholarly public."

Assuming for the sake of argument that the British dictionaries and Encyclopedias had supported your claim, (and again no citation had been made which prompted this post), they are not relevant given that academic usage of the term Ruthenian is quite different. What became later Ukrainians were part of the larger group of Ruthenians at the time under discussion.

Lastly, please be civil and don't use bad language. This is an intelligent discussion. Please show that you can discus the issue academically. Please cite academic sources for your claims, not selective definitions from popular British dictionaries. Thank you.37.200.224.204 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Everything's already been referenced in the article, to reliable sources. You didn't convince anyone there, so you forum-shopped here and didn't convince anyone either.Faustian (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No it hasn't. If it had this discussion would have been moved to the NPOV notice board. Without sources, the discussion remains here.

A quick note: in his desperation, the IP seems to be implying that there were significant numbers of Belarussians in Galicia (why else bring them up in a discussion focused on Galicia)? Odd.Faustian (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that many Ruthenians had not become conscious of a nationality or ethnicity during the time period in question (1900), Ukrainain, Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn, Polish, etc. Many simply knew themselves as peasants. Alternatively, identifying as Ruthenian in Galicia may have been a way of emphasizing that they were Catholic, as opposed to Orthodox. Assigning an ethnicity to people who didn't claim it is dubious. (See Kate Brown's study of how confused the Soviet attempt at determining ethnicity was in the area, A Biography of No Place: From Ethnic Borderland to Soviet Heartland Paperback – October 6, 2005) We don't use anachronisms in history. Rome invaded Gaul not France. We don't reference the Irish during Roman times, nor do we call all modern Gaels Irish.37.200.224.204 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument wasn't persuasive enough on the relevant pages and, of course, Gaul is seperated from France by thousands of years, "Ruthenians" from "Ukrainians" by 20.Faustian (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And there still are Ruthenians who don't identify themselves as Ukrainians, never did, or never lived in Ukraine. See Paul Robert Magosci, Professor, Chair of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto, Ph.D. in History, here:

http://www.litopys.org.ua/rizne/magocie.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.245.171 (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the heading. This deals with Galicia, not people in Slovakia or Yugoslavia. Also, it's not a reliable source. Try again. Faustian (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

FAUSTIAN MADE THE EDIT. FAUSTIAN NEEDS TO PROVIDE SOURCES. IT IS NOT MY BURDEN, BUT AS USUAL FAUSTIAN IS WRONG. The Lemkos were in Galicia, and particularly the ones in Poland, don't consider themselves Ukrainians and never did. (supra) FAUSTIAN cites this author when he wants, and when he doesn't like what he has to say, he claims he is not a RS. For anyone who has read this far you can plainly see what rule these editors are breaking: Don't be a dick.85.154.245.171 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Blowing whistle. Hey we can do without all the polarization. Both sides of this dispute are impressive with their great knowledge of an obscure topic. There is merit on both sides. Part of the problem is that WP is somewhat limited in that it is charged to reflect WP:RS and that often leads to craven capitulation to mainstream usages which do violence to truth. I am not sure the best way to fix that but my preference is for people who have important minoritarian views to write in OTHER VENUES and create new secondaries. As far as I know, they could even cite their own articles if they were consistent with WP:COI though I have not researched that point. In this instance though it is clear that the mainspace article shoukld reflect the views of "the IP" regarding Ruthenians who did not and do not identify as Ukrainians. That is a valid area of research and he or she has provided some legit RS. So what is the beef here? Why not insert some lines in the relevant article indicating that not all historic Ruthenians identify as Ukrainians but that most usage including most but not all academia conflate the two? It is not OR this view has been adequatelydeveloped by secondaries. To some extent ALL wikipedia articles involve some degree of OR and SYN that is below the threshold of prohibited OR and SYN. The main thing is to respect the value of the other side's expertise and respect WP:CIVIL Wikidgood (talk)

OR and WP:ASOF

In discussion with User:Mark Miller, he has expressed concern that the wording "as of XXXX" constitutes OR/synthesis in cases in which the date is not explicitly stated in text (but available from an access date or date of publication). I have never heard of this before, and never had it come up at FAC discussions (be they my own or others), and was wondering whether such a strict reading of this policy is held by the community. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that the source only says "Not on view " and that this information was only accessed in September (which would mean the source can be used but doesn't need the "as of September" since the access date should appear with the citation). However the source itself makes no mention of a date or dating of the present tense. There is a web cache note on the site but it is not clear if the source was written in 2014 or earlier. The web cache is just a note of the web storage of that version of the page. Yes, it is possible the viewing status will change (and I hope it does change) but what the source claims is not what I believe the "As of" guideline is meant for. This isn't a huge deal, but I am sort of trying to be as accurate as possible with a controversial subject. (We can probably avoid this all together if we locate a source that tells us when it was taken off display)--Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Right, the article in question (September Morn) has been controversial, and we're trying to be as accurate and in-line with policy as possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to this specific edit for the article in question, I believe in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that the Metropolitan Museum of Art's website is up-to-date with respect to its description of its holdings. However, due to ambiguity for the reader, I think wording of the form "As of (date XXX), the painting is not on display" should be altered. isaacl (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Something like "In September 2014, the MET's website listed the painting as not on display"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that it is reasonable to assume that the Met's website is accurate on this. Although I can see how an argument could be made for an OR violation, I also agree that "In September 2014, the MET's website listed the painting as not on display" should be an acceptable way to present the information. Onefireuser (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My question for that would be (and it is always possible I am missing it) where does the September dating come from? That web cache doesn't appear all the time and may just be information picked up by the browser. I was thinking that the line could simply read. "The museum no longer has the painting on view". Then, once we get stronger sources about when and why (there may well be information on this somewhere) the painting was taken of view , we could update that.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's the webcitation archive, which is clearly dated September 16, 2014 (see the top left corner). What web cache are you referring to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That is the web cache. It is not actually the source. Webcite is a tool for the citation, not for the article and has no bearing on the content or claim being made. This is the actual source and isn't making any claims or giving any dates Crisco 1492, Onefireuser, Isaacl. The other is an outside entity that has recorded the page on that date but we do not use that as a source for claims on the article itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Webcitation is a tool which also unambiguously indicates (i.e. sources the fact) that a source said something at a certain time. That is enough for me, and has been enough at FAC nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Crisco, but it actually is not saying that. The tool just states the day the web page was recorded/stored or "cahed". Seriously. But there is clearly no consensus from this discussion so we should leave it as it was or is or...whatever. I'm not too pressed over it.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yoel Romero's Jewishness

There are a few problems in Yoel Romero's personal life section, mostly about synthesis, but also undue weight and unreliable sources.

1. He's called a Messianic Jew, sourced to an interview where the unidentified author calls him Jewish, and Romero speaks of reading the Bible and going to church. This seems like a synthetic combination.

2. Claims he listens to music in Hebrew, based on a YouTube video of him (and others) listening once to it. Doesn't indicate a pattern.

3. Claims he plays the shofar, based on another clip from the video of him blowing it once. Doesn't indicate a pattern, and the About.com source about shokars in general seems undue.

4. Claims he's trilingual, backed by an MMA forum post where some nobody notes he used a common Hebrew phrase. Doesn't indicate a pattern. The specific phrase is then mentioned, backed by a copyrighted video hosted on a blog.

5. Mentions his pre-fight sponsor banner (business, not personal) contains Jewish symbols and "Hebrew style" font, sourced to photos of it instead of a secondary source making the analysis.

6. Goes into the the meaning of his name, stressing its Jewishness, sourced to name meaning sites unrelated to him. Seems unduly trying to make a point, and not something that's done in any other fighter bio (or general bio, as far as I've seen).

The user behind these seems reluctant to discuss, on article Talk or their own. Led to a bit of edit-warring summaries instead. Though these were effective in getting him/her to stop saying "Romero is very proud of his African-Jewish heritage" and mentioning this alleged heritage in the lead, s/he seems adamant about the rest (including the grammar errors and useless "?feature=youtu.be" part of the links.) I'd be blocked going further down this route.

Third opinion? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems too me like original research.WP:RS should state facts explicitly .We can't make any assumption based on Youtube even even if there where 10 such videos.--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree it all seems like original research.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

English burials OR

In watching the edits for St Pancras Old Church (12 sample edits here), I have become aware of the extensive edits by User:Stephencdickson who specializes in adding information to biographical and architectural articles relating to notable burials. My concern is that most of his edits appear to lack sources, relying on his personal observations. In my discussion with the this editor, he has stated that the very existence of the tombstones/memorial plaques should be is sufficient sourcing. My understanding is that, unless he provides published sources for this data, his portrayal of what he has observed is simply original research, unreliable and unverifiable by readers. I have suggested that he at least provide photographic evidence, but he has stated that such an approach would clutter an article. Does anyone else see an issue with the verifiability of these edits? Considering a solution, can Wikipedia Commons photos be used as references and it there a template for doing so? —Waldhorn (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC) If you look at my last edit I have added references and supportive photos... please check before criticising--193.39.157.76 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is probably OK. We have previously discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard whether inscriptions and monuments can be their own sources and opinion was divided but the information is actually verifiable. Is there any kind of guidebook to burials in the churchyard that could also be referred to? Having photos does help. Anything that might be controversial should be removed, e.g. if there is a claim that the person was buried somewhere else instead. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Top Gear Controversies

During the controversial recent visit by Top Gear to Argentina, in addition to the controversy over the plate on Clarkson's car, more tenuous links were alleged to the other cars in the party. Officials in Ushaia have claimed the name of the Gurkha knife is the EKH (it is not its the Kukri) and one of the cars had the plate EKH 46 J.

An editor has found an American website selling Gurkha collectibles[18], which uses it product designations eg EKH-GACI-19. He has made the leap that this is proof that this is the makers' designation for the weapon and edited accordingly. He has then edit warred a comment to this effect on the article Top Gear controversies [19]. In army service the Kukri is designated the "The British Army Issue Kukri, Service Number One".

I would appreciate some help in explaining the multiple policy violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN to this editor. WCM_email 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That link is not sufficient for the statement that "'EKH' is a product code fur kukri knives with the manufacturer". For one thing, the link is to a retailer, not the manufacturer. Secondly, it's a synthesis to blend it with the rest of the sentence. We need once source that says the whole thing. --Tóraí (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it is OR, if the difference requires careful visual comparison. If someone on the shot called a gun "a knife", yea, it's no OR to say otherwise, but the difference between two very similar knifes requires a source to back that. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Open Office

As background, Oracle used to have two products: OpenOffice.org, an open-source office suite, and Oracle Open Office, a commercial version of the suite.

In April 2011, Oracle announced:

"Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office. ... we believe the OpenOffice.org project would be best managed by an organization focused on serving that broad constituency on a non-commercial basis." (source)

In June 2011, Oracle announced it would donate the open-source project, OpenOffice.org, to the Apache Foundation: "Donating OpenOffice.org to Apache gives this popular consumer software a mature, open, and well established infrastructure to continue well into the future." (source).

Q1. Do these sources represent original research (as primary sources) on the question of the status of OpenOffice.org and Oracle Open Office?

Next, we have secondary sources from April 2011 that say Oracle decided to discontinue Oracle Open Office (or "commercial development of the OpenOffice.org (OOo) office suite") and that "Oracle says that it is ready to hand over control of the project to the community". For example this, Ars Technica article.

Q2. Do these sources support a statement that the open-source project, OpenOffice.org, is discontinued or was discontinued at the same time as Oracle Open Office? That the commercial version, Oracle Open Office, is disconnected is not disputed.

Lastly, if the answer to Q2 is 'yes', how should we interpret these sources in light of later sources — after OpenOffice.org was donated to the Apache Foundation — that say the open-source project continues (renamed) as Apache OpenOffice?

--Tóraí (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this discussion. There is no original research in stating the sources say something. The original research question is trying to state that the two sources I have provided do not matter.

The question is whether WP:UNDUE is being violated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. For clarity, what are the two sources you're providing and what do you claim they say about (a) OpenOffice.org, the open-source project; and (b) Oracle Open Office, the commercial version of the suite? I ask because I believe your interpretation of the sources is OR. --Tóraí (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Summary Tables" for Fatal Dog Attacks article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please respond substantively to this:

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

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

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

I agree. There has been a strong consensus here and on the article's own Talk page that the Summary Tables constitute OR. Most of the arguments have been very articulately stated by 0x0077BE. Feel free to add the resolved tag. Thanks. Onefireuser (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You may disagree, but you have to do so substantively. Please address this below, quoting above:

1. Summarizing such lists cannot not constitute original research by synthesis, citing WP:CALC and many precedents all over Wikipedia, so many that it points to a clear long standing Wikipedia-wide consensus that we may summarize such lists, with many examples given. Since that time, an attempt was made which can be seen as a test case, to delete the summary of Fatal bear attacks in North America on WP:OR grounds. This blocked citing WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR and WP:CALC grounds, and pointed to widespread precedent and practice. So the summary removal on that article failed, setting yet another precedent. And there are many, many more such examples of such summaries all over Wikipedia, so there can not be Wikipedia consensus that to summarize such a list is WP:OR. Chrisrus (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tag removed. There was a long discussion here and a CONSENSUS that the summary tables in the Fatal Dog attacks article are Original Research. Onefireuser (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a substantive reply to the points. According to Wikipedia:Stonewalling, avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to an edit while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes simply creates the appearance of a real substantive dealing with the evidence and reason when none (or little) exists. When no substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required, so stonewalling is used when those opposed to the change don't actually have a substantive objection to the edit, or when they know whatever argument they have can be easily refuted, or is contrary to long-standing Wikipedia-wide consensus that such lists may be summarized. Therefore, absent some evidence or reason why summarizing that list constitutes WP:OR which has not been already refuted, the summary may be restored. Also, please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We need a substantive reply, not repeated reference to a sort of head count of points that have already been refuted. Chrisrus (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Chrisrus and I couldn't see eye to eye on the talk page, so I brought the discussion to this noticeboard. Here, everyone else has agreed that the tables are original research because they calculate summary statistics in exactly the way that researchers creating original research for publication do every day. They are not simple calculation like 2+2=4 or calculating the age of someone born on 2/4/1977. They are statistics that require numerous assumptions to derive the numerators and denominators. There is no one, simple, clear, or correct way to to create these statistics. Therefore they are no exempted by WP:CALC and they are OR. We've been over this a number of times. I'm not sure what else Chrisrus would like to get out of the discussion. 0x0077BE also made a number of other articulate points about why this is OR.

Can any additional editors weigh in on how we can resolve this issue? Onefireuser (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is resolved. If he doesn't like the outcome of this discussion, the onus is on him to get more people in in the hope that consensus will turn the other way. He doesn't get to repeat himself again and again until no one cares and then claim his superior logic trumps consensus. --Dodo bird (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. Seeking out incidents and tallying them is obviously research, exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be done. If this continue to be belabored, things may be headed off on the road to ARBCOM. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@USER:0x0077BE:

As you know, and can see if you scroll up, much of the above, much of the above discussion is irrelevant to whether summarizing that list into those tables is covered by WP:CALC or not. You and I will agree that it is covered by CALC to do if, as you say, a simple calculation like 2+2=4. So look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&oldid=619383147#Summary_tables See? One child under the age of one in 2005, plus one child under the age of one in 2005, equals two children under the age of five in 2005. One plus one equals two.

Your previous concern above, not repeated by you here, AND not having anything to do with whether it's WP:OR to summarize that list, was noted and appreciated, thank you very much, because that concern of yours, that readers will think that total is complete, can be dealt with by following the incomplete list procedure and adding "incomplete list" tag, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists once again, not only at the start of the main, Part II list, should reader somehow miss the introduction, which by the way can be improved to address that concern even better than it already does.

So there'll be no reason for you to worry that the reader will misunderstand that this is merely a summary of the article's list of items we have a citation for, not a total of all fatal dog attacks in the US, including those we don't have a citation for or which haven't been added. This is the way we always do such things all over Wikipedia, this is a wide, broad, and long-standing consensus that you and others here should know about and understand and respect.

Your other previous concern, that the reader might come to a conclusion that you think is wrong, that looking at the information on that list and summary, that the reader might, based on the attacks we've been able to get on the list thus far, come to a conclusion that you don't think is warranted, that concern is also irrelevant to whether this it's covered by CALC to summarize this list, and therefore not OR. Furthermore, that concern of yours, that a reader looking at that might become unfairly prejudiced against certain types of dogs, was enough to that you, and anyone else who thinks it's the business of Wikipedia to censor information that might make certain categories of animals look bad, is classic POV editing. The fact is, one fatal poodle attack, plus one fatal poodle attack, equals two fatal poodle attacks. This is what that summary is and therefore clearly covered by CALC. We are not trying to lead the reader to any conclusion, we are merely giving them the facts! That you or any reader wouldn't like what conclusion those facts might seem to lead the reader to on their own, and therefore want to delete or destroy the list is the type of thing we've seen before at Wolf attack, for example, editors coming in with the preconceived notion that a wolf would never attack a person, that's not in their nature, and then go about trying to destroy the article or censor or distort the article to reflect that notion, no matter what a fair summary of the WP:RSes say about that subject, for the greater good of rehabilitating the reputation of a particular type of canid that has been unfairly maligned by facts by republicans or hunters or ranchers or others who maligning the poor innocent canid, the vast majority of which never hurt anybody. We've seen it at Coyote attack as well. Each time, these accusations are not founded: we are not out to draw people to any conclusion, we are just Wikipedians who work on all kinds of animal articles and animal attack articles, just when it comes to canid attacks like dingo attack for some reason it's suddenly wrong, but no one seems to care if it's a bear attack or elephant attack or wild boar attack.

Be that as it may. That concern as well is also completely irrelevant and never should have been stated above or motivated anything that was stated above. As to whether that summary is OR or covered by CALC, it is. One teenager plus one teenage equals two teenagers; one sled dog plus one sled dog equals two sled dogs; WP:CALC applies. Chrisrus (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've heard your arguments and you've seen my counter-arguments. So far, we haven't seen any support for your position, the only question about which the consensus is less clear is whether the list itself is original research. I tend to believe that, in the absence of a source containing the comprehensive list, then it iis OR. I think this is a common belief, though since there are many such articles, I would recommend that if we're going to have that discussion we centralize it somewhere and advertise it on the various centralized-discussion places to get cast a very wide net. So far, editors here again seem to believe these individually-sourced lists are OR, but I suspect that - based on their prevalence - there would be more pushback on that if we had a wider net, which is why I haven't personally pushed for the removal of the list until we can have that discussion. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisrus. We may all be able to agree that, as you say, "one fatal poodle attack, plus one fatal poodle attack, equals two fatal poodle attacks." Unfortunately, that is not the type of data we have collected in our research. For example, how would you apply WP:CALC to one incident where "police said they were 'relatively sure' they were Rottweilers or Doberman Pinschers" and one incident by "Mixed breed dogs (possibly including Rottweiler, Pit bull, Beagle, and Labrador retriever)" and another involving "Rottweiler and 2 Rottweiler-Pug mixes"? As you well know, those are the type of data points we have collected. If we wanted to know how many Rottweilers that is, we could add it up in a number of different ways to arrive at anywhere from 1 Rottweiler all the way up to 6 or more. It is exceedingly clear that this is not a trivial calculation such as 2+2=4. Onefireuser (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to say that even if 100% of the breeds of dogs were positively identified, I'd still be uncomfortable with these summary tables because, as I've said many times before, they represent irrelevant information, i.e. the number of dog attacks identified by Wikipedians. They also have an element of SYNTH (again, well-trodden ground) to them, since we're taking disparate sources and synthesizing a new fact (i.e. "we've listed 20 dog attacks"). Identifying the specific problems like inconsistent identification of breeds and improper sampling is effectively just criticizing the research methodology; it's valuable because it helps editors to understand why there's the policy against original research, but in the end even if all the problems with the research methodology were fixed, it's still research. In fact, if the problems with the methodology were completely fixed, this whole problem would be moot, because you could compile this information into a scientific paper, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal and then have a valid consolidated source for the tables.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@USER:Onefireuser. First, based on everything you've said here, it seems you do/would not oppose restoration of the summary table of victim ages, just the dog category summary table, is that correct? It seems you don't have a problem with summarizing the ages being summarized in the table. Chrisrus (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@USER:0x0077BE Are you saying that all summaries of disparately sourceddynamic incomplete lists constitute original research? After all, they all summarize they count "just those we've collected thus far" from different sources. Take, for example, List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#Maps, is that SYN?

You know very well the points made by myself and many others on this topic, as I have expressed it many times. Yes, my current position is, weakly, that disparately sourced incomplete collections which are not essentially navigational aids are most likely either original research or violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As I mentioned in the talk page on List of fatal bear attacks in North America, a conversation in which you took part, I am only OK with that article because there is a comprehensive source for everything up to 2009, and I oppose the addition of bear attacks not in that comprehensive list to the maps on that page. So yes, your incessant repetition of the exact same points, which has convinced no one, has not somehow changed my mind on this matter. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what about this list, Leopard_attack, and countless others like it? Chrisrus (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article Leopard attack? It does not contain a summary table. It does not even contain a list of non-notable attacks. It just has a sampling of some notable attacks. Many of those attacks have their own entire articles. They all seem to be referenced to reliable secondary sources, not news reports. A better example to make your point might be List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States. However, this article also does not have a summary table. And this article has way more problems even than the dog attack article. That snake bite article should probably be deleted in its entirety. Onefireuser (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please let's look together at the summary table of leopard attacks in the article Leopard attack. There is a disparately-sourced, WP:INCOMPLETE summary table on the right if you scroll down a bit, called "Number of Human Deaths due to Leopard Attacks". Do you see it? Please note that, right after the title, there's a dagger and a corresponding note. Let's read the note at the bottom. You will agree that it, in few words, clearly communicates the idea that these totals are simply those that some random Wikipedians have been able to confirm so far in WP:RSes as of last edit, that is all. The note implies to the reader that the numbers are maybe good for giving people a sort of rough idea, that is all, for whatever it's worth to the reader, take it or leave it, we did this ourselves; we didn't get it from one source; we compiled it from many. And that's OK. The article Leopard attack may, can, should, and does have that table there, so please don't delete it because it improves that article and does not violate or constitute WP:OR. Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

First, no one involved in this discussion has suggested making any changes to Leopard attack. Second, the table you are referencing in that article is a list of numbers that come from secondary sources. Reporting totals from secondary sources is very different than collecting raw data and analyzing it yourself. One is Original Research and the other is not. Onefireuser (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Onefireuser: By saying that about leopard attack, I understand you agree that such disparately sourced, dynamic, incomplete lists are not WP:SYN. Is that correct? Because if it weren't, you'd advocate its removal.

Next, imagine we added a total to the bottom of it, that list of leopard attacks, and clearly marked that total as simply a summary of that list, not of all reliably sourced leopard attacks, much less all leopard attacks, just the total of those Wikipedia has collected so far on that list, would that constitute us analyzing raw data and publishing our analysis?

What about that summary table of the victim ages from the US fatal dog attack list? Does that part, just that part, constitute analysis of raw data, to your mind? Let's hold that separate from the totals of the types of dogs involved in the attacks. Just the table of victim ages. It's my impression based on everything you've personally said that the table of victim ages is covered by WP:CALC. Is that correct?

I'm not suggesting this but, just imagine, please, if we had maps of the locations of the fatal dog attacks as a summary of list, kind of like the bear attack maps. Would that constitute us doing our own "analysis" of the raw data, to your mind? Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The leopard attack article is not a list.

2. Original research is something that could be published in the scientific literature.

3. Do you feel this conversation needs to continue to take place on the Noticeboard? Onefireuser (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's not really a substantive reply. Please reply to the following relevant point: There is consensus support for list of leopard attacks within the article leopard attack, is that correct?

Next, please answer this: if we put a total at the bottom of that list, would it be covered by WP:CALC or not? I mean, so long as it's clear that that total would simply be a summary of that WP:INCOMPLETE leopard attack list, nothing more. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I went ahead and added the total to the list within Leopard attack. I hope you will agree that doing so is covered under WP:CALC and explain. Next, I plan to restore and update the summary tables of victim ages on the dog attack article, which I haven't seen a clear objection to. Then we'll see how that goes, and then look at the rest. Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, because the leopard attack list totals, that summarization is allowed, we clearly have consensus for summarizing incomplete, desperately sourced lists. Therefore, barring any explanation to the contrary, we may restore the dog attack list totals at any time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious by now that you should not do that. The consensus is clear that the summary tables are inappropriate for the dog attacks. This is not an endurance game where whoever can ignore the other side the longest wins. The consensus was resolved quite some time ago against inclusion of the summary tables. Just because we've stopped responding to you once the consensus was made very, very clear does not mean that you can take our silence as consent. I've stopped responding because you haven't presented any new arguments, and everyone else agrees that the arguments you have presented are not valid. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, also, I've reverted your edits on the leopard page. Per your own reasoning, that's an equivalent situation, and per the overwhelming and clear consensus on this page and on the list of fatal dog attacks page, summary tables for disparately sourced lists is OR. This is getting POINTY, honestly. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@USER:Dodo bird:

Very well. If you insist, I will go and get more people. Do you have any concerns about how I should and should not go about doing that? Chrisrus (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you should not canvas for new people who support your position, you should just bring new eyes to the discussion by posting neutral notices in appropriate places (like Wikiproject Lists, Village Pump, etc). At this point, I doubt you'll find many takers, honestly, because these huge blocks of text you're fond of posting are a real barrier to entry. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that this should be necessary, as one should pay any attention to how many people are saying what, but rather what has been said. So I'm holding off for the moment on that. It may come to that, however, but I hope not. This is an important matter. Chrisrus (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@USER:Mangoe:

"Seeking out incidents" is not what is being discussed here. "Tallying them" is. According to WP:CALC, tallying them is not WP:OR. Please read it and stop believing that tallying is OR. It's not. If you want to object to "seeking incidents out" and reporting them in Wikipedia, please start another section or something. Chrisrus (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a very touchy issue as I have noticed POV warriors ruining WP articles on this topic in the past such as converting an article about a particular breed into a dissertation on dog bites. That was fixed but there is definitely an agenda-driven cohort on this topic I would also point out that to some degree all of WP is a form of synthesis but there are secondaries on this topic such as the CDC report and the free downloadable PDF book "Pitbull Placebo" and any information based on those should be presentable as a WP article with only the normal amount of "synthesis". Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the argument that the tables are OR and also probably the list itself. As per my above post there are plenty of secondary sources. Even then there is a problem of WP:SYN but with these random lists there is insufficient secondary sourcing and a real tempation for POV warriors to doctor the results. Wikidgood (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream scientific assessment of climate change

Opinions of neutral uninvolved eds eagerly sought!
We have a

• main article, Scientific opinion on climate change
• sub article, List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming

Discussion of the latter article is often chaotic, as many editors talk about diverse issues in the same breath. However, the issue I'm trying to present is laser-focused on the leads of the two articles.
The lead of the main article tries to summarize the mainstream scientific perspective. To comply with WP:FRINGE's requirement to establish the context for fringe statements, the lead of the latter article does that too. However, for a long time they have been out-of-synch, using overlapping but different text and sources. A poll question has been posted asking

Given that the mainstream assessment is summarized on the basis of the RSs with greatest WP:WEIGHT at the main article "Scientific opinion on climate change", would a neutral uninvolved editor reasonably expect the same sources to be used to present the same summary [at the sub-article "List of scientists opposing..."] unless there was a really good RS-based reason to do something different?

Please offer your thoughts in the thread located at the subarticle via this link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure this is a NOR issue? Incidentally, the title "opposing the mainstream assessment" seems to me to be a possible NPOV issue. It suggests that the list of scientists are somehow mavericks who refuse to go along with the unthinking "mainstream." Perhaps "opposing the scientific consensus" would be more accurate and neutral. Onefireuser (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Present Perfect

I have been reading the article Present perfect, generally, it seems to lack verifiable sources but my main concern is connected with the table present which lists examples of present perfect being used. The very first point is not a clear example of present perfect because it is dependant on the type of verb used. In most situations, to express continuation up to now it would be preferable to use present perfect continuous, however certain verbs are unable to be expressed in a continuous form (have, know, for example) and therefore have to be expressed in Present perfect. This should probably be made clear in the article and definitely shouldn't be used as the first example of present perfect in use.

This can all be supported in 'Practical English Usage' by Swan (Oxford 2005) page 440.

I'm not sure this is really OR, beyond the fact that at some point most examples are going to be essentially some form of original content. That said, I can see how it can be confusing, I'm going to substitute in one of the examples from Uses of English verb forms. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes

Could someone please confirm whether the following italicized word ("sometimes") from the African American page's lede is original research?: "African American[...] the term is sometimes meant to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves". The word doesn't appear in the original source statement: "African American refers to descendants of enslaved Black people who are from the United States. The reason we use an entire continent (Africa) instead of a country (e.g., Irish American) is because slave masters purposefully obliterated tribal ancestry, language, and family units in order to destroy the spirit of the people they enslaved, thereby making it impossible for their descendants to trace their history prior to being born into slavery" [20]. Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I imagine it would be very easy to find another source that includes more than just individuals descended from African slaves. If the source that says they are referred to only as the descendants of slaves is reliable, it seems to me that you either have a source conflict or, by logical induction, you can reasonably infer that sometimes it means one thing sometimes another. I think it's probably OK, but on the borderline. Honestly, I imagine you can find a reliable source for the "sometimes" as well. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 0x0077BE. There unfortunately doesn't appear to be any reliable source for "sometimes" or the now rephrased "may also be". On the contrary, virtually all of the reliable sources that actually compare the two definitions seem to indicate that the term more typically refers to Americans descended from African slaves. They don't just "sometimes" or alternatively ("may also be") indicate this (e.g. [21]). Also notice how none of these original research qualifiers was added to the first wikiphrase. They were only added to the second one, which has the effect of immediately subordinating that definition although the sources themselves do not. Given this, how does the following possible rewording strike you?: "the term refers to individuals who are descended from African slaves"? The original source statement is shown and linked to above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that at this point that term refers to pretty much any black Americans - "being pretty sure" isn't exactly a reliable source, but it is the source of my intuition that there is almost certainly a language usage guide or linguistic history out there that will indicate that the phrase refers to all black Americans. A cursory search turns up this paper comparing various terms for American/new world black people (I just picked the first relevant item that I could access, I didn't dig around or cherry pick sources). Under "African American" they have "The term African American refers to a person of African ancestral origins who self identifies or is identified by others as African American.", and on the issue of slave-descent, "Most African Americans are descendants of persons brought to the Americas as slaves between the 17th and 19th century (distant ancestry). Such people differ from others who came from Africa or the Caribbean in the 20th and 21st centuries (recent ancestry), in terms of culture, language, migration history, and health. These differences are often ignored." That's a pretty clear source that the term "African American" covers more than just the descendants of slaves. Again, it may be borderline WP:SYNTH to compare one source saying that it covers people who are not descendants of slaves and one saying it only covers descendants of slaves and say that "sometimes" it refers to one or the other, so my guess is that if we dig around in style guides or linguistic histories we'll be able to find something that covers the differences in usage. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The definition above is based on that of the OMB. The latter bureau indicates that it pertains, on a self-reporting basis, to a so-called "race", one which it alternately dubs "Black/African American/Negro" on forms. However, the traditional definition of African American" solely pertains to an actual "ethnic group", whose African ancestry is primarily derived from West/Central Africa and predates the civil war period. This dichotomy in meaning is one of the points where there seems to be agreement: "the term African American refers to an ethnic group, most often to people whose ancestors experienced slavery in the United States (Soberon, 1996)[...] Thus, not all Blacks in the United States are African American (for example, some are from Haiti and others from the Caribbean)" [22]. Given this, I think perhaps either the page should solely focus on the ethnic group (which it already pretty much does), or briefly note someplace that the term is also a self-reporting race entry on OMB forms and that it is interchangeable with the aforementioned terms. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This article from the Smithsonian Magazine pretty clearly articulates that the term sometimes refers to just descendents of African slaves and at other times broadly refers to all black Americans. Onefireuser (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I realize that, but the sources that suggest the broader definition are all based on the census bureau's relatively recent, self-reporting definition. This was actually pointed out to me, and it appears to be true [23]. Anway, the word "sometimes" has since been removed, so thanks for your time. Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the climate change denial talk page

The discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Must the word 'denial; occur in every citation for climate change denial? is I think mainly an OR one though it might also come under verifiability. The respondents seem to be saying the question is unclear or say it depends, so I see it as heading towards not resolving that point in a dispute over a number of citations. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Regional powers map

"Major regional powers in teal, and minor regional powers in light teal"

This map on the right can be seen in Regional power, but I fear all the countries were shaded arbitrarily into "major" and "minor". First: is this map really needed? Second: if it is, can someone help me find the source(s) that categorizes these countries like that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh my, what a mess. I think the problems stem from the article itself, in that the image simply reflects (in general terms) the list of "regional powers" though the sub-list of coloured "minor regional powers" would seem to be complete original research, being unsupported by the assertions in the article itself. The problem, then, isn't the image but the list. Some of the sources there are horrible. I don't the the image is necessary, even if we could get the list right. But the list should be the priority. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The list itself seems to have some problems as they come from arbitrary discrete sources like speeches that may be using varying definitions of "regional power", but it looks to me like the dark green countries are the G20 countries, and the light green countries are other countries that have been described as "regional powers", but are not in the G20. Nope - I'm wrong, looking at some of the sourcing, it seems like all the "major" powers are ones that have been described as either "regional superpowers" or "major regional powers". The others are just referred to as regional powers. It's not clear to me that "major" and "minor" are terms of art, or that they are being used this way in the sourcing, however. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Canada is in the G-20 but isn't coloured at all. And Argentina (also G-20) is a "minor" power. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Stalwart111 and 0x0077BE, I think there might be an even bigger problem with this list. The countries over there are all unsourced, and I am getting the distinct sense that the regional and middle powers were all listed arbitrarily by various editors with possible nationalistic motives. The whole topic obviously needs further attention from experienced editors, otherwise we may be forced to completely eliminate such misleading lists. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a deep rooted issue of nationalistic chest beating in these articles. Editors simply wanting 'their country' represented due to nationalistic motives is a serious problem that degrades the accuracy and quality of several articles. The fact is, political science is an academic field, therefore, just as with any scientific article on Wikipedia we should lean towards using reliable scholarly publications to support the content within the article. I propose that any country not accompanied by at least one or two reliable academic publications should be removed and not appear on any such list of regional or middle powers. At Power (international relations) I removed the nations listed in the regional and middle power categories a few days ago, fortunately nobody has challenged my edit thus far. But we shall see. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I can probably help in improving both articles (the Regional power and the Power (international relations), albeit the former is easier to work on than the latter). To clear up some ignorance: major regional powers (otherwise known as "primary") and secondary regional powers (otherwise known as "secondary") are an important part of IR theory and analysis. Sam Huntington's studies on this topic are the most cited, but other prominent authors include Flemes, Wojczewski, etc. So, the decision to label one country "minor" and another "major" is neither arbitrary nor OR. However, a number of editors have continuously added countries in the lists that should not be in them (probably for nationalistic reasons, but possibly also vandalism). I'll comment more on this later (or ping me if I forget); regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To continue from the above, the image is also a good addition that helps visualize the complexity of the international system. I think that's all I have to say in this topic. Feel free to ask any questions, but please remember to notify me (I will not check this discussion again otherwise). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the climate change denial talk page

The discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Must the word 'denial; occur in every citation for climate change denial? is I think mainly an OR one though it might also come under verifiability. The respondents seem to be saying the question is unclear or say it depends, so I see it as heading towards not resolving that point in a dispute over a number of citations. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Regional powers map

"Major regional powers in teal, and minor regional powers in light teal"

This map on the right can be seen in Regional power, but I fear all the countries were shaded arbitrarily into "major" and "minor". First: is this map really needed? Second: if it is, can someone help me find the source(s) that categorizes these countries like that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh my, what a mess. I think the problems stem from the article itself, in that the image simply reflects (in general terms) the list of "regional powers" though the sub-list of coloured "minor regional powers" would seem to be complete original research, being unsupported by the assertions in the article itself. The problem, then, isn't the image but the list. Some of the sources there are horrible. I don't the the image is necessary, even if we could get the list right. But the list should be the priority. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The list itself seems to have some problems as they come from arbitrary discrete sources like speeches that may be using varying definitions of "regional power", but it looks to me like the dark green countries are the G20 countries, and the light green countries are other countries that have been described as "regional powers", but are not in the G20. Nope - I'm wrong, looking at some of the sourcing, it seems like all the "major" powers are ones that have been described as either "regional superpowers" or "major regional powers". The others are just referred to as regional powers. It's not clear to me that "major" and "minor" are terms of art, or that they are being used this way in the sourcing, however. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Canada is in the G-20 but isn't coloured at all. And Argentina (also G-20) is a "minor" power. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Stalwart111 and 0x0077BE, I think there might be an even bigger problem with this list. The countries over there are all unsourced, and I am getting the distinct sense that the regional and middle powers were all listed arbitrarily by various editors with possible nationalistic motives. The whole topic obviously needs further attention from experienced editors, otherwise we may be forced to completely eliminate such misleading lists. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a deep rooted issue of nationalistic chest beating in these articles. Editors simply wanting 'their country' represented due to nationalistic motives is a serious problem that degrades the accuracy and quality of several articles. The fact is, political science is an academic field, therefore, just as with any scientific article on Wikipedia we should lean towards using reliable scholarly publications to support the content within the article. I propose that any country not accompanied by at least one or two reliable academic publications should be removed and not appear on any such list of regional or middle powers. At Power (international relations) I removed the nations listed in the regional and middle power categories a few days ago, fortunately nobody has challenged my edit thus far. But we shall see. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I can probably help in improving both articles (the Regional power and the Power (international relations), albeit the former is easier to work on than the latter). To clear up some ignorance: major regional powers (otherwise known as "primary") and secondary regional powers (otherwise known as "secondary") are an important part of IR theory and analysis. Sam Huntington's studies on this topic are the most cited, but other prominent authors include Flemes, Wojczewski, etc. So, the decision to label one country "minor" and another "major" is neither arbitrary nor OR. However, a number of editors have continuously added countries in the lists that should not be in them (probably for nationalistic reasons, but possibly also vandalism). I'll comment more on this later (or ping me if I forget); regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To continue from the above, the image is also a good addition that helps visualize the complexity of the international system. I think that's all I have to say in this topic. Feel free to ask any questions, but please remember to notify me (I will not check this discussion again otherwise). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

4 statements in Gamergate controversy

In the article, 4 statements is claimed to be covered by two articles: vox and time source.

The 4 statements suggested to be support by each quote (updated as per the argument given in talk page):

1. games centering on social issues grew in popularity, and some of these were seen by elements of the hardcore gaming community as not fitting their definition of games by
   1. "And, really, a big part of this debate is about how games are allowed to be art. The indie game scene stretches the definition of games in an industry dominated by massive action blockbusters. Depression Quest and Gone Home keep coming up in this debate because both are, for the most part, devoid of traditional gameplay mechanics. They're less about getting you through a gameplay narrative and more about making you have a particular experience. They're about personal, artistic expression more than a carefully controlled story that apes big-budget movies."
2. The growth of the audience for video games and an increasing perception of their potential as an art form prompted gaming outlets to move towards cultural criticism of the games
   1. "In the past, there was this fictional conception that a reviewer could apply an ‘objective' score to a video game, untainted by any personal bias. Given that games are highly subjective, experiential things, and not mobile phones, this idea is a bit silly to begin with,"
3. A large number of women whose primary gaming interests did not conform to those of the male-oriented gamer identity, and who began to question some of the assumptions and tropes that were historically used by game developers.
   1. "Alexander said. "But then you add into the mix that the historical model of games coverage involved bargains struck between marketing departments at big games companies and the advertising departments of niche games magazines, and it's stunning that the biggest ‘ethical concerns' our audience has ever raised come from an environment where people now do personal, creative writing about independent games."
4. In light of the growing female audience for games, and growing female representation in the gaming industry, outlets became increasingly interested in detailing issues of gender representation in video games
   1. "The film industry is a good comparison point here. That's a world where there are both huge blockbusters and smaller, more intimate films that take chances with the form. Video games are getting there, too. This is, ultimately, just a part of that evolution. And as long as that evolution continues, there will be this sort of fractious debate. Because what #GamerGate is all about isn't who is or isn't a gamer, or what role the press should play. It's about what games should be and who they should be for. And that's worth a real discussion, not just a hashtag."

Repeated request to explain how the two articles are directly supporting the statements has failed to gain any response. The only response is that "that they do". Since I can't see how the statements is supported by the articles, and the two editors that keep pushing them back into the article won't explain their reasoning, maybe someone outside the discussion can read the 2 sources and see if they direct support for the statements, or if its original research based on the two articles. Belorn (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

See my response on the talk page. Artw (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The 4 statements has not been demonstrated as directly supported. If someone who thinks it is supported could make the effort to point where each of the 4 statements are directly supported, it would solve the dispute instantly. If they are directly supported, showing where should not hard. Belorn (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Elton Mayo

In the article Elton Mayo the two close friends outside of Wikipedia psyc12 & iss246 worked in unison and as a 'tag team' to recklessly remove a solid, long term edit regarding the established occupation of psychologist Elton Mayo clearly stated in all of the major published reliable sources. First, psyc12 sneakily removed the first 5 reliable sources and left one and then his friend iss246 snuck in, sneakily, like a fox during the night, and removed the final reliable source, and the long established edit.

On the Elton Mayo talk page there are at least 10 reliable sources including the encyclopedia Brittanica, all clearly stating Elton Mayo is a psychologist!

Psyc12 & his friend iss246 are going around to select articles and removing very specific references which relate to their OHP society and Elton Mayo appears to be in their literature. That's all they do on Wikipedia. They have been branded with COI and as SPAS by administrator Atama in the past. Check their editing histories!

They removed this edit [24] edit with no less than 5 reliable sources attached.

There are many concerned individuals in Australia who don't like the history of their National figures like Elton Mayo 'doctored' as psyc12 & iss246 are currently doing. If nothing else, are all other experienced editors and administrators who are here to supposedly protect the integrity of Wikipedia articles, reading this here and at the this COIN filing and let iss246 & psyc12 blatantly remove a reliably sourced long standing edit with no less than 5 major reliable sources attached? In fact, on the talk page it looks like there are at least 10 reliable sources to this widely accepted fact that Elton Mayo was an Australian born psychologist!

How would American editors feel if an article on George Washington was blatantly vandalised like this by a non US editor?? If this biased and disruptive editing by iss246 who was recently blocked for edit warring and his friend psyc12, is allowed to continue by all administrators here and at COIN we will all write to Wikipedia central to object strongly. Elton Mayo was a Psychologist. Ten reliable, major published sources say so. There are countless others that could be used. Wikipedia is obviously based on what the reliable sources actually say. Not some editor like iss246 & psyc12 want it to say!

Iss246 cannot and has not produced one, single, reliable source clearly stating that he was not a psychologist. Elton Mayo is an Australian icon. Could someone please follow up on this, for the integrity of Wikipedia and for our Australian and other readers?

It would be like some Aussie vandalizing the George Washington article and saying he was not the first President of the United States (1789–1797), the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. And provide not one single, reliable source clearly stating George Washington was not the first President! Thanks for everyone's integrity ahead of time.Truthbringer1 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa

There is an RfC here about whether or not charts on the Ebola epidemic should be removed, on the basis that the underlying data from WHO is under-reported / unreliable. Some of the discussion debates whether some or all of the charts violate WP:NOR. Comments would be welcome, but please comment there, not here. Thanks. -- Kirbett (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Messiah Claimants

Does the entry, Jewish Messiah Claimants contain a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position as original research. If so, this content is prohibited on Wikipedia.

A review of the content and the Talk page suggests that both the criteria for being a Jewish Messiah Claimant and those listed as meeting that nebulous criteria are subjective in nature.

Being encyclopedic would require definitive citation of primary sources. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am altogether unclear about what POV you think the article indicates. If you disagree with the inclusion of any one particular person, discuss it on the talk page. Almost all criteria for inclusion in WP article content are somewhat subjective. WP is not produced by robots. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)