Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 34

Carly Fiorina

A discussion about the appropriateness of possible juxtaposition/SYNTH of certain numbers and figures, related to employees fired and employees hired, is taking place at Talk:Carly Fiorina#Original research regarding jobs at HP. Comments from uninvolded editors would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about it here in this noticeboard section would also be welcome. This seems to me to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to announce that the BLP subject fired 30,000 people without mentioning the very well-publicized (and juxtaposed) fact that she also hired tens of thousands of people. Here is the material at issue in the lead, which I think is perfectly appropriate:

“ Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the 2002 merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 U.S. employees.[1][2] By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001.[3][4][5][6] ”

[1]Rushe, Dominic (March 29, 2015). "Ex-HP chief Carly Fiorina sets sights on Clinton as she nears presidential run". The Guardian.

[2]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010).

[3]Abcarian, Robin. "Profits may not equal success", The Los Angeles Times (May 20, 2010): "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000."

[4]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010): "According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. Net gain? In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'….It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad."

[5]Kessler, Glenn. "Carly Fiorina's misleading claims about her business record", The Washington Post (May 8, 2015): "[T]he number of [HP] employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The last source above nails it pretty well, but without that context, a juxtaposition is OR. We should not connect any dots, we need to let our sources do that. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're referring to. Look at the quoted stuff above from the last source (Kessler's report in WaPo). He talks about both the 30,000 fired and the 8,000 hired via acquisition, which you say is synth in our lead. Plus he compares the combined employment at HP and Compaq before and after the merger, which you also say is synth. Same for the other sources quoted above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Using a source to draw the conclusion that that source explicitly states is not WP:SYNTH; but pulling a fact out of a source and using it to imply a conclusion that isn't in the source is WP:SYNTH. Therefore, we can cite the Politifact and WaPo sources to conclude that Fiorina fudged the numbers to make misleading claims about her business record and that she fired large numbers of people during her tenure; we cannot cite them (as you seem to want to) to make a statement that seems to imply "it was fine, the number of employees was about the same as the pre-merger total." That technically repeats a fact from the sources, but alters its context in a way that changes the meaning. That would be WP:SYNTH. You say in the talk page that this "seems simply to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to proclaim that she fired thousands of people while deliberately omitting that she also hired thousands." But what the sources say is that she actually merged companies (acquiring the people who already worked there) and then fired people as a result, not that she hired people; taking that out of context to say "look, she hired people!!" is clear WP:SYNTH. If you want a source extolling her virtue for hiring people, you need to find one that says it explicitly rather than trying to read it into sources that are unequivocally saying the opposite. --Aquillion (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast... citing the Politifact and WaPo sources for a conclusion that Fiorina fudged the numbers might pass WP:OR... but I don't think they pass WP:NPOV if stated as fact. The conclusion that she fudged the numbers is opinion, and should be phrased as such (and attributed). That opinion can be balanced by stating the opinions (with attribution) of other sources that draw a contrary conclusion.

That said... I don't think any of this belongs in the article's lead. Putting it in the lead give the entire issue UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing it all from the lead would be fine with me. As long as it's in the lead, it should be neutral, which is what I've tried to ensure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bubsy reception sections

I'm a little concerned about Bubsy in Claws Encounters of the Furred Kind#Reception, Bubsy 2#Reception and Bubsy in Fractured Furry Tales#Recption. I remember playing the first two games back in the day, and enjoying them -- word of mouth among my friends, and in the magazines I read at the time, was pretty good. And it seems the articles, when they cite early reviews, are pretty positive. But the character and the franchise have developed a bad reputation in recent years because of the later 3D game and the animated series that I didn't even know existed. Particularly the article on the first game says the game has received a negative reception in later years, but the article linked is clearly a retrospective on the character, and focuses most of its ire on the later iterations -- it's not a review of the game in question.

Posting it here rather than RSN (the fact that the sources are all opinion pieces apparently randomly cherry-picked means RSN might have been a good place for it) because citing sources that aren't actually about the subject in question but about a related subject seems problematic. Discussion of how the early games in the franchise were received at the time, and how opinions on the franchise as a whole have changed in recent years belongs in the hub article for the series, when no recent negative reviews of the individual games can be located. That reception section is currently only two lines long, and is incredibly negative, given how our articles on the earlier games all specify the games were better received in the years immediately following their release.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Zouk

Please could someone could look at this. OR has been being restored (eg here) (and a good RS removed altogether) in the place of reliably-sourced content. Having spent time and energies today trying to improve [1] (to this) a page that, to me at least, was largely unintelligible and was tagged to be completely rewritten [2], I now do not feel disposed to enter a potentially tricky and damaging talk-page discussion with a regular of the page (User:Pintade), whose gf comments I find somewhat hard to understand anyway. Hence this request. Thank you, 31.49.14.137 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pioneer anomaly

Pioneer anomaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My removal of original research was reverted.

The section in question is sourced completely to papers that cannot possibly address the scientific consensus solution for the anomalous acceleration because they were written before the solution was published. As such, I think it highly irresponsible that Wikipedia include this kind of argumentation.

jps (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Big body theory

The article Big Body Theory has recently been created. I'm concerned that the term returns precisely zero results on Google Scholar, and very little on a general Google search. At first inspection, it is impressively references, but I am concerned that there is synthesis and original research going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that "big body" barely appears in the titles of the sources or in the quotes in the references section, and "big body theory" does not appear at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am very concerned about this article. I really wanted to slap a Speedy on it as OR or a Hoax. Instead, I did ask DGG on his talk page about his take on the article. He is smarter than me about these things. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Body Theory. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously going to be snow deleted, but matches no speedy category. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article Big Body Theory is a clarification of an important theory that has been out there for quite some time, although perhaps the definition is clarifed in this well referenced piece. I recall taking part in a discussion on the theory way back in the early 90's, and I think it is a quite useful and accurate way of perceiving our human predicament. Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful" is an earlier articulation, so is Lewis Mumford. Even Max Gerson's monumental research on curing cancer, is echoed in this theory. It clarifies some very important ideas which should be easier to find. If Google fails to find anything on "Big Body Theory" then I would fault Google. Yahoo can find it. Carol Brouillet) 10:42, 26 September 2015

Max Gerson was a cancer quack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on Max Gerson. Anyone referring to Max Gerson's work as "monumental research" is probably wrong about whatever he's arguing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just confirming ...we also have an article on Galileo. At what point did we decide Galileo was not a quack and in fact had contributed some monumental research? Just checking on what brand of lodestone you're using to definitively pass judgement on the value of this article? evox

Right, if indeed Gerson was wrong about some things (diet is still an important factor in health and healing), it does not make Lewis Mumford, Shumacher or Big Body Theory wrong. No guilt by association here. I think BBT is an important clarification and naming of a concept that has been with us a very long time which has been identified as a problem for humanity. As Sophocles said, "Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse." Those seeking solutions are talking about Network Governance and Ecological Monetary Systems all of which speak to the importance of democracy. I don't see how naming such a concept could be considered a hoax nor delving into it with deeper explanations not considered original. It would seem that the very fact that you cannot find much on it in a cyber-search would be evidence that it was indeed original. Greenmemenastics

You are breaking Rumpole's First Law: Never Plead Guilty. I think you've conclusively demonstrated this doesn't belong here. Anmccaff (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

MacKeeper - Linkedin & Zoomink as sources

A suggestion came about to refer a discussion item brought up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Linkedin_.2F_Zoolink to this location regarding whether a case constitutes OR. Looking for feedback on whether the statement debated at MacKeeper (and below) as to whether employing Linkedin / Zoominfo as the source is reliable or constitutes original research.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"According to their linkedin profiles, the CEO of Kromtech, senior executives and nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profies) are based in Ukraine."

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Linkedin does not take any steps to verify the identity of the individual signing up for an account (except, maybe, check that the signer-upper has access to the claimed email account. Thus there is no proof the linkedin account actually belongs to the purported owner. I don't know about Zoominfo. Also, to view the full profile (or sometimes anything at all) one must sign up for Linkedin, so this information should be considered unpublished. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it's original research per my comments in the original RSN thread.- user talk:MrX|X]] 20:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jc3s5h, Regarding LinkedIn not taking steps to verify the identify of the individual - Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources because I think it addresses this. Self published Social network profiles can be used as source on themselves in limited circumstances (see 5 criteria which are met in this case). The test for inclusion as a source is not whether there is 'proof the LinkedIn account actually belongs to the purported owner' but whether 'There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.' Do you have a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the profiles? Re needing a LinkedIn account to see some of the information I think it still ok to use as a source because [[8]] states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf ". Can you take a look at these Wikipedia Policies and let us know if you think there is a reason they don't here? FYI The article has been updated as follows:Tonyjkent (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

According to their linkedin profiles the Management Team, of Kromtech (CEO, VP Technology and VP Business Development) are based in Ukraine. According to LinkedIn, nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profies) are also based in Ukraine."

I have a doubt about all online personal information. Unless the person has somehow associated him/herself with an online site in some reliable source, I am not willing to believe a website containing personal information is actually under the control of the person named in the site. As far as being difficult to access, there is a difference between visiting a library or buying something and agreeing to the extensive terms and conditions associated with social media websites. By analogy, it's OK to use a religious book, but it's not OK to use a religious book that is only available to members of the religion. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Original research is when a claim is not supported by reliable sources. LinkedIn profiles are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF statements, assuming there's not a reasonable suspicion they are impersonations. However, characterizing multiple profiles such as "nearly all employees..." is a separate claim about a set of claims. It is not itself a claim made by the source, and would not be in scope for ABOUTSELF even if it were. Rhoark (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "nearly all employees are in Ukraine" is a summary of the claims of the profiles (each profile say where the employee is). It's not a separate claim. It's an easily verifiable summary. In that case the individual claims are the verification of the summary . See WP:NOTSYNC " It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources". Which of these conditions for Summary isn't met? Tonyjkent (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC) If the indivial [[WP:ABOUTSELF] sources say X=a , X=a, X=a, X=a ,X=a, X=a..and X=b then saying 'nearly all X=a' is cleary a summary of the individual claims. Its not a new idea. Tonyjkent (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTSYNTH is an explanatory guide for OR. Although it's usually en pointe, in this case its more important to focus on the fundamental definition of OR: a claim unsupported by the sources. I don't think summarizing a group of ABOUTSELF sources should be usable to advance a claim that none of the sources individually would be reliable for, if they were to make the claim explicitly. Rhoark (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I totally agree with 'I don't think summarizing a group of ABOUTSELF sources should be usable to advance a claim that none of the sources individually would be reliable for, if they were to make the claim explicitly'. In this case the individual sources meet the 5 criteria at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves (I think only one editor expressed doubts as to the authenticity of all linkedin profiles). Either way, I think the discussion on the reliability of individual Linkedin profiles is for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Linkedin_.2F_Zoolink. I want to try and be clear when we are discussing 'An individual linkedIn profile as a reliable source' WP:RS versus 'Nearly all employees' is synthesis or summary of the 122 linkedin profiles WP:OR. Thanks Tonyjkent (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Re 'in this case its more important to focus on the fundamental definition of OR' - I think both are important for different part of the claim. I see it as a two step process. I think we use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves to determine if individual linkedin profiles are reliable sources (according to the 5 crtieria) for citing the location of the person in the profile. Then if the individual profiles are are generally considered reliable (there's always the chance of a few of them being fake I suppose), then we use we use Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary to determine if "nearly all employees..." is synth or summary of those reliable sources. Anyway, that's the way I've been analysing the issue.Tonyjkent (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How many employees don't have LinkedIn profiles? How close to all does it need to be to be "nearly all"? It's not just summary if you have to fill in gaps. Backing off from "nearly all" to "many" would be perfectly acceptable (w.r.t. OR at least). Rhoark (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstading about which sources support the "According to LinkedIn, early all employees (with LinkedIn profiles) as also based in Ukraine" claim ?

Note: This discussion is about Original Research via Synthesis vs Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary . The discussion on LinkedIn profiles as a reliable source can be continued on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Linkedin_.2F_Zoolink

Hi folks, it occurred to me that that the way the citations are presented at the top of this discussion isn't quite how it's in the actual article. I was wondering if people thought I was combining all 5 sources mentioned at the top of this discussion as citation for "nearly all employees are in Ukraine" (hence comments on WP:RSN about 'stitching together a bunch of unrelated social media pages' and 'cobble together'). The actual article uses just one citation for the 'nearly all employee claim' as follows:

According to LinkedIn, nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profies) are also based in Ukraine."

The citation above is the Linkedin search result for all employees of Kromtech. It returns the 122 profiles of Kromtech employees along with their location. The locations can be verified by drilling down into each profile. Hence I'm not cobbling together unrelated sources. This is why I'm arguing I only summarized the locations of the 122 profiles provided by LinkedIn. It seems to me the claim 'nearly all employees' is a easily verifiable claim, albeit from self published sources . Considering just the one citation in the paragraph above, do you think "nearly all employees" is WP:SYNTH and not Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary? THanks Tonyjkent (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

So, quintessential WP:OR. I get the impression the OP Tonyjkent is unwilling to heed advice on this. Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC); ammended 07:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, what's the point of putting a box around all those references? Are you saying its quintessential WP:OR because all those references were combined to form a conclusion? Only one of those references is used a citation for "nearly all employees are in Ukraine". The way the OP framed the references isn't incorrect. No one is using all those references to reach a conclusion about the location of 'nearly all the employees'. Tonyjkent (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This has already been answered. A search results page is not a source. You can't use it. - MrX 01:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This also has already been answered. The search results are just a pointer to the 122 individual sources so that the article doesn't get clogged up with 122 individual citations. The article is not helped by 122 individual citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyjkent (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stephen2nd/Nazi Party nobility

Strikes me as pretty clearly OR, but others suggest I bring the matter to this board's attention. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Polish census of 1931

Claims of Original Research were raised by Iryna Harpy and Faustian on the talk page over a year ago for simply translating and reporting a national census from the original. Recent revisions calculating the relevant percentages of the population by reported first language and religion have recently been reverted by the same editors with the same objection. Diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&diff=prev&oldid=684789230 Similar comments were made on the talk page by IrynaHarpy claiming simply translating a document published in French and Polish is OR. (These editors insist that the census categories of "Ukrainian" and "Ruthenian" should be combined in to one category, rather than two separate categories in fidelity to the published census.) and also claim OR for calculating the percentages. No argument or objection has been made to the math of the calculated percentages from the census numbers which is legit per WP:CALC. The original research here was done by the Polish Statistical Office in the 1930's, and it simply is being re-reported here. This is not a violation of OR, and it is standard practice to cite extensively from a national census on it WP page. (See 2010 United States Census) My concern is that OR objection has been made to censor the reported data from the census. I don't have a problem with a discussion of claims of criticism and controversy related to the census, but using erroneous claims of OR should not be accepted here to censor re-publication of what raised the issues. Neither editor will engage in discussion on the talk page for the census, but have engaged in talk related to the same on users' talk pages. I would like more eyes on this page to comment. Do we need special rules on OR for a census WP page?Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [Edit to not both Iryna Harpy and Faustian have been notified of this discussion]Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Er, Doctor Franklin, you appear to have redacted a number of editors who disagree with you from this WP:POINTy list of the accused editors. Should I elaborate on who they are and ping them about this 'notification'?... as well as note that you are telling rather big fibs about what the issues are? Should we also discuss the fact that you're edit warring on a couple of articles (at least) using multiple IP's? This isn't for the NORN board, it's an issue for the ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of any editors who wish familiarise themselves with the issue, as well as establish a genuine reflection of the number of editors involved in discussions, please see the article's actual talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Of the many editors discussing the matter on the talk, only the two cited here have objected or reverted the page claiming OR. They appear to be reacting emotionally to the topic. The talk page shows a clear consensus to use the original census data to illustrate the category of "mother tongue" through tables or charts. The two editors named here have not noted a specific error or problem despite the claim above of "telling big fibs" or claims of extrapolation on the talk page. The OR claim here is very much WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. From the broader issue of the WP project, I believe that we may need to refine the primary source guidelines to reflect existing standard practice on other censuses in order to avoid future disruption to census pages from those with emotional reactions to census reports of languages, religions, ethnic groups, etc.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: very basically there are two main pronunciations of standard, native, first language English: AE and BE - and I did say 'basically' so let's not invite a 'tiresome discussion' about the merits of one over the other, particularly over the marked shift from H.M. The Queen's RP as a young girl, to that of her grandsons, and let's use this juncture to do away with Kwami's insistence that Brits should pronounce their 1000 year old English city names with an American rhotic accent. Secondly, while traditional leading print dictionaries used to be proud enough to invent their own pronunciation schemes, globalisation over the last 50 years accelerated by the Internet and world-wide TV transmissions, and the exponential increase in TESOL, the IPA has become (if you'll all forgive the ironic pun) the lingua franca of pronunciation. I used it already in the language textbooks I was publishing 20 years ago. As a retired linguist and lexicographer I rest my case and I'll vote accordingly on a formal RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my position or the situation here. I made one reversion: [9] with the edit summary "restore previous version, pending discussion." You were also reverted here by a third editor: [10] with the summary "Talk page please. conversation has been happening there for a while".Faustian (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Faustian can regale us with how I misrepresented his position? Faustian wrote on the talk page, "The IP engages in OR using primary sources...Faustian (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Regarding_manipulation Faustian reverted over a year later without further discussion on the talk page. For over a year after the objections of Faustian and Iryna Harpy, many other editors edited the page without agreeing with the contention of these two editors that special rules applied to a document from the Polish government published in Polish. Thus, the consensus was that it was acceptable to translate the document, and re-report the results published by the Polish government. When that same information was put in a chart form with WP:CALC percentages, there was again an attempt to reverse the consensus on that point, without meaningful discussion on the talk page rather than constructive criticism of what was posted. (And I did remove some text in response to Iryna Harpy's comments on her talk page.) Since the third reverter failed to engage in discussion on the talk page, those comments were considered nothing more than a drive by POV blanking. Since there was an attempt to reverse consensus, the burden was on those trying to revert to form consensus on the talk page that special rules applied to documents from the Polish government.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My words from over a year ago: ""The IP engages in OR using primary sources " were in reference to your behavior on other articles and in statements such as this [11]: "In doing so, they demonstrate their own POV and agenda, which is particularly noticeable in the disappearance of the non-Ukrainian Ruthenians. Where did they go? Siberia? Kazakhstan? Former German territory in post war Poland? Executed? Emigrated to the West? These questions need answers, and not the typical nationalist Ukrainian white-washing of history." You are clearly pushing some kind of fringe view the 1+ million "Ruthenians" on the Polish census were a nationality separate from Ukrainians that somehow disappeared through ethnic cleansing. Your efforts here and on the article are an attempt by you to push this fringe view. Also, Referring to the third editor's edit as "POV blanking" is an assumption of bad faith. By " many other editors" do you refer you the numerous IPs you use to edit? Those seem to be the ones adding the contentious stuff. It seems that you struggle to gain consensus on the article over many years. Faustian (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of "A Biography of No Place", in which Kate Brown insists that we cannot know the past of the Kresy by looking at the present homogenized people and culture: “Kate Brown tells the story of how succeeding regimes transformed a onetime multiethnic borderland into a far more ethnically homogeneous region through their often murderous imperialist and nationalist projects. She writes evocatively of the inhabitants’ frequently challenged identities and livelihoods and gives voice to their aspirations and laments, including Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, Jews, and Russians. A Biography of No Place is a provocative meditation on the meanings of periphery and center in the writing of history.”—Mark von Hagen, Professor of History, Columbia University http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674019492&content=reviews I will not take credit for what others did.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No mention of "Ruthenians" or of "Ruthenians" being a different ethnicity from Ukrainians. Actually, a googlebook search indicates that the term "Ruthenians" isn't even used in that book.Faustian (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kate Brown got access to the Soviet archives and noted the homogenization of these languages in a Biography Of No Place. She noted a group of Catholics in the region who spoke a transitional Polish-Ukrainian language. The Soviets first labeled them Poles and educated them in standard Polish. Then, they declared them Ukrainians, and educated them in standard Ukrainian. She noted that the people were difficult to classify in the region, but the various governing groups were constantly trying to place them in categories that didn't quite fit. You appear to be pushing a nationalist POV here that fails to appreciate the ethnic diversity of the region, and misstates the ethnic situation in the Second Polish Repubic: "Thus, Ukrainains in Poland had representation at the higest levels of government. (The vice-marshal of the Polish Sejm, Vasyl Mudryi, was Ukrainian.) That they did not hold more seats was due in part to the fact that a good number of the Ukrainian people voted for Polish lists, especially in the 1930 parliamentary elections. In addition, about 10 percent of the Ruthenian population tended to vote for lists put forth by Ruthenian groups, who did not consider themselves Ukrainian and were opposed to the Ukrainian separtist movement. These groups were always loyal to Poland." Tadeusz Piotrowski, "Polands Holocaust" (1998) https://books.google.com/books?id=hC0-dk7vpM8C&pg=PR14&dq=Polish+census+ukrainians+1931&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyEoVKP9GpD4yQSAHw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ruthenian&f=false

I believe user Doctor Franklin is editing in good faith on this topic. The published data on the 1931 Polish census for religion and language by province were published in Poland in Polish and French. This is a reliable secondary source. I see no problem posting these figures as long as we remain faithful to the source. The dispute arose over the category in the census over the "Ruski" language( this is not Russian-rosyiski which is another category on the census) which was known at that time in English as Ruthenian and is today synonymous with Ukrainian in modern historical sources. Nobody in the Western Ukraine today uses the term "Ruski" when describing their language or national identity. For example some Americans identify as "African American" or "Black", in 1930 their grandparents referred to themselves as "negro" or "colored", terms that are viewed as pejorative today. The Polish census of 1931 listed the paternal/native language of persons, the language most often used. For example 17% of Jews listed Polish as their native language and are included as "Poles" by some historians. We also need to see a table by religion which would give the readers a more realistic view of ethnic identity in prewar Poland .--Woogie10w (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Franklin wants to use the 1931 census to breakout the population of the regions in the east of Poland that were ceded to the USSR in 1945. I pointed out to him that he is spinning wheels in his attempt to derive this data. The Polish government in 1941 did publish data on the territories occupied by the USSR but these figures include a portion returned to Poland in 1945. The US Census Bureau did publish a study in 1954 which gave a breakout by language and religion of the territory which was ceded to the USSR in 1945. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this is about publishing from the original 1931 census EXACTLY. There are population summaries for each major city and voivod: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polish_census_of_1931 See discussion on the talk page again. This is about what was reverted by these editors, which had nothing to do with land seized by occupying Soviet troops without consent of the legitimate Polish government in London.Doctor Franklin (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The US Census report on Poland is a a reliable source based on that fact that it received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer . [12]---Woogie10w (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please clarify your position a little further, Woogie10w. Given that Doctor Franklin was misusing this noticeboard in order to cast WP:ASPERSIONS on both Faustian and myself, in supporting him as being a good faith editor, are you - conversely - supporting his assertion that Faustian and I were the only editors who reverted his content additions and changes, and that he is correct in targeting us here, here and here, characterising our position on the issue as being grounded in our "ethnic animus" (sic), and ipso facto being bad faith editors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What I actually stated, "Of the many editors discussing the matter on the talk, only the two cited here have objected or reverted the page claiming OR. They appear to be reacting emotionally to the topic."Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeating, "The two editors named here have not noted a specific error or problem despite the claim above of "telling big fibs" or claims of extrapolation on the talk page."Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my position or the situation here. I made one reversion: [13] with the edit summary "restore previous version, pending discussion." You were also reverted here by a third editor: [14] with the summary "Talk page please. conversation has been happening there for a while".Faustian (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Faustian can regale us with how I misrepresented his position? Faustian wrote on the talk page, "The IP engages in OR using primary sources...Faustian (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Regarding_manipulation Faustian reverted over a year later without further discussion on the talk page. For over a year after the objections of Faustian and Iryna Harpy, many other editors edited the page without agreeing with the contention of these two editors that special rules applied to a document from the Polish government published in Polish. Thus, the consensus was that it was acceptable to translate the document, and re-report the results published by the Polish government. When that same information was put in a chart form with WP:CALC percentages, there was again an attempt to reverse the consensus on that point, without meaningful discussion on the talk page rather than constructive criticism of what was posted. (And I did remove some text in response to Iryna Harpy's comments on her talk page.) Since the third reverter failed to engage in discussion on the talk page, those comments were considered nothing more than a drive by POV blanking. Since there was an attempt to reverse consensus, the burden was on those trying to revert to form consensus on the talk page that special rules applied to documents from the Polish government.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My words from over a year ago: ""The IP engages in OR using primary sources " were in reference to your behavior on other articles and in statements such as this [15]: "In doing so, they demonstrate their own POV and agenda, which is particularly noticeable in the disappearance of the non-Ukrainian Ruthenians. Where did they go? Siberia? Kazakhstan? Former German territory in post war Poland? Executed? Emigrated to the West? These questions need answers, and not the typical nationalist Ukrainian white-washing of history." You are clearly pushing some kind of fringe view the 1+ million "Ruthenians" on the Polish census were a nationality separate from Ukrainians that somehow disappeared through ethnic cleansing. Your efforts here and on the article are an attempt by you to push this fringe view. Also, Referring to the third editor's edit as "POV blanking" is an assumption of bad faith. By " many other editors" do you refer you the numerous IPs you use to edit? Those seem to be the ones adding the contentious stuff. It seems that you struggle to gain consensus on the article over many years.Faustian (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of "A Biography of No Place", in which Kate Brown insists that we cannot know the past of the Kresy by looking at the present homogenized people and culture: “Kate Brown tells the story of how succeeding regimes transformed a onetime multiethnic borderland into a far more ethnically homogeneous region through their often murderous imperialist and nationalist projects. She writes evocatively of the inhabitants’ frequently challenged identities and livelihoods and gives voice to their aspirations and laments, including Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, Jews, and Russians. A Biography of No Place is a provocative meditation on the meanings of periphery and center in the writing of history.”—Mark von Hagen, Professor of History, Columbia University http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674019492&content=reviews I will not take credit for what others did. Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No mention of "Ruthenians" or of "Ruthenians" being a different ethnicity from Ukrainians. Actually, a googlebook search indicates that the term "Ruthenians" isn't even used in that book.Faustian (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kate Brown got access to the Soviet archives and noted the homogenization of these languages in a Biography Of No Place. She noted a group of Catholics in the region who spoke a transitional Polish-Ukrainian language. The Soviets first labeled them Poles and educated them in standard Polish. Then, they declared them Ukrainians, and educated them in standard Ukrainian. She noted that the people were difficult to classify in the region, but the various governing groups were constantly trying to place them in categories that didn't quite fit. You appear to be pushing a nationalist POV here that fails to appreciate the ethnic diversity of the region, and misstates the ethnic situation in the Second Polish Repubic: "Thus, Ukrainains in Poland had representation at the higest levels of government. (The vice-marshal of the Polish Sejm, Vasyl Mudryi, was Ukrainian.) That they did not hold more seats was due in part to the fact that a good number of the Ukrainian people voted for Polish lists, especially in the 1930 parliamentary elections. In addition, about 10 percent of the Ruthenian population tended to vote for lists put forth by Ruthenian groups, who did not consider themselves Ukrainian and were opposed to the Ukrainian separtist movement. These groups were always loyal to Poland."Tadeusz Piotrowski, "Polands Holocaust" (1998) https://books.google.com/books?id=hC0-dk7vpM8C&pg=PR14&dq=Polish+census+ukrainians+1931&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyEoVKP9GpD4yQSAHw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ruthenian&f=false

Trying not to take sides in this long-running debate, but a comment is in order: When a government conducts a census, the documents or forms where information about individuals is recorded are primary documents sources, but the report issued by the government after the data has been analyzed is a secondary document source. (Note: edited for clarity)  | ✉ | ✓  04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Etamni you appear to be mistaken. WP:PRIMARY: " a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. " A primary source is not the raw data (such as surveys, or in this case the census forms) used in the study (the census), but the published study itself. So the published census in the primary source. Not the raw data used by the authors of the census. The secondary sources are scholarly works about the census, and a tertiary source would be a general works such as Encyclopedia Britannica that summarizes what secondary sources conclude.Faustian (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, thank you for the clarification--Woogie10w (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni: When the results were introduced initially, it was the primary source that was drawn on. As for the analysis being drawn on now, yes, that constitutes a secondary source. The primary issue at stake is that it is a 1936 census, the veracity of which has been questioned by a number of historians as the methodology for ethnic self-identification and languages spoken as being questionable in themselves (remembering that the majority of adult peasants would have been illiterate, and that the likelihood that households would have received a questionnaire to be filled out in the privacy of their own home in a language they could communicate in is zero to none). Therefore, while the published analysis may be WP:RS in that sense, does it not make it a WP:BIASED source to be treated with care drawing on the scholarly debate over its accuracy? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Non, You want it to be the primary source, but the census forms from the enumerators are the primary source, the published census is the secondary source, the historians commenting on the original published census, are tertiary sources of very limited usefullness, and not to be used to contradict the original, and the historians commenting based upon other tertiary sources that the census had a flaw in its methodology for "ethnic self-identification" are worthless because the census never intended to measure ethnicity. Also note that historians are not necessarily trained ethnographers or ethnologists. Please regale us with a RS that the census was conducted by mail. This sounds like your OR.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If we post to Wikipedia that historian Mary Doe says bla bla ba re the Polish census, the schedule from the Polish Census office used to illustrate her analysis is acceptable.

If Historian Mary Doe researches and studies the original census surveys, then publishes about it, she is a secondary source. If she reads the published census itself and comments on it, she is the tertiary source. If she reads a tertiary source, like comments from another historian or reads excerpts from the U.S. Census Office, and makes statements that the census had a failed methodology for determining ethnicity, when it never intended to measure ethnicity, then her opinion is worthless.

If editor Joe Shmow posts some unsupported remarks re the Polish census and uses schedule from the Polish Census office to support his OR, this is clearly unacceptable.

If Joe Shmow researches and studies the original census surveys, then publishes about it on WP, it is OR. If he cites from the published census, it is RS secondary source.

IMO this topic should not be here at all. It is an unnecessary waste of time for Iryna, Faustian and myself. Editor Dr. Franklin needs to go back to the talk page of the Polish Census of 1931 with reliable sources to support his POV and not to expect this NO OR notice page to give him a green light for his OR. He is a good faith editor that needs to become familiar with the rules on Wikipedia.

The claim of OR was raised on the talk page. The broader community can now judge the issue.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets get back to improving the article and end this food fight--Woogie10w (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Returning to Iryna Harpy's contention on her talk page that translations are OR: "It is not an English language document, and is written using Polish and French nomenclature. Your translations are WP:OR simply because, in the document, the Polish nomenclature and the French nomenclature used by the Polish census office for Ruthenes and Ruski, etc., needs to be qualified by WP:RS, not by you." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iryna_Harpy#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 Can we all agree that this was not correct since the OR page says it is not: "Translations and transcriptions Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions Now, I did put that quote directly on her talk page... Can we all agree that Iryna Harpy has misunderstood that rule, or does she contend that this rule is inapplicable to documents from the Polish government or Polish authors published in Polish? This is an important point, because accepting the normal rule will require that Iryna Harpy assume good faith of other editors on the page who are quite capable of translating standard Polish words like polski, ukrainski, ruski, bialoruski, rosyjski, czeski, litewski, niemiecki, zydowski, hebrajski to Polish, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Belarussian, Russian, Czech, Lithuanian, German, Yiddish, and Hebrew. If she does not accept the normal rule means that documents from the Polish government and Polish scholars may be excluded from consideration without a translation into English by someone that Iryna Harpy and Faustian accept as RS, which will continue to disrupt the page.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The only precedent potentially being set is the allowance of OR under duress. Considering that I've added Polish language sources as references (using my own translations) in order to enhance articles makes your contention ludicrous. What is at issue is not the straight forward use of sources in languages other than English, but the massaging of meaning where there are RS establishing that a straight translation of the source is misleading. The meanings you are trying to ascribe are contested as being politically motivated by scholars who are experts in the field: you are not the expert. Go back to the ongoing discussion on the relevant talk page and stop abusing this noticeboard. You are manipulating its purpose. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Ma Chéri, the precedent being set here is that you admit to translating words when it advances your POV, but make false claims of OR when it doesn't. This is about WP:WINNING with you. The language categories only have one translation in this context. What the Ruthenian language (or likely languages) were is for scholars to debate. What cannot be denied is that a group of people existed and identified their language as "Ruthenian" not "Ukrainian". You WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, but WP isn't WP:CENSORED.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have six reliable sources that group the Ukrainians and Ruthenians together as "Ukrainian" There was no separate language Ruthenian. The term Ruthenian was used by some persons for the Ukrainian language.

• Norman Davies Gods Playground Vol. 2 P406
• Pitor Eberhardt Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe: History, Data and Analysis: History, Data and Analysis Pages 113 and 117
• Robert Magocsi Historical Atlas of East Central Europe (History of East Central Europe) P. 131
• Polish government in exile, Mały rocznik statystyczny Polski : wrzesień 1939 - czerwiec 1941 [London]: p.9
• Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947 pages 294 and 353

• US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland Ed. W. Parker Mauldin, Washington-1954. pp. 74,75, 148 and 149 (The US Census report on Poland is a a reliable source based on that fact that it received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer . [16]

I can send jpgs via Dropbox of these cited sources. Please contact me by Wiki E mail. The sources speak for themselves, we do not need to blog all day about this.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The data from the 1931 Polish census is a primary source. According this City Univ of NY guide on the use of sources, "census statistics" are a primary source. [17] We need to see academic analysis of the 1931 Polish census by reliable academic sources rather than depending on the musings of Dr. Franklin on primary source materials.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you have misrepresented City Univ of NY on this. Only the original survey forms from the census are OR. The published report is secondary, and it is standard practice here on WP to cite the published census as RS on itself and what it reported. Why should a Polish census be treated differently? You are misstating Pitrowski: "Thus, Ukrainains in Poland had representation at the higest levels of government. (The vice-marshal of the Polish Sejm, Vasyl Mudryi, was Ukrainian.) That they did not hold more seats was due in part to the fact that a good number of the Ukrainian people voted for Polish lists, especially in the 1930 parliamentary elections. In addition, about 10 percent of the Ruthenian population tended to vote for lists put forth by Ruthenian groups, who did not consider themselves Ukrainian and were opposed to the Ukrainian separatist movement. These groups were always loyal to Poland." Tadeusz Piotrowski, "Polands Holocaust" (1998) https://books.google.com/books?id=hC0-dk7vpM8C&pg=PR14&dq=Polish+census+ukrainians+1931&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyEoVKP9GpD4yQSAHw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ruthenian&f=false He clearly notes two separate categories which he combines from the census:https://books.google.com/books?id=hC0-dk7vpM8C&pg=PR14&dq=Polish+census+ukrainians+1931&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyEoVKP9GpD4yQSAHw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ruthenian&f=false Of course, Polish historians who interview witnesses in the region also note the differnce, including threats of violence by the Ukrainain nationalists against the ethnic Ruthenians opposed to their separatist movement: 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. That is not my OR, but you wish to cite a foreign governments re-interpretation of the 1931 Census 23 years later without any evidence that they examined the original census surveys or questioned the enumerators, which is to say they reclassified the secondary published report. Thus that is to say this is a tertiary source not to be used to impeach the original for political reasons (The Second Red Scare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#Second_Red_Scare_.281947.E2.80.9357.29). No one on the talk page has agreed with you on this point. It is an extraordinary thing for one government to re-interpret another nation's census like this 23 YEARS LATER! Kate Brown's more recent account from the Soviet archives in "A Biography of No Place" is contrary to the assumptions of those at the U.S. Census office. Eberhardt is a geographer who specifically noted that his work was not for use ethnography or ethnology, which is exactly what you want to use that source for and have no consensus to do so in the talk page. Lastly note usage of the term "Ukrainian" includes geographical, political, and ethnic meanings. Timothy Snyder notes his usage of that term carefully on pg. ix of "The Reconstruction Of Nations". He clearly did not state he intended the word to mean ethnicity, and other authors may also not intend an ethnic meaning to the word.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit to note that over a year ago, the U.S. Census's above mentioned tertiary work was replaced by the editors of the page with the data from the published Polish census of 1931. Only one person here wants to return to using that inaccurate, dated, and politically biased source instead of the original published census. Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Guys, you need to back up for a moment. "Secondary" is WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. "Primary" is not some fancy Wikipedia way of saying "bad source". And if you are adding material that really, truly is published in some other source—say, a primary source from a census bureau–then it is absolutely not original research. WP:Original research is when you add material that is not published in any source at all.

Original census forms, and even a number of original census reports, are indeed primary sources. You are allowed to use primary sources sometimes. In fact, primary sources happen to be the most authoritative and best possible sources for some kinds of claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The objection I have is that user Doctor Franklin is proposing OR using the census data that is not backed up with another published reliable source. I have cited six reliable sources that group Ukrainian and Ruthenian together. I can E mail page copies via Dropbox. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not original research. It might be many other policy violations, most especially including WP:UNDUE, but it is not original research. If the Wikipedia article says "X", and any source in the whole world—including a source that isn't even cited!—says (exactly) "X", then it's not original research. Original research == putting something in a Wikipedia article that is not present in any published source. If it's present in even one published source (yes, just one, in any language, in the whole history of the world), then it cannot actually be original research.

But what worries me about this dispute is that there's so much effort being spent on getting the source "labeled". Instead of arguing over whether the census report is primary or secondary (answer: different fields give it different labels), or whether this is original research or some other policy violation, I think that your time would be better spent talking about what an ideal source would look like, and seeing whether you can find that even-better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, can you please look at 1930 United States Census and tell me how we can remove the refs to that census and improve the page since its all OR or a violation of WP:PRIMARY according to these editors? How many communist social scientists should we cite as RS on it so we can remove the actual census report tables?Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, all well and good. The Polish census has the language descriptions Ukrainian and Ruthenian. Reliable secondary sources combine them because they are descriptions of the same language. Reliable sources Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland's Holocaust: and the US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland point out that the description Ruthenian was used by persons who were loyal to Poland while Ukrainian was used by those who were nationalists. A good analogy would be the United States in the 1960's when the term "Black" became used instead of "Negro".--Woogie10w (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit that was deleted is an example of the OR and extreme POV of user Doctor Franklin [18] , --Woogie10w (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to Doctor Franklin that reliable sources Pitor Eberhardt Ethnic Groups and Population Changes, Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland's Holocaust: and the US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland maintain that the 1931 census classified Ukrainians and Belorussians as Poles and was unreliable. Doctor Franklin dismisses these reliable sources and put forward his own OR that this was a conspiracy theory of the Polish Jew Hartglas and the communists in Poland who made the claim that the census was falsified. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There you go again using the ORNB to lobby for sources other than the Census itself to report its results. You consider the Polish census OR, when it was the work of the Polish Statistical Office. Again, in short, Eberhardt is a geographer, not an ethnographer or ethnologist, and he specifically wrote that his work was not to be used for that purpose. Piotrowski did in fact present the data from this census, and also presented an ethnic interpolation of that data from a Polish Communist Party historian. The U.S. Census Bureau is not RS for reinterpreting another nation's national census to interpolate ethnicity 23 years later, especially since the U.S. Census Bureau did not determine ethnicity in its own census. I did not attribute any conspiracy theory to Mr. Hartglas. I believe that he may have republished an alleged communist era confession from the man in charge of this census which was first published 11 years after his death. I do not appreciate the innuendo.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I can provide jpgs of the pages in Eberhardt , Piotrowski and the US Census study, contact me by Wiki email and I will forward copies via Dropbox of the pages that support the argument that the results of 1931 census are disputed. User Doctor Franklin made this edit re Apolinary Hartglas,[19] Here is the CV of Piotr Eberhardt [20]. His work has encompassed ethnic changes in 20th century eastern Europe.The US Census report on Poland received this favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer . [21]-Piotrowski in Poland's Holocaust p. 143 described the 1931 census as "unreliable" and on p. 294 he maintained that it "involved questionable methodology , especially the use of mother tongue as an indicator of nationality" -Woogie10w (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Good. Be sure to provide a jpg of 3 where Eberhardt, the doctor of geography, wrote, "The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography." Thus not RS for purposes of ethnology or ethnography, what extrapolating ethnicity from a census which surveyed religion and mother tongue is. Also provide everyone with a jpg. of pg. 499 which shows Polish Communist Party Historian Jerzy Tomaszewski interpolations of the census in the bibliography as the source for the numbers used in his charts. Also, please send everyone a jpg of Jerzy Tomaszewski's Polish Communist Party card, so we can clearly see that you wish to use recycled communist propaganda on the page, without labeling it as such, and we thus go from Wikipedia to Commipedia. Everyone should know this is the real issue here: Do we allow Poland's last census to be reported as a RS of itself, or do we rely on Communist Party historians like Jerzy Tomaszewski (who ignore the intentional destruction of the archive in Lwow/Lviv/Lvov by the Soviets, see Norman Davies, God's Playground, a History of Poland, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0231053525, p.558) to interpret the data for us without identifying them as such?

Piotrowski reported both the official returns and Tomaszewski's interpolation of them. While most would agree with him that interpolating census of surveys of mother tongue and religion is an unreliable way to estimate ethnicity, that remains his opinion. The implied criticism of the census methodology, also his opinion, assumes that the Polish government had intended to measure ethnicity. (The U.S. 1930 Census did not ask an ethnicity question either, but only asked a mother tongue question to immigrants while the Poles surveyed mother tongue and religion of all its citizens.) Yale's Timothy Snyder noted that after Pilsudski returned to power in 1926, '"state assimilation" rather than "national assimilation" was Polish policy: citizens were to be judged by their loyalty to the state, and not nationality'. The census reflects that policy. Contrary to the conspiracy allegations that the census was rigged, the percentage of Jews in the population increased, and Polish speakers decreased, from the previous census. You could look it up...

Lastly, please remember that the NORNB is not the place to seek approval of sources which editors on the talk page have rejected.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I want to see if I understand the dispute... stripping away all the POV. If I understand correctly, the census in question used the Polish term "Ruski" to describe a group of people living in Poland back in 1931. English language sources that were contemporary with the census translated this term as "Ruthenian". More modern English language sources translate it as "Ukrainian"... and the dispute is essentially over which translation to use. Have I summarized the issue correctly?

If so... my suggestion is to present both translations. Mention that the word has been translated in different ways at different times. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Ruthenians are still Ruthenians in English, and they do not consider themselves Ukrainains. See Dr. Robert Magosci here on Britanica on this point: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian Some are pushing a Nationalist POV that all Ruthenians were really Ukrainians. No other translation is possible for this document since it also has a category of self-decalared Ukrainians. Calling the self-declared "Ruthenians" "Ukrainains" would be like synthing "Austrians" and "Germans" into one category of "Austrians". It just doesn't work here. [Edit to note that the religious deference between the two groups is noticeable.] What the Ukrainain nationalists here want to do is to censor the document, or force the editors of the page to Synth the two categories into one. The editors of the page have rejected their nationalist POV.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look athe Britannica artivle doctor Franklin linked ot, you will see that it is about the Carpatho-Rusyns, most of whom lived in Czechoslovakia. A small number of them overlapped into Poland (maybe 20,000 or so) but the Britannica article is not about the 1.2 million people identified as Ruthenians on the Polish census. Franklin is deliberately mixing the two groups to push his idea that Ruthenians as defined on the census were a different nation than were Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar: In essence, you are correct, and this usage has been described in the article per RS. Straight CALC without balancing it out without studies into this census is inappropriate. There are other issues surrounding readings of ethnic identification, 'mother language' and religion (for example, a potential underestimation of the number of Jews in the census). The actual crux of the matter is Doctor Franklin's bizarre refactoring of content and calling academic research by historians into the census 'conspiracy theories' per edits such as this, this, this, this and, most disturbingly, this, this, this, this. I'm sorry, but Jewish conspiracy theories are not only WP:FRINGE, they're embarrassingly rubbish theories. As for challenging Tomaszewski on the pretext of there being some form of conspiracy of behalf of over a half a dozen experienced editors to turn this into 'Commipedia', there's something not quite right happening as Tomaszewski's work is still cited by contemporary scholars, and Doctor Franklin has failed to produce challenges to his research by these mainstream scholars. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A gross distortion of what I wrote. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Polish_Communist_Party_Historian_Jerzy_Tomaszewski_allegations_that_the_1931_Census_was_fixed. The conspiracy theory, that the census was fixed, comes from Communist Party historian Tomaszewski, and is attributed to him by contemporary scholars in Poland. Its basis rests on alleged confession of a senior official in the statistical office 11 years after he died by Tomaszewski himself. No statistical analysis is cited to support the claim. Presently, the page gives undue weight to Tomaszewski's theories, recycling their credibility by not citing to him directly on the point.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Franklin's arguments are his own OR, he has failed to produce reliable sources to support them. His allegations of a communist conspiracy and the Jewish tag used in this edit [22] are ugly rant. He is attempting to censor out any criticism of the Polish govermnent census by labeling it as part of a Jewish Communist conspiracy. If reliable sources are cited that criticize the methodology of the Polish government census he claims that they are given undue weight. What we see on the page is a pattern of disruptive editing--Woogie10w (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OH NO! In 1968-69, the Polish Communist Party, the Soviet's puppet government, deported most of Poland's remaining Jews and used them as scape goats. Since you want to report a theory unsubstantiated by statistical analysis that the census was fixed, reported by a Communist Party historian in 1973, I have noted that by WP:CALC from the 1921 to 1931 censuses, the percentage of Jews in Poland increased +01.79%, while the percentage Polish speakers declined -0.32%. Thus, it may well be that the Polish Communist party made the allegation to imply further scapegoating of the Jews although I never edited that on the page. With regard to the edit your noted, I would have similarly noted the ethnicity of the individual and Nazi collaboration per RS-biased had the person been a Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Belarussian who collaborated with the Nazis. I object to the insinuations. WP:ASPERSIONS. I didn't inject that person into the page to hide the true source of the claim: A Communist party historian. Please note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive. Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Franklin what you posting here on the ORN is in fact your own OR, please cite a reliable source that tells us that the category of "mother tongue" in 1931 the Polish census is accurate for the determination of ethnicity. Your long winded arguments here at ORN are only highlighting your OR and POV pushing.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NO, even former communists in the region don't agree with you. So here is a recent analysis of this Census from Sergey Lebedev, PhD in Political Science from Leningrad State University. He has quite impressive Soviet academic credentials and notes no controversy over the census's methodology:

"It turns out that a lot remained Russian Rusyn identity despite full patronage of "Ukrainians" by official authorities and the Uniate Church...Alas, the Ukrainians identified themselves as more than half of the Galician Rusyns, so ukrainianizers could assume that Ukrainians constrict the Russian identity." Russian Folk Line (January, 18, 2014)http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/01/18/galiciya_etnicheskaya_istoriya/

No evidence exists that the census had intended to enumerate ethnicity. (The U.S. didn't either.) So, even a former Communist like Lebedev doesn't agree with you. You appear determined to WP:CHERRYPICK as many anti-polonist sources as possible on this topic.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You just linked to a hardcore rightwing Russian nationalist website.Faustian (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Ukrianian nationalist POV, but Lebedev's comments are not my OR. He is very close to pre-war Polish commentary.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it OR to translate an Anno Mundi date into a possible BC/BCE date?

This[23] is the edit being reverted by an IP. The reasoning given at the talk page for the edit is that most readers won't have a clue was to when an AM date might have been. We could, if it isn't OR, give both the Hebrew calendar and the Byzantine calendar dates. Doug Weller (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are several different Anno Mundi time scales, so it is original research to decide which one applies (or whether one used in an ancient manuscript or ancient oral tradition is an entirely different scale). Also, in the time under consideration, 3rd millennium BCE, the Hebrew calendar depended on observations of the moon and decisions about when to intercalate a month, so it is not possible to determine what a date stated in the ancient Hebrew calendar corresponds to in any other calendar. Finally, you linked Byzantine calendar and our article says that is a variant of the Julian calendar, which wasn't created until about 2 millennia after the period under consideration. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article on the Byzantine calendar says it uses AM year dates. I don't know what the point of your comment about that is, I was asking whether we could give the reader any clue as to what the AM date means or if we have to leave them to research it themselves. But forget about that, the Hebrew calendar uses AM, so why can't we use that as an example date? My old university library has a link to a converter down towards the bottom of this page. There are others. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to what Doug has ably argued above, using the AM date is quite useless to our readers (and to us editors, BTW!). We need some sort of milieu for context. Student7 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I consider the whole section to be original research because the location of the claim within the Book of Jubilees is not cited, so the citation is inadequate. If someone were to fix this problem, one would then have to find a reliable source that evaluates the statement in the Book of Jubilees to calculate what the date is in some modern notation. The editors of the version of the Book of Jubilees that would be cited in the repaired article might or might not provide that information. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been reverting a Til Eulenspiegel sock there but have now, after reading the above, removed the section. It's not just NOR, there's a WP:UNDUE question also - whether this is discussed in reliable sources. I'm looking. Doug Weller (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a reasonable WP:CALC, although the result should indicate a calculation and not have been given with the precision it was. Why do you call the whole section unsourced? It is sourced to the Book of Jubilees, as per this source [24], from which the text is paraphrased. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The particular translation of the Book of Jubilees should have been cited. If the relevant Wikipedia articles are to believed, the earliest version of the Book of Jubilees was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to the 1st and 2nd century BCE and the first century CE. But the Anno Mundi notation didn't begin until the 7th century CE. So it is quite likely that the date in the quotation was a translation or calculation on the part of the translators, and their explanation of how they calculated the date would be important. But if the edition is not cited, that information is not available. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's no rigorous and verifiable conversion of an archaic date to a modern one, it needs to be presented as found in the source. As a service to the reader, however, an approximate conversion could also be provided - with the explicit disclaimer that it is approximate. Rhoark (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Jews. Gross original research/WP:SYNTH violation

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a Semitic ethnoreligious group and nation native to the Land of Israel, also referred to as an ethno-cultural group and a civilization. With origins dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE, they are descended from the Israelites and the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

References

The above is a palmary example of WP:SYNTH, 19 distinct sources each culled carefully to buttress one of several elements in the definition. I have at last raised it formally on the talk page, but there is no evidence that the issue is understood or treated seriously. Though this point has been noted over the years, no editor will emend it to bring the definition in line with customary Wikipedia definitions of a people. I have no intention of meddling in this myself, but something should be done. The problems are manifold, but let me show some RS that challenge this inventive description.

• Morris N. Kertzer What is a Jew?, Simon and Schuster, 1996 p.7 says fundamentally all Jews are Jews by choice and that the ‘ethnic definition is going the way of the dinosaur.' 'It is difficult to find a single definition of a Jew. A Jew is one who accepts the faith of Judaism. That is the religious definition.' Katzer is saying our definition is a nonsense.
• Jacob Neusner (ed.) World Religions in America, Fourth Edition: An Introduction, Westminster John Knox Press, 2009 p.139 reads 'Israel once was a nation ("during its national life") but today is not a nation.' yet our definition is assures the reader it (the people, not the country) is a nation.
• Michael Walzer,Menachem Lorberbaum,Noam J. Zohar (eds) The Jewish Political Tradition: Membership, Yale University Press 2006. You are not necessarily a Jew if born of a Jewish mother, which is the halakhic criterion for being a Jew. See the case of Oswald Rufeisen outlined here, who was denied by the Supreme Court the status of being a Jew because he had converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite monk. This means our definition is a nonsense.
• Michael Greenstein The American Jew: A Contradiction in Terms, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 1990 pp.1ff.pp.7-8 argues a Jew is a Jew by virtue of their self definition and awareness of this identity.
• Marc Lee Raphael, Judaism in America, Columbia University Press, 2012 pp.22 writes:'This sociological discussion of American Jews does not presume to know prewcisely how to define Jews., Jews often joke about how the definition of a Jew in modern times is anyone who asks the question “What is the definition of a Jew in modern times?’.' The point being, that everyone struggles to find an acceptably inclusive definition of Jews, but only on Wikipedia do you get the whole mishmash of opinions collapsed into an ideological certainty (which of course many Jews would no doubt challenge).
• Alain F. Corcos Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist : An Essay Dedicated to the Jewish and Non-Jewish Victims of the Nazi Holocaust, Wheatmark, 2012 Ist chapter. Corcos is a biologist of Jewish descent from Holocaust survivors on both sides who, unlike his brother, denies he is a Jew, because he has no religious interest in, or practice of, Judaism, and is opposed to any classification of Jews in terms of 'ethnic', 'racial' or 'descent' arguments. For Corcos a Jew is simply someone who follows Judaism, the religion.
• Gideon Doron,Arye Naor,Assaf Meydan, Law and Government in Israel, Routledge, 2013 p.10. In Israel the concept is ambiguous, denoting a particular form of culture and religion, but also a distinct nationality. The government has one definition, the Orthodox another, and both differ from Conservative and Reform Judaism's approach.
• Ellen Levy-Coffman A Mosaic of people: The Jewish Story and a reassessment of the DNA evidence,' Journal of Genetic Genealogy, Fall 2007

Jewish ancestry reflects a mosaic of genetic sources. While earlier studies focused on the Middle Eastern component of Jewish DNA, new research has revealed that both Europeans and Central Asians also made significant genetic contributions to Jewish ancestry. Moreover, while the DNA studies have confirmed the close genetic interrelatedness of many Jewish communities, they have also confirmed what many suspected all along: Jews do not constitute a single group distinct from all others. Rather, modern Jews exhibit a diversity of genetic profiles, some reflective of their Semitic/Mediterranean ancestry, but others suggesting an origin in European and Central Asian groups. The blending of European, Semitic, Central Asian and Mediterranean heritage over the centuries has led to today’s Jewish populations. . . Diversity was present from Jewish beginnings, when various Semitic and Mediterranean peoples came together to form the Israelites of long ago. The genetic picture was clearly enriched during the Diaspora, when Jews spread far and wide across Europe, attracting converts and intermarrying over time with their European hosts. The most recent DNA evidence indicates that from this blending of Middle Eastern and European ancestors, the diverse DNA ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews emerged.' Ellen Levy-Coffman, A mosaic of peoples: The Jewish story and a reassessment of the DNA evidence,'

• Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton University Press 1996 pp.288ff. Proselytization and concomitant conversion was a significant component of early Judaism, so successful that Rome passed edicts banning Jews from converting Romans. Those converts and their descendants jar with our definition.

Our text assures us Jews all come from the West Bank and Galilee (Israel and Judah). Genetic studies show Jews come from all over the place, and are not to be defined exclusively as 'Semitic'.

One could go on endlessly, for this is all obvious. The problem is, that highly political ('political' because the definition has been crafted to endorse a theory that all Jews descend from the West Bank (!!!) and that is their 'native' land) synthetic definition, with I believe no parallel on any other wiki people/ethnos page, is irremovable, or unalterable. The only solution is to define Jews according to one or two acceptable high quality sources, and not, as here, patch up a jerry-rigged definition for which one can find no single source that validates its 'accuracy'. Advice would be appreciated. Am I the only person here who can see that this is a gross WP:SYNTH definition?Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two reference works I can quickly find dealing with ethnic groups, the Harvard Encyclopedia of Ethnic Groups and Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia. They might provide a fairly reasonable basis between them for indicating how to structure the lede of the article. Having said that, it is worth noting that with only a few other groups, the Jews are an ethnoreligious group, the Yazidi being as per that article maybe the most extreme in that regard, and, on that basis, maybe it might be best to try to figure out how to describe ethnoreligious groups in general in wikipedia first, and then apply it as required to all such groups. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John. I am not so much interested in a new definition: anyone in my book is free to describe herself as he thinks fit. What troubles me is the persistence of a patently false definition, and the refusal to recognize what I think is glaringly obvious. All I am asking for is for an informed neutral third party diagnosis of that purple patch, to corroborate (or dissent with) my impression that it is an example of WP:SYNTH.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph is the virtual definition of WP:SYNTH. Multiple sources are combined to get a conclusion not stated in any of them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it should have been made clearer at ARBPIA3 that every attempt made (I've tried several times this year) to get neutral external input on contested I/P issues is met with a stony silence, as if this area is simply off-limits, or in a state of complete abandonment. You can't even ask for outside help (whichever way the outside verdict might fall) without being snubbed. These are deeply practical issues, yet the area specialists on WP:SYNTH or WP:RS simply won't help out.Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if it has to entirely do with the subject area, though of course that plays a part. The board works on a model different from WP:RfC etc. It might be that the original question is too long so WP:TLDR applies. The best way to get input (which of course does not work always), is to have a short statement and reasoning. Few people are going to dig into the sources in the original post, unless they are already interested in the topic. WP:TLDR is the iron law of the internet, and in particular where external input is required, it is doubly important. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reformulation:The simpler version of the request.

The following synthetic definition, without parallel in any Wikipedia ethnic article, opens the lead at Jews is patched up from 19 different sources, each one for one of several attributes.

The Jews also known as the Jewish people, are a Semitic[21] ethnoreligious group[22] and nation[23][24][25] native to the Land of Israel, also referred to as an ethno-cultural group[26] and a civilization.[27][28][29][30] With origins dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE, they are descended from the Israelites[31][32][33][34][35][36] and the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[37][38][39]

Almost every detail is subject to RS challenge as a contested point of view, not a fact. (1) the Land of Israel is a theological concept, of either much broader or much more restricted denotation than the kingdoms of Israel/Judah mentioned beneath (2) many Jews are not 'Semitic' (historically conversion has played an important role)(3)the notion of 'nationhood' has often been contested (4) no source can be found to verify the claim that contemporary Jews are descendants of people in the West Bank/Galilee (historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah), as implied, since even genetics speaks of a broad Levantine component, and people do not descend from a land, but from ancestors. No historian has ever made the wild claim that 'Jews... are natives of Israel/Palestine,' since most of them were and are born outside that area. A person of (partial) Scottish descent some/many of whose ancestors emigrated to the U.S. in the 17th century cannot be defined ipso facto as 'Scottish'. The statement is an egregious purple patch. The issue is, can a one sentence definition be concocted in this manner? Or is it, as any familiarity with WP:SYNTH would suggest, someone's home-made amalgam?Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: is one of our better editors regarding issues of "race" and he might be useful here.The point of there being "native to the Land of Israel" is at best questionable, as Abraham and the early Jews came from elsewhere. Maybe a version of the Bible says that, but the Bible ain't a reliable source. To me, this seems to be a rather clumsy attempt to synthesize the primarily ethnic group and the primarily religious group of Jews into one group. Having said that, I still am not the best person to decide this, although I am still eagerly awaiting for the RX request to get a response. Once I get that, I can at least determine how they structure their introductions, if they have them, and make that information available to others. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well as to Abraham, I don't think that correct, in the sense that these aetiological myths regard the forefathers. Judaism as we know it was formulated in Babylon, and refined in post-exilic times, from Ezra and co., through to the C.E. sages down t to Maimonides et al. So rightly, we speak of Israelites, and the Jews. Jews rightly regard their tradition of religious (and to some extent 'ethnic') identity as Jews as being fixed in Palestine: the whole of the mythistory of the Tanakh affirms a divine pact with more or less that land. It may be largely epic fiction melding numerous legends, some resonant with real historical traditions, from the composite tribes which, at some point, were imagined to have coalesced under an henotheistic cult, but in terms of symbolic identity, Judaism is definitely a creation of that specific environment. What we have here is a kindergarten fairy tale of infantile clichés, each of which alludes to a storyline, but none of which stands up to a critical gaze, at least from the perspective of modern Jewish scholarship. Editors should be able to do better than this. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I basically agree with you in the above regarding the matter of the religious defiition of "Judaism." And, as we are considering one of the few ethnoreligious groups, that is relevant. But, not knowing this topic that well, is that necessarily the place to look for and place the origins of the modern people? That I dunno.John Carter (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to make a detailed analysis, but it's very clear that the lead is a violation of NPOV since it makes several assertions as fact all of which are disputed. And yes, sourced need to directly address the subject and back the text, and that's not happening here. Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not happy to find that the discussion moved from Talk:Jews#Cite_grouping to here. I have the feeling that apart from Nishidani, none of the other participants there were aware of what is going on here, and would definitely have posted here, had they been aware. This discussion has not been liked on the talkpage. WP:FORUMSHOPPING comes to mind, although I am willing per WP:AGF to assume that Nishidani simply forgot to mention this discussion there. I posted a note on the talkpage,[25] so I suppose at least some of the other participants in that discussion will soon visit here.

I understand Nishidani's issue is not WP:NOR, but WP:SYNTH. As I explained on the talkpage, WP:SYNTH means combining two statements to make a third (very simply put). There is however nothing wrong with combining two (or more) statements in itself, as long as no new third statement is created. I do not think that principle has been violated in this case.

Regarding Doug Weller's claim of NPOV violations. What precisely is disputed? Is it disputed to a degree that makes it necessary to mention the dispute in the lead, in view of WP:UNDUE? In the definition in the first sentence, moreover? Debresser (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you kindly strike out the comment suggesting I went behind people's backs in addressing this board. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser simply missed Nishidani's statement on the talk page stating that they brought the matter here. I hope they will strike out the extraneous comments distracting from the issue. As to the WP:SYNTH violation, that is staring one in the face. The first sentence states that Jews are "native to the Land of Israel", with no sources at all stating that all Jews are indeed native to the "Land of Israel". The second sentence states that Jews are descended from the Israelites, when the sources state that not all Jews descended from the ancient Israelites. Even the sources differ on what a Jew is, and how they self-identify. The lead should reflect the different conceptions on what a Jew is, not randomly state one particular conception of what Jews are, as a fact, when it is the opposite of a fact, in fact (sorry, couldn't resist the wordplay). Finally, I note that no quotes, or even page numbers are provided for the citations, so it is impossible to verify what is being summarized in the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the point of their being native to the land of Israel is problematic, and any statement addressing the matter of "all Jews" would also have to deal with the comparatively rare matter of converts to Judaism as well as Beta Israel, and I haven't seen anything which specifically indicates that they are in any way "native" to Israel. Their faith, maybe, but not biologically, and there is no good reason to at least not point out that differentiation. Still waiting on RX, but if I don't get any response soon, I'll check the reference works I have available myself and report back here. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Conversion wasn't rare in antiquity (see Himyarite Kingdom, the forced conversions of Itureans by Alexander Jannaeus and Idumaeans by John Hyrcanus etc. There is an extensive literature on Judaism's competition with Christianity for converts. It raised no scandal to great rabbis like Hasdai ibn Shaprut to hear that the Khazars had reportedly converted to Judaism. We have Inca Jews, the Jews of San Nicandro, not to mention the high percentage of European women (halakhically those who define biological Jewishness) in the founder population of Ashkenazis. Historians don't have a problem with this, only wiki editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Compared to the usual long posts by Nishidani, I find the short post "I have opened a discussion on this on the NOR noticeboard." without even a link to this noticeboard and the specific section in which this discussion takes place, less than effective. And indeed I missed it. As, apparently did others. I did not suggest any intent, rather specifically mentioned WP:AGF, so I see no reason to strike my comment regarding this.

As I have said on the talkpage, the fact remains that as a group, Jews trace back their national and religious sources to Israel. The degree of admixture of converts does not change that fact, and never has. Even converts do so. Another reason to neglect the degree of admixture of converts is that after a few generations, the convert origins are usually forgotten.

I don't know why Nishidani tries to put so much emphasis on converts, but I suppose that it has to do with certain of his points of view. He has been doing this for a long time and on many articles, but the fact is that he does not know enough about Jews and Judaism, and is simply mistaken in this case, based on what he perceives as logically imperative. Unfortunately for him, religion and nationhood aren't always logical. Editors have been trying to explain this to him, but he keeps on pushing the issue. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser I'm not sure I understand what you are disagreeing with. You surely don't disagree that conversion played a significant part in Jewish history. And you rightly note that "religion and nationhood aren't always logical". Which is exactly Nishidani's point.

The best anyone can write accurately here is that Jewish nationalism claims descent from the Israelites. That this is claimed is accurate. But proof is impossible, so we should not write this in wikipedia's neutral voice. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the fact that there have always been converts to Judaism. Or with the fact that converts have made important contributions to Judaism. But Judaism doesn't define itself, nor is it defined, by converts.

I don't even understand this sentence: "Jewish nationalism claims descent from the Israelites". What is "Jewish nationalism", to begin with, and who claims in its behalf? No, Judaism claims, and Jews claim, that the Jewish people is descendant from the Israelites. That would be correct. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

('He has been doing this for a long time and on many articles, but) the fact is that he does not know enough about Jews and Judaism.'

Try and keep this free of innuendoes, Debresser, particularly the well-poisoning innuendo in the bracketed part' ='this guy's got some hangup about Jews/us'). The Jewish tradition is so fundamental and seminal a part of Western civilization that anyone who fails to master its tradition for the profound and lasting impact it made remains a cultural barbarian (translation:to be an anti-Semite is to disown Western civilization's whole philosophical and cultural structure). The quality of one's knowledge is shown by the quality of sources one introduces to an encyclopedia. I have introduced several hundred academic sources to a large number of these articles. It is the total dissonance between what POV pushing editors try to introduce (all simplistic), and the scholarship (quite (admirably) complex on most of these themes) which is an outstanding feature of Wikipedia's articles on these subjects. I produced this argument on the talk page supplying several quality sources: no one responded to the evidence. Instead I got a series of innuendoes about myself. That is why I addressed this board, where outside editors look at evidence, and don't play the 'us/them' game which is a chronic and rather jejune distraction. From my editing of a large range of articles, I perceive that people with a deep knowledge of the historical scholarship on Judaism, as opposed to the politics of Israel, are virtually absent from them, which is a rather distressing fact that impoverishes Jewish civilization, so if I am ignorant in that regard, I am in excellent company.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Was this innuendo as well? :) Debresser (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, why is it supposed to "address the matter of all Jews"? Many articles about ethnic groups has a reference to a native land in the lead section although including tens of millions who aren't really "native", such as English people, Scottish people, Irish people, Russians and Italians. For some reason a relevancy for all individuals is a requirement only for this article. Perhaps we can add a sentence that points out a conversion of individuals and certain groups over the centuries in order to "balance" it. Infantom (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Look up Jewish diaspora. None of the English, Russians, Irish, Scottish or Italians were in diaspora for at least 2,000 years, for that reason they are called 'native' (not a word I think acceptable in any of those articles, but ideologues are persistent everywhere). Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So? What does that have to do with why is it supposed to "address the matter of all Jews"? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Something else. There were no Christians in the year 40 BCE. Ergo, all Christians are converts. Then why don't I see that fact reflected in the definition of Christianity? Note, I am aware that Judaism is more than a religion. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. Dear me. Hélas. Look. Let's drop clogging this with chat. We have a few independent judgements, more would be better. No one so far has said that definition is acceptable in terms of wiki criteria, and that is the issue that requires input. Definitions can be left to the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, the point is very simple. The article itself contains a section Jews#Who_is_a_Jew.3F. If one wants to define the subject, one should simply summarize that section. Can someone tell me with a straight face that the paragraph quoted summarizes that section? The lead should summarize the article, not engage in original research. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Like most others here, I agree that the lead seems to violate WP:SYNTH. It makes rather strong claims that seem to go beyond what most (or even all) of the sources say. I doubt many serious sources claim that all Jews are part of a Semitic people being native to Israel, especially as we know that there were times in history when conversions were fairly common, (as modern genetics have showed). Jeppiz (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Jews are a semitic ethnoreligious group. That is a well established by ethnography and genetics. This is clear, coordinated POV pushing for political purposes/hateful purposes. It's also worth pointing out the incivility with which Nishidani made his/her argument on the article talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No evidence, an opinion affirming a cliché, and more of the innuendo that this is all a pro-Palestinian assault on Israel. Wikipedia is based on the careful review of relevant sources to write content: so far, anyone trying to approach this definition in terms of what reliable sources would seem to agree on is met with claims, assertions and personal attacks, evenm imputing this to hate motivations. When I gave a definition of 'semitic' from Peter Schäfer, what was your reply. That my citing a source on the topic was 'blatant POV pushing.' I.e. your assumption I assume, is that we should not consult RS in writing our articles. Good grief! Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources, including genetic tests, are quite clear regarding the origins of Jews being from Israel/Judea. This is "controversial" only because some people do not like the conclusion. I don't see this as an assault on Israel, it is the "Jews" article/history you are seeking to modify. Drsmoo (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making counterfactual assertions. We work here on evidence garnered from scholarship, nothing else. No genetic paper has ever argued that Jews comes from Israel/Judea. All such papers speak of Levantine orgins, which is a much larger area, and as such, the genetic evidence for this thesis cannot support the phrasing we have. The genetic argument for Jews origins, moreover, conflicts with the religious halakhic argument for Jewishness, since the geneticists affirming Levantine descent focus on founder males, whereas the religious definition excludes paternity in defining Jews, who must hail from a Jewish mother.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't believe it's synth. It is listing things that are backed up by reliable sources. If it were SYNTH then having them stringed together would imply something different then having them apart, at least according to my philosophy of it. I don't think this is a question of synth. I think this is a question of "how many god-damned adjectives can you fit in a run on sentence". It's awkward and terrible. In my opinion we should say Jews are "a Semitic people descending from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East." And then something like "with characteristics of an ethnicity, culture, and religion." Or whatever. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with all that Monochrome Monitor just said: not synth, just listing, but too much for one sentence. Debresser (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

MM. Like you, one of my nephews is a brilliant student of particle physics. That discipline requires mathematical wizardry and also an extreme respect for empirical evidence. There is no 'evidence' here. There is a huge concatenation of claims glued together in a synthetic sentence because the sentence has been crafted to stake a political claim, i.e., all Jews are 'native to the Galilee and Judea/Samaria', which is egregious nonsense. No people in the world have ever been defined as originating in such a minute patch of territory thousands of years ago, to my knowledge) American Jews are not 'native to' that area (I mean, it is outlandish to be so specific: the definition excludes the idea that Jews are descended from inhabitants of the whole territory of Palestine/Israel, the coastal plain, the Negev, the Levant broadly etc.) except in the unique legal theory postulating a 'right of return', with the emphasis on return. Sentences of the type, 'the English are native to England' cannot bear any truth if 'native' implies historical depth, since the components of England's population go back to numerous invasions, from Rome, Gaul, Scandinavia, the continental Germanic tribes, the Normans, and, most recently, from the former colonies of the English Empire. These things are elementary facts, and the logic of definitions simply excludes the devious use of a Biblical-religious claim to define the identities of Jews. That is a form of fundamentalist definition that has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Great points and argument Nishdani! --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

May I remind people that this is not the talk page for the article. Nobody here will read the walls of text posted by everyone. The aim of this page is to get outside opinion. I am not "outside", even though the page was not on my watchlist, because I edit in this area. The section here should only be focused about WP:OR/WP:SYNTH aspect, not the factual aspects. As to the rest, what does everyone think of my proposal of simply summarizing that "Who is a Jew" section in the lead's first paragraph? The first paragraph is supposed to be the definition, and the section is specifically talking about that. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is the best solution, at least provisorily. It would help if editors, rather than playing the game of POV suspicions, simply returned to the page and used any of a dozen or two sources that address the problem of a definition of Jews, enrich the page and that section, and devise an acceptable definition. This is essentially an issue of how to write up Wikipedia articles, by free invention or on the basis of RS specific to each and every theme or definition.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thing is like this. Nishidani posted there, claiming that there is a WP:SYNTH violation. Since people there didn't agree with him, he came here to lobby for that same point of view. With all due respect for him, and his point of view, but that is what I see he is doing here, lobbying. And the same editors who disagreed with him there, disagree with him here. I think Nishidani should not have posted here the way he did. He should have suggested there, that perhaps we should all seek some outside input, draw the question up together, and then see here what others say. Not simply continue the same discussion. Nishidani, please take this as a lesson for the future. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

More to the issue, I do think there is some agreement that the definition there has too many details. I would like to propose that we all return to the talkpage there and open a new section with specific proposals: how to rewrite the first line, and what to do with the other elements that will be left out from the first line, i.e. where to place them in other parts of the article or the lead. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Try not to be a psychologist or political analyst. I came here because

We should start with the core definition of a Jew (A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism) and then add other commentary. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't fit a notable reality. 35% of American Jews (i.e.2 to 3 million, depending on how you count) identify with Reform Judaim, which accepts patrilineal descent. (In any solution you need the Britannic formula:'Jews, narrowly defined, are people who practice Judaism (note= regardless of how that is defined in Reform or Orthodox Jewish circles). More broadly, . .') In any case, by all means add that to the relevant talk page, where, it seems, finally some willingness to revise the definition is visible. Here, the general impression is that outside opinion agrees that the def as we have it is a WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH violation. Unless there are objections to that conclusion, we can close this.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Jews "are people who practice Judaism", I offer this piece of evidence, m'lud: Category:Jewish atheists. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Infantom on the talk page cited the Encyclopedia Britannica definition,(minus this opening part) which I quoted above from memory. Clearly, I should not have expected readers of this page to dredge up that context, and sight the context. The idea that Jews are defined by religion is of course nonsense. The idea that a definition can have two parts, a narrow and a broad form, is fairly normal.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of people in this thread appear to be extremely thirsty. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

so wozu Richter in durstiger Zeit?Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Jews are people who practice Judaism" is so far from the truth, that even with a source it has no chance. Anyways, are we finished here? Debresser (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The notion of Jews simply being people who practice Judaism is way off the mark. Consider the following: "It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox." Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh! Both of you: Learn to read every word in a sentence, (and read the background talk page carefully) before disputing it. I am not providing a definition, as much as giving a heuristic hint, by suggesting you need the EC type 'narrow definition' (any person whose religion is Judaism (sic))/ 'broadly construed' construction. This means you need a religious definition, and a secular inclusive definition. To repond as if I were, in an illustrative example, saying 'Jews (are) simply . . people who practice Judaism' shows a total failure to construe intent in context, by attributing to me what the EC's definition asserts. It is pointless discussing if one cannot parse simple statements in their obvious function. So, if there are no objections, we can agree that the sentence we have is unacceptable, and whoever is interested can work out a substitute formulation on the relevant talk page.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that your "narrow" definition isn't a correct definition, no matter how narrow you try to be, and no matter how Orthodox or Liberal (big L) your perspective. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The narrow definition is not mine, but the Britannica's (and I disagree with it). Jews are as Jews define themselves, which means they have an extraordinary abundance of self-definitions none of which will find total assent from any number of fellow Jews, as numerous sources confirm. Personally, as someone who rejects any notion of identity other than a personal one (and even those are labile) I think this fuzziness a virtue. Having several identities. linguistic and cultural, is what made the haskalah Jews, mostly secular, the most explosively cultured and creative human grouping in modern Europe. I've never quite got over the first pages of Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews where he goes into great detail of the Nazi struggle to pinpoint who is a Jew - defining or rather have someone define you meant death. I admire the deftness with which James Joyce called Bloom's wife's mother Lunita Laredo, and both suggested and then undercut the idea that her daughter could be pinned down as 'Jewish'. Bloom is: she might be, but they are both impeccably Irish, and yet, beyond the ethnic and national attributes, ineludibly, inexpungibly unique persons whose roundness of being refutes caricatures or classification. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal is the best one so far..... As to the rest, what does everyone think of my proposal of simply summarizing that "Who is a Jew" section in the lead's first paragraph? The first paragraph is supposed to be the definition, and the section is specifically talking about that.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I object to any change that does not mention the origins of the Jews. I object to any attempt to disconnect Jews from their history. The article is about Jews and should define what Jews are not who happen to be Jews at this particular moment in time. "Jews are people who other Jews think are Jews"? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a constructive place. Objections are useful, but positive proposals are what makes the substance of an article. Make a proposal on the talk page where I have opened a discussion.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope my objection will help you make a positive proposal, then. I'll put it on the other page as well so nobody will miss it.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Webster Sycamore Image

I started a discussion at Is File:Webster_Sycamore_Webster_Springs_WV_1920.jpg really the Webster Sycamore? concerning an image that was added to the lead of the Webster Sycamore article. I was reviewing the article and complained that the article needed more pictures to illustrate the subject matter better when a user added another image of an American Sycamore with the claim that it was the Webster Sycamore. When I checked the reference source though it didn't really support the claim. And the image was grainy and slightly wrong since it wasn't leaning to the left considerably like the Webster Sycamore did. I was wondering if I could get some feedback from some experienced users on this noticeboard concerning whether this would be orignial research. For example, is it considered original research to infer things from visual inspection of an image that isn't in written form in the source material? In this particular case the user is inferring that this is the same exact tree because it looks big and is said to be in the same town. I don't know where wiki policy would be in this type of situation and wanted to get some feedback from experienced users of this noticeboard concerning this question.Chhe (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A source has to explicitly label claim what the picture is. Though, it should at least implicitly claim what the picture is. For example, an encyclopedia entry about the Webster Sycamore might include a picture of a tree on the same page discussing the sycamore. I believe this is reasonably sufficient. However, it would be best to use a picture that's explicitly claimed to be a Webster Sycamore.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Вставьте сюда текст, который не нужно форматировать

Is it OR to compile your own arguments to refute what reliable sources say?

Multiple reliable sources acknowledge that the top-down advancement of the Southern Strategy is the viewpoint that is most represented and most generally held in scholarship. However, a WP editor disagrees with the peer-reviewed reliable sources and has put forward his own argument to claim that a bottom-up viewpoint is equally held by scholars. He bases his argument on his own Google Scholar research regarding the number of citations different sources have, and argues that "this should be sufficient to handle it as a view that scholars place on equal footing with the top down theory."[26] Is it okay for WP editors to conduct their own research and use that research to dispute what reliable sources say, or is this considered a violation of WP:OR policy? The discussion can be found here[27]. I think the question is pretty straight forward, but if you need me to quote the reliable sources that claim the Top-down implementation of the Southern Strategy is the majority viewpoint, then I'm happy to do it.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if the above editor actually included my talk page argument as part of this posting. I asked the question here [28]. Scoobydunk replied to that discussion before opening the topic here. I hope this will not be seen as cross posting or forum shopping. The above explanation of the issue doesn't fully cover the topic.

The discussion relates to establishing the relative weight between two competing, scholarly theories. Going forward should we treat them as roughly equal or treat one as the minority POV and thus give it less weight? Currently this question of weight hasn't affected the article content but it might in the future. In the above link we have two competing explanations for change in voting patterns. One is the top down theory, the other is the bottom up theory. The top down explanation was the original and the two primary scholarly sources regarding that topic are about 10 years older (both 1996) than the two primary bottom up works (both 2006). At the time of publication in 2006 one of the bottom up scholars acknowledged his view was the minority POV. In 2011 another scholarly book said the bottom up POV was the "dissenting - yet rapidly growing - narrative..." and listed a number of authors who have followed the lead of the two primary bottom up works. Scoobydunk has since claimed 2 or 3 other sources support the minority claim but as of this writing he hasn't provided full citations. I believe only one was published after 2006 and the quoted statement was vague and does not mention the bottom up strategy.

In scholarly work the number of citation a publication receives is a strong indication of scholarly endorsement of a topic, theory etc. I used Google Scholar to check for # of citations to date for the four primary works in question:

• Top Down Book #1: 165 times since 1996 (122 after 2006)
• Top Down Book #2: 125 times since 1996 (79 after 2006)
• Bottom Up Book #1: 354 (published in 2006), 251 of these were after 2010 when the "rapidly growing" statement was likely written
• Bottom Up Book #2: 138 (published in 2006)

Given the above do we give less WEIGHT to the Bottom Up theory because it was a minority theory when first published and "dissenting - yet rapidly growing" 4 years later? Thus the two scholarly opinions of relative weight, at the time they were written, say it was the minority POV. Alternatively, do we treat them with equal weight because "rapidly growing" combined with a clear citation margin in favor of the bottom up publications suggests the theories are at least equal competing theories in the eyes of scholars as of 2015? Springee (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

All claims in the article must be supported by a reliable source. Decisions about due weight can be based on editors' own arguments, but should bear some relation to weight in the sources. Rhoark (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's true unless a reliable source says "XYZ is the majority viewpoint" then no OR argument is going to discredit what the reliable source says. Springee is trying to claim that the two viewpoints are equally represented by scholars, when every single reliable source on the subject clearly identifies the majority view distinct from the minority view.

1. Matthew Lassiter, Kevin Kruse. "The Bulldozer Revolution: Suburbs and Southern History since World War II"

"A suburban-centered vision reveals that demographic change played a more important role than racial demagoguery in the emergence of a two-party system in the American South. This analysis runs contrary to both the conventional wisdom and a popular strain in the scholarly literature: the claim that the GOP came to dominate a new Solid South by repackaging the segregationist platform of George C. Wallace and capitalizing on a racial bakclash that originated in the Deep South and the Countryside."(emphasis mine)

The bottom-up view is the suburban strategy that Lassiter speaks to and admits that it's contrary to the conventional wisdom of what is referred to as the top-down view.

2. Matthew Lassiter. "The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South"

"...most of the scholarship on modern conservatism remains wedded to a top-down viewpoint.."

Another source confirming that the top-down viewpoint is the most accepted by scholarship. I'm quoting the parts relevant to establishing minority/majority viewpoints.

3. Paul Frymer and John Skrentny. "Coalition-Building and the Politics of Electoral Capture During the Nixon Administration: African Americans, Labor, Latinos."

"...most analysts of the period view Nixon's campaign as marking the end of the Republican party's century-old alliance with African-American voters, as well as solidifying a clear shift in the party system around racial issues.(emphasis mine)

Again, this is a claim that most analysts view a clear shift in the party system around racial issues which is also referred to as the top-down view.

4. Glenn Feldman. "Painting Dixie Red: Wen, Where, Why, and How the South Became Republican (New Perspectives on the History of the South)"

"All of this leads us, finally, to the dissenting-yet rapidly growing- narrative on the topic of southern partisan realignment as represented in this book most clearly in the Tim Boyd, George Lewis, Michael Bowen, and John W White essays."

Here Feldman is acknowledging that the "suburban-strategy" narrative is the "dissenting" narrative. The "suburban-strategy" being the bottom-up viewpoint, opposite of that of the "Southern Strategy" which is the prevailing top-down viewpoint.

I'm not here to argue weight issues, since that belongs on a different forum. What I'm here inquiring about, is if an editor can do their own research to try and refute what multiple reliable sources say. None of these sources give the impression that the two views are "equal" which is what Springee is trying to argue using his own compilation of Google Scholar source citations. They clearly distinguish the majority view from the minority view. Is it a violation of WP:OR for an editor to refute what reliable sources say with their own arguments?Scoobydunk (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, you opened the topic up to both OR and weight so I will discuss both. In your presentation of sources above you left out some critical information, when where they published? #1 was published in 2009, that means it was written either in early 2009 or 2008, just 2-3 years after his 2006 publication that is one of the original sources of the bottom up theory. Hardly much time. #2 is Lassiter's book which kicked off the bottom up narrative. It was published in 2006 and is far and away the most heavily cited of the sources I list below. #3 was published in 1998. Are you actually saying those authors were comparing to a theory that would be published 8 years in the future?! #4 Feldman says it is rapidly growing. The numbers I found agree with that and also suggest that shortly after that was written Lassiter's work surpassed the number of citations Carter's work had received. You are totally wrong in claiming that the sources support the idea that as of today the bottom up theory should be considered a minority theory. Feldman's rapidly growing statement combined with the citation count is clear evidence that the scholarly community at least sees it as an equal theory. This is not OR on my part and as a discussion of weight I can put forth reliable evidence like citation counts.

Repeated from the article talk page:

• Carter, Wallance to Gingrich: 165 times since 1996 (122 after 2006)
• Aistrup, Southern Strategy Revisited: 125 times since 1996 (79 after 2006)
• Lassiter, Silent Majority: 354 (published in 2006)
• Shafer and Johnson, End of Southern Exceptionalism: 138 (published in 2006)

NOTE: Feldman noted in his 2011 book, Painting Dixie Red, that the bottom up view was, at the time of his writing, likely no earlier than 2010, the "dissenting - yet rapidly growing - narrative..." He was correct. Of the 354 citations Lassiter's book received, 251 are from 2010 and later. He wasn't kidding about rapidly growing.

Springee (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I've only addressed the OR nature of your attempt to refute academia with your own research. Of course, you demonstrate more of your own original research in this latest response. No where do you cite a source claiming that the bottum up or suburban strategy is the majority viewpoint, or that it is equally held in academia.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not claim it is the majority. It might be. I do claim that it is getting more attention in current literature. I'm asking that we treat it with equal weight because the scholarship shows it to be getting more attention than the top down narrative. This is consistent with Feldman's view that the bottom up narrative was rapidly gaining in popularity. The statements you referenced with respect to relative popularity were true when written but times do change. The current citation count shows that the bottom up view is receiving more attention in other scholarly works. If the scholars give it more weight why shouldn't we at least give it equal weight? Springee (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're claiming that it should be treated equally based on your own original research. Notice how you still haven't supplied a source that supports this POV. Sorry, it's not equally held and multiple reliable sources specifically identify it as the minority view.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation counts and scholarly impact

Since it has been suggested that citation counts are not indicative of scholarly impact, I collected articles that discuss the topic. All are clear that citation count is not a perfect measure but it is a decent indicator of the impact a work has had in the field. I would suggest that citation count certainly is one measure of weight. Thus when comparing to theories, the one with a higher citation count could be seen to have more scholarly weight. Citation count can't be considered an absolute metric but it is a good relative gauge when comparing works in the same area of study. A pioneering work will receive a high count as subsequent works that build on the information are published. This system rewards those who get there first. There is of course a Wikipedia article on the subject [[29]]. Here a are a few additional articles discussing the topic.

• [[30]] In your scholarly research, you may need to gauge the importance of a publication by counting the number of times it has been cited by other scholars. When you count the number of times an article has been cited in published research, you gain information about that article's impact on its discipline.
• [[31]] Citation analysis invovles counting the number of times an article is cited by other works to measure the impact of a publicaton or author.
• [[32]] General information about citation counts and the various systems that tally counts.
• [[33]] In general, the use of citations for evaluating research is based on the assumption that citation counts are an objective measure that credits and recognizes the value, impact, quality, or significance of an author’s work (Borgman & Furner, 2002; Cronin, 1984; Holden, Rosenberg, & Barker, 2005; Moed, 2005; vanRaan, 1996, 2005; Wallin, 2005).
• [[34]] One approach for measuring the impact and diffusion of academic research is by studying the quantity and pattern of citations to published research findings.

Yes, a pure Google Scholar citation count comparison is not a perfect way to measure impact. It would be a very flawed way when reviewed across multiple disciplines. However, as a relative metric when comparing works in the same area and on similar topics it is a very well established method. Springee (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, look at that mountain of original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

OR... no just a series of reliable sources such as academic libraries. Springee (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

None of which claim that the bottum-up view is equally held in scholarship as the top-down view. So your conclusion based on these sources is what's known as Original Research, not the sources themselves. This shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Request this discussion be closed

Lacking 3rd party input I would ask that this discussion be closed as inconclusive. Springee (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

To give you some third party input... I think this entire debate may be based on a misunderstanding of what we mean by "No original research". WP:NOR is a content policy... meaning it applies to the text of an article, not to talk page discussions. We are actually allowed to delve into original research on an article's talk page, if the goal is to actually improve the article.

What this means is this: it is not a violation of our NOR policy to discuss and compare sources when doing things like figuring out how much weight to give various competing theories. It is not a violation of WP:NOR to examine when sources were written, and reach the editorial conclusion that a theory is becoming more accepted than it used to be... and thus should be given a bit more weight in the article than it currently is given.

Now... assuming that is the consensus, the next step is to figure out how much" weight to give it.... That is never easy in situations where a new minority theory is still in the process of gaining support. The newer theory may be gaining acceptance, but has not (yet) supplanted the old majority view. So, in terms of weight, it falls somewhere between "don't give it any weight at all" and "give it equal weight"... The goal is to give it DUE weigh, but it can be difficult to agree on exactly how much weight is DUE.

Once you do reach a consensus on how much weight to give the newer theory... The final step is to figure out what to say about it in the text of the article. THAT'S where NOR comes into play.

Hope this helps. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is largely my understanding. So long as we don't use the citation count as justification for an article claim of equal weight then there is no OR issue. Currently there is not talk page consensus regarding how much weight to give the newer theory. I argue that the significantly greater number of citations and the most recent comments regarding the scholarly disposition regarding the two views ('dissenting yet rapidly gaining popularity', "The brewing debate between the "backlash" theorists and the "suburban school" is so important that I have chosen to include as many sides as possible in this volume." -Feldman[35]) should give both POV relative equal weight even if we can't establish the current balance of scholarly opinion. In other words, err on the side of inclusion and balance rather than exclusion. Springee (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

blueboar This discussion is broken into two parts and the part I'm addressing here is the OR aspect. Springee is first arguing that the bottom-up theory is equally held in scholarship to the top-down theory. This is his own OR argument which goes directly against what multiple reliable sources say. This is before we discuss weight, which would be done on a separate noticeboard. So, again, my question is, can we use OR arguments to refute what reliable sources say? The answer to this is clearly "No", but Springee thinks he can refute what reliable sources say with his own OR argument. That is the problem here. Once we acknowledge that you can't use your own arguments to refute what reliable sources say, then we recognize that the majority viewpoint is the top-down strategy and the minority viewpoint is the bottom-up strategy. That's when we can go to the NPOV noticeboard and discuss weight, understanding that Springee's pov is the minority pov, as determined by multiple reliable sources. So will you please comment on WP:OR policy regarding refuting reliable sources?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Scooby... it would be an NOR violation for the article itself to state that the bottom-up theory is equally held in modern scholarship ... but it isn't an NOR violation for an editor to argue that point on the talk page. On talk pages, it is perfectly fine conduct an assessment of acceptance by modern sources compared to older sources. We do it all the time.

Springee... I don't know the topic that well ... but it sounds like the top-down view is still the majority view... if this is the case, we should mention the bottom-up view (ie give it some weight), but not give it equal weight. I will leave it up to those who know the topic better to find the compromise whereby this can be achievedBlueboar (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, Please do not falsely state my POV. I have careful NOT made the claim that the bottom up POV is held equally. I am making the claim that it is important enough that we should give it equal weight in the article. I have said that we can not rule out that it may be held in equally or even greater than equal in scholarship given evidence such as Feldman's statements and it's nearly 2x citation count. That is not the same as making a definitive statement that they are equal. At no point do I think the article should state the views are currently held equally nor should we mention citation count. Given the recent evidence and Feldman's statements regarding the importance of the topic I think we should treat them with equal weight and I think it is reasonable to quote Feldman on the subject. The rest of your arguments are based on a false understanding of my position. Springee (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

{u|Blueboar}, my argument is that the POV of current scholarship is unclear. Scoobydunk has several quotes which support the idea that the bottom up theory should receive less weight but the chronology is important here. One of the quotes, one I dispute even supports the claim, was published 8 years before the bottom up theory was published hence it couldn't speak to the current level of relative acceptance. Another of the quotes is by Lassiter who put forth the bottom up theory in 2006. At the time he published his theory he said it went against the prevailing view. Well that is reasonable at the time he published. Finally, we have Feldman who, in a 2011 publication, said it was dissenting yet rapidly gaining and noted that he felt the debate between the views was extremely important. So we can not prove that either view currently is in the majority with scholars. Based on the citation count, especially the citations the bottom up theory has received since 2011, and Feldman's statements we can cast doubt on the idea that the top down theory still holds dominant sway. More importantly, even if it still does hold the dominant POV, Feldman said the debate between the two is highly important thus I think we should afford both equal weight. Springee (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Feldman's rapidly growing statement combined with the citation count is clear evidence that the scholarly community at least sees it as an equal theory."[36]. No, this is what you're arguing and you're wrong. I did not falsely state your pov, and this quote explicitly shows that your using your own argument which violates WP:synth to combine sources with your own original research to claim that "the scholarly community at least sees it as an equal theory." <---Those are your words verbatim. Also, using terms like "clear evidence" is a definitive statement and doesn't express doubt.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Where did I put that comment into the actual article. You seem to have picked up that one sentence, taken it in the direction you disagreed with and refused to see thing in any other way. I did not say "proof", I said "evidence". Stating it is evidence, even clear evidence does not mean an irrefutable conclusion. You read what you wanted to see, not what I meant. I'm sorry you were unable to see the larger context and understand that my meaning was that we can not ignore the evidence, not that it is irrefutable proof. You are welcome to present clear evidence in the other direction. Regardless of your misunderstanding, I have now made my meaning clear to you. Hopefully we can now move forward with this understanding established. Springee (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The claim I made, that you said was a misrepresentation, had nothing to do with putting something in the article. You are clearly trying to argue that scholars view them equally and they don't. This is a direct contradiction to what multiple reliable sources say and I've already provided clear evidence and proof that proves that. I don't think anyone here who reads that quote, will be confused about what you're trying to do here and in no way, shape, or form did I misrepresent what you're trying to do here. You are arguing that scholars view them equally and you try to support that with your own OR argument. That's a fact and I quoted it. To claim otherwise is blatantly dishonest. Also, you used the word "definitive" not "irrefutable", so now your attempting to create another red herring argument. I'm not interested in debating these semantics, you explicitly argued that scholars view them equally, and I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent that. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboar for answering the question. I know that weight arguments can be OR, I mean what scholarly work is going to discuss weight issues on Wikipedia? However, if a viewpoint is clearly defined as a majority viewpoint, then we can automatically skip to the part of WP:NPOV that discusses majority vs. minority viewpoint and there are clear guidelines on how we treat those viewpoints. Thanks again!Scoobydunk (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, to do what you propose we have to ignore two issues. First, the newest scholarship suggests that the consensus may shift (gaining rapidly). That view is supported by the citation counts. We also have a scholar who, regardless of the relative acceptance of the two ideas, says the debate between the two positions is highly important. He devoted about 1/2 of his book to each POV. Springee (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we ignore OR arguments when reliable sources clearly say what the majority viewpoint is. Thanks.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please show where [WP:WEIGHT] is given ONLY by the majority view. Furthermore, please prove that in this case the majority is imbalanced to the point where we should not offer roughly equal weight. Springee (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is strictly for addressing your OR claims and how you're trying to refute what peer reviewed reliable sources say about the majority viewpoint regarding the southern strategy and political realignment. Please stay on topicScoobydunk (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

blueboar, In a case where we have a minority POV, how do we decide how much weight that view should be given? For example, in a 5:4 court ruling we might decide that we should give roughly equal weight to each side (weight is not easily quantifiable). The same might be true in of arguments made for and against a referendum proposal. Of course this question relates to the current dispute. We can not know for certain what the current balance is among scholars, we can only speculate. In which direction should we err? In this case we have older statements by scholars suggesting one view, recent statements suggesting things are changing and citation counts which show the newer has received more academic attention (which is not the same thing as acceptance) in the last 5 years than the older theory received in nearly 20 years. Springee (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This all seems a bit silly to me - of course we should not be determining the relative weight of two different possible explanations for the southern realignment based on the number of google scholar citations. After all, people can (and frequently do) cite articles and historians whose ideas/arguments they totally disagree with.

That said; Lassiter et. al. have gotten a lot of attention, and their works hold considerable weight. They have published enough and gotten enough attention that their ideas should be given a prominent place in the article. If you're asking how much weight their ideas should be given, I think the answer is definitely "quite a bit" - but we should not lose sight of the fact that this is still clearly a revisionist view of the Southern Strategy - not all historians buy it, and it remains to be seen where the profession/scholarship as a whole is going to land on the question of the "top-down" southern strategy. Textbooks and undergrad courses still place the traditional narrative of the southern strategy pretty prominently, and most of them still pretty much treat it as gospel (I use A People and A Nation - I only have a 2012 copy handy right now, but it basically gives the "traditional" view of the southern strategy, doesn't even mention the re-interpretation of Lassiter et al).

For those who doubt, I recommend this essay by Michelle Brattain or Glenn Feldman's review of The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism for a couple of good examples (there are many more) of how many historians have responded to the revisionist narrative (basically: "great, that's pretty convincing, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater"). Certainly it would be going to far too say that Lassiter's view should be the main narrative in the article, and I don't really see how we could give them equal weight when the article is about the "Southern Strategy" - really the only way we can frame these works is as a significant challenge to the theories/narrative that the article is about. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a balanced POV. I would like to point out that I was not claiming that citation count indicates acceptance nor that citation count alone should be proof. Rather in this case I was arguing that given body of evidence, citation count being included in that, we should be able to agree that the bottom up narrative is significant to the point were it should receive significant mention in the article as appropriate. That is, if we are talking about the campaigning strategy of the GOP during a particular race then it shouldn't be mentioned. It's place in this article is as a counter point to a claim that appeals to racism are why southern voters turned to the GOP. Also, in terms of weight, even if the theory hasn't won over say 50% of the scholars, the fact that so many would devote effort to discuss it adds to the weight it should receive.

Anyway, I think the "How much? Quite a bit." is a good answer. The article should not claim it's a majority view but it should be treated as a very significant dissenting view (like the dissenting arguments of a 5-4 group consensus vote). Springee (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• It seems the consensus is clear from those who have responded. The top-down viewpoint of the southern strategy is supported by the majority of scholarship. It is also clear that arguing citation count can not be used to refute what reliable sources say. I believe a total of 5 editors have responded. Springee is the only one who's supported a claim that his citation research proves that the scholarly viewpoint is equal. He's said this on the talk page[37] and in this discussion: "Feldman's rapidly growing statement combined with the citation count is clear evidence that the scholarly community at least sees it as an equal theory."[38]. Blueboar, Fyddlestix, and myself have recognized that the top-down viewpoint is the majority viewpoint of scholarship. Rhoark did not comment specifically regarding the question. I ask that an uninvolved editor recognize the validity of the arguments in this discussion, as well as the support from the contributors in this discussion and properly close this NORN discussion since it has seemingly been resolved.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The question posed to the NORN was can OR be used to override what is found in reliable sources. That should be easy. No. In this case if I wanted to add a passage that said, the bottom up theory is now more accepted than the top down theory I think your case would be air tight. I would vote with you on that one.

However, that wasn't the nature of our actual debate on the talk page. At no point did I state my reasons should be seen as proof that the newer theory was the majority view. I did acknowledge that today, 4 years after Feldman was published the balance may have shifted. I never said it did and that wouldn't be significant to what I was trying to argue even if it were true because I was discussing weight, not adding a claim that "the majority of scholars support the bottom up theory". My intent was to establish some minimum level of weight for the view bottom up view. I noted that, given the information we had we could not be certain the information in the RSs was still current. That is not a statement or definitive claim that the consensus has shifted, only that we don't know where it currently rests. We do have a recent RS saying it is shifting (Fledman). We also know that the minority view is considered to be a very significant one (Feldman). We have the high citation count as well (indicates strong interest in the work). So even if we can't answer what percent of scholars of the subject accept top down vs bottom up, the view is significant enough to warrant weight in the article. How much? 20%? 40%? 49%? We can't say. My final argument was that given the uncertainty, the importance and the upward trajectory we should err on the 49% weight side of things vs say the 5% weight. Springee (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Scoobydunk that it is a NOR violation to use OR to disagree with a RS. No edits to the article were cited as examples of this happening so I would ask that this be closed as an ill-formed NORN. Springee (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've provided speak for themselves. As long as Springee agrees that the top-down viewpoint is the majority viewpoint as explicitly stated by every reliable source examined, then I see no reason for this to remain open. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Note, the quote stripped from the diff you provided was in violation of WP:IUC (quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold). You did not quote the entire sentence and thus you misrepresented why I actually said. What you quoted, "should be sufficient to handle it as a view that scholars place on equal footing with the top down theory. " But that wasn't the full sentence. The full sentence was, " I am not proposing that it be treated as a majority view but this should be sufficient to handle it as a view that scholars place on equal footing with the top down theory." (bolded added for this reply). That and the many other statements that follow should have made it clear that I was not proposing we add a claim to the article stating that the bottom up view was now the majority. Given that I clearly stated "I am not proposing that it be treated as the majority view" this entire NORN is based on a false premise. At least we agree that the article should not claim it to be the majority view baring an as of yet undisclosed RS offering a view to the contrary. In the future I would ask that you be more careful about creating misleading context around my quotes. That is at least two examples in our recent interactions.

I believe my statements today and Scoobydunk's are sufficient to close this discussion. Springee (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your added context didn't change the meaning of what you said. Clauses are stand alone statements and I quoted the relevant clause. Not to mention, you created an entire section on the talk page titled "Is it the minority view?" after we've already identified 4 plus sources that explicitly said as much. Also, the agreement is that the top-down viewpoint is the majority viewpoint. That's the consensus here and the suburban strategy is the minority viewpoint.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly seems like you are assuming bad faith when you first, leave off a critical part of the sentence that should have made my view clear. You followed that with repeated accusations regarding my intent that ran contrary to both what I have said I meant the first time and what I said after that. Finally, when I point out the way your cutting of my quote implies a false meaning you double down regarding what you claim is my intent. If you misunderstood my intent the first time by fixating on only part of the quoted sentence, my subsequent statements of intent should have cleared things up. WP:AGF Springee (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, the diffs speak for themselves.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes they do. They show that you selectively quoted and willfully ignored statements that didn't support a strawman of your own making. The fact that once again I have told you in plain language that your reading of the intent was wrong and still is wrong yet you refuse to admit your error again can only be seen as not assuming good faith. Springee (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Also, repeatedly accusing others of not showing good faith is considered tendentious editing.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And willfully misrepresenting others is a clearly uncivil behavior. However that is all behind us now so let's just agree to not go there. We can agree that you feel my phrasing could reasonably lead one to the wrong conclusion. I have since clarified my intent so we should now be in agreement as to what I mean. With that said, we have nothing more to talk about here and this can be closed. Springee (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it OK to describe a notable theory if the vast majority of authors provide only a short mention about the theory?

I want to describe a theory which is notable according to several criteria (the first published scientific theory about some problem, mentioned by several prominent scholars). However, the vast majority of the same scholars do not describe theory in details. Can I describe this theory if I use a reliable source, or is it an original research? Ditinili (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the theory and on the sources. And don’t forget to WP:Be bold. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's supported by reliable sources, it's not original research. Giving it too much space or placing it too prominently relative to more widely accepted theories would be WP:UNDUE. Rhoark (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, minor mention implies minor coverage - that is, if this is so notable why ain't it more noted?, but, more importantly, unless the gist of the theory is self-evident from the mention-in-passing, then description of the theory -as opposed to acknowledging its existence- might be seen as OR. Anmccaff (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

" if this is so notable why ain't it more noted?" The question is "where is it noted". Sklenár theory is well covered and there are reliable studies about his work and his theory with various level of details (he is not an unknown author but one of those who wrote the first works about Slovak history). However, if we speak about works which have a goal to reject these alternative theories or to point on their weaknesses, then really, the vast majority of the authors make only a short mention about Sklenár's theory, just to show that same theories are really old, but he is not a "target" (it means, that the primary criticism is aimed on modern authors and their mistakes). I mean, the article on wikipedia has a different purpose. If there are reliable sources about the theory, and it was the first scientific theory about the topic published, I don't see any reason why not to provide a short historical background to show (in a neutral way) that some ideas are rather old and they were only rediscovered. I have no doubts that the primary focus should be on modern works.--Ditinili (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Which article is this about? Please be specific. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. The article is (should be) about various minor alternative theories that are not widely accepted, but they are/were discussed by the scientific community. The problem is related to the theory of Juraj Sklenár (the first known alternative theory using the same arguments as later works). I will welcome neutral 3rd party views, see Talk page of the article. Ditinili (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, I think you could write an article about Sklenár (if he is notable) and could mention his theory in that article. As far as I know, there are peer-reviewed publications about Sklenár which mentions his theory as well. We can write a separate article about Europe, we do not need to include (and cannot include) more information of Europe in articles about an European country than information mentioned about that continent in peer-reviewed publications dedicated to that specific European country. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am asking the question about wikipedia rules. Can be some text marked as an original research, if the content can be supported by reliable sources? It was repeatedly declared that it is an "original research", because "the vast majority of authors" do not provide more details about the theory (Note: this statement about "vast majority" is not based on any external source, it's an opinion of the editor, who also decides which publication can and which cannot be counted, even if the author of particular publication is otherwise reliable). I want to hear a clear answer if it is an original research. Then I am open to speak about principles like "notability" and "due weight". Ditinili (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood something. It was you who stated that you have so far only found one reliable source and that source is dedicated to Sklenar, not to the history of Great Moravia or to the alternative theories about the location of Great Moravia ([39]). If there are more sources, please feel free to cite them. However, we should not pretend that Sklenár's theory is notable for the subject of the article if the vast majority of the reliable source cited in the article do not dedicated more than one or to sentences to him and to his theories. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope that this "misunderstanding" is over. More, I have never declared that there is "only one" reliable source, I gave an example, where it is possible to find very detailed description of the theory, clearly documenting that it is not "my own research". The argument about "orginal research" was used repeatedly, so I want to make it clear and I want to have clear yes/no answer before moving to further open questions like "notability". Can be a properly sourced text from recognized author marked as my original research (?!) because other authors provide less details? Ditinili (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct you cannot refer to a reliable source dedicated to the subject of the article which dedicates more than one or two sentences to Sklenár and his theory. That is why I suggested that we should not dedicate more sentences to him and his theory in the article, in accordance with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, I know your view. I need a feedback from independent editors. In my opinion, the scope of the text is a question of notability and "due weight" and I will discuss it later.

I am sorry for repeating my question: "Can be a properly sourced text from the recognized author marked as my original research because other authors provide less details?"Ditinili (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think your question can easily be misinterpreted. Taking into account the conversation about this issue, the proper question would be the following: "Can a theory be described in detail in an article if the vast majority of the reliable sources dedicated to the subject of the same article ignore it or only dedicate to it one or two sentences?" Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My question is very clear and cannot be "misinterpreted".

Please wait for independent opinions about definition of original research. Notability and due weight (= your objections) will be discussed shortly after.Ditinili (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is the question of WP:OR: Can we present a subject in an article in a way it is not presented in reliable sources dedicated to the same subject? Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, please give other editors a chance to answer the first question to make clear what is an original research. Then, we can discuss partial questions like if "the subject is presented in the article as it is presented in reliable sources dedicated to the same subject" (?) and "what are sources dedicated to the subject". Don't be afraid, you will not miss anything.Ditinili (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

??? I have never hindered other editors from answering any question and I am not afraid of anything. Please refrain from personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. I only want to ensure you that your objections related to notability and alleged non-copliance of the text with sources will be properly addressed.Ditinili (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, do not change my argumentation: I have been suggesting for days that an approach which cannot be verified based on reliable sources is a form of original research. Borsoka (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not change anything. If you agree that the text based of reliable sources (and properly referenced) cannot be defined as an original research, I am ready to raise a question about reliable sources. Ditinili (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree. For instance, if I thought that the design of Chevrolet is important to understand the development of the Sun, I could not add information of Chevrolets to the article about the Sun even if all information about Chevrolets would be verified by reliable sources. Or, I know (and I could verify) that there are bears in the USA, but I could not add tens or hundreds of sentences about bears to the article about USA just because I love bears, even if all those sentences were based on reliable sources about bears, because I should verify my approach based on reliable sources about the subject of the article (the USA). Your approach is very similar: you want to add several pieces of information to the article, but the same pieces are ignored in the vast majority of relevant reliable sources (actually, you have not mentioned a single source dediceted to the subject of the article which writes long sentences about Sklenár). Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I would rather not depend on various comparisons which can be innacurate or misuderstood. I want a simple confirmation of Wikipedia rules related to OR. If I cite a reliable source and if do it properly, it cannot be my original research. Right?

It completely does not matter that "the vast majority" (who evaluated this? some wikipedia editor?) of the authors don't describe details (why should they repeat details, if there are more detailed, dedicated works about the topic?). In the worst case, it can be WP:UNDUE, but not WP:NOR.Ditinili (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

_{P.S.: "Actually, you have not mentioned a single source dediceted to the subject of the article which writes long sentences about Sklenár". Of course, I did and I referenced several publications, but I will discuss what are relevant sources separately.Ditinili (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, you mentioned several publications about Sklenár, not about the topic of the article. That is why I suggest you should write an article about Sklenár. Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)}

Please read my above example about the bears and the USA: no you cannot write long sentences about the bears in an article about the USA based on reliable sources dedicated to bears. Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your example has nothing with WP:NOR, but it is probably against WP:SUMMARY (I am not an expert). In my opinion, the right answer is:

"If it's supported by reliable sources, it's not original research. Giving it too much space or placing it too prominently relative to more widely accepted theories would be WP:UNDUE. Rhoark (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)"

I can easlily agree on that. Can you? Ditinili (talk)

I think that WP:UNDUE can hardly be applied here: Sklenár's theory is an old version of a minority theory. I am still convinced that original research includes all cases when we cannot verify our approach to the subject of the article with references to reliable sources (for instance, we are writing about Chevrolets in an article about the sun or bears in an article about the USA using reliable sources dedicated to Chevrolets or bears, respectively, instead of citing sources dedicted to the USA). Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don not care about bears and chevrolets. Can you cite this vague statement about "our approach" from the official wikipedia rules? The proposed apporach is to cite reliable source and it cannot be WP:NOR. Please, confirm.

I'm just going to pipe in here for a sec to opine that it is fine to use such sources to show the variety of thought on a topic. If there's a source or two which discusses the topic at some length (pages, not paragraphs), and many other authors have added a sentence of analysis here or there, there is no fault in citing the original contributions of these other authors simply to show that at least somebody has thought up the point they provide. Naturally, it would be wrong to inflate that into a presentation of broadly held thinking on the subject unless several authors shared the position. Pandeist (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I can use 5 types of sources:

a) the original (I suggest to rely on secondary sources)

b) dedicated studies about the author and his theory (a half of the book or several pages dedicated to the theory)

c) publications about the evolution of views on Great Moravia and Slovak historiography

d) publications about Great Moravia, mentioning also alternative theories and reacting on them (e.g. 1 page dedicated to this theory before further criticism of modern "alternative" authors)

e) dedicated critical responses to the works of the modern "alternative" authors who rediscovered this or similiar theories (here the theory is mostly shorly mentioned)

There is a dispute, if I can use sources from the category b) in the article to describe the theory. This is interpreted as my original research. At least in one case, the author of the publications from the category b) and e) is the same. Can I use sources from the category b)?

In which article do you want to use sources from the category b)? If in the article about Sklenár and his theory, it is obviously OK. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you cite any wikipedia rule supporting your opinion that in other case, it is "original research"? Ditinili (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My sources support the material clearly and directly. The opinion that the specialized study about the problem "does not support the material clearly and directly" is not very rational (sorry). Your trial to exlude all such studies is not reasonable and has no support in wikipedia rules. The rule your have cited is related to so called synthetis of material. I do not present any novel position, I only cited what is already published and available. I am again looking forward for opinions of other, not-involved editors. Ditinili (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources dedicated to the subject of the article do not support the material directly: they did not provide a detailed description of Sklenár and his theory. One can hardly refer to works dedicated to Sklenár and his theory when verifying the proper scholarly approach to edit other articles. And you actually want to advance your own position about Boba and Boba's theory when writing about Sklenár and Sklenár's theory, as it is suggested by your own remarks: ([40]), ([41]). Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you do not understand well what is synthesis of material. Firstly, there is not a single sentence which is "synthesised" from several sources to present a novel position. If you think so, cite such statement. De facto, you are complaining that the article is supported by several sources and while some sources provide more details, another provide less detail. This is not original research.

The statement that the sources dedicated to the subject of the article "do not provide a detailed description of Sklenár's work" is also incorrect. The subject of the article is "alternative theories about the location of Great Moravia". So, specialized studies about such theories (like Sklenar's theory) are definitely about the subject of the article and your trial to exclude them is unfounded. More, your statement about the lack of "detailed description" in studies which you want include is also problematic. E.g. Meřínský (2006) or Marsina (1999) summarized all main points of Sklenar's theory (including its historical background) right before further reactions on modern "alternative" authors.

I can hardly understand, that you want to remove the work of one author (Sklenar) to "defend" another one (Boba). This is really strong POV-pushing.Ditinili (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I do not want to defend Boba. Furthermore, I understand what a synthesis of material is: that is why I say that you should not merge academic works to strengthen your own position. Before accusing me of hidden agenda, please remember that Sklenár and his theory were clearly mentioned in the article even before you started to add the details of his theory (including his strange 18th-century views of the Jász people, etc) ([42]). I do not want to hide his theory: I have also mentioned several time that Sklenár's theory could be described in an article dedicated to him (if he and his theory is notable) (for example, here: [43]). Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that your definition of "merging of academic works" has absolutely nothing with "Synthesis of published material". There is not a single line sentence "synthetized". There are also examples what is considered to be "improper synthesis". The article does not contain anything like that, but only standard references to multiple sources. If you do not think so, please cite a concrete sentence from the article which is synthetized.

Summary:

* The text is based on reliable sources.

* There is not any improper synthesis according to Wikipedia definition.

* It means that until now you were not able to document any original research. If you are not able to do so, I will close the topic and then handle any removal of the sourced text, reasoned by alleged original research as vandalism. If you want to complain on something else (e.g. NOTABILITY or DUE WEIGHT), I am open do discuss it separately.

More:

* The sources you wanted to exclude (?) are related to the topic (alternative theories about the location of Great Moravia), because they describe alternative theory about the location of Great Moravia. I will consider all trials to exclude some kind of reliable sources under various covers as POV-pushing.

* The sources you did not want to exclude also provide details about Sklenar's work, what can be documented by Marsina (1996) a Měřínský (2006). Note, that both authors dedicated more space to Sklenar's theory that to some works of modern authors.

By the way, your statement about "Jasz people" is also not correct, what is clear from the history of the article[[44], but this is an unimportant mistake. Ditinili (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed that Sklenár's theory can be included; this is addressed in detail at the RfC on the article talk page. As to the general question, WP:UNDUE addresses how to include a theory that is notable but not dominant (and how to not also make it appear to have been less accepted in its time than it was). An unaddressed (so far as I notice) issue raised by the general question if not this specific case: If a pile of sources mention a theory, and provide a few details about it, it becomes OR to describe the theory with details not found in the sources, or to make connections and inferences between the isolated facts in the sources and synthesize a theoretical framework description that is largely a product of one's own analysis. Attempts at this can often be quite wrong or at least misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Instrumentalism

I have been accused of original research in this topic--for reporting what original sources wrote and how secondary sources responded. I do not understand this as original research, and would like to involve other editors in explaining and judging this case.TBR-qed (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the topic well enough to say whether what you are doing is OR... but when an article relies as extensively on primary sources as this one does... I certainly think it likely. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Please help me understand. I report original definitions of instrumentalism by Popper and Dewey in the 1930s, in order to ground the subsequent and continuing debate in secondary sources over the meaning of the school. I don't see how such a procedure could be considered original research. How else explain the continuing ambiguity?TBR-qed (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Can I ask for more eyes on List of Islamist terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

A single-purpose account, Joobo (talk · contribs), keeps inserting unsourced or poorly sourced incidents that are not described by reliable sources as Islamist terrorist attacks. This has been discussed several times with the editor, both on the editor's Talk page and the article's Talk page, for example at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#References and Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#What can and should be put on this list what not, but the editor just isn't listening, as the editor's recent edit summaries indicate.

Thank you. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Original research would be if there is a source, which claims that there was some sort of attack (regarding the marseille incident for example). and someone would simply add the incident and claiming it was an islamist terror attack. yet the sources clearly indicated that the perpetrators of this attack were islamist supporters. conclusion. a person gets attacked by supporters of an "TERROR" organisation due to this purpose. --> islamist terror. just cause a word is missing doesnt mean OG. then im very curious why you dont delete the incident from the list of terror attacks 2015 as well? or the list of terror attacks in france? again this is no original research. and i will put the incidents back on again, with other sources to please your notreasonable desire. whats happening here again is very ignorant, hypocritical(since you only focus on the one list) and not even quite comprehensible of the og claiming party. anyway. have a good one . Joobo (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To what extent can a poll be applied to a general theory.

I have an RfC up at Talk:Jude_Wanniski#RFC_on_description_of_the_Laffer_curve about a poll of economists taken in 2012 that asks "Question B: A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut." source This poll is being used to support the claim that "Numerous leading economists have rejected the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed."

In my opinion, this is OR because it implies a conclusion not stated by the source, that the economists "have rejected the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States". There are variations of this edit on Art Laffer, Supply-side economics and the Laffer curve. Fresh opinions would be welcome on this subject. Bonewah (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The poll would be a primary source and for this type of information, I think it's better to use a reliable secondary source that discusses the poll. I do believe original research is being used to equate the Laffer curve to question B, based strictly on this poll provided. However, the poll clearly addresses the Laffer curve, so that doesn't mean it should be wiped from the article. When using primary sources they really have to be used for what they explicitly say, we really can draw our own conclusions from them.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)