Wikipedia

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 36

< Wikipedia:No original research‎ | Noticeboard

OR on GMO articles

Previous NOR entry, at the time the related article content was changed to agreement. However, editors changed it back again to claim that there is a consensus on GMO safety.

Why is a consensus statement problematic?

If there were a consensus it would be clear in the wast amount of scientific literature.

  • The WHO states in their official conclusion about food safety of GMOs, "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods."
  • A UNEP/IAASTD report from last year (p. 34) states, "As the general public has become increasingly interested in the linkages between agricultural production systems and human health, the list of food-related health concerns has continued to grow. It includes uncertainty with regard to the effects of GMOs on human health, fear of pesticide residues on foodstuffs..."
  • From the IAASTD synthesis report, "The three most discussed issues on biotechnology in the IAASTD conceredt: • Lingering doubts about the adequacy of efficacy and safety testing, or regulatory frameworks for testing GMOs [e.g., CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP Chapter 5; Global Chapter 3, 6; SSA 3]; • Suitability of GMOs for addressing the needs of most farmers while not harming others, at least within some existing IPR and liability frameworks [e.g., Global Chapter 3, 6]; • Ability of modern biotechnology to make significant contributions to the resilience of small and subsistence agricultural systems [e.g., Global Chapter 2, 6]" prokaryotes (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments
  • Comment. The first thing that needs to be stated is that this subject has just been covered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, and discretionary sanctions apply to this discussion. I want to make clear that the edits that are in dispute are the following: [1], [2], and [3]. So all of the noise above is simply over whether we should say "scientific agreement" or "scientific consensus", as if that were a big deal. But the reason that it is in dispute is that we have POV-pushers who want to undermine the idea that GM foods are safe, so they want to water down the idea of a "consensus", even if that means that somehow, miraculously, "agreement" is better. Now it's true that there is a WHO source that calls for testing each new GM crop plant, on a case-by-case basis, in case a new problem should emerge. That isn't an upsetting of the scientific consensus, but simply an application of good science, to check whether future findings might provide exceptions to the existing scientific consensus. No editor is claiming that there is a scientific consensus against testing new GM plants, only that there is a scientific consensus that, so far, your food won't make you drop dead. And as for talk page consensus, the immediate talk page discussion is at Talk:Genetically modified crops#Scientific "consensus", and the most recent discussion of the question in general was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?. To say that Aircorn and I are ignoring talk page consensus is counter-factual. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
There are many reports (such as this) who conclude that wisdom about safety (a certain GMO case) is incomplete. Again, my point above that you can not make general statements. And then there is the fact that glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogenic, which renders glyphosate depending herbicide tolerant products unhealthy to some degree (yes, this does include non GMO as well). prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Glyphosate is not a GM plant. It is a chemical. Part of the POV-pushing is centered on creating the false impression that GM plants have more toxic chemical residues on them than conventional crop plants do, so inevitably, discussion about scientific consensus about the plants subtly shifts to discussion about scientific consensus about the residues on the plants. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We are discussing food safety of GMOs, which according to food safety includes pesticide residues, "In considering industry to market practices, food safety considerations include the origins of food including the practices relating to food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, as well as policies on biotechnology and food" I notice that you repeatedly refer to POV-pushers, please focus on actual evidence per sources, instead of repeating terms characteristic for battleground behavior, see WP:BATTLE. This talk is about OR not about factions. prokaryotes (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one who needs to read WP:BATTLE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict) To my knowledge this question has been to WP:RFC twice. The first was closed in August 2013 as "the statement being reasonable" (Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus"). I took part in that RFC. The second RFC was closed as no consensus in July 2015 (Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 10). Whether the statement was original research was discussed at length in both RFC's. AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment To claim "scientific consensus" is actually a big deal according to WP rules, and i think everyone here knows that. The second RfC trumps/negates the first one, and it wasn't simply "no consensus", it was no consensus that the SC statement had support even with the 18 sources clumped together. We still don't have any strong, non-advocacy RS stating that most or all scientists agree on GMO safety, only Pew poll of AAAS scientists. From Archive 12:
A quotation from the author of the RfC might be relevant to this discussion: "[I]f there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement." - GrayDuck156 23 July
the closer has more authority than i. the closer also suggested we try to rework it. so that is what we should do. we need to work that out here. - Jytdog 23 July
Now that no one is looking, two editors are inserting this language again. It cannot be said that editors weren't aware of the RfC and its findings, not after the ARbCom where it was mentioned ad infinitum. This appears to be pro-GMO POV pushing to me. petrarchan47คุก 02:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
You have it the wrong way round as the scientific consensus language was already there. This is the first edit that I can find that changed it to scientific agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's only because the RfC to which you are referring took place at the GMO foods page, not the GM crops article. So, only the GM foods article was amended post-RfC; no one got around to changing all the articles. There may be upwards of 12 pages that still contain the "scientific consensus on GMO safety" claim, likely because of the blowback when any change is attempted.
Here is the first time the SC statement was changed after the RfC. Here is where Jytdog 'fixed' the wording from admitting that some questions do exist, to another form of SC (which is still in need of proper sourcing).
If the RfC found no support sufficient to claim SC - including the widely discussed AAAS ref - then that RfC holds true for this claim no matter where it sits, until new sources arise support it. Have any new sources been produced? petrarchan47คุก 21:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:OR is policy, a local consensus from a RFC or agreement of editors on an article talk page cant override policy that has community consensus. No source makes that exact claim, The AAAS source is close but problematic in that it misrepresents the WHO. AlbinoFerret 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Aircorn's description leaves out the complete history. Jytdog created the second RfC because it was clear that there was no longer a Wikipedia consensus supporting the "scientific consensus" language. In the start of the 2nd RfC Jytdog indicates the intent and purpose of the need for a 2nd RfC: "That statement undergoes constant challenge, so it is perhaps time to review it again." And the result of the close was indeed that there was no consensus on what to do about the disputed language. However, the closers of both RfC's advised on revising the language to gain consensus. I described that in the following post:
RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.
The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here. There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:
Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording
I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:
... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.
With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new...discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food .... Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:
  • Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
  • Genetically modified food (Talk)
  • Genetically modified crops(Talk)
  • Genetically modified organism(Talk)
  • Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Talk)
  • March Against Monsanto (Talk)
  • The Non-GMO Project(Talk)
I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC) (post is here).
Editors discussed the language at Genetically Modified Food (no one objected to my proposal to discuss it there) and eventually the "scientific agreement" language was the result at the GM Food article. I explained all that here.
I am pinging each of the closers of the two RfCs--@I JethroBT: and @Risker:--in case they want to comment on what they meant in the above quotes. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I deliberately left it short so as not to prejudice or discourage any uninvolved person who might be willing to look into this. Because that is what we need, uninvolved editors. What RFC did Risker close? AIRcorn (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
David, I disagree with your assessment: "And the result of the close was indeed that there was no consensus on what to do about the disputed language." The RfC question was not "What do we do about the language", rather, it was "Do these sources support this claim?" The result was 'no, we don't have a consensus that this is supported', leaving the closer with the only conclusion (found in his closing statement): we cannot use "scientific consensus" re GM food safety. This means that all of the refs cited above have been through the RfC process and failed miserably for one reason or another. Unless there are new sources, IMO editors should be fixing the articles according to RS, not defending outdated, unsupported language that was overlooked by editors post-RfC and forcing us to re-argue the same points. petrarchan47คุก 23:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As I look at the discussion here, everyone (including me) is an editor who has long been involved in the disputes about GMOs, and predictably, it looks like most editors are lining up according to the existing "sides". Therefore, I think that the most useful purpose of a noticeboard like this being to attract "fresh eyes", I hope that uninvolved editors may be able to offer something here. But another thing – I've been thinking very hard about the dispute here, and an idea occurred to me. Shortly, I will suggest it at Talk:Genetically modified crops. Who knows, maybe it will help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There were a number of problems with the claim that there was academic consensus. Either the sources were unreliable or they did not make that claim. The only review studies presented have said that insufficient research has been conducted to draw any conclusion. If anyone has a review study that says differently, then it would be helpful to present it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It's scientific consensus, rather than academic. There are plenty of reliable sources that review the literature (thus, secondary sources) and conclude that there is no greater risk. And there are no reliable sources that conclude that there is a greater risk, although there are reliable sources that say that there still needs to be case-by-case testing. The issue you raise is whether or not it is SYNTH to take the preponderance of sources and conclude that they are in consensus. As you, TFD, well know, you and I have disagreed about the proper application of SYNTH many times before, and doubtless, we disagree again here. But thank you for providing an outside opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Per your own words it shows that the claim is WP:SYNTHESIS it matters not if you agree with it, its WP policy.
"There are plenty of reliable sources that review the literature (thus, secondary sources) and conclude that there is no greater risk."
Thats adding up the sources to come to a conclusion. What is required by WP:VER is a WP:RS that makes the claim that there is "scientific consensus" if there are so many sources, it should be easy to pull one up. AlbinoFerret 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you have a false dilemma here, either (1) the risk is not greater -or- (2) the risk is greater. As you have acknowledged the sources indicate a need for case-by-case testing. And as TFD mentioned the review studies indicate insufficient study and knowledge from lack of long term studies. We seem to all agree that Domingo 2011[1] is the best (or one of the best) review articles on this subject. This Krismky article[2] discusses eight review articles about GMO safety (including Domingo 2011). The journal for Krimsky states here its impact factor as: Impact Factor:2.194 | 5-Year Impact Factor:2.475.
  1. ^ Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.
  2. ^ Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values 1-32. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381.
--David Tornheim (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment been over this before, this silly coat-racking of cites that say nothing definitive about scientific consensus is going to keep causing problems. Cite only those sources that provide undisputed support for the claim, remove the fluff. Semitransgenic talk. 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Tryptofish, certainly with your background I am sure you are capable of researching the literature and forming an opinion about the general consensus. However, that is still original research and cannot replace peer-reviewed studies. I would point out that publicly known figures including Jane Goodall and David Suzuki have questioned whether there has been sufficient testing. It would also seem to violate WP:MEDRS, since we could be offering incorrect information about health claims. Since you have spent a lot of time on this, have a PhD in biochemistry and have written peer-reviewed papers, have you ever thought of writing a review study for an academic journal? Then we could incorporate your findings into the articles. TFD (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus. We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated fringe sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc. At one point, we had people complaining that there were too many references (up to 20 I recall) that gave a comprehensive overview on the different ways to say consensus in this topic, and now we have people picking out a few sources instead trying to claim they don't match up. This content has been through multiple RfCs, so there shouldn't be any reason to keep bringing it up as original research. Competency in the subject matter is required here, and we have multiple editors conflating specific parts of the overall consensus description in the literature as being contradictory when it is not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It is remarkable that you suggest that editors who give valid policy based input are similar to climate deniers/use same tactics. I think you should retract that and read about climate denial. Or better retract teh entire comment, fringe...conflating parts...competency, are you serious?prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of the things listed are unfortunately behavior problems that this board isn't suitable to handle, which is why we likely won't get anywhere here (and why I mentioned them and am done on that part). That being said, and focusing on the real-world aspect, the same arguments being used to deny the GMO consensus as with climate change, vaccines, etc. is written about pretty often. It's not hard to find sources commenting on those things hand in hand and mentioning that fringe aspect of society, why they do it, etc. [4][5][6][7]. We're not writing content on that right now, but that is a real world issue that comes with trying to edit articles where people are trying to deny a scientific consensus. It is a legitimate content problem when editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference between an article out of Wikipedia, and policy based discussions when an editor suggest that other editors use climate denier tactics. There is also a difference when someone compares his SYN/OR sources which do not refer to a consensus, and compares that with the overwhelming consensus in climate science (i.e. IPCC statement on scientific consensus). I find your argumentation here very concerning, and your comments show that you seem to lack basic will to understand these differences, besides very good arguments by various involved and uninvolved editors. prokaryotes (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial" - what utter bollocks, an association fallacy of the highest order, this is Kingofaces43 casting aspersions again in an attempt to poison the well. Claiming that those critical of GM technologies are somehow undifferentiated from those who deny climate change is nothing more than a straw man. Please note GMO arbitration decision 4.1.5 Semitransgenic talk. 10:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a comparison with climate change denial. Review papers on climate change say there is consensus that it is real, and industry supports studies outside the academic mainstream to promote the view that consensus does not exist. Review papers on GMO say there is no consensus that it is safe, and industry supports studies outside the academic mainstream to promote the view that consensus does exist. The Searle Freedom Trust is listed first in an International Business Times article about funders of anti-climate change science.[8] It is also a major funder of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, one of whose scholars, Jon Entine, runs the pro-GMO Genetic Literacy Project. Ironically, the Genetic Literacy Project says that climate change is real and compares GMO scepticism to climate change denial. TFD (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

yes, that narrative is there, no denying it, but that's not the context in which the above concern was raised. The origination of this "tactic" of using the GMO/climate change association fallacy to negate criticism is outside the scope of this discussion unfortunately. Semitransgenic talk. 15:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 1

In my opinion the strongest source for the scientific consensus currently linked to in the article is a statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2012. T me this appears strong enough to support scientific consensus on its own. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant paragraph from AAAS (I underlined the key sentence)
The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breed-ing technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
Why not simply quote the AAAS? prokaryotes (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The only problem is that the AAAS source only lists 4 groups, not even mentioning scientific agreement or consensus, even worse it misstates the WHO that GMO's have to be guaged on a case by case basis, a red flag for reliability. It also does not list any other sources it relies on, second flag. Try again. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It mentions four very important science groups then says "and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence". Saying the AAAS is unreliable is a big call. How does it misstate the WHO? I don't see evaluating on a case-by-case basis as contradictory to saying current GM food is as safe as conventional. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Four groups does not "scientific consensus" make. clear and simple. If the claim was "The AAAS board of directors said four organizations ..............." even listing the WHO ect out, it would be one thing, but the problems with the source, and using it to back a "scientific consensus" statement is problematic. Still OR/synthesis. AlbinoFerret 21:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
After it mentions the four groups it says and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence so four groups plus "every other respected organization that has examined the evidence" is as strong a statement of consensus as I have seen. AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That is a very extraordinary, to claim all other respected organizations. Perhaps you would like to read WP:EXTRAORDINARY. AlbinoFerret 08:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You can't keep moving the goalposts. First you say it doesn't mention enough oranisations and now it mentions too many. AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Aircorn: An editor put it succinctly and well, over two years ago:
I also agree that the AAAS board of directors one-page editorial statement is a problematic source. There's no indication that the AAAS members were polled; it's basically an ex cathedra statement at the ranking at the lowest level of evidence.
That editors have found AAAS a problematic source is nothing new. It is high-grade PR writing, that is factually accurate, while appearing to say something that it in fact does not support. The issuers were willing to take flak for the position, all they had to protect against was being called out on the facts, not on the creative wording, and everything is so non-specific, there is always an interpretation of the literal statements like, "every other respected organization that has examined the evidence," that can be supported.
In the media, the AAAS was openly associated with anti-labeling efforts in the California Proposition 37, 2012 campaign, as was their statement. It was released just over two weeks before the vote, and intended for immediate public impact. The money sentence can be quite easily deconstructed to show that what at first reads like an assertion of broad scientific agreement for a GM food safety claim, is in fact only the much more conservative claim that GM methods are inherently no riskier than conventional methods. It's well-written.
To use this as verifiable sole evidence of a scientific consensus seems kinda bizarre, and definitely inadequate. --Tsavage (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
If they believed their statement then it should come as no surprise that they are anti-labeling. They haven't tried to hide the timing or reason for its release as it is present in the title. I see no problem with that, statements are generelly released in response to something. I agree that "respected organization" can be gamed, but then again so can most statements and they needed to qualify it in some way. If they just said every organization then people would cry foul and bring up CRIIGEN. The money sentence ends with "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques". The word food is used heavily in that sentence fragment. No matter how I read that it says that food from GM crops is no riskier than food from conventional crops. In any case this seems like more an issue of reliability as opposed to synthesis. I recently read through the reliable source noticeboard discussion you started and the only comments from an editor who has not responded here (I do not recognise them from any other discussions on gm food either) suggest using it in conjunction with other sources. Discussion on other sources is continuing at Talk:Genetically modified crops#Citations, which you might find interesting. AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That the AAAS is anti-labeling is in regard to independence: this is not a formal review of evidence, it is their OPINION that certain organizations, in whatever they had each said, are in agreement with what the AAAS is saying - that opinion will obviously be slanted as much as possible in favor of their anti-labeling/GM-food-is-safe position. So, non-independence would apply here, and in-line attribution, not "scientific consensus" summary.
The food claim is easy to dismantle: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques is simply extending the proposition that GM methods are inherently no riskier than conventional methods:
1. if, as they note in their preceding EU quote (which is what they rework), biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies, then...
2. any "same" (identical or...equivalent) crops produced by GM and by conventional methods should present the same risk, and...
3. the food produced from those crops as ingredients should also pose only equivalent risk.
Crops or food or ingredients, it's the same hypothetical equivalence of METHODS, and that's the statement they're saying is supported by "everyone respected." In this (US-framed) context, taking the further step to the safety of actual available food relies on evidence of substantial equivalence testing, case by case for each food. While the AAAS statement discusses regulation and testing later, that "every" food has been tested as safe is not included IN THE FOOD STATEMENT.
Here, we're not trying to see for ourselves if GM food can be considered safe by the available evidence and standards, we're looking for a source that says there is consensus, so that we can write consensus, and we don't seem to have it here.
I'm not sure in what sense you're referring to previous RSN discussions, which I just glanced at: they seemed to go on and on to no clear end, as is kinda usual.
If my understanding is somehow totally...perverse, please indicate how so. --23:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsavage (talk • contribs) 23:58, January 29, 2016‎
  • Here are the reasons AAAS was not considered acceptable for a safety consensus statement:
The AAAS source is not a review/not MEDRS; the only review of GM food to date and its impact on human health is Domingo 2011, which is still missing from WP pages (it says that half of independent studies find "serious cause for concern").
From RfC re Safety Consensus statement:
  • not peer-reviewed
  • includes a false representation of the WHO's position
  • contrasts GM food with "conventional plant breeding techniques", not "conventional food"
  • "The AAAS document, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," is a position piece opposing mandatory labeling legislation in the US." - Tsavage
  • "A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case." - groupuscule
  • "The AAAS public position paper, which seems to be the source most cited as support for the consensus statement, was written to argue against GM labeling, published as news on their web site, and seems obviously aimed at legislators, media reporters, and the general public, as a group, non-technical readers. It's essentially a form of press release." - Tsavage
  • Does not represent the AAAS scientists. petrarchan47คุก 00:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Since that time, new information has come from FOIA documents that should make us question the AAAS as RS:
"Buried in the emails is proof positive of active collusion between the agribusiness and chemical industries, numerous and often prominent academics, PR companies, and key administrators of land grant universities for the purpose of promoting GMOs and pesticides. In particular, nowhere does the Times note that one of the chief colluders was none other than the President of the [AAAS]". per ISN. petrarchan47คุก 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if quoting other wikipedians is much proof of anything except that this subject has divided contributors (we argue about dashes so I am not sure that is notable in itself). The environmental health news source is easily countered by the pew research centre, which found that "88% of AAAS scientists say GM foods are generally safe". Independent science news is hardly a reliable source. Also how do you think conventional food came about if not through conventional plant breeding techniques. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A Pew research poll of American scientists with the AAAS doesn't for much of anything; the problem is that we don't tell readers the specifics of this poll, we simply indicate that most scientists (worldwide?) think GMOs are safe. This is misleading and unsupported, as is your claim that ISN lacks veracity. That article is fact-based and shows through FOIA requests that the AAAS is pushing GMOs, so if the AAAS is the only source we have for this extraordinary claim of "most scientists agree", you can see the problem. petrarchan47คุก 04:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Because multiple editors have replied to me along similar lines, I'm going to make a single post here, instead of trying to reply to each one of you individually. To those who have claimed that I am ignoring the NOR policy, no that's really not true. At its core, what we have here are two competing theories of what the SYNTH part of NOR really means. Neither one is entirely wrong, and I'm not sure how editors who disagree about it can come to consensus.
    • Theory 1: WP:SYNTH is a bright-line rule, not unlike WP:3RR. We have to be rigidly careful not to have editors including original research. If, for example, we are to say that there is "scientific consensus", then there must be a reliable secondary source that says explicitly that there is scientific consensus. The source must actually use that exact phrase, "scientific consensus". Absent a reliable source that says that, we must not use that phrase here.
    • Theory 2: WP:SYNTH is important, but it is a rule that requires editorial judgment and a certain amount of common sense. Editors constantly make valid decisions that a group of sources constitute "the preponderance of reliable sources". We do not consider it to be SYNTH when editors decide that a group of sources constitute "the preponderance" (and indeed, Wikipedia would come grinding to a halt if we did). Even though there is editorial judgment, it is not original research. And when there is such a preponderance, it is not SYNTH to note that each of these sources is saying the same thing. When these sources are examinations of the scientific literature, such an observation can legitimately be expressed as saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that there is a "scientific consensus". Editorial judgment is not like a computer that must follow a strict algorithm.
  • As I said, there are valid arguments in favor of each of these theories. Obviously, I see it more as the second, whereas other editors here see it more as the first. To a large extent, the dispute here really isn't about OR. It's about NPOV. Some editors are selecting a view of SYNTH based upon their view of what constitutes NPOV. In my opinion, sources such as AAAS speak for the scientific community as a whole, in ways that Jane Goodall and David Suzuki do not, especially since neither of them is an expert on agricultural science. That's where we are now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS is part of the WP:OR page, a core policy you can disagree with it all you want, but you cant ignore it or put your own spin on it, or form a local consensus to override it. There are policies that need to be followed, and picking and choosing when they apply because it fits a specific view is a horrible idea. Even if the claim is right, you still cant use synthesis. Just like you cant add it without a source and violate RS or VER. AlbinoFerret 21:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You can shout the word "core" all you want, but the fact remains that what I said is that both "theories" of that policy are good-faith interpretations of what it means, not a violation of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
no, one is policy, the second is spin to ignore the policy. What part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." do you think backs up your spin? AlbinoFerret 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not spin. If you think that SYNTH is a bright-line rule like 3RR, then we disagree. If you think that this can reduce to a computer algorithm, then we disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, when we're arguing policy interpretation, we should always observe one bit of policy advice: Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another (WP:NOR). Why? Because looking for the intersections, not the exclusions, seems to yield more logical, balanced, sensible-sounding results.
You say a little common sense SYNTH doesn't really violate WP:NOR, when we're simply summarizing several sources, and that seems to satisfy WP:V, because we do have the sources. But what about WP:NPOV? If we, for example, establish "scientific consensus" as a summary, that automatically relegates all other views to a FRINGE, or at least an oddball outlier, position: "after careful deliberation, EVERYONE agrees, except..." So we should be careful that general agreement really does exist, or risk (seriously) violating NPOV by relegating otherwise valid, well-supported minority views to the crackpot bin.
Which helps explain the need for an explicit source stating consensus, per WP:V's little helper, WP:RS/AC: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Which is the useful but long way around to saying, as a matter of course, we should just literally observe WP:SYNTH. --Tsavage (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that the real policy issue here is NPOV, not NOR. And SYNTH can be wielded as a weapon to push a POV. I don't agree with the idea that, if we say "scientific consensus", any dissent is automatically fringe. The RS passage that you quote speaks of "all or most scientists", not "all scientists". In fact, the lead sentence of scientific consensus notes that unanimity is not required, and I wouldn't think that it means that the dissenters from consensus are only crackpots; some can be mainstream scientists who dissent. There is scientific consensus that evolution is real. But there are scientists who dissent about the time course over which natural selection occurs, and they are not fringe. It comes down to the details, which is why the revisions of the sentence that are going on matter. We have plenty of sourcing to indicate that most scientists see existing GM foods as no less risky than conventional foods. If editors disagree with that, then I think they need to provide a source to indicate that such scientists are anything less than a large majority – just literally. This is what is wrong when editors argue that the existence of ongoing debate means that there isn't a scientific consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Our three core content policies always work together, there is never only one applicable policy, they all come into play, always, is what I said. NPOV is not the "real" policy here: NOR/SYNTH logically applies first, because there is wording there that addresses arriving at a conclusion not specifically found in the sources - while all policies apply, as I demonstrated.
Quibbling over the definition of "scientific consensus" ignores that the immediate impression made by the language we use is what is of most importance. "Most scientists agree" frames the subject differently than, "X, Y, and Z say," and absent of support, it is effectively an appeal to authority, which can shape reader opinion away from the actual evidence. To be safe, we shouldn't strive to say the former, to the point of creating that language when it is not readily available in sources - we shouldn't try to manipulate the framing beyond the sources - instead, we should set things out simply, so the reader can easily see how what is on the page got there. --Tsavage (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not say that POV is the only applicable policy. Of course not. I said that it is really the policy that applies to what editors here are really talking about. That's different. And at the present count, I think that there are at least 3 reliable sources that we have now, each of which says explicitly that there is a "scientific consensus" that GM foods are that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a longer reply; it doesn't belong here. Short version: we shouldn't be expending so much time (years!) and energy (how many word count equivalents of doctoral theses?) on a one-sentence safety summary that, regardless of what it's for exactly, REQUIRES explanation of the underlying components, something which our GM food article and others in the suite do not do well or in many instances, at all.
This sort of reductionist approach to Wikipedia article development is proving increasingly ineffective as editors get better and better at, and more accustomed to, endlessly arguing rules and details. We should not be trying to insert summary language like "scientific consensus" against WP:SYNTH. Least of all should we be trying to support content by arguing that SYNTH should not apply in some cases that are clearly described by SYNTH, because they aren't really SYNTH, or, they're an acceptable kind of SYNTH (argue that at policy change level). --Tsavage (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the thoughtful way you are discussing this with me. And amen, would that we were not expending so much time and energy over this! But it seems to me that the reason it drags on and on is because there are editors who are very determined, for reasons that arise out of POV rather than reasons that arise out of OR, to WP:RGW. I was thinking more about what you said about consensus relegating dissenters to being "fringe". Up to around the first two decades of the 20th century, there was a very solid scientific consensus that Isaac Newton's principles about physics were an accurate and comprehensive explanation of the physical world. That was exactly what scientific consensus is. Then Albert Einstein proposed that relativity made Newton's physics incomplete, and it took a while for physicists to accept Einstein's ideas. During that time, the scientific consensus was against Einstein. His view was a dissenting view. But it is obviously not the case that he was a fringe figure or a crackpot. Therefore, saying that there is a scientific consensus about GMOs does not mean that all GMO dissenters are fringe. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Your general argument is incomplete, because it does not consider, from an encyclopedia-writing perspective, what "scientific consensus" represents and how it should be used. I just replied to this at Talk:Genetically_modified_crops#Citations at 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC). --Tsavage (talk)
I looked at your post there, and if I understand correctly, what you mean about how it applies here is that you are concerned about how some people use the phrase in a political way. It is true that people sometimes do that, but I do not feel like Wikipedia would be doing that here, nor do I think that it is a reason that Wikipedia could never use that phrase. In fact, it seems to me that most of the opposition to using the phrase in our GMO pages arises from a political consideration on the part of those editors who oppose it, where they are taking a political position that is at odds with what the scientists say in the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question (ec) To those who are familiar with Discretionary Sanctions, because this entire suite is under DS, and because we have two editors who have ignored the results of an RfC they were both well aware of, shouldn't this go to a noticeboard dealing with behavior rather than OR? We should not have to re-argue the RfC. The AAAS source, for example, was discussed for months, and it was determined that because it was an advocacy statement in support of GM foods labeling (and because it was the SINGLE source that contained the exact wording desired), the AAAS statement, along with the others mentioned at the top of this thread, were NOT sufficient to claim consensus. Nothing has changed, and ignoring the results of the RfC, (re)adding language that has no support in RS, is clearly disruptive and not good faith. petrarchan47คุก 22:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The place to go for that is WP:AE. If we go there, I expect to point out that the RfC was closed as "no consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip. I expect to point out that you are well aware the closer told us to reword it as there was no consensus that the sources support the claim - and you know this.
([I]f there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement." - GrayDuck156 23 July
the closer has more authority than i. the closer also suggested we try to rework it. so that is what we should do. we need to work that out here. - Jytdog 23 July
Perhaps Jytdog can help you understand, or you could review the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 22:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you did not mean that to sound condescending. Those quotes are found at Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 12, in a post-RfC discussion, and were not part of the RfC close. Here is a link to the actual RfC close, for editors who are unfamiliar with it: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The question of the RfC was "Do these sources support this claim". RockMagnetist said, "I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording." No one in the commounity disagreed with this idea, and the wording was indeed changed. It cannot be said that this wording is somehow acceptable at the GM Crops article but not GM Foods. I wonder if Rock Magnetist could weigh in here? petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Source. OK folks, I've done some searching and (thanks to a citation in the Krimsky critique) I have found a reliable source from 2014 that says there is a "scientific consensus", in those exact words. It's a review article, reviewing the literature about GM food crops, with a particular view to summarizing both support and scientific concerns about GMOs, thus, a secondary source. It is in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, thus, a reliable source. All of the authors hold academic appointments or government research appointments in Europe, and appear to be unaffiliated with biotech companies, so no apparent author "COI". Here is a link: [10]. And here is a verbatim quote from the abstract: "We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE." On the one hand, there is still a debate (no kidding!), at least partly attributable to communication problems, but nonetheless there is a matured scientific consensus that no significant hazards have been detected so far. No SYNTH, no matter how one defines SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Issues with his new study
The abstract mentions how the consensus has grown. What does this mean? Has it grown from 1 to 2 %?
And the abstract states "not directly detected", but indirectly it could, and it has been found that glyphosate is indirectly a health problem.
The abstract acknowledges that there is still a debate.
Paywalled
Contradicts the WHO statement
Unclear how the mentioned consensus can be interpreted in regards to our article content prokaryotes (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The abstract does not say, "there is a matured scientific consensus that no significant hazards have been detected so far." It says, "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. (my emphasis)." There is a difference. Cf global warming, evolution or smoking: no review paper would say "the debate is still intense." IOW it draws the same conclusions as the other review studies you have been arguing against.
prokaryotes, being behind a paywall is not an obstacle, but someone has to read the report, it is probably available through a library. I imagine indirect refers to fertilizer, but it could also refer to the types of food produced. Most of what is currently produced should be avoided even if it is not GMO.
TFD (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I want to reply to these concerns. Starting with the paywall issue, I had already said the same thing as TFD did at the article talk page [11], but Prokaryotes repeated it here anyway. About how much "consensus has grown", a plain reading of the source is that it is talking about a "matured" consensus. It does not even make sense to talk about a 2% consensus, because that would not be a consensus at all, so why would the authors even write about a consensus that had yet to develop, and yet call it "matured"?
Now it's really past time that we need to deconstruct the claims about the WHO source, that it contradicts the source here. Here is a link to that source: [12]. It is divided into multiple sections. There are two sections that are relevant to the question of whether scientists view GM foods as safe or not: 8 ("Are GM foods safe?") and 12 ("Have GM products on the international market passed a safety assessment?"). Prokaryotes and the editors who agree with him have focused on Section 8, paragraph 1, which reads:

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

Unquestionably, that does indeed support the idea that WHO is advocating for case-by-case evaluation, and please note that I, personally, have consistently supported having our content reflect that. And it does indeed make it clear that, without case-by-case testing, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions about safety. But – there is a second paragraph in this section, that some editors appear to overlook:

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

Woops! That sure puts the first paragraph into a different context! The sentence in the first paragraph thus cannot be saying that it is impossible to make a general statement on the safety of all GM foods currently available, because the authors go on to make exactly that general statement. The call for testing, and the caution against general statements, are being made with respect to new GM plants, as they come out, not with respect to those already in the food chain. And in section 12, here is the entire text:

The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed safety assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. The food safety assessment is usually based on Codex documents.

That's about as strong as statement as one can get about GM products currently available. So why are we talking about contradictions between the WHO source and the other source?
Then there's the point about "direct" versus "indirect". That's about the possibility of chemical residues that remain on the plants, as opposed to the plants themselves, chemicals such as glyphosate. Please note: the WHO source just said those things about the foods as they have been eaten ("as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population"), residues or not.
Now the issue that I agree is the biggest one here, about there still being debate. When the source says "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops", that's the same thing as the WHO source. So what do they mean about "however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE."? After the debate-is-intense phrase, another sentence comes, and it explains why the authors consider the debate to exist. I imagine one could find reviews about climate change where one could cherry-pick a sentence out of context that says "the debate is intense". But I will also say that this source does indeed point out that there are dissenting scientific studies, so clearly, the source does not contend that there is a unanimous scientific consensus. (Then again, there are scientists who dissent about evolution, but there is still a consensus about that.) The authors say that they are describing "the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide." They are not saying that a scientific consensus has yet to mature. It is actually original research, or more precisely a misrepresentation of the source, to say that the authors are concluding that a scientific consensus does not yet exist. For purposes of demonstrating that there is a reliable source for the existence of a "scientific consensus", this is it. That does not mean that our pages should omit all the caveats that go along with that, and I am in favor of making those caveats clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Now, thanks to an editor who has access to the full text of the source I have presented here, the following comes from the second paragraph of the Conclusions section of the review:

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

That, more so than the passage I quoted earlier from the Abstract, is a clear statement that there is a mature scientific consensus that no health problems have to date been found in GM crop food. There is no original research in saying that there is a scientific consensus about this. The source says it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this quote is simple, its not about GM foods for consumption. prokaryotes (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
No, not so. The title of the source is "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research". They ain't talking about plants grown for the cut flower industry. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And I have just found out, at Talk:Genetically modified crops#Citations, that there are a couple of additional sources that say explicitly that there is "scientific consensus" about GM crop safety. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 2

I want to turn the questions here around. Originally, this discussion was opened over these edits: [13], [14], and [15]. The question here is about whether to say "general scientific agreement" or "general scientific consensus". That's what this has been all about.

So I want to ask whether it is a violation of NOR to say "general scientific agreement". What is the source for saying "general scientific agreement"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

IMO, they're the same, one just sounds a little milder, less like a decree, both need explicit support. What is different is the entire rewording of the sentence, that brings the meaning more in line with what there does seem to be wider agreement on, that GM methods don't on their own introduce extra risk than non-GM methods, that GM is not an inherently unsafe tool, it's what you use it for that matters. It's a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" finding that ON ITS OWN does not speak directly to the safety of specific products on the market.
The previous sentence leaned much further toward saying (or strongly implying) that there is broad scientific consensus that GM food is categorically as safe as non-GM food, and no sources really say that. --Tsavage (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a sensible and thoughtful reply. And I agree with you about the rewording being an improvement. What concerns me about this entire NORN discussion, however, is that several editors seem to be hell-bent on discrediting the "consensus" wording while seeming to actually be in favor of the "agreement" wording. I'm all in favor of what you called "explicit support", but there comes a point where objections to the plain meaning of the source material become unreasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not why know why we cannot just say what the abstract says rather than reading into it that there is a consensus. Indeed there are scientists who do not accept global warming or evolution. The difference is that they do not present those views in academic writing because those views cannot be defended with the known evidence. A better comparison would be with aspartame, where sufficient testing has been completed so that no "intense debate" exists. Also one needs to read the actual article to determine what exactly is meant by the matured scientific consensus or the intense debate. BTW while Suzuki is not an agricultural scientist, he is a geneticist and was a professor who conducted research and wrote textbooks and articles. TFD (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You need to see what I posted more recently, from the Conclusions section of the source. But in fact, I and other editors at the page are working to make the language more nuanced. And, per the question that I asked, I take it that no one has a source for "agreement"? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
This is why we probably end up citing the most authoritative sources. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In terms of being "more nuanced," context for the role of the precautionary principle, the Cartagena Protocol, and the Codex Alimentarius should be provided; with respect to the history of GMO bio-safety testing and the matter of arriving at the stated scientific consensus ("food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"): which of course is derived squarely from the concept of substantial equivalence. It would clearly be useful to highlight that testing regimes can vary, regionally, that they are subject to interpretation, subject to improvement, and that new testing methods will be needed to deal with advances in GE food produce. It might also worth highlighting, and especially in the context of regional differences, that America refused to be party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and is therefore not subject to the provisions set out in the Cartagena Protocol; meaning is has been able to ignore the issues associated with the precautionary principle - unlike the 170 countries that have signed up. The WHO report also offers the following caveats: "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods" and "where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods." With regard to the American situation the SAGE Green Issues and Deabtes: An A-Z guide offers a succinct overview:"In 1992, the FDA adopted a policy whereby GE foods were presumed 'generally recognized as safe'. Similarly, the FAO and the WHO subscribed to the concept of substantial equivalence, which regards GE food products to be as safe as their conventional counterparts. Safety resting through the FDA has been documented by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest(CSPI) and others to he inadequate. Studies noted that biotechnology companies frequently have not released the requested information, there were undetected errors in technical data, and the FDA had a lack of necessary authority in the review and regulation of GE research and crops. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have improved with the global consensus forwarded by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. These principles dictate a pre-market assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis, which includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects. However, peer-reviewed studies found that despite these guidelines, risk assessment of GE foods has still not followed a defined prototype." Semitransgenic talk. 13:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


  • OK, so to be clear, all the editors who came here demanding that the page say "agreement" instead of "consensus" on the grounds that it would be OR to say "consensus" do not, in fact, have any sources for "agreement", whereas there now are sources for "consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Although the abstract uses the term consensus, it is OR to say it claims there is a consensus that GMO products are safe. It could be there is a consensus that there is no evidence they are harmful but that there is insufficient evidence that they are not harmful. Certainly if there were consensus there would be no "intense debate," at least in the academic literature. If there is consensus then what are they debating? TFD (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
So there is still no source for "agreement". And if we were to say anything you just said in article space, that would be OR. As I already said, the authors say that the consensus is about them being safe – they do not quite say it in the abstract, maybe, but they say it explicitly in the conclusions section. And we now have some other sources that say it too. As I also already said, the authors attribute the debate largely to communications issues. And I pointed out above that there was a scientific consensus about Newtonian physics even when the debate about Einsteinian relativity had begun. There can be debate before a consensus is overthrown. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Where things stand

  • Sources for "scientific agreement": none.

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. [16]

Empirical evidence shows the high potential of the technology, and there is now a scientific consensus that the currently available transgenic crops and the derived foods are safe for consumption. [17]

There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment. [18]

There is no issue of it being original research to say that there is a scientific consensus. Arguments to the contrary are POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That is unacceptable synthesis. You are taking a comment in the abstract of a review study that uses the term consensus, without saying what it is, and omit that it says, "the debate is still intense." A reasonable reading of the abstract is that there is no consensus. Then you get two articles that say there is a consensus on safety, but neither would be acceptable on its own. The first is called, "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food." The second one is called "GMO foods and crops: Africa's choice" and is written by a political scientist. Those are not the two most obvious articles one would pick up to see if GMOs are safe. Your choices show cherry-picking. You have decided what the article should say and looked for sources to support your opinion. TFD (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Please show me your source for "scientific agreement". I did not omit anything, because, as I pointed out to you earlier, this quote is not from the abstract. It is from the conclusions section. It is the author's conclusions. Why is a source written by people from Kenya not a reliable source? Are people from Africa less acceptable as authors than people from the first world? Cherrypicking means that the quote is not representative of the source, so is that quote not representative of the source from Kenya? Sheldon Krimsky, whom you tout below, is a Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, so why would a source written by a political scientist be unacceptable, but an urban planner be acceptable? All three of these sources were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. How does that not make them reliable sources for scientific information? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Your first comment on the abstract is unfortunately synthesis of the source. The abstract and body of the paper make the meaning clear that they are talking about science communication, not that scientific debate is intense in the scientific community. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There are criticisms of the Nicolia review that, if we determine are legitimate, by the measure of asking whether an investigator in the field would find them credible, would make this a questionable source for establishing consensus as a fact (rather than an attributed finding).
As for sources in general, as far as I've been able to gather, claiming scientific/scholarly/academic consensus is highly subjective, so the strength is very much dependent on how it was determined.
A specific consensus could be established by a meeting of experts, where evidence is formally examined and motions passed, with the result that X group, with participants and proceedings recorded, come to a final conclusion (if that group were sufficiently large and authoritative, and their review broad, that could perhaps establish a general consensus). Consensus could also be a single person giving their (expert) opinion, as opposed to presenting a formal evaluation of sources that can be reviewed and verified by others.
Assembling several consensus statements of varying quality doesn't make a stronger case for using that term as an established fact. For that, we're looking for a credible source that does not have significant criticism, that uses the term, applies it to a clear proposition, and backs it up by documenting exactly what that view is based on. Otherwise, we could quote or closely paraphrase, with in-text attribution, but not create a Wikipedia statement of fact.
Furthermore, consensus language is politically charged, and for a contentious subject, using it, especially without at the same time providing sufficient context by explaining the underlying factors, easily creates a biased impression, and so should be considered with serious reservation. That's my understanding. --Tsavage (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43:, sure its synthesis to say the reading implies there is no consensus, just as it is synthesis to say it implies there is. That is the point. If there is scientific consensus you need to provide a source that says that, not say that based on your personal analysis there is a consensus. And could you please explain why you are providing an article by political scientist as a source? If you were preparing a chapter for a textbook I am certain you would not do that. BTW there is a more recent (Nov 2015) article by Sheldon Krimsky in Science, Technology, & Human Values called "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment". TFD (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with including Krimsky as a source, but he self-identifies as a critic of conventional science, so we should treat him as he self-describes, rather than as a spokesperson for conventional science. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and KingofAces, TFD wants you to use a source written by a Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, because everyone knows that's way better than a political scientist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll reply here on the political science thing, but some political scientists would be experts in this area. They can both reiterate the scientific consensus and deal with how how that is or isn't translating into the public discourse and be squarely in the center of their expertise. As for Krimsky, his article is still uncited (more a red-flag to look for more issues), but the things you've described so far seem to indicate pretty strong fringe author status being a critic of conventional science etc. I'll dig into that one in a bit to check it out, but it's already trying to contradict stronger sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned below, I had not been aware that Robert Paarlberg had written extensively about GMO. Still it seems funny to pick a short article about the politics of GMO regulation in Africa as a source for the safety of GMO. Obviously if you were writing a chapter of a textbook this is not where you would look for an opinion on scientific opinion. So it is cherry-picking, looking for a source that supports what you believe rather than looking at the most relevant sources and reporting what they say. TFD (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. You can't engage in cherrypicking part of a source and then claim it can't be used because you managed to cherrypick a sentence. We could invalidate any source out there if that were actual process. The abstract and body of the paper make it clear that there is a scientific consensus on the safety, the intense debate is on the public end of things, and that science communication folks need to work on that area better to fix that. If you want to take something out of context from a source, this is the last place to do it. Even if someone only has abstract access, the author would be contradicting themselves by saying first there is scientific consensus and then implying there is intense debate in the scientific community. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The abstract does not support your opinion. It could be that the article does, but you have not provided any evidence it does. Your statement that "the author would be contradicting themselves" is OR. It's the same argument that climate change deniars provide - cherry-picked sources and original interpretations of sources. If you want articles to say something, get a source that says it. TFD (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And, does anyone have a source for "scientific agreement"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see a source where he self-identifies as a "critic of conventional science." You probably mean he thinks that most scientists focus narrowly on technical issues and ignore the social, political and economic environment. As Krimsky's bio at Tufts says, "his research has focused on the linkages between science/technology/ethics/values." He writes extensively about biotechnology, for example Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy (MIT Press) 1982, Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics (Praeger) 1991, Hormonal Chaos:The Scientific and Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), Science in the Private Interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? (Rowman & Littlefield Pub.) 2003. All of these titles presuppose an intensive familiarity with the underlying science.
I was not familiar with Robert Paarlberg, but he does I see he has written extensively on biotechnology as well. It just seems that his brief article is an odd source for a global claim about scientific consensus for the safety of GMO when he is writing about what type of regulatory system Africa should use.
TFD (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm just learning for the first time, from this discussion, that Paarlberg has been associated with Monsanto. That is news to me and, because unlike some other editors here I am willing to be persuaded, I will say that it decreases my enthusiasm for that source. On the other hand, about the question of whether it is strange to cite him from an article about Africa, that would be a problem if he were being cited as a primary source, that is, if his assertion of a consensus were a result of his own new data in that paper. But, instead, he is basing it upon his reading, evaluation, and review of the published literature, so he is acting as a secondary source about what we might cite him for. About Krimsky, he has written extensively about how he disagrees with what he considers to be the standard scientific method of hypothesis testing, and he advocates for alternative ways of asking scientific questions. I want to emphasize again that the quote from Nicolia et al. is not from the abstract but from the conclusions section. The fact that they refer to "intense debate" in the abstract does not change the fact that they drew a conclusion in the conclusions section. For example, they discuss the Seralini affair, about which there was unquestionably intense debate, but which ultimately did not alter the mainstream assessment of scientific consensus. And finally I emphasize once more that, whatever else may be the case, it is not a properly sourced statement to say that there is "scientific agreement". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I still hadn't found a source for this discussion on Paarlberg, at least until it was pointed out he had a bio here above. That source is from Alternet[19], which is generally considered a fringe news source generally not reliable for anything except its own opinion. That's only when there's weight to include it. That being said, the article itself even says he was not paid, which seems to indicate an standard advisory position professors take to direct both industry and the public on science. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm finding out new information as this discussion goes along, and I'm depending in part on collaboration with other editors. I've just gotten a better link to the Nicolia paper, showing the full text instead of just the abstract, without a paywall: [20]. I've just read the entire Conclusions section for myself, and it seems to me that the authors' conclusions are as I have been understanding them, and that the interpretations made by some editors based on the abstract turn out to be incorrect. They really do appear to be saying that they conclude that there is a scientific consensus, rather than an intense debate. They describe the debate in more detail, as being one that often distorts what the science actually says. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The paper concludes, "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops." It does not say, "there is now a scientific consensus that the currently available transgenic crops and the derived foods are safe for consumption."
Monsanto's 2005 Pledge Report calls him as a member of their Biotechnology Advisory Council. I have always thought though that what is important is where something is published. It is up to the publishers to determine if a conflict of interest prevents factual accuracy and when they err later writers may discredit their works. But in this case he was writing about GM regulation in Africa. Whether scientists think GMOs are safe or merely that there is no reason to believe they are not is of no relevance to article. Why would we consider his opinion superior to Nicolia's?
You keep saying that Krimisky disagrees with the scientific method. Could you please provide a source, since I could not find anything.
TFD (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment based on subject area expertise, paper topic, and apparent COI, Paarlberg is not an acceptable source for a definitive consensus statement in our article, again, it's fluff, we already have a string of such material, use only the best secondary sources for such content to avoid further dispute. Semitransgenic talk. 12:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on more recent arguments, I'm leaning towards changing my mind about Paarlberg, and I'll probably end up arguing against citing that source in the context we are discussing here, although it might be a good source in a more extended page section about opposing views, ie, with a rebuttal that notes his background.
Here are some more specific answers to TFD's questions. You asked for a source where Krimsky discusses his views about the modern scientific establishment and its methods. Here is a good one: [21]. I don't understand how "we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops" is any different than if they had said something like "we can conclude that scientific research so far has looked for significant hazards directly connected with the use of GM crops, and has not found any such hazards." At the page, I'm pretty much opposed to wording that says flat out that there is a scientific consensus that GM crop foods are safe, full stop; instead, I favor language that says that the consensus is that no hazards (greater than the hazards of conventional food crops) have been detected so far, but that new GM crops need to be tested case-by-case – so personally, that's as far as I would want to take it, based on the sources I'm seeing. On reflection, I think that you are correct that Nicolia's opinion is more significant for Wikipedia's purposes than Paarlberg's, particularly because the Nicolia source is specifically a survey and evaluation of the scientific literature. And I trust that you have now seen what Nicolia actually says about the "debate". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In his essay, Krimsky says that science can be used for good or evil and that politics plays a role in what is studied. An example of the first is the use of science in Nazi Germany and of the second Reagan's opposition to using fetal tissue in medical research. While people may disasgree what uses of sciences are ethical, few would question his statements. You gave the impression that he promoted alternative science.

Saying "the consensus is that no hazards...have been detected so far" makes no sense. Consensus means "an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group."[22] Whether or not hazards have been found is an issue of fact not opinion. What that fact means, whether the "foods" are safe or more research is required, is a matter of opinion. It is disingenuous use phrasing not in the source.

TFD (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, I certainly never meant to imply that he promotes alternative science, and I do not read him that way at all! He endorses science historically, but argues that there are numerous ways in which the modern scientific establishment does not, in his opinion, go about science the right way. I thought that I was saying that he is a critic of the modern scientific establishment, and of its ways of coming to scientific conclusions, and I think that is accurate. I have no objection to citing him as an important critic of modern scientific consensus, but I do object to citing him as a spokesperson for it, or as a neutral observer.
If you look at scientific consensus, the page lead has been very stable for years, and notes that it is not necessarily unanimous. When you quote a dictionary definition of "consensus" in general, you are not referencing scientific consensus. And you are making a big mistake if you confound scientific consensus with broad, sweeping truth. It is perfectly normal for scientists to say that it is completely established that no examples of something specific have been found so far, but that it is not yet clear whether such examples might be found in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Had a reply written up for TFD, but I'll just piggyback here and say that the idea that scientific consensus isn't unanimity gets talked about a lot in climate change denial subject matter as it's common for someone to cherry-pick a handful of studies and claim there isn't a consensus. The general public has a tough time realizing the difference, but that's the uncertainty often played upon in climate change at least. I'm on mobile now, so I can't post links, but if you search climate change, consensus, and unanimity, you should get some reading that shows the definition is a bit different than you thought. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Another thought occurs to me about putative unanimity in consensus. In an example much closer to home, regardless of that dictionary quote, WP:Consensus does not require unanimity, and in fact, very often occurs despite the presence of numerous dissenting editors. And, like Wikipedia, science is not a democracy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice

A fresh discussion has started with a proposal for revision to the sentence in question here at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Exodus edit war on original research

I have reverted several times edits like [23]. The problem is quoting an ancient historian (Josephus), thus not a contemporary mainstream scholar and using as verifiable reference a book cover (instead of a page number). Please advise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I have now entered a source (Israel Finkelstein) from a mainstream scholar as a secondary source, mentioning the primary source (Josephus). The objection here is thus unjustified. As for the source referring to a book, no specific pages are needed because the material entered is a summary of various piece from the book. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That is a WP:SYNTH kind of problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I want to see the page numbers. I'm not inclined to trust any editor who calls others "atheistic scum" (or "Christian scum", "Jewish scum", etc). Doug Weller talk 13:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The source from Finkelstein HAS page numbers, as does the specific source to Josephus. Warning about calling atheists as scum will be heeded. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
And the deletion of my warning was accompanied with the edit summary. "atheists are scum, Judeo-Christians are not". Nice. Not surprising the IP was blocked. Doug Weller talk
By the WP:SYNTH problem I meant citing a book cover and pretending to speak in the name of all sources that it contains. The Finkelstein and Silberman book is properly cited but does not verify the claim that the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt is the basis of the Exodus story. I agree that they mentioned Josephus on another page, that is a verifiable reference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Ancient historians, and all other manuscript materials, are primary sources, period. They can be used with caution, and attributed, but not for any WP:AEIS claims. It's fine to say "According to Josephus (date) [such and such happened]", provided WP:UNDUE is followed;. If there is doubt about the veracity of Josephus's claims in reliable modern scholarship, these needs to be spelled out. If the majority of RS distrust that primary source, don't mention it at all. We don't WP:CHERRYPICK one modern source that agrees with the primary historical one, if others don't agree with it. (Not that that's necessarily happening here, of course. I'm just saying, this case doesn't raise any new question, but is standard operating procedure. We cite ancient sources, though modern secondary ones, at least tens of thousands of times in our history articles.) And use common sense: Lots of historical sources made outlandish claims, and we don't take them seriously. It is not necessary to waste hours going though RS to see whether any of them agree that, say, King Arthur really did capture a dragon in a pit and slay a bunch of giants. If Josephus's claims aren't implausible, and there's not a mass of scholars calling him a propgandist, then just attribute what he said directly to him, if he's worth quoting/paraphrasing for some reason, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT in a modern work, and provide salient context from the modern work as seems prudent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Research deleted from page due to no source.

On the pages titled, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, I searched via Wikipedia and Humphrey Bogart's filmography for the year and title of the film with the quote which is also inscribed on his gravestone. The film is from 1944 and is called To Have and Have Not. And it reads as follows: "You know how to whistle Steve? You just put your lips together and blow. If you need anything just whistle" as I did not provide the source of this which was Wikipedia, Humphrey Bogart, and Filmography due to the fact I did not know how to I thought I would mention it in case someone else felt it should be included if they think it is relevant to either the Humphrey Bogart or Lauren Bacall pages, of which I attempted to add both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.128.160 (talk • contribs) 08:05, February 3, 2016‎

We're going to need some more information.
So the information that you added was "This line, 'You know how to ... whistle' appears on Bogart's tombstone" and you added it to a different Wikipedia article?
That's not WP:OR; it's WP:CIRCULAR, which says that Wikipedia is not supposed to use itself as a source (but you are allowed to use the same sources in more than one article).
Do you mean that you cited this information off Wikipedia, like in a paper? This page, WP:CITEWIKI provides instructions for how to tell people that you got information from Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk)
Is this it?[24] Yes, this isn't an OR issue. It's a reliable source issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Shouldn't be too hard to source, either: Google: "Humphrey Bogart" "You know how to whistle" -wikipedia -findagrave -wordpress -foundagrave grave OR gravesite OR gravestone OR headstone OR epitaph.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

NOR and coordinates

I need coordinates for a small street that is not named on any online mapping service. I know the town, but I don't know which of the unmarked (on a map) streets in the town is the one I want. There is a Wikipedian in the town who knows where the street is. Would it violate NOR if they provided coordinates and I used them in an article? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That town has been visited by Google street view. Have you tried visiting that way and looking at street signs? Zerotalk 12:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zero0000: Thanks for the reply. Not all of the town has been visited. I have a suspicion where the street is, but that area wasn't visited. In any case, I don't see much difference between getting coordinates that way and getting them by actually being there. If one is acceptable, the other should be, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The difference is the ease of verifiability. Of course we do have a general principle that ease of access to a source is not relevant, but that rule was intended for things like uncommon books or paywalls and at some extreme point common-sense takes precedence. Personally I would accept this one if (1) there is no serious BLP issue relying on it, (2) the editor is one in good standing and there is no reason to suspect a COI, (3) there is no controversy about the claim. Zerotalk 00:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zero0000: I think conditions 2 and 3 are met. As for 1, perhaps you'd care to check out the details, here (permalink). The location in question is the area of one of two crime scenes, the hundred-block of the street, which has been widely reported in the news. We're already showing the coordinates of the other crime scene, which is no more important to the story or the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zero0000: Did I lose you? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"I need coordinates for a small street that is not named on any online mapping service." After you get the coordinates, add them to OpenStreetmap. Then they will be on an online mapping service. And you OR problem is solved. If that seems fishy, it is, but no more so than the rest of wikipedia and the sum total of all internet and libraries and human consciousness. YourYou're welcome. GangofOne (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Do add it to OSM, just to help build the Web, but don't cite it. OSM isn't a reliable source, per WP:UGC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is combining multiple source that say the same thing synth?

  • Bob says the sky is blue (source)
  • Tom says the sky is blue (source)
  • Dave says the sky is blue (source)

Is it WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to say

  • Bob (s), Tom (s), and Dave(s) say the sky is blue

or

  • Bob, Tom, and Dave say the sky is blue (S)(S)(S)

without a source that names all 3?Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, when the situation is really as simple as that (ie, they don't advocate differing shades of blue), then it is not SYNTH. However, I have definitely seen editing disputes where some editors essentially claim that it is, and I believe that it can sometimes be a clever device for civil POV pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Important point: Bob, Tom and Dave saying the sky is blue does not necessarily mean the sky is blue. Attribution would be necessary in most cases. If Bob, Tom and Dave had a biased view (others say the sky is green), then WP:SUBSTANTIATE comes into play. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that can be an issue. An (unstated) assumption was that the 3 statements to start with would all be fair WP:NPOV summaries of the actual source if on their own separately. Obviously if someone's statement could not be accurately summarized with the same high level wording, then they could not be combined. To Scjessey : The example explicitly attributed the statement, so your concern appears to be taken care of. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a particular content dispute that led you to ask about this? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We are working through objections on other grounds, but I anticipate this question may be raised later.

  • Content in question Former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael T. Flynn, former United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell have said that they believe it is likely that foreign governments were able to access the information on Clinton's server.
    • Robert Gates (Bush appointee, reappointed under Obama) [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
      • Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he believes foreign countries like Russia, China and Iran may have hacked the private email server Hillary Clinton used while secretary of State. “Given the fact that the Pentagon acknowledges that they get attacked about 100,000 times a day, I think the odds are pretty high,” he said
    • Michael Morell (Obama appointee) [34][35][36][37]
      • As a professional matter, do you believe at least one, or perhaps many, foreign intelligence services have everything that went to and from that server?" Hewitt asked Morell."I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses," Morell responded.
    • Michael T. Flynn (Obama appointee) [38][39](convenience link)[40]
      • Kelly asked, "What do you think the odds are that the Chinese, the Russians hacked into that server and her e-mail account?" "Very high," Flynn said without hesitation. "Likely." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, things get a lot messier when we get into specific content, particularly on such a highly charged topic. These sources are, obviously, dealing with things that are much more subject to nuance than saying that the sky is blue. I can imagine ways in which one can cite these sources with attribution that would not be original research, but I can also imagine ways one could cite them that might go beyond what is acceptable under policy. The devil here is in the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish Do you think the specific text proposed (bolded text in first bullet point) is (not?) OR when compared to the actual sources? eg, is it accurate to say that all 3 said that they believe that foreign governments have likely accessed the servers? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I misread your post and did not realize that it was the proposed text, which was my mistake. I think that "have said that they believe it is likely that foreign governments were able to access the information on Clinton's server" involves a lot more issues than does the color of the sky. I certainly think that, based on what you quoted, all three sources do, to varying degrees, indicate perceptions of hacking the server, but I would have to know more about the source material than I do to know whether that exact wording is accurate. It's not clear to me, for example, whether all three sources agree about the extent to which information was actually obtained from the server. I cannot tell whether that specific sentence is or is not a good way to summarize the three sources. Offhand, however, I suspect that the things that need to be sorted out have less to do with OR than with other issues, such as accuracy in presenting the sources in their entirety, NPOV, due weight, and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
None of the sources say there is any proof material was obtained. The statement is merely to represent the opinions of these 3 officials. As I said above, we are currently working through other issues of weight etc. , I just wanted to get a handle on if a combined statement would be considered OR.(One could certainly put in 3 separate statements, but that would seem cumbersome) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I think the specific question of whether it is OR to combine the three sources in one sentence rests upon the degree to which the three sources agree or disagree about the details. Basically, it could be OR if the proposed sentence states or implies something that is not present in one or more of the sources. There could be lots of other kinds of problems if the sentence does not accurately reflect all three sources, but most of those problems are not about OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I provided direct quotes from the sources. Do you think the proposed summary states something not present in those 3 quotes? (or put another way, ignore the combining issue, Is that summary a fair paraphrase for each of the 3 quotes individually?)Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know. If I were actually editing the page, I would want to read each of the three sources for myself (something that I am not going to do here). The relevant question is not whether the proposed sentence fairly summarizes the three quotes, but whether it fairly summarizes the three sources in their entirety. But I think that you and other editors can evaluate the presence of absence of OR according to what we discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It is a bad example because we should never provide inline citation for facts. It suggests that the sky being blue is a matter of opinion. However, it is synthesis to say that different people share the same opinion, unless a source says that. In the Clinton case it provides the impression that there is a consensus against Clinton, without providing a source that says so. Alternatively combining names can discredit people, by connecting unrelated people, as in the argumentum ad hitlerum. TFD (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I knew TFD would show up if we were discussing SYNTH! Myself, I'm a fan of using inline citations, even for factual material. But we certainly do need attribution for matters of opinion. And the material here is partly a matter of opinion, in ways that "the sky is blue" is not. But TFD makes points I agree with very much, with respect to the danger of connecting people who are not really connected, which is why I advise close examination of the sources in their entirety. It is not automatically SYNTH to cite multiple sources for a statement that involves opinion, but that is only if all the sources really are well represented by that statement. For example, based only on the quotes provided, it would not be SYNTH to say that each of those three persons has expressed concerns about the possibility of there having been hacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I had to read this a few times, but the second quote does not support the proposed text, so it would be synth. The first and third quotes are saying pretty much the same thing. I think it's less important whether the citations are adjacent to each name or at the end of the sentence.- MrX 22:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point, about the second quote. I think it depends on context within the entire source. It sounds like the source says the question was about "that server", but if the quote was about servers in general, then it would be incorrect to cite it about this particular server. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
MrX You make a good point, but the full quote context is fairly clear I think. He was explicitly asked about clinton's server, and answered about all servers including the one in question. The interviewer then clarifies that the answer to the question is "yes", which Morell re-confirms. however, as a wiki-negotiation, I could see dropping Morell from the combined statement to remove that portion of the dispute. He could either be quoted separately and with more nuance, or dropped all together if needed. "As a professional matter, do you believe at least one, or perhaps many, foreign intelligence services have everything that went to and from that server?" Hewitt asked Morell."I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses, whether its a private server, or a public one. " "So that's a yes?" yep." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMvsV7VCFzo http://www.hughhewitt.com/former-cia-deputy-director-mike-morrell-on-the-great-war-of-our-time/#more-27245 Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I would not consider either "these three have said that the sky is blue" and "those three say they consider it likely that so-and-so hacked the server" to be OR. WP:SYNTH refers to putting different sources together to reach a new conclusion, not arranging the sources' own conclusions concisely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Gaijin42: Assuming that the audio was not altered, then I agree that the three quotes support the proposed content.- MrX 02:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that in this particular case combining them into one sentence sees perfectly okay. There does not seem to me to be any explicit or implied conclusion which is not in the sources and they are summarized well. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
One step in the right direction might be to replace "said" with "suggested": "...have suggested that they believe it is likely that foreign governments..." Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop They have not suggested they believe. They explicitly said they believe/think. I could go with "suggested" as a synonym for "said they believe", but "suggested they believe" weakens it far too much for such explicit statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree, therefore would a potential rewrite be "...have suggested that it is likely that foreign governments..."? The alternative in my opinion is to list each of the statements separately. Doing so would consume more words but "unpacking" this, or analyzing this by its separate component elements, might make verification or further exploration of this more easily available to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see valid debate about what the best wording to use is in the said/suggested/etc arena. But I do not understand what that has to do with combining the statements or not. The various verbs seem mostly synonymous to me. FWIW I went with "said" in the current revision per WP:SAY as "said it is likely" and "said they believe it is likely" mean the same thing to me. Suggested I think is still too weak, they didn't imply the likely-hood, they explicitly said it is likely. The real risk is conflating their statement of likelihood, with actual evidence. I'm open to ways of clarifying that though (although we already explicitly have a statement in the section saying there is no evidence of successful attacks) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't find this edit to be problematic. Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps not from a SYNTH perspective, but the quality of the sourcing (lots of conservative opinion organs) leaves a lot to be desired. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to get sucked into this particular dispute, but those sources are absolutely fine. The political leanings of a source have almost nothing to do with reliability. I agree with Bus stop that Gaijin42's recent edit is also fine. I think he has more than made his case for including this material and the arguments for not including it seem pretty weak.- MrX 19:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?

Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For most people, if they say they belong to religion X, and every reliable source agrees they belong to religion X, and no reliable source says they do not belong to religion X, we would all agree that the person belongs to religion X. Except with respect to Jews, and Bernie Sanders in particular.

On the basis of this RfC, and its parenthetical "Example" comment, some editors feel obliged to engage in original research regarding Sanders's relationship with Judaism, the Jewish religion. The RfC was closed as follows:

The following proposal:

Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the |Religion= parameter of the infobox.

has succeeded.

However,

Additionally, there is consensus for this:

The determination if something is a religion or a non-religion should be based on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, per WP:No original research.

The parenthetical "Example" comment: "("Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)" I believe this parenthetical comment, in the "Examples" section no less, is being used as an invitation to engage in original research.

As I wrote, Sanders has said he is Jewish. All reliable sources agree he is Jewish. No reliable source says he is not Jewish. So why are Wikipedia editors parsing sources, trying to decide whether he "follows the religion of Judaism". That is original research, and somebody needs to put an end to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(See [41] where this was previously discussed in the BLP aspect). The short answer is that the word Jewish has two vastly different meanings, and so if there's not enough context to determine if they mean the faith or if they mean the ethnicity when they say "they're Jewish", then we should avoid making an assumption, particularly for BLP. In Sander's case, what he has said directly (not by press releases or media kits) makes it clear when he speaks of being Jewish, it is his ethnicity, and not his religion, so there's no OR going on there. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Contentious information does not belong in info-boxes. There are lots of "cultural Christians" who decorate their homes at Christmas. But if they say they are non-observing, then we leave the religion field blank. TFD (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Will you be removing the religion field from Donald Trump? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing contentious on the claim that Trump has said he is presbyterian, nor is there any other way to take "Presbyterian" in another meaning as with "Jewish". Just because whether he actually practices it [eg http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/] is questioned by other sources does not invalid the BLP self-identifying statement. Sanders' case is where he himself has made self-statements that he is not of Jewish religion but is of Jewish ethnicity, despite that some want to call him Jewish in the religious sense. There's conflict there, so its best omitted. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Show me one source that says Sanders says he is not of the Jewish religion, just one. Besides, we use selfidentify, and his press kit clearly states, Religion:Jewish and that is more than enough for Wikipedia policy and BLP, and it should be good enough, even for the Jewish people. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Importantly, there's no source directly in his words that identify him as of Jewish religion. When he speaks of it, it's vague, non-committal, or contrary. (eg [42]). We cannot assume he wrote the press kit, which might be OR but it is also common sense and general knowledge that rarely the candidates themselves create that package but instead have a hired team to do that. So omitting a contentious line in an infobox but having that expanded out in prose is far from OR, it's instead staying within the requirements of BLP. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to argue that including information about a person's religion is undue weight, that's one thing. Arguing that there are two kinds of Jews, and that it is the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether a self-identified Jew is really a Jew, is outrageous original research. Think what a reader would think about this. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not original research to leave out of a short infobox field any information that is highly nuanced and explained in detail in the body of an article, particularly when it comes to BLP. Sanders has stated that his is not Jewish of the religious type (but clearly defines his ethnic background as Jewish), despite what other sources may say, so that's a conflict of information, and thus best to not force something into an infobox field and let the prose hash it out. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
That is your OR. He has stated in reliable sources that he is proud of being Jewish, his press kit says Religion:Jewish. It is your OR that is saying it means one thing else when he says it. Why are Jews different when they say they're Jewish? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See this, this, and this. Let's close this thread. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This case involves the addition of Religion: Jewish to Bernie Sander's infoxbox. The objection is not that Bernie Sander's isn't Jewish (as Malik suggests) but that he isn't religious, so "Religion" is the problem here not "Jewish." If we had an ethnicity field there's no question "Jewish" would be appropriate. Regarding religion, it seems only a single source (a press pack published by the campaign) suggests he's religious. A number - from journalists to his brother - suggest he's not. Sanders' own comments on the topic have been vague, e.g.

"'I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we're all in this together. I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,'" said Sanders. "'And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.'"[43]

With a topic as personal and complex as religion I feel it's inappropriate to make definitive and unqualified claims unless the subject's been absolutely unambiguous, which is not the case here.

I don't think we need another discussion on this topic (see Sammy's links above for existing ones) but more editors there could be helpful as the discussion has fallen into the following holding pattern:

  1. "He says he's Jewish"
  2. "Jewish is also an ethnicity, does he say he's religious?"
  3. GOTO: #1

D.Creish (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Well put. Expect to see the same pattern here.
Please note that there are two RfCs that have addressed this very issue:
Also note that there exists exactly one source by an unknown author that says that Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism) and multiple reliable secondary sources quoting Bernie Sanders saying that he is not religious.
Rather than posting a long list, I recommend simply looking at the 128 citations at Who is a Jew? or the 234 citations at Jews. Or you can just Google "Who is a Jew?" to see page after page of reliable sources that agree with the Chicago Tribune,[44] which says
"As an adult, Sanders drifted away from Jewish customs. And as his bid for the White House gains momentum, he has the chance to make history. Not just as the first Jewish president - but as one of the few modern presidents to present himself as not religious."
The only original research here is by a few editors (most of whom have been blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing on pages related to Jews and Israel) who insist without a shred of evidence that there is no such thing as a Jew who is not is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
He says his religion is Jewish. When he says that "this is not Judaism" that is the same as Muslims saying "this is not Islam" when referring to terrorists" in other words, you are taking words out of context. He means bad people do not make a religion. That is not Judaism. That is not what a religion is all about. But all this is too much talk about a very simple fact, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. He said as much, the RS says as much, policy is to include it in the infobox, especially for members of Congress and presidential candidates and therefore it should be included. To deny that Bernie is Jewish is disgraceful and insulting. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you link a source where Sanders says his religion is Jewish? If he says it himself this discussion is settled as far as I'm concerned. D.Creish (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

D.Creish, can you link to a policy or guideline that says Wikipedia editors may engage in original research with respect to whether a Jew is a Jew? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, As I said in my reply above: the question is not whether he's Jewish but whether he's religious. Both conditions must be satisfied for Religion: Jewish to apply. See Guy's sources below. D.Creish (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, D.Creish, for replying to my request for a [Wikipedia] policy or guideline with nonsense about what the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and CNN have to say. Do they write our rules about infoboxes too? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
No original research is needed. Just follow the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a source saying Sanders' religion is not Jewish but that only his ethnicity is? No, we don't. We have the original research which reasons that Sanders, a largely secular Jew, is Jewish in ethnicity but not Jewish in religion. He is not a particularly religious man, but Jewish is his religion. Reliable sources tell us this, and Wikipedia is supposed to abide by the findings of reliable sources. Conversely, no reliable source tells us that his religion is not Jewish. Sources are perfectly capable of expressing themselves. Yet no source expresses that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. The reasoning that Sanders' ethnicity is Jewish but that his religion is not, is not supported by any sources. That reasoning is original research. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The four sources given by Guy Macon above stated that Sanders is ethnic Jewish but not of Jewish faith. So it's not original research. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wrong, Masem! First, the sources don't say that Sanders is "ethnic Jewish but not of Jewish faith". Second, it's original research to make pretend that being "ethnic Jewish but not of Jewish faith" is something that makes a difference. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Masem—I don't think we are particularly concerned with Sanders' faith, unless of course you subscribe to the purely fictional notion that nonobservance negates a Jew's religion. And of course his ethnicity is Jewish. That is a function of him being born Jewish. Were he a convert to Judaism, his ethnicity might not be Jewish. But that is not the case. He is not a convert to Judaism. Therefore you should not be surprised that his ethnicity is Jewish. We can note his religion in the Infobox because we have self-identification. That is the requirement in policy for noting a subject's religion in the Infobox. Wikipedia editors do not get to override reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no self-identification that says unequivocally that his religion is Jewish. The only source we have that says that is coming from his candidacy press kit, and the authorship of that is very doubtful to be Sanders' own words, and is in contrast to what the four sources above point out that he says. This creates a contested statement, which means that we should avoid making too simple a statement in the infobox. That is not OR to omit nuanced information from the infobox. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Masem—reliable sources have a good command of the English language. Had reliable sources wished to say that Sanders' religion was not Jewish, they could say that. That they do not, indicates a lack of support for your original research which reasons, in the absence of support in sources, that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
And the way I read the four sources given by Guy Macon, they clearly distinguish between his cultural/ethnic Jewish heritage, and his faith which is unclear if it is Jewish or not. That distinction was apparently determined at the RFC noted above, so there's consensus there's zero OR going on. And again, I want to stress we have a BLP issue and an POV issue, which says that contentious statements should not be stated as facts, and thus simply reducing it to a statement "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox is far too much a simplification. The distinctions as supported by the sources should be described out in his article in the prose, no question , just to reduce it to one word is far too much reduction of detail. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The religion of a nonobservant Jew is Jewish. We look to sources to tell us if a Jew's religion is Jewish. Sources are perfectly capable of expressing themselves. You are arguing that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Why don't sources express that? Your reasoning is that Sanders' religion cannot possibly be Jewish despite his own assertions to the contrary. You base your reasoning on lack of observance. That is original research. No source is saying that Sanders' lack of observance negates his religion. Please tell me why no sources articulate that Sanders' lack of observance compromises his religion. Do you think that sources are incapable of expressing this thought? They do not say for instance that Sanders' ethnicity might be Jewish but that his religion is not. Why don't they say that? You want us to believe, based on your assertion alone, that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Bus Stop (and, apparently, several other editors) claims that saying "he is Jewish" has exactly the same meaning as saying "his religion is Judaism," and likewise saying "his religion is Judaism" has exactly the same meaning as saying "he is Jewish."[45][46] Asking for even a shred of evidence that this claim is true is invariably met with accusations that anyone who disagrees with the claim is doing original research. Malik Shabazz, do you agree or disagree with Bus Stop's claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
But I didn't make any such claim. Furthermore the onus happens to be on you to produce a source supportive of your notion that Sanders is "not a member of any religion". Bus stop (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote above that "The religion of a nonobservant Jew is Jewish". Let me amend that: "The religion of a nonobservant Jew is Jewish, unless sources tell us otherwise." There are no sources telling us that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not an argument, but an assertion, and one not backed by any rationale. Compare "The status of a black person in the 18th century US is slave, unless sources tell us otherwise", or "The status of an unmarried women is virgin" or "The religion of a non-observant Englishman is Anglican" (have fun arguing that with Richard Dawkins). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't all this be easily dealt with by looking at Sanders' own words: "I'm proud to be Jewish...I'm not particularly religious." [47] This seems analogous to Donald Trump, whose faint acquaintance with Christianity is attested by his lack of familiarity with the Bible. He has repeatedly asserted that he is Jewish, but not involved with organized religion, which is what a lot of self-identified Christians would say as well [48]. For Wikipedia editors: how observant does an individual have to be before you will accept their own self-description? What church does Trump attend, and how does he contribute to the life of his congregation? Anyone know? Or care? fishhead64 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue with that quote "I'm proud to be Jewish" is that there's not enough context to know if he meant ethnic Jewish or religious Jewish. When you combine all other statements he's made, as well as the factual aspects of his ancestry, he clearly has established his ethnic Jewish nature, and I would argue in the quote, that's what he is alluding to based on other articles. And his secondary statement plus again most other sources point out that he doesn't see himself as a adherent of the Jewish faith. In contrast, Trump has put his faith on his sleeve without any ambiguity, even if his lack of knowledge about his faith or his absence in church functions makes other sources question how much of a religious person he really is. Same with your example about Christians - if someone self-identifies Christian but sources assert they never attend church, we'd still list them as Christian in the infobox by the self-identification. We're not judging people in this fashion. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
As the articles to which I linked demonstrate, however, Sanders made this identification specifically in response to being questioned about his spirituality/religious identity. He himself explicitly linked his ethnic identity to his spirituality. In the absence of an explicit statement like "I'm ethnically Jewish but do not identify with it as a faith tradition," or some such, we have only the evidence of his words. Anything else is mind-reading.He self identifies as Jewish, appears not to attend shul, so your conclusion about listing the person by their self-identification still applies. I don't see how your example is anything other than completely analogous. fishhead64 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I could see that statement being a direct linkage of his ethnicity and religion, sure, but I personally read that statement, given everything else he's said directly, that "I'm proud to be [of] Jewish [heritage]...I'm not particularly religious [of the Jewish faith]." It is sufficiently vague and not explicit to make a distinction. And that's what this comes down to is that when speaking of what to put in the infobox, we don't have a simple, concise statement as we have with, say, Trump, of what Sanders has stated his religion is. It's extremely nuanced, and importantly the subject of what should be a section in the prose of his article, using these quotes directly and letting the reader or secondary sources make the conclusions. But to reduce that to a single word for the infobox is a problem, so per the RFC on the "Religion" field as well as OR and BLP, it is better not to try to summarize and instead leave it empty (which does not mean he's an atheist or the like, just that we can't spell out his religion in one single word easily.) --MASEM (t) 17:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly religious. There must be something in the campaign press pack or his official bio? We could ask the campaign what we should put in his infobox, I suppose. But until then, we're having to decide what Sanders means by "Jewish." Nowhere has he repudiated the Jewish faith. fishhead64 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
A key part of this issue is that his official campaigning press kit says "Religion: Jewish" which has been offered by some as absolute proof of his faith. The problem is that it is highly unlikely he put those words in there himself, but instead a PR agent or campaign manager who are hired to write those, as to help broaden his appeal. And what that press kit says conflicts with other statements he's made directly (interviews, press conferences, etc.) We are not required to include anything in the "religion" field on the infobox, saying "Religion: Jewish" seems contentious, and this is a situation where it seems best to defer to prose explanation with references to get into the various nuances that arise from this. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It strains credulity to assume that Sanders would allow statements by his campaign about a key component of his biography to be transmitted without his acquiescence. If his campaign is describing his religion as Judaism, then that is as unambiguous as you can get. Again, with Donald Trump, you could equally allege that his self-identification as Presbyterian is issued to "broaden his appeal." Again, we're engaging in mind-reading. We need to engage by what the candidate, or his official agents, say. FWIW, I emailed the campaign media contact to ask what, if anything, should be put in the infobox, and referenced this discussion. Should they respond, I see no reason not to accept what they say. At that point, objections would essentially be disruptive. fishhead64 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
With Trump when he says "I'm Presbyterian", there's only one meaning of "Presbyterian" that exists, so there's zero ambiguity (even if people want to beg how faithful he is); we don't need additional context to understand what he meant. When Sanders says "I'm Jewish", there is implicit ambiguity due to "Jewish" having at least two different meanings (ethnic and religious being key here), and when we look for context to try to distinguish, there's conflicting information from what Sanders himself has directly said, what his PR team has said, and other factors. Even if you get a reply back from the campaign manager, that's 1) not within WP:V, and 2) still not self-identification that the RFC on BLP infoboxes. It's why it is best to simply omit the line from the infobox and get into the details in a "Religon" section on his page. Heck, this would be a situation where some type of placeholder "See "Religion" Below" might even work, to showcase that it is not a simple "yes/no" situation. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
So, Bernie Sanders' own campaign staff, releasing Bernie Sanders' own bio, in a media kit intended to distribute unambiguous information about Bernie Sanders, states that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish. And that's still not enough for you. Bernie Sanders, in response to a question about his spirituality, says "I'm Jewish...but not particularly religious," is just too ambiguous for you. I think straws are being grasped at here. fishhead64 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Correct. Bernie Sanders' own campaign staff, releasing Bernie Sanders' bio in a media kit is not enough. You need Bernie Sanders himself self-identifying as being a member of a religion. See WP:BLPCAT.
The rules for filling out the "Religion = " entry in the infobox are:
[A] You need a reference to a reliable source showing Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous campaign staffer) self-identifying as being religious as explained at WP:BLPCAT. Self-identifying as being Jewish doesn't count, because "Jewish" often refers to a culture or to an ethnicity. (And please don't GOTO: #1 in your reply!)
[B] You need a reference to a reliable source demonstrating that Bernie Sanders' religion, if any, satisfies WP:WEIGHT.
[C] You need to show that Bernie Sanders' religion, if any, is not contentious, controversial, disputed, or otherwise needing explanation or context. Otherwise, it belongs in the body of the article, where there is room to explains any subtleties. There is nothing wrong with addressing complex topics in the body of the article. Infoboxes and infobox entries are always optional. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


Given that other reliable sources recognize that the whole of Sanders' statements on his faith imply he could be an atheist, I don't think that it is "grasping at straws" for WP to try to understand what self-identified statements Sanders has made and avoid jumping to conclusions or at least making an overly-gross simplification. I want to stress the RFC previously on the religion field in the infobox for BLP described specifically noted the difficulty of the use of "Jewish" since it had multiple meanings and that we can't just take a statement "I'm Jewish" at face value. (And keep in mind that the press kit is necessary dependent and potentially biased to paint Sanders in as positive a light as possible without fabrication. Sanders made it clear his family was of Jewish faith so at some point, it would be common sense that in his early life he considered himself of Jewish faith too, but today we don't know 100%. It doesn't make the press sheet wrong, just inaccurate.) --MASEM (t) 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we've both thoroughly rehearsed our arguments here, and neither one has been convinced by them. I'll simply content myself with the fact that there is little likelihood of obtaining consensus to change what is presently in the infobox, in the absence of further information to explicitly contradict it from either Sanders or his official agents. fishhead64 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion if something requires explanation or qualification then it does not belong in an infobox. I also don't see how it is an OR issue to leave it out of an infobox, but still explain it in prose. This seems more about infobox politics than original research policy. HighInBC 18:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

{EC)Or possibly more about WP:FORUMSHOPPING than either. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Masem—you say that Jewish has multiple meanings. That is true, but only in the hands of reliable sources—not in the hands of Wikipedia editors. In the hands of Wikipedia editors such determinations are pure original research. You haven't brought a source saying that Sanders ethnicity is Jewish but his religion is not. Why haven't you provided such a source? Answer: because no such source exists. Reliable sources are more than capable of expressing themselves, but no reliable source can be found supporting any of your assertions. Your assertions are pure original research. Where is the source saying that Sanders' religion is not Jewish? You are arguing, are you not, that Sanders' ethnicity may be Jewish but his religion is not. Where is the source saying that? Sources have a good command of the English language and they are generally not shy about speaking their mind. Why do you find no sources whatsoever saying Sanders' religion is not Jewish? Did sources simply neglect to mention this? And do Wikipedia editors know better than reliable sources? Sources can express whatever they wish to express, and they do not express that Sanders is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:IDHT. Sanders himself says that he is not a member of any religion. "they do not express that Sanders is not Jewish" is a red herring. This has been explained to you multiple times.
(Time for another GOTO: #1...) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon—he is not religious. But he is Jewish. And before you nitpick about what Jewish means—his religion is Jewish. We adhere to reliable sources. They do not say that that his religion is not Jewish but only his ethnicity is. They do not say that. Can you explain why sources do not support your core argument which is that his ethnicity might be Jewish but that his religion is not? Do sources simply neglect to articulate that? And does it now fall to a handful of editors at Wikipedia to correct that oversight in reliable sources? We are expected to avoid original research. Yet you are reaching conclusions without the benefit of sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty clear these four sources (all RSes) as well as many others are effectively saying "we have no idea how to classify Sanders' faith or religion". They aren't saying he's absolutely not of Jewish faith, but they also are saying that they can't 100% say for sure he is of Jewish faith, and possibly may be agnostic or something else. We are in that same boat, short of a direct statement from Sanders that makes his faith clear and of zero ambiguity and doubt, and because these sources (appropriately) avoid any absolute determination on his faith, we should too, for purposes of the infobox. We are following the RSes on this. --19:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Media can and do say many things which may or may not be accurate. The official biography approved by Sanders himself states unambiguously that his religion is Judaism [49]. That is "clear and of zero ambiguity." There are plenty of examples of individuals unaffiliated with an institutional expression of faith who nonetheless identify with the faith tradition itself. It is not for Wikipedia to judge whether the faith affiliation of a subject is pretended, or what level of engagement connotes a true affiliation with a given tradition. fishhead64 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
But his religious identity *is* ambiguous since "Jewish" isn't a religion, while "Judaism" is. "Jewish" refers to someone that practices Judaism and/or is of the Jewish ethnic group. So that source doesn't necessarily clear things up. Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
But the source clearly says, and I quote, "Religion: Judaism." So, by your definition, it IS unambiguous. fishhead64 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It sure looks as though editors feel very strongly on both sides of this issue. Would it be a workable compromise to enter "Jewish (nonobservant)" in the infobox? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there precedent for that? I would be okay with that if we can agree on a definition of "observant." If it means what I think it means, we could place "Presbyterian (nonobservant) in Mr. Trump's infobox. fishhead64 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a precedent, and I don't think that there needs to be one. But I think it's a bad idea to predicate doing something at the Sanders page upon doing it also at any other page. Each page is about a different person, and each page has its own unique issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
See the RFC. "Non-practicing X" is a non-religion term that the RFC determined should not be included in the "religion=" field. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a reasonable compromise between "he's religiously Jewish" and "he's not" but (for me at least) "he's not" is not my position; it's that we don't have encough information to say definitively either way. Sanders' statements and the sources are ambiguous enough that we should leave that conclusion to the reader, giving them relevant statements and context, which we can't do in an infobox. D.Creish (talk)
And a reasonable compromise is what I intended. As for that RfC at the template talk page, my reaction is WP:CCC and WP:IAR – or editors can just keep arguing ad infinitum. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt to resolve this (didn't mean to suggest I didn't) and agree this will go on indefinitely unless something changes. Is there maybe a noticeboard or procedure where a group of experienced, uninvolved editors could review this and reach a binding conclusion? D.Creish (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, no worries, I never thought that you were suggesting that. That part of what I said was really more directed to Masem's objection. As for a noticeboard, this is one, but I think that the best place to try to get consensus is at Talk:Bernie Sanders, because the page does not really need permission from anywhere else; if the problem is getting uninvolved editors there, then I guess one can open another RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I would almost thing that having some "See (section name)" in the field is a better solution than omission or trying to force inclusion. It means, in terms of Wiki-consistency, that we do have information on Sanders' faith because the field's not empty, and that it's not a simply single word answer that requires prose to explain. It is a logical argument that I would say follows from articles that opt not to use infoboxes (eg Stanley Kubrick) in that sometimes, a person's life cannot be neatly summarized and pigeonholed into specific fields. It makes it a "permanent" solution that only needs to be changed should Sanders actually come out himself with an unequivocal statement that he is of faith X, avoids BLP, OR and all other policies at play. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good approach too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed also. It avoids misrepresentation and gives the interested reader a quick path to the information. Great idea. D.Creish (talk)
Masem—could I ask you why you persistently refer to "faith" when the Infobox field calls for "religion" and Sanders explicitly lists his religion as "Religion: Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Masem, before you get into the definition of "faith" with Bus stop note he defines "religion" in a strange way as well: [link]

No, Guy Macon, he isn't religious, and his religion is Jewish.

I don't know what to make of that. D.Creish (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
(EC) It's simple really. I don't own a car, but the brand of car I own is a Ford. I don't eat meat, but the kind of meat I eat is beef. I don't play sports, but the kind of sport I play is baseball. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, whenever I've said "faith" in the above discussion, I mean to refer to whatever term would be appropriate to use in the "religion=" field in the BLP infobox. I'm not purposely trying to discuss "faith" as a different term from "religion". So just assume I'm saying "religion" where I've said "faith". As to the press kit, that is not necessary something Sanders specifically said personally, and it does contrast with what he has actually said in interviews. As I argued above, knowing Sanders' background, a press kit identifying his religion as "Jewish" is not wrong per se as he appeared to have been raised in the Jewish religion, but it is not precise to what Sanders has actually said about his religious beliefs today. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Masem—thanks for your response to my question concerning "faith". Let me ask you a follow-up question. How does Sanders' statement "Religion: Jewish" "contrast with what he has actually said in interviews"? Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
See the four statements that Guy Macon has posted above, he has stated, directly, he is not actively involved in organized religion, which is what "Religion: Jewish" would imply, creating conflicting statements. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Masem—neither you nor Guy Macon get to decide "what 'Religion: Jewish' would imply". We create this encyclopedia for the reader. We don't tailor this encyclopedia in order that editors get to express their favorite ideas. Furthermore, let it be noted that you refused to answer my question. It was your edit which claimed that it (the press kit) contrasts with what he has actually said in interviews. I don't believe there is such a disconnect. Of course a person says different things at different times in response to different questions and varying topics of conversation. He may have said that he is not religious. Fifty percent of American Jews (approximately) are not religious. But it is never said of them that their religion is not Jewish. Do sources say that Bernie Sanders' religion is not Jewish? Of course not. Sources are perfectly capable of expressing themselves. You are enamored of the idea that "Jewish" can have more than one meaning. Why is it that no source says that while Bernie Sanders' ethnicity might be Jewish, his religion is not Jewish? Why don't we see that in a source? That is your quintessential argument, is it not? Your argument does not find support in sources. That is why it is original research. Bus stop (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: "You are enamored of the idea that 'Jewish' can have more than one meaning", guilty as charged. I am completely enamored of claims that are verifiable in multiple reliable sources, and I have a strong dislike of claims that are completely unsourced such as your WP:OR and WP:FRINGE claim that "Jewish" only has one meaning. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why Guy Macon is saying that I "claim that 'Jewish' only has one meaning". Jewish has lots of meanings. Most words have many meanings. A source for instance can say "Although his father was ethnically Jewish, however, Goldwater himself had been raised as an Episcopalian by a devoutly religious mother." Reliable sources have a good command of the English language. That source, in that sentence, is telling us that the religion of the father of Goldwater might not be Jewish. We can only glean from that sentence that the father is "ethnically" Jewish. I know nothing about Goldwater's father so please don't get into a discussion with me about the details of Goldwater or his father. I am just presenting that as an example. A Wikipedia editor would find support in that sentence for making the assertion that Goldwater's father was "ethnically Jewish". And indeed, that would represent a usage of the word "Jewish" that would be different from saying for instance that a person's religion was Jewish. The salient point should be that the distinctions between different usages of the word "Jewish" have to be found in the sources. What Guy Macon is doing is engaging in original research because Guy Macon doesn't have sources saying for instance that Sanders' ethnicity might be Jewish but that his religion is not. Guy Macon is making edits like this with edit summaries reading "not a member of any religion". There isn't a source saying Sanders isn't a member of any religion. Sources could express that if they wished to. They are not lacking in a command of the English language. We are expected to defer to sources to show us what to express in our articles and how to express it. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mental reset button

Are we (well, mostly you ;-) really debating if one word goes into one place on one page instead of some other place? Does anyone think the amount of discussion is proportionate to the the point of discussion? Does anyone think the world will be recognisably different 5 years down if we pick one version over the other? If no, then maybe it's not that important. If yes, then maybe the heat of the discussion is not due to encyclopaedic considerations, but due to expected downstream effects... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the religious identity of a US presidential candidate is of some significance, given the general religiosity of that society. It does matter whether the subject has a religious identity, and how that identity can be described. I do find it passing strange that we are less concerned with the nuance of other notable people with respect to religion - but most of us know well that the term Jewish has multiple connotations. Nonetheless, how one expresses Judaism as a faith tradition is less relevant than whether the individual identifies it as his faith tradition. This is where the difference arises, and where we might simply need to temperature check with a vote, to see if there is consensus to change what is in the infobox. Some of us are clearly satisfied that Sanders has claimed Judaism as his faith, as well as his ethnicity or culture; and some of us aren't. That's irreconcilable, in the absence of greater clarity. fishhead64 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Fishhead64—in this discussion I think we should be sticklers for using the most appropriate language that we can find. You say "...Sanders has claimed Judaism as his faith..." Maybe I have not seen all of the relevant sources but I don't think that is the most appropriate language. I think it would be more correct to say Sanders has claimed "Jewish" as his "religion". We should be adhering to the assertions made by sources (including Sanders himself) and we should be adhering to the language used by sources (including Sanders himself). It is the sources that should be telling us what to say and how to say it. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Sanders claimed no such thing. An unknown staffer claimed it is a press packet. Sanders himself has said in his own words that he is culturally and ethnically Jewish but that he is not a member of any religion. You keep saying things like "should be adhering to the language used by sources (including Sanders himself)" but you never quite manage to cite any source where Sanders himself (not some anonymous member of his election campaign) claimed that his religion is "Jewish".
"As an adult, Sanders drifted away from Jewish customs. And as his bid for the White House gains momentum, he has the chance to make history. Not just as the first Jewish president - but as one of the few modern presidents to present himself as not religious."[50] --Guy Macon (talk)
No, he has not claimed that he is "not a member of any religion." That is only your incorrect interpretation, Guy Macon. One which you repeatedly refuse to make any effort to understand in context. He has according to the quotes you have presented stated that he is "not particularly religious" which is DIFFERENT, and entirely accepted and common in the Jewish (yes, religious) community. As I, amongst others have previously pointed out, not only is it common in the typical practice and environment of the religion, it's even backed up by religious scholarship in the religion itself: "As we've tried to point out several times, what those arguing that he doesn't practice Judaism are simply misunderstanding is how people in the religion view the practice of the religion, and even what some of the texts say. You don't need to be a member of any synagogue, temple, or shul to be a Jew religiously, you don't need to practice any particular rituals, etc.. I don't know why that needs to be repeated. You suggest that I look up one of these references, but you have clearly failed to make any attempt to do this yourself, or if you have you have simply misunderstood what you read or found bad references. I myself posted one of these references several times already. Here it is again: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm I keep thinking that I should quote some lines from it, but there are *SO MANY*. Let me try just to quote a few: "Can one still be Jewish without observing the edicts and ethos of Torah in one's daily life? Answer: Jews defy all conventional definitions of a "people" or "nation." We lack a common race, culture or historical experience." "Throughout our 3300-year history, what has defined us as Jews is a relationship and commitment. We are Jews because G‑d chose us to be" "This would seem to define our Jewishness as a "religion": we are Jews because we adhere to the beliefs and practices mandated by the Torah. But the Torah itself says that this is not so." "In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a), "A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew." " Centerone (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
There is something vaguely pathological in the fact that only when Jews (as opposed either to other ethnic or religious groups) are discussed we get WP:TLDR knicker-twisting. The rule is, as opposed to nationality (one's passport, a public testimony) a person's ethnicity or religion is nobody else's business, unless the person in question raises it. A relative came to me with a suspicion she had a Jewish father. She wanted to acquire that identity, and needed assistance to find out how to do so, which I gave. A number of young members of the clan have, in the course of a conversation, dropped a remark to me, saying their fiancé(e) is 'Jewish'. When this happens, I fix them with a stare, slightly raise my eyebrows and ask:'So what?' Identity is not a destiny, let alone what a society, or in/out group determines. It's personal. You can be a person of Jewish descent, an atheist, and yet, at death's door, talk the issue over with a rabbi, and this can be read any number of ways, not simply religiously (Raul Hilberg).You can be of Jewish desdcent on both sides and yet, legitimately, not identify with 'being defined as Jewish, as opposed to being French/American (Alain Corcos, for whom Jewish means subscribing to Judaism, which his brother Gilles does, and therefore, unlike him, is 'Jewish') If Bernie Sanders is reliably sourced as identifying with Judaism as a religion (it is of course much more than that) then he is Jewish in that sense. If there is no evidence for this, then we have absolutely no right, indeed it is indecent to claim, to make inferences. What his religious beliefs are, if undocumented, is not our business to inquire. Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)18:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Good point. At first I thought that this was about American politics -- factions trying to influence the election with false claims about Sanders' religion -- but then I noticed that most of the editors who are WP:BLUDGEONing this topic have gotten into a lot of trouble for tendentious editing about Jews, Israel, Palestine, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I really wish that editors would stop arguing about what is "right", because this discussion is on track towards going on ad infinitum without any agreement. There is a suggestion above about putting something like "see (page section)" as the entry in the infobox, and then going into the details in the text of that section. I hope that editors can agree to deal with it that way on the page, and can agree to disagree on the ultimate truth. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function."
In my opinion, we should WP:IAR on the Bernie Sanders and Abraham Lincoln pages, and start a discussion at MOSTALK about refining the "Do not include links to sections" language (the Lincoln article links to another article, and there is something to be said for linking to an anchor instead of a section heading in the Sanders article). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely about IAR here. Also, given that MOS is a guideline and not policy, and also MOSTALK tends (in one fish's opinion) to be a battleground over how many angels to fit on a pinhead, changing that may not be worth the trouble unless the same issue starts to show up on more than these two pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have an idea. Let's get into a huge fight over whether the question is how many angels fit on the head of a pin or how many angels fit on the point of a needle! If we all try really hard, we can end up at arbcom!! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  Or call somebody a pinhead! Anyway, it's good to see some good humor after all the arguments that led to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I support it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As above, strong support. D.Creish (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Best compromise under the circumstances. fishhead64 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I blanked the field because a 1 or 2 word identifier is insufficient to accurately convey Mr. Sanders' religion (or non-religion, per some sources), and could even misinform readers. Putting a simple "See (section header)" in that field would accomplish the same thing. I can't see why anyone would object to this proposal (except someone hoping to misinform). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

List of the largest cities in the Southeastern United States

What's up with List of the largest cities in the Southeastern United States?? Zero sources. Questionable notability. Also appears to have been created by several sockpuppets of previously blocked editors. 32.218.33.44 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a WP:COATRACK for photos, including several of an empty streets, several of beaches, a parking lot, and even a small church in a moderately-sized city . It should probably be deleted, unless someone can locate sources that satisfy WP:LISTN.- MrX 02:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not finding any independent reliable sources to support the list. The page should probably be put up for AfD. Meatsgains (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the page for AfD here. Meatsgains (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming a source implies something it doesn't state directly

See Talk:Agent Carter (season 2)#When are MCU tie-ins not MCU tie-ins?.

The TV show includes a story point ("Zero Matter"/"Darkforce") borrowed from the Doctor Strange comic books, and there is an upcoming film based on these comics, but we don't know if the story point in question will have anything to do with the film itself. The sources state that the show runners had to check that their script didn't contradict that of the film, and this is being interpreted by User:Favre1fan93 and User:adamstom.97 as implying an explicit tie-in. I take the opposite view, that if the show-runners had to check with some higher-ups that their script didn't contradict the film script, that means there could have been no pre-planned tie-in, as the show runners do not know what the film is going to about.

Talk page discussion has been going round in circles for almost a week, and on a niche article it doesn't look like it will end in anything other than a 2-1 non-consensus. So I brought it here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would note that nowhere in the article in question (Agent Carter (season 2)) have we stated that this story point is an "explicit tie-in", nor do we intend for it to say that. In fact, we understand that the sources do not say this, which is why we have written the section specifically to contain only the information that we do know, which, if you do read the section (Agent Carter (season 2)#Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins) and not just the discussion linked above, you will clearly see. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The title of section is "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins", not "Marvel Comics tie-ins". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for a statistics table

Michtrich has started adding a table to the article Refugee that will give statistics for refugee repatriation between pairs of countries. The data is sourced. Anticipating that the number of pairs could potentially be huge, I asked Michtrich how many they expected there to be. Michtrich's response was that they would only include pairs of countries with more than 5,000 refugees repatriated per year. This is Michtrich's own figure to keep the size of the table down. We would like advice on whether this inclusion threshold constitutes some form of original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the creation and use of the table is more subject to original research concerns than an arbitrary threshold. If the consensus is that the creation of such a table is okay for the article, then the threshold would not be an example of OR, but might exhibit some NPOV concerns. Ultimately, there should be community consensus on what the threshold is, if there should be any threshold at all.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Scoobydunk. Can I get other editors' thoughts on whether the table itself counts as original research? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. If you're concerned about the table itself, the reason it could be considered OR is because it's an original gathering and displaying of information by wikipedia editors that serve to fit some larger narrative. From what it sounds like, editors are taking any mention of refugee numbers and are compiling them into an overall table to demonstrate the vast number of refugees. It's quite possible that some or none of the sources were emphasizing the total number of global refugees, and were only mentioning individual pieces of information as data. I work more on articles related to slavery and racism, but think if I took every court case and made a table of the number of lashes given to slaves as punishment and inserted it into every article that addressed slavery. Now, none of the sources emphasized the severity of lashes or sheer number of lashes given to slaves, but my table would be attempting to push that POV through my own original research of gathering and displaying whipping numbers. So you can see how that becomes OR. Lets say a person wants to make a table noting all crashes that women were at fault for. Though this information can come directly from sources, the table clearly serves an editor's own narrative to demonize women. So I'm not sure of the rules regarding the creation of tables in WP articles, but these are some examples of why caution should be given to creating a table with a very specific purpose like listing all refugees.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, Scoobydunk, the figures for refugee repatriation (which is what the table covers, rather than the total global refugee population) are all coming from annual editions of the same source - the UNHCR statistical yearbook (see tab 21 in this spreadsheet). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the table is ok provided that the information is presented in the article with the same description as it is presented in the source. The source given should be more explicit: give the table number and quote its caption. Check that the choice of cutoff does not distort the overall view. Zerotalk 22:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Zero0000. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Michtrich, did you see these responses? It sounds like the table is acceptable, but there are some recommendations about sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Niagara Public School

Doncram added this material to the Niagara Public School article, citing this source. I reverted these edits as the source does not mention the school building, but rather the conservation area that it falls within. Doncram states that the edits were not original research, since "It is not OR to 'interpret' photos of the building to state factually that the building has 2 stories, that it has a peaked roof sloping to front and back, that it has 5 windows/doors along its front. Maybe if one is not familiar with what a bay (architecture) is, one could think an expert is needed? All that is needed is to count to 5, an expert is not needed to make simple observation that is not contested. :( It is also not OR to read the summary of historic district definition and find those facts (and it having been built in 1859, info from elsewhere) are among the defining characteristics of buildings deemed to contribute to the historic character of the district". My view, by contrast, is that claiming that the subject is a "contributing building" and that "it reflects the conservation movement in Canada by its restoration work 'sympathetic to the original appearance and character of buildings built during the 1815 to 1859 period'" when the source doesn't mention the building is OR. Can we get others' opinions on this, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this and notifying me; I am open to feedback here. As I said before (in the AFD where the diff above appears) my edits were informed by my experience in Wikipedia and that I guess I am asserting that I have some expertise to make those interpretations. I am fully aware we don't credential/recognize "experts" here, and I like that about Wikipedia, so I don't ask anyone to roll over and accept my judgments blindly here, but I want to say that there's high-ish probability my interpretations will turn out to be spot on when the detailed documentation is obtained. I think good editors often write things that they believe with some degree (99.5%?) certainty it is fully correct, with intention to check about the small (.5%?) chance we're incorrect in some small way. We really do not require 100% certainty; we accept that there will be errors within new good content in Wikipedia; if we did not we would not allow Wikipedia to be crowd-sourced.
I also could turn out to be wrong on some aspects and I want to acknowledge at least some merit in Cordless Larry's criticism: 1) I am not sure that Canadian historic districts use the term "contributing building" which is formally defined for U.S. historic districts, and the wikilink for that probably goes to a U.S.-based description, so some footnote about the meaning intended for contributing building should perhaps be included. Also, while I believe the building is well-preserved/restored at least in its exterior by viewing the building directly (using Google streetview), I don't yet know about interior preservation/restoration and my assertion about its restoration work being "sympathetic" (the second way a building can be deemed "contributing") is less certain, is more an educated guess, than other aspects of my interpretation. My primary interpretation is that the building meets the first criteria given for buildings being "contributing". Also my interpretation of which architectural style this one has, out of a couple styles prevailing in the district, could be incorrect; I worry now that maybe it is the other style mentioned. However I think the differences if any will be minor (like if I had said the facade was symmetric but had not noticed that in fact one of the windows differed from others, if it did). And I wanna say hey this is a draft and it will be edited given the actual document, but that the notability of the building should be accepted. :) That said, fire away! I don't think i have ever been hauled to this board before, and I am willing (deserve?) to be educated. :) --doncram 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe it as being hauled, Doncram! This isn't a place to report editors, but rather to get input on original research questions. You've nothing to worry about. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Technically, this is OR, but I think it's a perfect opportunity to apply WP:IAR and WP:BLUE. I would let it stand and add a {{better source}} tag. If part of the description that is hotly contested, remove that part until a better source is found.- MrX 12:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for comments including mention of wp:BLUE. I'd rather avoid IAR. Note essay wp:NOTOR states:

Source information does not need to be in text form - any form of information, such as maps, may be used to provide source information. Interpretation of such media is not original research provided that it is done in a routine manner observing any limitations usually associated with the medium concerned, and such interpretations are readily verifiable by anybody who has access to the same source.

Photos' info is treated similarly in historic sites articles in Wikipedia, from my experience. --doncram 11:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a fair source for the topic Anti-semitic anti-Zionism

At a newly created article Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, material has been removed with the edit summary:'removing quote coatracked here because it does not reference this phrase.'

In short, the editor E.M.Gregory is implicitly arguing that no material can be added to the article unless it contains the exact phrase: 'Anti-semitic anti-Zionism'. This is an extreme reading of WP:OR in my view.

The source I introduced is Jonathan Judaken, ‘Rethinking the New Antisemitism,’ in Jonathan Judaken (ed.), Naming Race, Naming Racisms, Routledge, 2013 pp.195-223 p.215-21, which is an extensive analysis of the literature on the historical connections between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It contains phrases like

after the broad incursion into Lebanon in 1982, volumes were produced signaling a rise in antisemitic rhetoric hiding behind the shield of anti-Zionism, . .all these works raised the alarm about a confluence of anti-Zionism within part of the radical left .. which is what many observers signal as the most significant new danger of the new antisemitism. p.213

I believe I am not connecting the dots between the two elements 'anti-Zionism' and 'Anti-Semitism' since Judaken does, and I further contend that Gregory's excision of this critique screws up in a pointy manner the distinction we make re WP:SYNTH. Expert external advice regarding the use of Judaken's article here would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Response I believed that I was enforcing a valid rule for an article on a term of art since other editors have tagged and removed material that directly engages the concept, without using the exact phrase. (See: RolandR "ottolenghi does not use this term" [51]).
My first action was to take the Judaken material move it to a more appropriate spot on the page. (here: [52]) It was only then that I began to consider the problem with introducing such material. Which is...
That this is an article about the idea, put forward by several major scholars, that there is a specifically recent (21st century) variety of anti-semitic anti-Zionism originating on the left and having the peculiar characteristics set out by Bergmann, Johnson, and Hirsch (Hirsch's work on the subject still needs to be added to the page)
The Judaken material does not engage the assertion by Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch et al. Rather, it sets sail on an ocean-sized discussion of whether "every critique of Israel is antisemitic and not all forms of anti-Zionism are animated by Jew-hatred,"
Note that the particular bits of Judaken cited have nothing to do with the argument being made by Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch, but, rather, address other aspects of the is-anti-Zionism-antisemitic debate: "numerous Jewish traditions have insisted that preservation of what is most precious about Judaism and jewishness “demands” a principled anti-Zionism or post-Zionism"; drawing readers' attention to those who "have engaged in a wholesale condemnation of ‘the left’ as antisemitic if not in intention" These red herrings serve only to lure readers away from the topic: a specific, tightly defined type of contemporary anti-Zionism.
I urge that we confine this page to material that directly confronts the specific phenomenon defined by Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
A page with a title like that can not be restricted, except by an editor with a WP:OWN approach, to the original editor's own preferred material. Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch do not define the topic, the topic is defined by whatever source discusses the two elements together. (Alan Johnson is not a 'major scholar', compared to the other 2 he has written on his own virtually nothing of notable substance and is using a term that long predates his newspaper piece) Where is your policy argument? Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
We have hundreds of articles in the Category: Political terminology, all of which would be rendered meaningless unless they are defined and the page contents limited by definitions. We have about a dozen articles on separately defined types of antisemitism (including one I had not seen until just now, secondary antisemitism, I just linked it from a page I started yesterday on Werner Bergmann). Pages like secondary antisemitism, Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and Anti-semitic anti-Zionism are useful, which is probably why we have dozens of pages in Category:Antisemitism, and hundreds in Category:Democracy. We already have 8 subcategories in Category:Anti-Zionism, each containing multiple articles. Frankly, I don't see a problem with either OR or Notability on this page. But if you want a policy argument it is WP:GNG, the principle that pages exist when there are persuasive, reliable sources to support a page. As there are in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Its possible a broader title/article could be written which would be better, but this topic certainly passes the minimum bar. (As to my first point, there are a multitude of POVs out there about if antizionism is inherently antisemetic, to others who say it is never so. Every shade of grey in between. There is probably some title that could cover the question as a whole better, but this is a reasonable starting point) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This does not address my request, which in any case is for outside editors to give an informed opinion whether an article on 'Anti-Semitic Anti-zionism' can exclude any material from RS which do not use that exact formulation, but variants on it, such as 'opposition to Zionism is antisemitic' etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Yes, I would certainly argue that such sources could be included, as long as that formulation would be a reasonable paraphrase. However, the more one must stretch the paraphrase the more likely it is to be OR, so I think a case by case evaluation is probably needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Since I was not pinged, I have only now noticed that I have been mentioned in this thread. To explain my edit, my objection was not to the use of Ottolenghi as a source, but to the fact that he was being cited as evidence that the phrase "antisemitic anti-Zionism" was in common use, and that therefore the article was about a notable topic. In that context, it is perfectly reasonable to point out that he did not use the phrase )(at least, not in the source cited), and that therefore this usage represented unacceptable synthesis. Since the article has subsequently been deleted, this becomes a moot point. But my argument against using Ottolenghi in that context should not be read as objecting to citing him at all, nor as objecting to Nishidani's use of another source to refute the spurious arguments raised in the article. RolandR (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Article title as possible original research

The issue revolves around the use of the term "Civil Rights Movement". I have encountered four articles that use the term in the title, but the use does not appear supported by reliable sources.

The articles in question are:

Yes, I have tried to discuss the matter on the talk pages to no avail. I sincerely believe the editors were earnest in their beliefs and were not trying to be malicious, but helpful in their edits. The reliable sources I encounter state that the Civil Rights Movement was political and social upheaval in the United States during the middle of the 20th century that sought political and civil rights for African Americans. Since I've done the talk pages, I'm not sure what else to do. At the very least, I want to spark a conversation about the use of the term. Mitchumch (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have come to realize that the term "Civil Rights Movement" has a generic meaning on Wikipedia. However, the term "Civil Rights Movement" denotes a specific event. For example, the American Revolution is a specific event. To create articles American Revolution (1775-1788), American Revolution (1789-1865), American Revolution (1866-1968), an American Revolution (disambiguation) page, and an American Revolution"s" article that has content about all the American Revolution"s" would violate WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:COMMONNAME. The Wikipedia process of editorial consensus does NOT make those article titles valid nor the scope of those articles valid. Those articles would seem quite strange to someone that has studied the American Revolution. I'm not sure why this has occurred with the term Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia, but it's the same scenario. Editors ignored WP:Reliable Sources when titles of these articles were created.

WP:Article titles states, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria ... The "Civil Rights Movement" term, like "American Revolution", is not a generic term like "Political history of African Americans in the United States" or "Suffrage history of African Americans in the United States".

Whenever I ask people for reliable sources, no one will provide one. Since no one puts forward sources, I never have anything to understand their point-of-view. I thought reliable sources would trump unsourced claims. However, the term "Civil Rights Movement", from my experience on Wikipedia, seems to have a de facto exception to that rule. Mitchumch (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It has seemed odd to me too that other articles besides the main Civil Rights Movement pages, centered on the movement years of 1954-1968, are labeled 'civil rights movement'. Like the World Wars, the American Revolution, and other specific periods and achievements, the plans and gains of the era were strategized and accomplished within a set amount of time by a very small amount of top-tier individuals. The Civil Rights Movement was, of course, preceded by a decades of individual gains and plans. Yet when the Montgomery groups became determined to make a stand, and continued to expand, and then when the individuals making up the Nashville Student Movement became determined to accomplish full legal desegregation in the United States or to die trying, this movement took on the full weight of changing millennia old errors and created a healing which still has daily effects. Just like other major multi-year events in history, the American Civil Rights Movement, planned and accomplished at the top levels mainly by just a handful of people, achieved what it set out to do in well under a decade. Thank you for creating a conversation on this topic. Randy Kryn 11:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I suspect an etymology of the term is needed. I tried to determine if that term was used before the movement in the 50s and 60s, but did not find anything. I can only surmise it has developed a life independent from that movement going forward in peoples minds. A section will need to be added to the Civil Rights Movement for etymology. Mitchumch (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC))
It may be, although I'm not certain, that the term came to define the Civil Rights Movement and not anything that occurred before it. Stretching the term, as Wikipedia does with the titles you mention, may be akin to labeling all events leading up to the conflict but prior to 1914 "World War I", and maybe Wikipedia needs a template for the CRMovement such as the one named {{Events leading to World War I}}. The CRM arguably stands by itself as a major definable and relatively short period of intense strategy and accomplishment by people using philosophy and techniques brought forward by Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi (which they then refined and enhanced upon), Myles Horton, and James Lawson. Randy Kryn 19:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't whether it's "original research", but using the phrase "civil rights movement" to describe the fight for African Americans' rights before the 1950s seems like a historical anachronism, as this Google Ngram indicates. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter so much what phrases were used then, but how historians refer to the movement in retrospect. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. We should go by what reliable sources say, not by what only those reliable sources published at the time said. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
During all of my past talk page discussions, ALL reliable sources were ignored, whether produced then or now.
However, the issue is more complex than that. The term in the minds of others has become a substitute term for ANY social or political upheaval for civil liberties, rights of citizenship, etc. Like calling all tissue produced by an assortment of companies, Kleenex. Or all washing bleach, Clorox. See Civil rights movement"s" or Civil Rights Movement (disambiguation). Also, it appears to be this line of reasoning that has led editors to apply this term as an anachronism toward the political history of African Americans between 1865-1953. Mitchumch (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: @Cordless Larry: I was confused by your response. Are you asserting that historians NOW are calling the period 1865-1953 the/an African American Civil Rights Movement? Please clarify your previous statement. Mitchumch (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they do call it that, or indeed that they don't, Mitchumch. I haven't looked into it enough to say that. What I'm saying is that, as a matter of principle, we shouldn't judge the appropriate title based solely on whether the term was used at the time, as some comments here suggested we should do (e.g. Malik Shabazz's comment about Ngram and yours, that "I tried to determine if that term was used before the movement in the 50s and 60s, but did not find anything"). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry I understand now. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note - While we do use names for most article titles ... not every title is a name. We also have "descriptive" titles. If we consider the titles in question as being "descriptive", then the question we should be asking shifts from: "Is 'Civil Rights Movement' the most commonly used name for the topic?", to: "Is there a better way to describe the topic than 'civil rights movement'?"... I don't have an answer to that second question, so let me ask others: if we were to change the titles, what would you suggest as a replacement? Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar What reliable sources has informed you that the term "Civil Rights Movement" is a "descriptive" (or as I called it "generic") term - for African Americans AND for anyone else? Mitchumch (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Descriptive titles are not necessarily based on what sources call the topic (They can be, but it is not required). It may be that the sources don't "have" a name for the topic that we can use... so we have to make something up. Descriptive titles are ultimately chosen by editorial consensus.
I'm not saying that we have come up with the best descriptive title for these topics... merely that consensus determines whether a proposed descriptive title is a good description or not.
So... Let me ask again: can you think of a better way to describe the topic? Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar The supposition is that the term "Civil Rights Movement" is a "descriptive term". I am challenging that supposition. What reliable sources has informed you that it is a "descriptive" term? Mitchumch (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your challenge. Do you not think it appropriate to describe a movement concerned with civil rights as a "civil rights movement"? How else would you describe it? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar Did you read my second post about the "American Revolution" time stamped 10:34, 17 March 2016?
yes, I read it. Have you read the question that I keep asking? Let me ask it a different way: I can accept that you don't think we should describe the phenomenon discussed in these articles using the descriptive phrase "civil rights movement"... But that begs the question: How should we describe it? ... We have to give these articles a title... So what would you suggest as a replacement for "civil rights movement" I can't think of anything... but if you can, please suggest it. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar Sorry. Your question gave me the impression you hadn't read that post. Any generic title would suffice. "Political history of African Americans" or "Political history of African Americans in the United States".
There is no reliable source that states the "Civil Rights Movement" began in 1865 or 1896. Your personal page says you are a history teacher and a curator of a historical society. Have you come across reliable sources that say this movement started before the 1930s?
My suspicions is the term has a popular definition. But, there is a major difference in definition when reliable sources are consulted. The term as used on Wikipedia does not match its usage in reliable sources. Mitchumch (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Would something like 'Civil rights era (1865-95)' or 'Civil rights activism (1865-95)' summarize the events? The Civil Rights Movement was a tightly organized movement with a set series of goals that the organizing participants presented and accomplished one after the other, starting in 1955, and then from late-1959 to 1966. The eras and activities that came before did not successfully take on the task and full agenda of ending legal segregation in the United States. It was a different approach, a purposely organized approach, which was run by the exact people needed for it to succeed. The "ground was softened", of course, by what had come before, and those events, legal rulings, and other foundational forerunners of the movement set the stage, yet do not seem, in and of themselves, full and determinalistic movements. Again, thanks for this discussion. Randy Kryn 21:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: The term "Civil Rights Era" or "Civil rights activism" as used in scholarly/academic literature is associated with the middle of the 20th century in the United States.
I forgot about a term that scholars have been using called "Black Freedom Struggle(s)". See Carson, Clayborn (1986). "Civil Rights Reform and the Black Freedom Struggle". In Eagles, Charles W. (ed.). The Civil Rights Movement in America. Jackson, Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. pp. 19–37. ISBN 9781604738124. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
The term "Black Freedom Struggle(s)" is often used in association with the "Civil Rights Movement" (Google Books). However, it appears acceptable among scholars to apply the term to any period of African-American history, from colonial period to the present time. Mitchumch (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar Were you able to find reliable sources to support your claim? Mitchumch (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even look for any. You keep misunderstanding the point I was making. If we consider the title to be descriptive, then we don't need to base it on sources. Descriptive titles are not required to be taken from sources. They simply have to accurately describe the topic. We can make them up because they are not names... They are descriptions.
That said... If there is a name used in sources, then that name makes for a better title than any description. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Compelling cause of 1977 NHTSA investigation of the Ford Pinto

Article: Ford Pinto

Section: Ford Pinto#NHTSA_investigation

Article content:

Lee and Ermann said that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration."

Source:

Dowie's (1977) article had labeled the Pinto a "firetrap" and accused the agency of buckling to auto-industry pressure. Public interest generated by the article forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that NHTSA would be under a microscope for its duration.

  • Lee, Matthew T; Ermann, M. David (Feb 1999). "Pinto "Madness" as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis". Social Problems. 46 (1): 30–47. doi:10.2307/3097160. JSTOR 3097160.

Not directly related to the sourcing of this content, but for interest "Dowie's (1977) article" is:

Discussion

The source clearly says that public interest "forced" the second (1977) NHTSA investigation of the Ford Pinto. The contended content is a claim about what a source said about the motivation of actors in historical events, specifically the causes that compelled the NHTSA to investigate. The paraphrase of the source strays into original research by exceeding the claim of the source when it collapses two separate sentences. Yes, the Mother Jones (magazine) article called the Ford Pinto a "firetrap" (and this is covered in earlier article content); and yes, the Mother Jones article claimed the NHTSA was too lenient on the auto industry, but Lee and Ermann did not say that Mother Jones saying those things was what "forced" the investigation.

Does the article content constitute original research? Comments? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not OR HughD has engaged in an edit war associated with this article. He is now WP:FORUMSHOPing in an attempt to get some of his rejected ideas to stick. He has also failed to notify involved editors (myself), Greglocock in particular. The material in question is a reasonable paraphrase of approximately one page of the journal article. It is also important to note that HughD doesn't likely have a copy of the article he mentioning here. I would ask that he quote the opening paragraph of the section titled NHTSA's Role In The Landmark Narrative on page 40. That paragraph ends with "While NHTSA's actions appear "rational" from a distance, like Ford's they were the product of compromise, conflicting organizational interests and routines, and environmental pressures and constraints." Perhaps if HughD could provide the full quote of pages 40 and 41 he could then make is case. In the mean time, this is more battleground mentality by HughD related to this article. Springee (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The current description does entail a bit of synthesis and POV. It took me a while to see exactly what the problem was, but after rereading HughD's post and rereading the passage on page 41, I now understand HughD's complaint. The quoted passage from page 41 says "Public interest generated by the article forced a second Pinto investigation..." it does not say that "Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" forced a second Pinto investigation". The way the article is currently written is trying to blame Mother Jones' "labeling" as part of what forced the investigation, but the source only explicitly says that "public interest generated by the article" is what forced the second investigation. The source makes it a point to distinguish between these two statements, so we should also preserve that distinction in the article. I think this is a relatively minor quibble, but one that's merited. The bigger issue is the violation of WP:NPOV with the description "sensationalized news stories" because the word "sensationalized" doesn't appear in the context of the source that's provided for this claim. I think the easiest and most fair approach is to simply quote the article directly, so there's no risk of OR or POV concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
First, there is no NPOV violation here. It is quite reasonable to say that new stories which exaggerated the claimed issues with the car have sensationalized the story. Certainly using terms like "firetrap" is sensationalizing. Lee specifically notes that a number of stories that carried claims consistent with "Pinto Madness" readily gained public acceptance while credible contradictory claims did not. In reading accounts of the case from many sources its very clear that the public interest came in large part from the Mother Jones article. I think you are splitting very thin hairs to claim this is a NPOV issue. When the article lock resulting from HughD's edit warring is lifted I will change it to a direct quote.
Disclaimer: Based on previous interactions Scoobydunk cannot be considered an impartial editor with respect to edits by HughD or myself. Springee (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Scoobydunk, Thank you for your careful read, concise summary of the issue, and helpful comments. Any other comments? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
HughD: Yes, I have a question. Why did you fail to notify the Ford Pinto talk page regarding this discussion? Your edit warring on the page has twice resulted in a page lock. Failing to notify the page of this discussion is another example of WP:TEND editing. Springee (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If this isn't WP:FORUMSHOPPING it's something close. Please stop. Please notify folks on the relevant talk page that you're coming here. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The instructions above at the top of this page in bold and red are very clear: "If you mention specific editors, please notify them." No specific editors were mentioned in this WP:ORN request. The noticeboard is available to editors seeking to broaden comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments from uninvolved colleagues on the possibility of original research in the above excerpted article content would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

*Notice added to article talk page [53]. HughD deleted this message twice. Springee (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments here from uninvolved colleagues on the possibility of original research in the above excerpted article content would be appreciated. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Restating, the current article content claims that three things "forced" the NHTSA to investigate the Pinto:

  1. The Mother Jones article saying the Pinto was a firetrap;
  2. The Mother Jones article saying the NHTSA was lenient on automkers; and
  3. public interest created by sensationalized new stories

None of which statements are supported by the source. The source says only that "public interest generated by the article forced..." The current article content is original research. Comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Defining child neglect in relation to child abuse

(Note: this post was moved here from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Disputed interpretation of review article in Psychiatric Quarterly—relevant diff here). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Does the article "Unintentional Child Neglect: Literature Review and Observational Study", by E. Friedman and S.B. Billick (2014), actually support the wording added here to Child abuse § Definitions, specifically the following statement?

Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not; this is because the harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child.

This has been discussed at Talk:Child abuse § Unintentional neglect not considered "abuse"?, with no agreement reached. Several sources appear to support the first part ("Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not"), but Friedman and Billick's article appears to offer a quite different reason for this:

In a study done by Putman-Hornstein, Cleves, Licht. and Needell (2013), they broadly defined neglect as 'acts of parental omission that endanger children.' In this study, they compared instances of fatal injuries for children referred to child protective services for allegations of physical abuse compared with those referred for neglect. It was determined that children referred for physical abuse sustained fatal injuries at a rate 1.7 times more frequently than those referred for neglect. Because of this, Putnam-Hornstein et al. suggest that there is a conceptual difference between abuse and neglect. Others disagree. In an article published by Single Parent Advocate, Cedrick Tardy (2012) writes, 'abuse and neglect are one in the same.' He defines unintentional neglect as an instance when a parent decided to put a priority of lower value over the ultimate well being of his or her child. Parents may even believe, he says, they are are acting in the child's best interest.[54]

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'm the other person involved in the dispute (thus far). Basically, I've argued that the source supports that child neglect may be distinguished from child abuse, which it clearly does. See the abstract. And I've also argued that the source supports that the reasons child neglect may be distinguished from child abuse are because "harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child." This link shows how the source is currently used in the article. The source repeatedly talks about how child neglect can be unintentional, which is a given considering the title of the reference, and it talks about the need for a consistent definition of child neglect. From what I'm seeing of the source, it is citing studies or authors that are defining child neglect as different than child abuse (meaning how child abuse is more so often defined), and the intentionality aspect is included as a part of that. In addition to the passage that Coconutporkpie cited, another passage from the source is the following: "Because neglect is multiply determined, it has both the immediate and gradual effects, and covers a wide range of behaviors, it is a more intractable form of maltreatment than physical abuse. In fact, child and family services supervisor Michelle Selinger, with Carver County Community Social Services in Minnesota, said, 'Being able to wrap a safety plan around physical abuse is almost easier than wrapping a plan around chronic neglect'. According to Selinger, cases of neglect are more complicated and often more fatal than cases of clear-cut abuse."

And another passage is this: "According to Schnizter and Ewigman (2008), family composition is also an independent risk factor on the occurrence of child neglect. Their study looked at data from the Missouri Child Fatality Review Program from 1992 to 1999. Children who died under the age of five were eligible for the study, and controls were selected from children who died of natural causes. Cases were defined as children who died of unintentional injury when the caregiver (1) was not present), (2) present but not capable of protecting the child, (3) placed the child in an unsafe sleeping environment, or (4) failed to use legally mandated safety devices." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question about the review article supporting the wording provided, the answer is "Mostly, yes". The abstract clearly supports the concepts explaining why some researchers find defining child abuse "difficult". So I propose that the passage be changed to:

Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not. Child neglect is difficult to define because harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child.

Scoobydunk (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's what this source is saying; according to the paper's abstract, it's more accurate to say that child neglect is difficult to define mostly because of factors that include: cultural beliefs that lead parents to believe they are acting in children's best interest; the delayed effects of child abuse and neglect, especially emotional neglect; and the diversity of acts that qualify as child abuse. Unintentionality and unawareness per se are not named as factors in the literature review portion. The authors also do not state how "unintentionality" is assessed in the papers being reviewed, except for the one instance quoted above. So I don't think that this paper is a good source for discussing how child abuse is defined in relation to unintentional neglect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconutporkpie (talk • contribs) 22 March 2016
From the introduction of that paper: "In an article published by Single Parent Advocate, Cedrick Tary (2012) writes, "abuse and neglect are one in the same". He defines unintentional neglect as an instance when a parent decides to put a priority of lower value over the ultimate well being of his or her child. Parents may even believe, he says, that they are acting in the child's best interest." So this source does cover unintentional neglect compared to child abuse and the quotes the author uses show that "unintentional neglect" bares multiple factors described in why defining child abuse is difficult. I don't see what the problem is here.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That definition is attributed to C Tary; it isn't the authors' definition. As noted here, in saying that neglect is simply the same as abuse, the mention of Tary's paper in fact suggests the opposite of child neglect being "difficult to define". I don't know what "bares multiple factors described in why defining" is supposed to mean; please explain. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I know who that definition is attributed too because I included his name in the comment. However, the author of this article included that definition to show that child abuse is "difficult to define" by contrasting Tary's definition with other sources and then conducts and entire experiment analyzing unintentional neglect. I think you should address my concern first, and explain precisely the issue you have with this source.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
What the authors intended to show is not the issue, only what their statements explicitly say. I have already mentioned why I believe this source to be mis-interpreted based on its actual contents. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The source is specifically titled Unintentional Child Neglect: Literature Review and Observational Study, and, from I've read of it (I've read the entire source), it is analyzing unintentional child neglect. So how is it not "a good source for discussing how child abuse is defined in relation to unintentional neglect"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The source's title does not make any claims or state any facts—so it is not a sufficient basis for making a factual claim. The authors do not explicitly state that unintentional harm or parents' unawareness affect the definition of neglect. The closest they come is in stating, "Cultural differences and motives must be taken into account when determining if an action is neglectful"—not the same thing. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • yes the source supports the content as do several others. (active) Abuse and (passive) neglect are distinguishable. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Distinguishing 'active' abuse and 'passive' neglect is not really the issue—the dispute is over why they may be considered distinct by some authors. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates

In the infobox at 2016 Brussels bombings there are coordinates of the locations where the events took place which (AFAIK) have not been published in any reliable source. Is this original research? Firebrace (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We know the general locations, but I see the number of degrees of precision used there far exceeds what we would normally include. Eg Maalbeek/Maelbeek metro station normally has degree, minute and second to two digits, but the bombing has it far too precise to 2-3 extra digits. If the precision was taken back to 2 digits on the seconds, then they are fine. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this original reseach using the Bible?

At Tabernacle

==Importanceof the Tabernacle== Exodus 25:8 states that if we want God dwell among us, we must build him a sanctuary. Interestingly, in the Written Torah(The Law of Moses) there is no commandment to build the Temple. Jerusalem or the Temple are never mentioned in the Written Torah. Instead, all rituals in the Written Torah are centered around the Tabernacle and not Temple. Levitical tithes, for example, were given to the Levites specifically in exchange for service in the Tent of Appointment (Tabernacle, see (Numbers 18:31)). Tabernacle and its rituals is also explicitly commanded to be forever. See Exodus 27:20-21, Leviticus 16:32-34, Leviticus 24:2-4, Numbers 18:20-24, Numbers 18:31 and Leviticus 26:11. Tabernacle is also said to be a blessing. See (Leviticus 26:11)

The editor, Aleksig6 (talk · contribs) has made similar edits today, and insists they are not OR. I'm off to bed now but would like other eyes. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And I have explained to the crazy dude over here, that this is what Torah states. This is not what I say. I just quote the verses. You are welcome to check it. It is not OR. Aleksig6 (talk)

And also, you are all welcome to edit it to your liking. But I want it there, at least partially. Aleksig6 (talk)

Woke up this morning to find that he had edit-warred (despite an earlier block for same), swore at people[55] and made other personal attacks, and was blocked. Continued through email and his talk page and lost access to both. Why do people do that? Of course he also socked. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
And now I've looked at my watch list and he's gone even wilder editing through proxies now using all caps, etc. Several articles have had to be protected by other Admins. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
IMO religious texts are not proper sources except when using it to back up a claim about the same religion. Davidbuddy9 Talk  16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Religious texts are primary sources at best and should not be used when numerous reliable secondary sources are available. Yes, by listing multiple verses from religious texts to make some point, this is called original research. The editor is arguing their own point and trying to cherry pick quotes from those texts to support their viewpoint. It's no different than if I said "Homosexuality is a sin according to X,Y, and Z verses in the Bible" <-- That's original research. I am interpreting a primary source and using multiple interpretations from that source to put forth my own argument. If his point of view is legitimate, it shouldn't be hard for him to find some reliable secondary sources that make that argument for him. If what you're saying about the rest of the behavior is true, then administrators should be addressing that bigger problem first.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Ancient religious texts aren't reliable primary sources either. Not only is their history too vague, but whatever respect they have has been influenced too much by faith over the years. What these are is historical artifacts like pottery shards to be analyzed by experts and reported on by primary sources. If an article says, "David killed Goliath", citing only the Torah, that is an unsourced fact. If it says, "the Torah says David killed Goliath" with no further citation, that is original research. If it says "the Torah says David killed Goliath" and cites a modern book about Judaism, that's proper Wikipedia material, though not as good as something with a secondary source. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_36&oldid=1090659830"