↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations and wide-scale infringements • Spam • Proposed mergers • External links User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Shortcuts: WP:NOR/N WP:NORN WP:ORN WP:OR/N

This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis.

The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to WT:NOR.

Please post new topics in a new section. When a thread is closed, you can tag it with {{resolved}}.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Contents 1 Quoting from a Treaty is original research? 2 Map by individual 3 Comparing poll results is WP:SYNTH? 4 Discrimination against atheists 5 Editor selections of papers 6 OR in caption? 7 Is making the case for critics in a criticism section original research? 8 Judaism: not just a religion 9 Wealthiest historical figures 10 SOCE 11 German American article sourcing question 12 Great power & G8 13 Faraday Institute 14 political affiliation

[edit] Quoting from a Treaty is original research?

I've been told that quoting verbatum from a publically available treaty between two governments is "close to WP:OR". The article in question is Soviet invasion of Poland and my entire edit was removed. The wording was as follows "However, this explanation fails to take into account the wording of the Anglo-Polish military alliance Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939.. Such treaty contains no commitment of the British to land expeditionary forces, in Romania or anywhere else, or to start a ground offensive against Germany. It also contains no commitment to respond within 14 days. Furthermore, the treaty speaks of a contracting party becoming “engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter”: Poland did not declare war on Germany and her troops were ordered to not attack Soviet troops." If this is original research, shouldn't we be rewriting a lot of articles? Varsovian (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's more than just quoting the treaty verbatim. That's asking the reader to make a comparison and draw a conclusion, which is contrary to WP:SYNTH (which is a type of original research). You need a reliable source that has made the comparison and/or drawn the conclusion. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. In your opinion would the text be acceptable if the section "Furthermore, the treaty speaks of a contracting party becoming “engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter”: Poland did not declare war on Germany and her troops were ordered to not attack Soviet troops" is removed? The full text is currently "Moreover the Soviets might have taken into the consideration that France and Great Britain did promise Poland, in the case of war, to land expeditionary forces within two weeks (via Romania)[citation needed]; the exact date of the Soviet invasion might have been simply a sum of the date that France and United Kingdom declared war on Germany plus 14 days, which equaled September 17, 1939. The failure of France and the United Kingdom to help Poland either by sending expeditionary forces or by starting a full scale ground offensive against western Germany, or even by bombing the industrial areas of western Germany, might have prompted Stalin to invade.[28] On the same day, the Red Army crossed the border into Poland." but the text of the treaty between Poland and the UK contains no commitment of the British to land expeditionary forces, in Romania or anywhere else, or to start a ground offensive against Germany. It also contains no commitment to respond within 14 days. Varsovian (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

the published text of a treaty is not necessarily it's intended meaning between the parties, nor to the general public either, as various other treaties around that date make notoriously evident. The interpretation of the meaning really has to come from a reliable secondary source--and if it is controverted, from several. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point (especially given the secret annex signed to this particular treaty).Varsovian (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The safest thing to do is to copy ideas from reliable sources, such as books. If you do this, Wikipedia will not be cutting edge but you won't have any original research questions. Ipromise (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Map by individual

This relates to Banned Books Week [BBW], particularly to references to a map. An individual created the map. That map was then promoted by the American Library Association [ALA] as its own without attribution of authorship, giving the appearance the map was the work of the ALA, as evidenced in the LA Times. When an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] questioning the ALA for its policies regarding BBW, the ALA responded in a letter to the editor. The WSJ printed other responses. One was from the individual who created the map where he specifically disclaimed any connection to the ALA. This was published after the LA Times article, else the LA Times might have known the true authorship of the map. A web site in the External Links contains a link to a subpage that happens to be that map, so the map is available to anyone who clicks on the sublink from the ALA's page.

I say the map is not a reliable source (original research, so to speak) for reasons given here:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Another editor says it should be included anyway because the ALA is promoting it as its own and media have reporting the ALA has done this:

• [5]
• [6]

The other editor, User:Atama, and I have been working cooperatively and professionally on the article so this is purely an issue of the application of Wiki policy.

The issue of whether the ALA has plagiarized the map may go toward other Wiki policies, but I do not believe it to be relevant to the question of whether the map itself is original research by a person about which we only know, maybe, his name, his place of residence, and his not being affiliated with the ALA.

All guidance appreciated. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not emotionally invested in this, so if it's not worth including in the article that's just fine, like LAEC said this is more of a question of policy. LAEC has already given my reasons for including the reference, so I don't have much more to add except to say that I'd also like to see a third opinion or more. -- Atama頭 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week. Any comments anyone? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Circular sources have been used, such as WP -> somewhere else -> WP with a reference of that somewhere else . That doesn't mean it's correct. Ipromise (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else wish to comment? The more the merrier. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Original Research as Wikipedia defines that term... Wikipedia was not the "first place of publication" for the map. Also, per WP:NOR#Original images we allow user created images (so even if it did originate on wikipedia, it would be OK). Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Atama, if what Blueboar said is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I have filed this request in the wrong place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have filed nearly this same request on the RS/Noticeboard. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing poll results is WP:SYNTH?

This source says that 64% of Turks would not want to live next to a Jew. It also says, "three in four respondents said they would not want to live next to an atheist or anyone drinking alcohol." Assuming that the questions were asked seperately (as opposed to asking Turks if they would live next to an alcoholic atheist), this means that 75% of Turks would not want to live next to an atheist. Is it WP:SYNTH to say that there are more Turks unwilling to live next to atheists than than Turks unwilling to live next to Jews? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be Synth... It is very easy to commit OR with polls. Also, it sounds as if the source (a news story about the poll and not the poll itself) has already done some combining of questions in reporting on it. The report that "three in four respondents said they would not want to live next to an atheist or anyone drinking alcohol" combines two things that are not related... We don't know the percentages of those who objected to atheists vs those who objected to people drinking alchohol... it could be 74% objecting to atheists and 1% objecting to alchohol... it could be 1% against atheists and 74% against Alchohol... or it could be a more even split. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that they were asked seperately. My question is if the source says 64% for Jews and 75% for atheists, can we simply say that more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists? This is a well reported on poll so establishing that it's actually 75% specifically for atheists should not be difficult, but I want to understand policy regarding this claim before I start googling. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should compare seperate parts of any source (especially polls) and draw our own conclusions based on that comparison... doing so is definitely OR. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this differ from summarization? I really don't think that WP:OR ties our hands quite so tightly, especially given this description, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The OR problems are, as I have explained at length at Talk:Discrimination against atheists, and as Blueboar also indicates, that the proposed edit is not a descriptive claim but a (pointed) comparison, made by a WP editor, not the source. As well as being an edit this "reasonable, educated person" knows cannot be verified as accurate, because the necessary statistical analysis/information (such as the margin of error etc) is not reported.--Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Can you quote the sentence that specifically says that "turks are less willing to live near atheists than jews"? If it did, there wouldn't be a problem. But it's just not there. You are assuming that this is the case from the numbers given, (and you may be right) but on WP you can't do that per No original research." - Slp1. This is the point I'm questioning. I understand the statistical problems you've finally decided to explain and am awaiting the opportunity to view the data myself pending your response on the page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a commonplace fact of polling that polling data is not transitive, that people commonly prefer A to B and prefer B to C, but when offered a choice between A and C, they pick C. This poll gives us no information of what Turks would say, given the choice of living next to a Jew or an atheist. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is beside the point as I was not proposing to write "which group Turks prefer to live next to." I was proposing to write about "which group has fewer Turks willing to live next to them" which comes directly from the source. In any case, I've decided against inclusion as we have multipled conflicting sources on what the study says. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this being tied to the article on Discrimination against atheists... an article that has had problems in the past with using inappropriate examples. The fact that many Turks may not want to live next to an atheist is not "Discrimination"... it is "Prejudice". The two terms are not identical. So I have to question whether it is appropriate to discuss this specific poll in that article. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination against atheists

The previous thread has drawn my attention back to this article. It was raised here a while ago (I forget when)... and at that time it was improved somewhat... but I think it still has OR issues. In several cases, it discusses examples of prejudice against atheists as if they were examples of actual discrimination. I agree that prejudice is often a prerequisite for discrimination... but I do not think the two terms are the same. What the article lacks are sources that show a tie between the examples of prejudice and actual discriminatory acts. Please take a look and help clean up the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument is laughable. Discrimination and prejudice are listed as synonyms at dictionary.com.[7] The article infact has sources that specifically connect everything to the word discrimination, which would be apparent if Blueboar had taken the time to read them, except the polls which Blueboar referred to as examples of "prejudice." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's three more places that list them as synonyms:[8][9][10] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Prejudice does not imply an actual act, it is a feeling or bias or belief. Discrimination however is the actual act of unfair treatment, often motivated by prejudice. The two words are similar (hence synonyms) but not equivalent (hence the different definitions). nableezy - 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that prejudice and discrimination are different concepts. These highly reliable sources all clearly define discrimination as prejudice in action. [11][12][13][14] They are not synonyms, and I'd be inclined to agree that the polls are evidence of prejudice, but not discrimination. I have two additional concerns about the article (which I should note, I have largely written). One is to question why this article is called "Discrimination against Atheists..." while almost all the similar articles are called "Persecution against Christians/Jews/Hindus...". The term "persecution" obviously raises the bar higher than discrimination. I'm not sure why this is, but I suspect it may be related to the campaigning and advocacy of atheists (particularly in the US, it appears) regarding their claims of discrimination. Much of the article consists of complaints and observations attributed to atheist sources, mostly unconfirmed or taken up by any external source. Not necessarily an OR problem per se, but an issue. --Slp1 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind having "discrimination against X" articles... but I do think such articles need to establish a) what definition of the term "discrimination" is being used... and b) that reliable sources agree that what is being discussed in the article fits that definition. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In looking at sources, I find discrimination and prejudice are frequently mentioned together. This is not surprising considering how closely they're related. Perhaps we could simply change the name to something along the lines of "Prejudice and Discrimination against atheists"? On a side note, there were originally two article addressing this topic, one was "Persecution of atheists" and the other "Discrimination against atheists." About a year (or two?) ago I merged the two and kept the name of the more complete one with more current examples. Persecution of atheists had more historic examples. Should still be in the history of that redirect page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editor selections of papers

Could someone have a glance at Genetic research into dyslexia and Talk:Genetic research into dyslexia? An editor wants to post links to personal collections of papers (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/collections/public/1rm-wyOOe7mOm3bJzXVnuq6/ - where the "1rm-wyOOe7mOm3bJzXVnuq6/" is code for a PubMed user bookmark by this editor) minus any secondary source for the criteria for collation. I strongly feel that this is original research. Views? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand what we mean by "Original research". When we use this term, we limit it to Wikipedia. We are referring to information and ideas that have not been published elsewhere... situations where Wikipedia is the first place of publication. If something has been published elsewhere, Wikipedia isn't the first place of publication, and so the material is not considered "original research" as we use the term. Hope this clarifies the situation. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The material itself isn't, but I'm concerned whether the user selection of a subset of that material (by criteria we can't see, and which aren't based on any secondary validation) is skating on the edge of WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This one of my online PubMed research paper collections, all of which are listed on user:dolfrog and part of my wider research paper online collections which can be accssed via my Delicious bookmark account Research paper collections or collections collated on Deliciouswhich could be open to personalisation as I have done with my TOP 20 research paper category The last two collections types which are based at delicious are purely lists of research papers with no ready option of alternative research papers. With the PubMed collections the whole vast collection of PubMed's archives of research papers are available to anyone who follows the link provided, as is the link being discussed. dolfrog (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

from WP:Synth __________________ "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. _______________________

If there is no comment about content of the collection of papers, only a collective title, how can be a synthesis of anything. it is only a collection of research papers, which have already been published in scientific journals, If you follow the link to PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/collections/public/1rm-wyOOe7mOm3bJzXVnuq6/ PubMed provide the option to view related research papers of your own choice, so the viewer can use this collection as a starting point to carry out their own research and created their own research paper collection.

It could be a synthesis by bias in selection (e.g. only papers supporting a particular theory). It would be preferable that there be no personal element in the choice. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest have you ever looked at the content of any of my Research paper collection, if you can find such a bias please let me know so that i can correct it. To eliminate personal choice is impossible unless of there are others who create their own collections of research papers on the same topic. You are very welcome to participate, Wikipedia relies on good research. The more research the better dolfrog (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

An external link to an anonymous editor's collection of papers. Why would that ever be considered? We don't link to random web pages. It's not an original research issue until you start considering the content of the papers. That issue does not even arise here. We don't link to random web pages. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it maybe a WP:EL issue, then? There just seems something deeply wrong with a Wikipedia editor bundling up a personal selection of papers on a database, accessed by a single bookmark, then linking an article to that bookmark. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the link is not official, it's not identified, it's not part of an official organization on genetic research. It's vandalism at this point, since the editor is not listening to the community. It serves no purpose. Collections of articles to go into a wikipedia article are discussed by responsible, interested editors on the talk page. The editors reach some kind of consensus about the most relevant, important articles to include as references or as additional reads.

There's no where on wikipedia that an editor wholesale decides his search at a database is representative further reading for a topic and posts it wholesale in an article. Gordonofcartoon, stop reverting, post a 3RR warning on this user's user page, and get help from 3RR or AN/I. You're not going to win this one because your opponent is doing something else besides edit wikipedia and you appear to be trying to write an encyclopedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is an inappropriate external link. It's also a SYN and NPOV problem in that an editor is using his own, personal criteria to select and group information. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as Ronz points, the link is inappropriate. There are many problems with it. I posted at AN/I simply to remove the burden for remediation from User:Gordonofcartoon.[15] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OR in caption?

Please see Talk:Żydokomuna#Original_research_insertion_into_picture_description. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is making the case for critics in a criticism section original research?

The issue here involves the following paragraph taken from the "Criticism" section of Council on American-Islamic Relations:

• Critics of CAIR, including six members of the U.S. House and Senate,^[1][2][3] have cited ties from the CAIR founders to Hamas. The founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former FBI analyst and Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership."^[4] Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993 that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, and the IAP.^[5][6][7] Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that “the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]."^[8] Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations” body, “whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."^[9][10] Critics also point to a July 1994 meeting identifying CAIR as one of the four U.S. organizations comprising the working organizations of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization and supporter of Hamas.^[11][12] At a 1994 meeting at Barry University Awad stated that he is, "in support of the Hamas movement, although CAIR has sought to discredit his comments, stating Hamas was only designated a terrorist organization in January 1995 and did not commit its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994, after Mr. Awad made the comment.^[13][14]

It strikes me entirely as a violation of WP:NOR to write criticism in this fashion. The sources being used in this paragraph are a mixture of press releases, court documents, senate testimony, and various other documents most of which are not reliable secondary or tertiary sources and many of which are hosted or written by groups known to be partisan regarding CAIR (like the Anti-Defamation League, which in this instance sits on the opposite side of the Israel-Palestine political fence, or the NEFA Foundation). My issue here is not with the POV nature of the sources, but rather with how they are being used. The first sentence above states that 6 members of congress and the senate have cited links between CAIR and Hamas (it should really state that they are critical of CAIR because of such links ... but that is another matter). Then after making this claim the paragraph attempts to establish such a link by piecing together various other primary documents and secondary sources. The direct assertion of someone being critical of CAIR isn't even in the paragraph at all, which is mind boggling. I'll spare you all from my opinion about what happened here, and why it has been written in this manner, but what I really want to know is if this is an OR issue. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the "mixture" of documents you mentioned, you failed to note the Washington Times, a book published by Yale University Press, the Dallas Morning News, a link to the document referenced by the morning news, the New York Sun, the World Tribune, and the Texas Cable News. That sounds like enough sources of secondary criticism to me. You're right in asserting the Anti-Defamation League would be partial in their criticism of CAIR, but as this issue has already been discussed on the talk page, that doesn't mean its criticism is not notable. The Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson criticisms were left in the article, and of course they could be considered partisan as well, that's precisely why they're mentioned in the criticism section. The primary source listed after the source of the ADL criticism is merely the document in question, and does not stand alone as a citation. I think your proposal regarding the wording ("X and x are critical of CAIR, vs. "Critics of CAIR, including x and x") is merely semantics.—DMCer™ 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's list the sources used in this section under the claims they are sourcing:

1. Press release from four congressmen
2. Press release from a senator
3. Washington Times piece on Barbara Boxer rescinding an award
4. “Levitt, Mathew, Hamas:Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad
5. Blog post from the Dallas Morning News "Crime Blog"
6. Editorial from Accuracy in Media
7. Supposedly an Associated press news piece hosted on some unreliable website [16]
8. Levitt again
9. A local news piece in the Dallas Morning News from the same Crime Blog reporter as above
10. An official court document which appears to be a transcript of a tape recorded conversation
11. Blurb on the website of the Anti-Defamation League
12. A primary document with the original Arabic and a translation hosted by The NEFA Foundation
13. A copy of the congressional record for some period of time documenting various letters and other primary sources being entered into the record -- hosted on the Federation of American Scientists website
14. Senate judiciary committee testimony by Mathew Epstein of Steven Emerson's "Investigative Project"

Most of these sources are primary documents, press releases and blogs (please note that I am discussing the above paragraph and many of the sources you claimed above are not even in that paragraph). But that is just part of the problem. The real problem is how you are using these sources to synthesize a defense of a criticism.PelleSmith (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you intentionally leaving out the New York Sun, the World Tribune, and the Texas Cable News? I have to question your argument when you call the CBS affiliate, KHOU (TV), host of the "supposed" Associated Press story (which if I remember correctly, was disseminated by numerous outlets), unreliable. Not to mention your omission of many of the sources in your list above. The Dallas Morning News story is acceptable, as WP:BLOGS states that blogs published by, "Well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper, ...." The post in question is essentially a news story. We're not talking about a random blog hosted on Blogger. —DMCer™ 23:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Rather than taking issue with the paragraph, why not re-write it so that it is not a "defense" of the criticism but still retains the core of the information. That would show me at least that this issue of "original research" is not just yet another tactic to sanitize the article because you believe the criticism to be unfounded.79.193.90.50 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another note, once again it just seems just disingenuous to try and discredit the press releases which were use to cite examples of criticism. I am 100% positive that if CAIR had responded to a criticism with a press release, you would have no problem citing it as a source. Why on Earth would it matter if a critic has made his criticism in a press release?Sgmiller (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...[the material] does not involve claims about third parties."

In other words, we could use Daniel Pipes' blog on info about him trying to clear himself of some allegation, but not if he is making allegations about others ("third parties"). Similarly, we can use CAIR website, when they is providing "information about themselves", in "articles about themselves" (i.e. Council on American-Islamic relations), so long as they are not making claims (esp. negative ones) about others ("third parties").

This is wiki-policy.VR _talk 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "self-published or questionable sources" making claims. The Criticism section is reporting criticism made by U.S. Congressmen, the FBI, and NGO's regarding CAIR. Its very interesting that you use Daniel Pipes as an example because you had no problem citing him (and Emerson) when they were the only ones included in the Criticism section. Now that the Criticism is referenced to more "mainstream" sources, all of a sudden it becomes a problem. As I wrote above, the previous editor said here that he considered the criticism of CAIR to be "crank" and "xenophobic" and directed against and organization which he, on his own, deemed "law-abiding." I believe that Emerson and Pipes, being somewhat controversial, were cited previously as the sole source of the criticism in order to discredit the criticism itself. I also see no sign that the previous editors were either aware of the actual substance of the allegations against CAIR nor did they seem knowledgeable about any aspect of the subject.Sgmiller (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the piecing togethor of primary sources and secondary sources in some cases here is inappropriate. I have not looked through all of the sources, but looking at one of them showed me that it was bieng used inappropriately (I raised the concern at Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#What_is_this.3F, and the discussion is ongoing). Unless the critics (secondary source) specifically cite a primary source in a clear manner, we shouldn't be pretending that they have cited the primary source as such. The primary source can still be used if it is relevant, but can't be connected to a secondary source (e.g. "critics ave cited...").VR _talk 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The one isolated primary source has been removed.Sgmiller (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

.79.193.88.236 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism: not just a religion

diseneous For over six months, the Judaism article has said:

Judaism (from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, derived from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahedut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos)[2] is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts.

This was true

• a month ago[17]
• two months ago[18]
• three months ago[19]
• four [20]
• five months ago [21]
• more than six months ago[22].

This is what I below refer to as the consensus version. Note: no sources were provided

On November 9, User: Navnløs changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion." Note: She has not provided any sources to support her postion

On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:

• "The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam."

I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.

I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:

• Judaism is unlike Christianity and Islam in that it refers both to a nationality and a religion. To understand Judaism one must understand why these two elements are inextricable. But in this regard Judaism is quite unlike Christianity or Islam
• I have now provided three sources. One is from a historian who says that Judaism during the Hellenic period referred to many things besides religion. Another is from a theologian who says that the observant Jew ("Halackic man," one who observes Jewish law) shoud not be characterized as the "religious man." The third is from a theologian who argues that Judaism is not a religion but a "civilization."

Since that time, user:A Sniper has accused me of violating WP:NOR[23]. User:Bus Stop simply rejects my sources.[24]

• I have since provided two more sources from the web

There is a long history of reverts. I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. I have tried to provide reliable sources, and Navanlos,A Sniper, or Bus Stop either disparage or ignore my sources, and refuse to provide any of their own. The page is now protected and I am hoping thoghtful discussion will suffice to resolve the matter. I see WP:RS as key to resolving this dispute and appreciate the comments on editors experienced in this kind of issue, who have time to read through the relevant section of the talk page. The discussion is here Slrubenstein | Talk 11:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a less complex topic? The primary source of "beliefs and practices" is the Torah, and the Talmud etc. are of far less importance. Use of "Hebrew Bible" IIRC refers to the intersection of the Tanakh and Christian Old Testament. And we have still to deal with the issue of "genetic tribal Judaism" as opposed to "religious Judaism" etc. which opens up a whole can of worms. (Yes, I have known atheist Jews who practice Judaism practices.) Clearly "religion" could be a section under Judaism, but I think Judaism is often broader than religion. Collect (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A constructive comment if you make it on the talk:Judaism page. I hope people with constructive comments will make them in the context of the current page protection/edit warring discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see this as an "original research" issue. It's not OR to call it either a set of "beliefs and practices", nor a "religion". I donm't see how this board can't adjudicate on which is better phrasing. However, it might be worth noting that the situation is comparable to Hinduism, which is similarly a network of practices and an inherited national/ethnic identity. The consensus on the Hinduism page is to call it a "religious tradition". Paul B (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wealthiest historical figures

There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wealthiest historical figures (2nd nomination) where one of the issues relates to original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SOCE

Does a reference showing that Donnie McClurkin said "I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality" indicate that McClurkin is talking about Sexual orientation change efforts?

Specifically, this removal is contested at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts#McClurkin, with a discussion whether or not the aforementioned conclusion is WP:OR or not. Gabbe (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] German American article sourcing question

There is a sentence in the German American article that says "From Ohio to the Plains States, census maps show a heavy presence in rural areas into the 21st century. (See maps above and below.)" - I have some issues with the way the sentence was sourced:

• The sentence doesn't say which maps they are.
• The maps are are there are File:German1346.gif and File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - The first map has no key (check the edit history and a reader won't see it) and therefore it has no value as a source - The second map shows counties where German-Americans have a plurality, but it is problematic to say that a plurality would be a "heavy presence" - also a reader would be unable to tell which counties were classified as rural just from looking at a map. Also the sentence says "rural areas" and a reader cannot separate out counties and specific areas from the counties just by looking at a map.
• I believe that the sentence needs a secondary resource that explicitly says "U.S. Census maps show heavy concentrations of German Americans in rural counties in the 21st century" - Doing this would be perfectly compliant with Wikipedia sourcing requirements.
• When I pointed this out to the editor who opposed my fact tag on the sentence (his edit summary said "Open your blinded eyes; the maps are in the article"), he proceeded to ignore my discussion, so I am taking it here.
• Would you agree with this? How should the sentence be revised? How should it be sourced? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First, the sentence is poor English... what it should say is: "Census maps show a heavy presence in rural areas of Ohio and the Plains States, into the 21st century." (The way it is written, the sentence means that census maps located in Ohio or the Plains States show a presence... the assumption being that if you looked at the same census maps elsewhere they would magically change and not show the presence). But to your point... I agree the statement is a bit overly broad. It would be better to either stick to specific statements and cite a specific map (or the census itself), or use a secondary source that analyzes the census.Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Great power & G8

I was wondering if I could get your input on if there is a sufficient source for the addition of the G8 image to the Great power article or if it is WP:OR. Follow the link to the relevant conversation Talk:Great power#G8 Solution x2. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page discussion, it is definitely not OR to mention the G8 in the Great power article (as there are reliable sources that discuss the G8 in the context of being a meeting of great powers). Since it is appropriate to mention the G8, it is also appropriate to illustrate the article with an image of the G8.

That said, images should illustrate information discussed in the text of the article. They should not present information themselves, and should not be used as sources of information. At the moment the G8 is not actually discussed in the article, and it is confusing to have an image illustrating something that the article does not (yet) talk about. To fix this problem, I would not remove the image... I would add discussion the G8. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see, if Blueboars assessment can be respected at the article´s forum. Lear 21 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so viewfinder has said this

(We requested) transcriptions from academic passages linking G8 membership with great power status. Perhaps I have missed something, but I still cannot see any such transcriptions. G8 membership, which excludes China, does not imply great power status or vice versa. Therefore the inclusion of the image is based on OR and POV...

I was wondering what others think. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not need academic sources for anything like this. any RSs will do. But the real question of whether this is totally obvious. That's a qy of common sense. Note there are unquestionably great powers that are not members, notably China. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Faraday Institute

Is it synthesis to state that the activities of this institute include "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion", on the basis of the following citations:

• Alexander, Denis, "Science and religion: squabbling but loving cousins," Daily Telegraph, 16 Jul 2009, accessed 18 November 2009
• Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled? The Independent 11-Oct-2008
• Alexander, Denis, "Science in search of God," The Guardian, 25 August 2001, accessed 3 November 2009
• Can Christianity Warm Up to Darwin? Fox News 27-Oct-2009
• Darwin and the Church Public Radio International 12-Feb-2009
• The divine is in the detail Times Higher Education 26-June-2008
• Academics to debate God and Science Irish Examiner 21-Apr-2007

...these citations being examples of the "public commentary", rather than any third party stating that public commentary is an activity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You can use their Web page for this. At [[25]] point 4 states "To provide accurate information on science and religion for the international media and wider public."--LexCorp (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's already included in the article (which is fairly heavily laden up with material sourced to the FI itself). The above is making the (very similar) point a second time, from these WP:PRIMARY sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, then, it would seem it supports a statement already made in the primary source with examples drawn from secondary sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Except that they are not given as 'supporting' that statement but repeating it elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

the consensus about these seem pretty clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraday Institute. it seems a little POINTy to fork the discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Except DGG that this thread precedes the AfD. Your claim that it is a "fork" of that AfD (whose nomination, which you likewise misrepresented as being "based on what was on the talk page", makes no mention of synthesis) is therefore a misrepresentation, and your conclusion of WP:POINT unfounded. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: On the original query and after reading the whole citations I conclude that:

• Alexander, Denis, "Science and religion: squabbling but loving cousins," Daily Telegraph, 16 Jul 2009, accessed 18 November 2009

Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

• Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled? The Independent 11-Oct-2008

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

• Alexander, Denis, "Science in search of God," The Guardian, 25 August 2001, accessed 3 November 2009

Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

• Can Christianity Warm Up to Darwin? Fox News 27-Oct-2009

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

• Darwin and the Church Public Radio International 12-Feb-2009

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

• The divine is in the detail Times Higher Education 26-June-2008

Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

• Academics to debate God and Science Irish Examiner 21-Apr-2007

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

So basically all the citations fail to support the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". A clear case of WP:SYN--LexCorp (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] political affiliation

Have noticed that earlier this month editor Twobells (talk · contribs) was warned for "clear BLP violation" and edit warring [26] concerning James O'Brien (radio presenter).

So my query is may the person's political biased agenda be somehow duly noted in this biography? - check [27] 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)