Misplaced Pages

:No original research/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:No original research Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:07, 30 June 2010 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,556 edits →Antisemitism in the New Testament← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:29, 11 January 2025 edit undoTraumnovelle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,461 edits →Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{skip to talk}}
{{Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{editabuselinks}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
{{Shortcut|WP:NOR/N|WP:NORN|WP:ORN|WP:OR/N}}
|counter = 52
This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be ] (OR) or ].

The policy that governs the issue of original research is ] (]). It says: "Misplaced Pages 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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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 ].

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

{{backlog}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 13
|algo = old(28d) |algo = old(28d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}]]
}}{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
]
<inputbox>
bgcolor=
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard
break=yes
width=20
searchbuttonlabel=Search noticeboard archives
</inputbox>
__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__ __TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 28 |collapsible=yes}}


== Edits to “Game Science” ==
]
]

== Historical maps made by editors ==

It is quite an interesting subject, I suppose. Wiki encourages editors to create '''images''' on their own and post them as there are often problems with copyright issues ]. Those images are not OR if referenced. But now I have a question if maps are also included. How would a map be referenced? But the main question I am experiencing difficulties with are historical maps. For historical maps a very serious historical, geographical and topological researches have to be done. For '''creating''' a historical map by an editor seems impossible to be competent enough and I could claim any unpublished historical map made by any editor an OR or at least an Original Synthesis. Can we at all consider such made maps proper for an encyclopedia??? Thank you for your comments! ] (]) 22:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:The presentation of a published map is what is copyrighted; the information therein is not. So if an editor adds exactly the information from any published map to an extant map template, then that is one way to make a new map without doing OR.

:There is already the precedent in many election articles applying results data to map templates demarcating the districts. In this way, a new map gets created where no map existed before; this is also not OR.

:What both of these have in common is that they are relatively simple. As maps get further removed from a single original source, such as by referencing multiple sources at once (separate historical, geographical, and topological sources), then it starts to become ]. The line when this starts is not well defined; if you want to make maps, I would encourage you to start with a simple one then get feedback as you attempt more complex iterations. ] 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. I have made a number of maps by combining information from several existing maps. For example, I might start with an old map and draw on it modern features from a recent map in order to show how the region has evolved. Such maps can be very informative and enhance articles a lot, so I think we should be lenient towards them. On the other hand, maps are not exempt from the ], ] and ] rules. Anyone making a map should be willing to give a source for anything on the map that is challenged, and these sources should satisfy ]. Similarly, the choice of what to put on a map can be an ] issue. However, merely combining information from several reliable maps is just the same as writing an article based on several reliable texts; usually it is not ] unless the combination is designed to support an original hypothesis. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

:I see the points of views now. I think I will have to present a specific case now to see the opinion about it. Here it is:

===Preconditions===

The map was created by a non-professional with many issues I'd claim OR or/and SYNTH, no topological consideration and I see no references to any RS . It is important to evaluate it to be or not an OR because the map is used on many articles.

In this case of disputes 1 question arose - "the created map is easier to read". Even if so, the map is not academical and violates the above mentioned rules of Misplaced Pages. But for this issue there was quite a lot of work performed to bring a map based on a reliable source to a "more easy to read" condition . ] (]) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

=== Issues to be discussed and results - achieved ===

#Does the 1st user-created map contradict to the rules?
#Is the 2nd user-created map , referenced to a reliable souce, an OR or Synth? If not, is it preferable for use than the 1st?

Thank you for participation! ] (]) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

=== Discussion with final conclusions <small>(please note the latter in BOLD)</small> ===

As the 1st map does not respond to correct political borders of the Roman Empire, in my opinion, it can only be used in 1 case: when describing which provinces has which type of status in the Empire. I do believe this 1st map was created only with this goal and not to have propper borders of lands etc. But of course, in any case, even this use is only possible when the info is referenced to RS(s), and yet it is not. ] (]) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Is there nobody willing to put an opinion about the very issue? :) ] (]) 20:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

== Harm reduction ==

I and some other editors have a problem with {{User|Minphie}}. He have his way on many articles in the scope of Harm reduction and is "juxtaposeing" to make "valid arguments" against harm reduction that is "evidenced and factual" and "logically correct". However, looking at the sources he uses, in many cases it is evidenced that they not are critical of harm reduction. In he for example uses kingheathpartners.org to make an argument against de cost-effectiveness of heroine assisted treatment, but looking at the source kingheathpartners.org is actually making the contrary argument, that it is cost-effective. Then he brings Sweden to that table, using a source that does not say anything about wither Sweden is have a cost-effective drug policy or is making it an alternative to heroin assisted maintenance. Another example of OR is where he saw together an original synthesis with the same kind of selectivity shown above, not showing that the "critics" in fact used the sources in the way he did.

I would be pleased if someone took a look at the above, informed Minphie a last time about original research and then reverted his edits to ]. ] (]) 10:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:Steinberger has not understood the differences in formal logic between synthesis and deduction, and herein lies his misunderstanding. I have indeed cited a medical media release on the UK heroin trial as my source for the COST per participant and as my source for the ONGOING ADDITIONAL COSTS of acquisitive crime to the UK community from these same participants despite their provision of free heroin. I have then juxtaposed (not synthesized) the ongoing costs of heroin maintenance with the once-off costs of rehabilitating heroin users such that they cost the community nothing in acquisitive crime or ongoing maintenance. The deduction is clear and indubitable.
::IF the heroin trial participants are still costing the UK community 15,000+ pounds p.a. in real terms (as demonstrated from my cited source)
::AND a rehabilitated user, who after an initial one-off investment costs the community no pounds at all (a given)
::THEN the rehabilitated user is the cheaper strategy.

:This is precisely the argument of the critics of the heroin trials. There is no synthesis or original research. Straightforward deduction is not empirical research in any shape of form, where rather it is 'induction' at play. Unless Steinberger can grasp the difference between deduction and induction he may continue to make the error of thinking that deduction is original research. Others may assist him better than I. I have put a similar explanation on the Harm Reduction Talk page.
] (]) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:No, that is still an ] and the result you get when doing it is factually wrong. The addicts that can get heroin by prescription have failed numerous attempts at rehabilitation, including with methadone. They are the treatment-resistant worst five per cent, according to your source. The alternative to heroin as given in the source you quote is not rehabilitation, but prison and the cost for a year in prison, according to the source you quote, is 44k£.

:Your argument however, can still be done. But then you have to have a source where it is made explicitly and properly attribute it to it. That is perfectly fine and in accordance with ]. But that is not the case here, is it? ] (]) 08:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry, as I read Misplaced Pages's policy on Original Research "straightforward deduction", as you call it, is a classic example of original research. Any logical inference from the sources, that is not explicitly stated in the sources, is Original Research. --] (]) 22:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Concur. We are documenting knowledge, not drawing and presenting further inferences and conclusions we create from it. While in academia the process described might be considered deduction, it's a pretty cut and dried synthesis/OR issue for a neutral encyclopedia. If a credible independent third party had drawn and published those same conclusions in reliable sources, that would be different. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

::: Nice to hear that I have understood the policy correct. Thanks both for taking your time. ] (]) 17:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

::::I am an uninvolved observer of this dispute and I am not convinced that this dispute is as clear cut as made out and I am worried about the direction this dispute is taking. It appears the accusers here allow uncited POV original research such as the following commentary, "'''''Little anecdotal evidence supports them beyond the arguments and claims put forth by anti-harm reduction groups themselves.'''''" and "'''''Critics furthermore reject harm reduction measures for allegedly trying to establish certain forms of drug use as acceptable in society:'''''" minimise criticisms of harm reduction. See . I am concerned that this noticeboard is being used to generate "evidence" to get a newbie editor community sanctioned from wikipedia based on comments by Steinberger on and a user conduct RfC being filed ]. The newbie editor Minphie is concerned with the POV of the article and I can see why. Am I right in saying that the above bolded examples of uncited commentary is original research? Outside views would be welcome.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 11:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Additionally was done on the grounds that Minphie was doing synthesis and original research but when I checked the sources, I did not see any synthesis or original research. I did not read every reference but about half of them and seemed fine and the mass revert seemed to be on flawed reasoning. ''Most'' of the sources also seemed to be ok. This is not a one sided issue.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 12:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree with LG. Even though I disagree with the critics of the SIS these criticisms are verifiable and thus should be included on Misplaced Pages. These safe injection sites have not been around very long and thus many conclusions surrounding them cannot yet be made. Well Minphie may have picked onesided passages. These should have been balanced rather than removed. And this should probably have occurred on the subpage ] to keep the main page from getting too big.] (] · ] · ]) 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

* I agree that the example presented is original research. I also agree that the article should try to be neutral. Scanning the mass revert it does seem like some of the citations removed were likely not used in an original manner. I glanced through Google Scholar and didn't find a lot of criticism on harm reduction. (2002) mentions that the practice has been controversial and discusses criticisms briefly at the end, but is overall supportive. seems similar. ] | (] - ]) 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comments. Yes a lot of areas of harm reduction is fairly common sense and not controversial, though some forms of harm reduction are controversial for a number of reasons. :)--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 17:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Over the mass revert, there was mainly four things:
:::#that "Critics of this intervention point to these same evaluations of safe injection sites" (four sources, were only one is in fact pointing to a evaluation that was preceding or following, namely and it mainly summarized other findings then the ones that were following)
:::#the statement that Vancouver and Sidney are the most evaluated drug consumption facilities (novel and without citations)
:::#that " cost ...$3 million per annum to operate ... indicating just one life saved from fatal overdose per annum" indicating that it is cost-inefficient although the same expert review where the figures from said it is cost-efficient; exactly mimicking what above is said to be a original synthesis
:::#that partisan "review" was used without attribution (its findings contradicts the official evaluations on many points)
::To make Minphies edit compliant to policies (not only NOR but also NPOV) it had to be completely rewritten. ] (]) 09:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

We have an editor at this article who I and others think is inserting OR. He argues that he can use primary sources the way he is using them and his edits are not OR. As he plans to edit other articles similarly, some commments here would be very helpful. My reversion is at ] (]) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:This is pretty straight forward on first glance. ]: ''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. '' It's like when users want to quote the bible and then state their personal interpretation. Ancient texts can be examined and interpreted in many different ways. Luckily, we have scholars who spend their lives doing that stuff, so we don't have to do it here. It shouldn't be hard to find a scholar discussing Aristotle. And if we can't find secondary sources to support those changes, then either they aren't notable, or they are novel and thus ] would apply. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:I concur with ]. The article already ''has'' secondary sources discussing Aristotle, and since the point of the article is not Aristotle, but natural law, it seems quite sufficient now. The editor has already said that his own forthcoming paper will address this...which is a red flag for me as well. ] (]) 17:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::*Perhaps a second glance is in order in this particular case. My addition was first reverted based on the false assumption (everybody makes mistakes) that I was advancing the view that Aristotle "believed" in natural law. That was NOT my intention; that has never been my view; and I thought that what I wrote made it perfectly clear that I was not advancing such a view. In other words: this whole issue arose because of another editor's unexplained misinterpretation, so I reverted the deletion.
::*It was my assumption that what I wrote was so self-evidently, even banally, mainstream that no citation was necessary. Obviously I was wrong about this, so I'll go back and provide footnotes to on-line encyclopedias to reassure everybody when I revise and re-post what I wrote. Here's what I intend to use for starters: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html Perhaps my choice of words inadvertently crossed some red-lines of scholarly disputation. If so, that is a matter for discussion and re-phrasing, not deletion.
::*Finally, ]'s claim that I have "already said that my own forthcoming paper will address this" is simply not correct. I earlier stated (at the ] discussion page) that my forthcoming paper will address the use of "happiness" versus "property" in the Declaration of Independence; and I have been very careful not to give even a hint of my own view on that issue here at wikipedia. My forthcoming paper says absolutely nothing about Aristotle or natural law.

: I think the purpose of the noticeboard is to receive third-party feedback, not for us to continue the dispute from the article's talk page (which anyone looking here can easily access). So far, the only comment from someone not involved in this dispute is ]'s. ''']''' <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

:If you can't find secondary sources discussing some particular point about Aristotle and natural law (or really, Aristotle and ''anything'') then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, because Aristotle has been done to death. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize secondary sources, not primary ones. But to the question at hand, the material removed in the diff supplied above is unquestionably original research. Some of the second and third paragraphs of the of the Aristotle section are as well. The third paragraph talks about "the best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric..." referenced to the Rhetoric. "Aristotle notes that natural justice is a species of political justice, viz. the scheme of distributive and corrective justice that would be established under the best political community; were this to take the form of law, this could be called a natural law, though Aristotle does not discuss this and suggests in the Politics that the best regime may not rule by law at all." You can't state something from a primary source—"...natural justice is a species of political justice..."—and then form conclusions—"...were this to take the form of law, this could be called a natural law". This is original synthesis. Of course this doesn't mean it any of these statements aren't true or widely accepted analyses of Aristotle. It's just saying they runs afoul of Misplaced Pages's original research policy. I'd suggest finding sources which support the text. If it's as mainstream as RJC says it is, this should be relatively easy. -] (]) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Direct use of primary sources ==

Is it original research that the editor look up at primary sources and state: " Reference A and reference B have no accounts on X historical event"?] (]) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
*Yes. But to get a better answer, please at least indicate which article your question refers to. ] (]) 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
*Actually the correct answer is... Perhaps Yes, Perhaps No. - We need to know more specifics as to what the primary source document is and how it is being used in the article. ] (]) 14:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:This is a general issue over which I would welcome more information. ] (]) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::It's like proving a negative...can you show that for all cases (i.e. everywhere in the book), the proposition is accurate? That fact would be difficult to cite using traditional methods (page numbers, for example). On the other hand, it is ]—and inconvenience isn't exactly a barrier to inclusion (for example, offline sources are allowed, even if hard to verify). I don't think it's necessarily ], because you're advancing a proposition about the reference, and the reference is (presumably) a valid primary source about itself, for descriptive statements of simple fact. However: if one could plausibly argue against the proposition, or you need to interpret the references in some special way to draw your conclusion, then it's unfair to call it a simple fact, and the usual rules for controversial statements would apply.

::Overall, I think caution is warranted here. If it's not an important statement to make in the article, just avoid it. If you must include it, just make sure that what you're saying is incontrovertibly true, and list A & B as references to that fact. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Your opinion please... ==

]

removed the image I've thumbnailed here, without offering any explanation beyond an edit summary that said: ''"rm - original research"''.

I am asking for advice here because the contributor who removed this image and I have had many disagreements over what constitutes original research. I won't try to paraphrase or otherwise represent the position of my correspondent, because my good-faith attempts to do so, in order to try to verify I understand what they meant, or to offer background when I have asked for third party input, make them see red.

I am a bit frustrated that ] keeps undergoing all kinds of revisions. Two months ago the ] section stated clearly right in that section, that careful summary of what our references say is not original research. More recently those who maintain the policy counted on other sections of the policy to make that point. In my experience ] is one of the wikipolicies that is most commonly cited incorrectly, over this exact issue. In my opinion it was a mistake to remove of the explicit statement that careful summaries of ] are not ] from ]. ] (]) 17:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:I would think ] might apply here - ''Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.'' ] (]) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think i am even more frustrated by this user. He added information that are ] to hundreds and hundreds of articles and cleaning up this mess is a big pain.

::I have removed countless (maybe 1000!) instances of ] that this user has created. Sure he did it in good faith but multiple other editors told him that many of his contributions are indeed ] but he did not listen for many years and kept ]ing until just recently where he admitted that a large number of his edits are indeed based on ].

::Sure we speak about thousands of instances each of them sure vary in details and specially this one vary highly from the other large number of ] that this user has added against policy and that i have removed over the past months.

::This single edit could have been discussed on the articles talk page and i suggest we move the discussion there over the issue if this image increases the quality of the article and therefor should or should not be included in the article. What do you think? ] (]) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::The suggestion that this issue should be discussed on the talk page of an obscure article after saying "I have removed countless (maybe 1000!) instances of WP:OR that this user has created" is very misguided. Naturally such extensive disagreement needs to be discussed on a central noticeboard and this seems the appropriate place. I am not experienced in this field (whether an image is OR), and I hope others will comment, but I will give some preliminary thoughts: The map in question seems very useful; I doubt if a suitable substitute is available; the facts should be very easy to verify, so OR would not apply; what about images like ] used in ] – should they be removed? ] (]) 23:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::No i do not think we should remove ] as they are thousands of reliable secondary sources for the fact where Turkey is located in relation to other countries.
::::Did you check the source for the information presented on the image we are discussing here?
::::The problem is that these is a set of redacted primary sources where it is often unclear which location they really mean. ] (]) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::This is a general noticeboard so please spell out the problem. What source do you mean? What is redacted? What is unclear? (Yes, if I were commenting on the article talk, I should be expected to have read the article and to have a clue, but I think it would be helpful for this noticeboard if you were to specify clearly what the OR issue is.) ] (]) 07:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Yes, the individual(s) who use the wiki-id Iqinn have claimed that my contributions are full of ]. For the record I dispute that Iqinn has removed thousands of instances of genuine ]. There is no tactful way to say this -- Iqinn relies on idiosyncratic, and often indefensible interpretations of ]. It seems to me when I have asked for the input of uninvolved third parties they generally have not backed up Iqinn's interpretations of policy.

::::::Iqinn asked Johnuniq:
:::::::{| class-"wikitable" border="1"
|
:''""''
|}
::::::I regard this question as an instance of a very serious lapse from ]. Iqinn seems to have felt authorized to assume they could characterize my creation of this map was ] because I created it.
::::::I don't believe I should have to prove Khirullah Khairkhwa was reported to have had an association with the locations on this map, or that I did not distort the map by providing inaccurate locations for those cities. However, I am going to do so, in hopes that it will hammer one nail into Iqinn's largely bogus challenges to my contributions, once and for all.
::::::# confirms KK's association with Kabul;
::::::# confirms KK's association with Kandahar;
::::::# confirms KK's association with Herat;
::::::# confirms KK's association with Mazar-e-Sharif;
::::::# confirms KK's association with Spin Buldak;
::::::I have created over one hundred maps for the wikipedia, and its sibling projects. When I add specific geographic locations to those maps I use the latitude and longitude from our articles on those locations. Only when our articles don't state the latitude and longitude do I look elsewhere. I believe that every single geographic location I added to those hundreds of maps used reliable coordinates. ] (]) 14:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
:::In the wiki-id Iqinn wrote: ''"Sure he did it in good faith but multiple other editors told him that many of his contributions are indeed WP:OR but he did not listen for many years and kept filibustering until just recently where he admitted that a large number of his edits are indeed based on WP:OR."''
:::] has a habit or lapsing from the convention that talk page discussions are for the discussion of the editorial content of the wikipedia, and instead makes comments on my character. I have decided that rather than respond in kind I will draft a single response to each of the personal comment they make about me, on ], and simply link to that comment each time they repeat the personal comment. . ] (]) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

'''Please see the new discussion at ] below.''' ] (]) 23:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&action=historysubmit&diff=365560546&oldid=365555768

A user has continually been inserting biased material which is either not supported by the given citations, or is cited with websites. This is attested to in the diff above (it represents the re-insertion of often-deleted material). I would greatly appreciate some guidance from fellow editors as to whether this material is flagrantly in breach of WP:NOR and WP:RS, or whether I am in fact totally insane for being sure that this is so. I stand ready to call a psychiatrist or revert the article depending on your answer. ] (]) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:Note: The same issue is being discussed at ]. ] (]) 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== OR? or SYN? Single sentence from article ] ==

:Article edit states:

:"'''''Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC'''.''"

:Supporting ref's include:
::::#"''Those are reasons enough to trust that will arise as promising economies that will follow the BRIC group, comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China, in its ability to maintain the vigor of the global economy, a condition, then, makes reliable to international investors, in contrast to calls from the PIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) facing high debt ratios and fiscal deficits and have enormous difficulties in maintaining economic stability."''
::::#" ''We are in changing times, we talk about new economy, reorganization of capitalism, new economic centers, such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) or the PIGS (Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain) what position to take to those changes?'' "
::::#"''This was stated by HSBC's chief executive, Michael Geoghegan, presenting his strategy in Hong Kong. ... emerging are not the 'Bric' or 'Pigs', are a class of countries, which share a time of global economic growth, a changing patterns of wealth, changes in trade routes and share...''"
::::#"''This uncertainty has led experts to form categories according to the common behavior of certain countries in this economic swing. Thus, while Brazil, Russia, India and China form the BRIC powerful and Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (Spain) embed PIGS, our country has become part of civets: Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa.''"
::::#"''Today we bring you full commentary.... As you can see, the article generated a lively debate on the concept of reciprocity between BRIC dwellers and the environment PIGS.''"
::::#"''The PIGS take over the BRIC''"
::::#"''One danger is that fractures within the euro area will distract the ECB from staying on top of inflation. A particular worry is what could be called the '''PIGS'''—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, Europe's negative version of the fast-growing '''BRIC'''s. The fear is that these countries may be in a hole they cannot easily climb out of and that the ECB will be pressed into running a looser monetary policy to save them.''Additional Ref's are available.

:Additional refs:
:"''UK exports: The dominant PIGS and subordinate BRICs''" "''Do BRICs (and Germans) Eat PIGS?''" "''Of BRICs and PIGS''"

More:
:Spanish economic press usage:, From Russia,, From China,, ... Ecuador, etc..

Note also that the editor who objected to this individual sentence noted above has now removed 25 additional ref's from the article and questioned each and every one of them... .] (]) 20:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

::The acronym is certainly common in the US media... but I would say it is a neologism. As such, we should probably not have an article devoted to it (it might rate a passing mention in a broader article on the economy of Europe). Suggest AfD. ] (]) 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::The question is regarding the OR or SYN of the ''specific'' sentence. It is the sentence itself that has been rejected as OR & Syn by a single editor, one who also was given the same supporting Ref's listed above. As an aside, and not relevant to the question, the article as a whole has already been before AfD. The decision was "keep". (ADD: I'm not sure if you were reflecting on the Ref's presented or adding an observation in general - but I don't believe that any of the presented Ref's are US media. .] (]) 21:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Blueboar, agree. It (unfortunately) ]. It being a newsy topic/neologism, OR and synthesis are bound to dog it. It was a that precipitated . Like I ], the issue is not simply this one sentence but the way sources are treated throughout that rewrite. --RA (]) 10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

::::"''OR and synthesis are bound to dog it''." That's why we're here. You specifically object to this sentence as OR & SYN. It's now time to provide a ''reason'' and support your contention. ] (]) 13:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::None of the references explicitly support the sentence (as with many of the references used in your rewrite). References cannot rely on an original interpretation or be combined in a fashion forwards an interoperation not found in the original sources. Please read ]. --RA (]) 14:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Question... what is the original interpretation? ] (]) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

::::There's a lot mixed in (partly based on POV issues around the topic). The sentence appears in the context of discussion of criticism of the term and is apparently intended to contradict the sentence appearing immediately before it, which says the term has been criticised as being pejorative by members of the Spanish-speaking press. It is in that context that the references requires original interpretation. They are being used in discussion about criticism of the term, apparently to contradict references that discuss criticism of the term, yet none of them actually discuss criticism or otherwise of the term. Original interpretation is required to see them in that context.
::::(Another, issue I have is that none of them actually say that ''BRIC'' is a "related" term to ''PIIGS''. Some of the above refs compare the BRIC economies to the PIGS economies, but none say they ''PIGS'' and ''BRICS'' are "related" terms.) --RA (]) 16:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::The sentence is factually correct and has been fully supported by the ref's. PIGS and BRICS are related terms - as clearly stated, they are grouping acronyms. They group together nations which share certain economic similarities. These groups are frequently the focus of discussion in which they are compared and contrasted with each other. We could diagram the sentence, or we can replace the terms with other analogous examples, "FINABEL, NATO, ANZUS" ....etc. In which way do you gather from the boatload of evidence to the contrary - that they are not related? Do you have a supporting ref which expressly states this? --] (]) 14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::As others have said, BRICS and PIGS are just acronyms that group certain nations, like "FINABEL, NATO, ANZUS". In the case of BRICS and PIGS, the two group's economies make a sharp contrast. The Spanish-speaking press criticism as "PIGS" as being pejorative press is unproductive as it draws attention to the economies and especially to these nations' addiction EU subsidies from the EU's Social Fund, which have left their economies uncompetive since the 1970s. --] (]) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::], all that is required is a single reference that explicitly supports the sentence (and in particular in the context in which it appears) without inferring this or that from across multiple sources or reading more into them than they actually say. How do any of them relate to the "controversy" around the term? --RA (]) 13:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I can probably since sources from good economists, but can't be bothered. However, citation words the other way too - the Spanish-speaking press criticism as "PIGS" as being pejorative press needs citations. If none, rm the Spanish-speaking press criticism; if cited, they just make themselves stupid. --] (]) 14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I wholly agree. The article as it stands is a bold re-write entirely by 99.141.*.*. I've had no hand, act or part in it. Like I posted above, the problems with the rewrite is not this one sentence alone. Referencing, original thought and commentary are problem throughout.
::::::::] at the ANI thread that led to here sums up the situation as I see it. --RA (]) 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::What, -->exactly<--, is OR? Where is it? It's a ludicrously simple statement. What is it that you think is being said there? .] (]) 19:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Which of the sources you provide discuss use of the term by the Spanish press? Where does that source say the Spanish press "continue to use the term"? Where does it say that they do so "its narrow and restricted economic sense"? Where does it say that they do so in the "sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC"? Original thought is required to see those quotes in these terms. References on Misplaced Pages need to be explicit. No original thought.
::::::::::(This is not a comment on the veracity of what you have written. It is simply that on Misplaced Pages we are concerned only with ].) --RA (]) 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::You're wrong. You've completely misinterpreted Misplaced Pages policy. We have a slew of referenced Spanish Press using the term - to now demand that stil another source be quoted that the Spanish press use the term is ludicrous. The use of the term is self-evident.] (]) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::See ]: "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not '''directly and explicitly''' supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; ...." (Emphasis in original.)
::::::::::::It must be explicit. It must be in context. --RA (]) 21:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think you've lost the plot. We say "members of the Spanish press continue to use the term" because we have ref's which show that members of the Spanish press continue to use the term. To demand a separate ref which explicitly states, "members of the Spanish press continue to use the term" is ridiculous. Your sudden personal interpretation of Misplaced Pages standards is not found in the policy you point to. .] (]) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

== Planets ==

{{resolved|1=Per ] , "The objection regarding "original research" has been dropped by the editor who raised it." <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 07:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)}}
Okay, this is a hypothetical question related to a real editing dispute (at ]).

Suppose there's a Misplaced Pages article about the Solar system, and also suppose there are separate Misplaced Pages articles about each of the planets. I come across a reliable source that says Jupiter is x times bigger than Mars, but the reliable source does not explicitly mention the "solar system." Would it be okay for me to cite that reliable source for the proposition that Jupiter is x times bigger than Mars, in the Misplaced Pages article about the Solar system?] (]) 01:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== John Ritter ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Ritter&action=historysubmit&diff=365355367&oldid=365355165

In March 2010, the Thoracic Aortic Disease (TAD) Coalition, in partnership with John's widow, Amy Yasbeck, and the John Ritter Foundation, announced the creation of the Ritter Rules. The purpose of Ritter Rules is to help raise awareness among the public about aortic dissection so they can reduce their risk of the same kind of tragedy that took the life of the beloved actor. Ritter Rules came out in conjunction with important new Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease

Reference 9 is this http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/121/13/e266.pdf

I think that it is OR to imply that Ritter's death caused reference 9 to be issued. The first part of the reference says that they have put out guidelines since 1980 and have a task force to update them.

That would be like saying that Michael Jackson died and some Professor wrote an Anesthesiology book in 2010, therefore the Professor wrote it because of Michael Jackson.

Comments or disagreement? I want to learn, not argue. ] (]) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

: I checked the PDF as well as re-checked the reference. The reference doesn't say anything even remotely similar to what that diff does. It looks like OR to me
]<span style="font-size:90%;position:relative;top:-0.4em;">'']''</span> 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

This is a list of coaches (of college football teams in the United States) whose teams have performed poorly under their charge, according to various criteria. Is this ok? (See ].) ] (]) 02:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
:Wow! Please someone AfD this page as the opposite of our role. ] (]) 04:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
::Agreed. Article nominated for deletion. ] (]) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello. There are several attempts to exalt this ] to a recognized language. This mainly by inserting POV to the article and repeating the same dubious sources again and again.

The link to this article was then inserted to virtually all slovenian based articles, see ].

This attempt started in July 2009 and spreads accross almost all major wikis in some '''40 languages''', including commons. Time enough for several webpages around the world to copy the content and now serving as ''sources''.

(All this is done by one single user, but this is not the point right now) --] (]) 20:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::I ask the Misplaced Pages, that ignore the R.Schuster's method, as this is chauvinist campaign against the prekmurian.
:::1. R.Schuster's allegation: ''dubious sources'' a greating chauvinist assertion. Marko Jesenšek, the author of , , sources is the rector of University in Maribor – recognized, appreciated personality. Likewise Marc L. Greenberg in the Kansas University (, ) authoritative source.
::::2. R.Schuster simply accept the sources in german language, as this sources mostly slovene, hungarian and some english. Unbelievable, that R.Schuster attempt muddy Vilko Novak, Ágoston Pável and Marko Jesenšek, that ''dubious sources.'' Vilko Novak is dead, but sure bring a suit againts R.Schuster, if you live.
::::3. R.Schuster and his fellow Longoso also in the german wikipedia follow this campaign. There Longoso was tell this ignoratn statement, that only the old Prekmurian have standard. What this apple souce?! The between 1913 and 1945, the and few book, for ex.: was work to the new standard prekmurian regional language!
::::4. Longoso and R.Schuster vainly quest sources in the internet, as not yet every source in the internet, alone in the books in slovene and hungarian language.
::::5. Besides: the bosnian, croatian, slovene, hungarian, german, serbian, srebo-croatian articles is my works, vainly suspect me R.Schuster. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
::This new oppinion of Schuster: ''irrelevant dialect.'' R.Schuster is mightly ignorant and savor of the chauvinism. Reason (or desecrate) with the guidelines of wikipedia, but the guideline of the wikipedia the correct designation of the sources. And my sources is wathertights. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

:You stated on my : ''“I'am slavistic undergard in Szombathely University and my thesis-theme the prekmurian standard language.”''
:And that's exactly the reason why I filed this article here. ]: “'''Misplaced Pages does not publish original research'''. The term "original research" refers to material&mdash;such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories&mdash;not already published by ]. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.”
:Further reading: ]. --] (]) 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Shcuster? You was wrote thesis-theme in University?! I was make census of the sources. Ca. 40-50 published books, dissertations, essay, harangue is my sources! Revolting! This desecrate with the guidelines of wikipedia! ]<sup>]</sup> 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Presently there is an ongoing discussion about the use of book based sourcing versus original research over at ], and it might be helpful if someone here familiar with the ] policy might drop in and give there opinion. Thanks. <span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span><sup>]]</sup> 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could someone please do a fact check on the article? Much of the content could potentially be vandalism. -] (]) 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:I have found that posting on the talk page of a suitable project (see article's talk page) often gets good results, whereas it is less likely that someone here will have the necessary knowledge. The stuff you removed was clearly nonsense, but what remains is not obviously wrong. ] (]) 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] Coat of Arms ==

A user added the following image ] to the article concerning ], its the originator's personal interpretation of what the Coat of Arms looks like following a description. As ] and ] I don't see it as an encyclopedic addition to the article but other users disagree and have added it again several times now. Is this an acceptable image? Note currently nominated for deletion by myself on commons as misleading. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

: The deletion request in commons is closed and, obviously, the result is '''Kept'''. Allegedly being ] and ] is not a valid reason to remove an image from commons. Furthermore, '''In heraldics, any drawing corresponding to the definition is correct (as long as a herald can recognise it)''' or '''There is no such thing as an "official CoA (drawing)" in heraldics'''. See ] --] (]) 10:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::But it doesn't correspond with the definition, thats the point. Its an approximation. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:::How does it not, exactly? It looks good to me. <span style="font-family:Calibri">] <small>(] &#124; ])</small></span> 13:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Justin, this is an odd argument to make. By your reasoning, all images and diagrams directly based on written material would need be removed. That would mean likely half of the coats of arms images (there are tens of thousands easily, if you are not aware of how common they are), all of diagrams or representations of elements, compounds, enzymes and pharmaceuticals would be invalid for inclusion, any diagram illustrating scientific theories such as photosynthesis, evolution, evaporation and so forth are also ineligible and also any and all random images made for the sake of nothing else but to add a little visual to an articles. As for the whole issue about if it is the coat of arms, it is. A coat fo arms is about the design, not the style nor shape of a shield. The image is based upon both a written description and a black and white image, so there is clearly no original research here since there is the original governmental grant and the follow up books recording the grant. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::The problem being it didn't follow the style of the coat of arms as decribed, or the the B&W image. I have other issues with it being inaccurate for the coat of arms as awarded, due to the depiction of Antartica when it hadn't been discovered at the time. The question no one seems prepared to answer is why create a colour image that has issues, when there is a perfectly acceptable period piece that suits the article and its free? But its B&W. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am no fan of these clip art type arms, but the black and white image is rather poor quality. Style does not invalidate arms, no matter how bizarre or lacking or non-period. As for Antarctica, it is a minor issue that does not change the arms, but precedence should be given weight and the image modified to conform. However, this would not be the place for that. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 14:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Inedia ==

Could anyone please investigate the synthesis being introduced at ]. An editor keeps inserting a , not supported by any reliable sources, just as to disprove the criticism by the Indian sceptics association. Thank you. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

== Prahlad Jani ==

Same problem as ]: . Also see article talkpage for RFC. Thank you. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] Ecology sub-section ==

There is a disagreement between two editors (myself being one of them) regarding the appropriateness of the following text in the ] article;

:In their environmental analysis of the proposed well BP stated that in the unlikely event of an accidental spill "water quality would be temporarily affected by the decomposed components and small droplets", but that "currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column or dilute the constituents to the background level". They saw "no adverse activities to fisheries" and no danger to endangered or threatened marine mammals and no adverse impact to birds. (ref used: )

The ref. used is an environmental assessment section of an initial exploration plan written by BP and submitted to the US government, thus a primary document. No secondary sources accompany the primary source and none appear to have employed the listed quotes. Furthermore, the source does not contain any footnotes to clarify whether the quoted text is is based upon the assumption of a large or small scale oil spill. In short, my view is that the context can not be definitively verified without specialist knowledge, making the issue a mixed ] / ] situation. The general discussion can be seen at ]. Some guidance would be appreciated.--] (]) 20:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:I agree that using a primary source here is not appropriate. The primary source does not make clear what is meant by "spill". But their definition of "spill" is unlikely to be larger than their worst-case scenario, which according to the documents BP would be able to contain. However, their worst-case scenario has been vastly exceeded, so applying the definition of "spill" in section 14.2.1.5 has no bearing on the current spill. Tying the projected spill (however large) from the initial assessment to the current spill is original research. I haven't tried, but I don't think it would be too difficult to find a secondary source that has reported on BPs environmental analysis (or lack thereof). -] (]) 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::Are you suggesting that oil companies may use the term "spill" differently than the way it is being used by the general public or the wikipedia definition? I understand their worst-case scenario to be 162,000 barrels per day as shown under 7.1 Exploration Plan, Volumn Uncontrolled Blowout. It seems that I am not reading the document correctly? Section 14.2.1.6 - Fisheries, has not been challanged - why would that BP statement be different than their water quality statement? Will others be looking at this problem, or will this be settled by just one editor? Thanks! ] (]) 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Simple Google search for quoted text found secondary source. Added. Thanks ] (]) 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

== WP:OR replacing WP:RS in lead ] ==

Please feel free to explain to other editors who should know better here: ] why '''' which replaces WP:RS neutral info with an abstruse philosophical original research/personal opinion statement is against policy. Thanks!!! ] (]) 07:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:heavens, that is a bit cockeyed. I'll weigh in at the discussion. --] 14:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::FYI, by the time you got there it had changed to including material and pretending the existing refs were relevant, which they really were only in small part. ] (]) 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:::well, ok. Libertarianism isn't exactly my forte, but I know a good bit about political theory, and I'm willing to weigh in with that as best I can. what do you think the best approach is? I can keep trying to clean stuff up from general knowledge, but until I get a chance to dig into the sources I'd do better following your lead. plus, is there a decent version of the page in the history that would be useful to examine? --] 19:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Original images ==

]

Could we have more discussion on the ] section above? Following is my summary of the issue which looks to be an ongoing disagreement over ] in many articles. I think it is sufficiently important to start this new section.

The topic is ]. Various summaries of transcripts of detainee interviews are available (examples: , ) and I think ] has extracted information from these.

The precise issue for discussion concerns the map shown in the lead in this of an article on ]. I infer that Geo Swan has listed the locations mentioned in an interview with the detainee, and has constructed the map as a useful guide to the reader. The caption reads "Locations mentioned in the transcripts of Khirullah Khairkhwa Combatant Status Review Tribunal."

For this discussion I propose to assume that the transcript is from a reliable source, and that the locations are mentioned in the transcript, and are accurately represented on the map. The question: Is the map original research? Is it synthesis? Is it allowed by ] (some original images are ok)? Please see the opinions ], and comment here.

I am somewhat divided: on the precise issue, it looks to me as if ] permits the map, and the facts are verifiable and not controversial, and the sources are certainly reliable, and the map is useful. Yet, the map is constructed by extracting facts from a primary source, and (for example), there is a possibility that the name of a location in the transcript is ambiguous, so the map involves an editor's interpretation. ] (]) 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Johnuniq, thanks for your interest in this issue. WRT the question of whether any of the locations are ambiguous, I am confident that, they should not be considered ambiguous.

:Three of the five locations on the map, ], ] and ] are cities that are also the capitals of provinces of the same name. But Khairkhwa held posts in each of the cities themselves, so I think it is appropriate to use their latitude and longitude on the map, even if some of the references may have referred to the Province, not the city.

:] is transliterated a half dozen or more different ways. Back in 2006 another contributor changed every instance of the other transliterations to '''"Mazari Sharif"''', arguing that, post-Taliban, there was an initirative of the central government, to use '''"Mazari Sharif"''' as the standard transliteration. After a discussion we agreed we would use whatever spelling was in the original, in quoted material, followed by a {{tl|sic}} template -- and in non-quoted material we would use "Mazari Sharif". Mazari Sharif is the 4th largest city in Afghanistan, and I am confident all the transliteration refer to the same city.

:] (alternately ]) is not a major city, but it is one of the two main border crossings with Pakistan. I am confident all transliterations to Spin Boldak or Spin Buldak are to the same location. ] (]) 21:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

::More opinions would be good. Until I see a good reason to think otherwise, I would say that examples like the one discussed here are not original research, and the map is a welcome addition to the article. I believe there is a longterm dispute over this issue, but what I have seen on this page does not convince me there is an OR problem. Some kind of RFC might get more attention. ] (]) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

== Original heraldry images ==

This is following on from a discussion at ]. An editor who may have a conflict of interest (which is being addressed separately) is producing highly decorative images of a coat of arms that bear no resemblance to any known variants published by a reliable source. This is apparently due a a coat of arms being defined by a ], which in this case is ''a right hand cut of in a straight line at the wrist painted in red''. Now it strikes me that the possible number of different images that can be created from such a description is virtually limitless, and ] looks nothing like ones displayed on websites such as and . This makes it an original image in my opinion, as it is only an editor's idea of what the coat of arms actually looked like, and there is no evidence that the image is an accurate depiction of , only "Alexander Liptak's impression based on the Uí Néill dynasty blazon". While heraldry websites may encourage creation of such images, I am of the the opinion it is impossible to create a verifiable image from a description such as ''a right hand cut of in a straight line at the wrist painted in red'' without breaching content policy, and that we should only use depictions used by reliable sources. ] (]) 08:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:This was brought up at ], ], the revert notice board, the conflict of interest notice board, the WikiProject heraldry and now here. The user is simply fishing for one notice board to side with him, being he is currently only receiving the support of the one same editor everywhere else. They're argument is basically, "I don't know anything about heraldry, but I know that can't be right." Anyways, I have suggested the WikiProject Herladry would make the best place to settle the arguments because it is the appropriate and concerned WikiProject. I would appreciate it, for sake of ease, to address all comments and questions there rather than having to go through five talk pages and notice boards. Kindly, <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 08:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, and ], if you look up just a bit to the James Cook posting, you will see if was discussed already that a shield's shape does not constitute original research. G'day. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 08:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Wrong. It has been brought up on one article talk page, your conflict of interest has been brought up on the conflict of interest notice board, and now the original research is being brought up in the correct place - here. The issue is whether whether the creation of original heraldry images from a blazon is at odds with Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 08:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What you explain is not original research if you yourself admit it is based off a written description. If it is taken from an historical document, that is not original in any way but a faithful representation. By your argument, no user on Misplaced Pages could upload his own files, because it would be original. Photos that you take which are originally made, diagrams of scientific material which can not be taken from texts because of copyright issues such as cycles, atomic structures and so forth and illustrations like the images used to represent the seals, emblems and coats of arms of nations would all have to be purged from Misplaced Pages. This is a tried and failed argument time and time again. Please look through the history before you waste time of the notice board like this again. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Wrong. All I see is a discussion about Commons, which has no bearing on English Misplaced Pages policy. That heraldry has its own rules is also irrelevant, since they do not and can not override Misplaced Pages policy. You also appear to be quite ignorant of image licences. ] (]) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

== Antisemitism in the New Testament ==

Editors have inserted the following material into the lead of the ] article:
<blockquote>The ] and authors of the ] were predominantly Jewish. Indeed, most authorities concur that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in Israel.<ref>Anthony J.Saldarini, ''Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community,'' University of Chicago Press< 1994 p.18.</ref></blockquote>
The first sentence is not sourced, and the second has been challenged, with other editors asking for a quotation to show that the material is related to the topic of the article (Antisemitism), and not merely a counter-argument produced by a Misplaced Pages editor. The quotation provided was the following:
<blockquote>'Most agree that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the land of Israel'</blockquote>
Now, there is no doubt that the quote backs up the material; but where is the ] to ], the topic of the article? The person inserting insists that the book in question does indeed mention antisemitism; not, however, on page 18, where this quote is from, but in "n.16 p.228." That's a pretty long distance away. Are these two insertions, in fact, Original Research? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
::::By the way Jayjg. You write:'Editors '''have''' inserted', giving the impression that the first quote is still on the page, and ignoring the fact that I actually restored your {{Or}} tag when another editor removed it, and subsequently in my edits did nothing to revert its removal. That sentence is therefore no longer under discussion. It would have been better to have written 'One editor inserted . .and now another editor, Nishidani, . .'] (]) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:I think there is probably a little backdoor synthesis going on here. By inserting the bit about Christianity beginning as a Jewish sect it leaves the reader to fill in the blank, which they would likely do by concluding that since they were Jewish, they couldn't have been antisemitic. However, I think the larger problem is that the statement is simply out of place. It would be like adding "The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid" to the end of the lead of global warming. Yeah, they're both about the Earth, but so what? Similar to this global warming example, the sentences you brought up are only tangentially related to the article, and they should not be mentioned in the article unless a secondary source can be found that ''directly links'' the two topics. -] (]) 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
:::A large number of articles on Jewish-Christian relations (as noted on the talk page) have precisely this phrasing (without however a reference). So, if someone like myself is sneaking a synthesis through the back door, tell me why (a) half a dozen wiki articles, many touching on early antisemitism, and subject to intense editing, retain this fact, which happens to be, if you read the relevant documentation, a standard meme in discussions of Antisemitism in its early Christian context, attested in most scholarly works? ] (]) 13:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

::No, the passage under discussion is a necessary fact for understanding the current scholarly view of the subject of the article, much as understanding that the earth is round is necessary for an understanding of global warming. &mdash; ] ] 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:::In which case it should be entirely easy to find a reliable source connecting the dots between the religious heritage of the authors of the New Testament and the subject of antisemitism in the New Testament. We don't get to synthesize; our personal dot connections are not Misplaced Pages content, no matter how obvious they are. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Saldarini does exactly this. A one line paraphrase of a sentence, provided in the accompanying ref note, is not ].
::::For the rest, the accompanying footnotes are all specifically from books on anti-Semitism, and make exactly the same point made by Saldarini.
::::Gavin I. Langmuir, ''Toward a Definition of Antisemitism,'' University of California Press, 1996, p.7
::::John G. Gager, ''Origins of anti-semitism: attitudes toward Judaism in pagan and Christian antiquity,'' Oxford University Press US, 1985 pp.113-14:
::::All three connect the dots 'the religious heritage of the authors of the New Testament and the subject of antisemitism in the New Testament.'
::::It is normative for books on ''Anti-Semitism and the New Testament'' to connect those dots. So what on earth is the objection? ] (]) 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It should be noted that I myself query the first sentence, and that rather than simply elide it or flag it, I adduced a reference, first to Saldarini. My defence throughout the debate has been singularly of my edit, and my text, regarding Saldarini. I personally think that the sentence, written I do not know by whom, running: 'authors of the ] were '''predominantly''' Jewish' needs solid sourcing, I restored Jayjg's tag on that sentence given the intrinsic difficulty of determining authorial identity for documents bearing 11 different author names. Linking ethnic background authorship and anti-Judaic elements, James Dunn ''Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways,'' (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.) in a chapter specifically entitled 'The question of Anti-semitism in the New Testament', concludes: 'Matthew, John and even Luke still see themselves within the older walls of the Judaism of Jesus' time.' (p.210) As far as pushing personal views, I find the evidence that Luke is gentile more persuasive than the academic counter-arguments. But that is neither here nor there. I haven't yet found a text to justify the formulation of sentence one. For all I care it could be dropped without a moment's hesitation. It is, I now note, no longer on the page. But Saldarini's point is a truism you'll find virtually everywhere in the academic literature specifically addressing the problem of the origins of Christian anti-semitism. ] (]) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This shouldnt take more than ten minutes to find a number of sources that make this connection:
*{{citation|title=Contra Iudaeos: ancient and medieval polemics between Christians and Jews|last1=Limor|first1=Ora|last2=Stroumsa|first2=Guy|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|year=1996|isbn=9783161464829|pages=4-5}}<blockquote>Understandably, many scholars have often sought to avoid speaking of Christian antisemitism while dealing with early Christian literature such as the Patristic texts and, ''a fortiori'', the New Testament. It obviously makes little sense to speak of Christian antisemitism in the earliest stages of the new religion, since the belief in Jesus Christ was at first held within a Jewish sectarian movement.</blockquote>
*], cited in {{citation|title=After the passion is gone: American religious consequences|last1=Ladres|first1=J. Shawn|last2=Berenbaum|first2=Michael|publisher=Rowman Altamira|year=2004|isbn=9780759108158|page=221}}<blockquote>It is surprising how many fail to perceive the oddness of the assumption that the New Testament and early Christianity were anti-Semitic. Should it not strike us as hard to explain how a first-century Jewish sect, centered around a revered Jewish teacher thought to be Israel's Messiah, God's Son, and the fulfillment of Israel's scriptures, within one generation of its founding could mutate into an anti-Jewish, perhaps even anti-Semitic, movement? Surely this is improbable. I suspect that scholars have unconsciously and uncritically read the New Testament through the eyes of a patristic church, which, sad to say, did give vent to anti-Semitic expressions.</blockquote>
*{{citation|title=Judaism before Jesus: the ideas and events that shaped the New Testament world|last=Tomasino|first=Anthony|publisher=InterVarsity Press|year=2003|isbn=9780830827305|page=164}}<blockquote>The New Testament also presents its facts from a particular point of view. Modern writers frequently accuse the Gospels of being anti-Semitic, painting a hate-filled distortion of Judaism in the time of Jesus. Someone might get that impression as they read some of the strong rhetoric in the Gospel accounts. But such charges fail to consider the context in which Christianity arose. The New Testament authors were themselves Jewish, and they directed their criticisms not against Judaism in general but against the leaders and the groups with whom they clashed most fiercely.</blockquote>
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

:Nishidani's sources are obviously OR, but Nableezy's appear not to be. Perhaps we can use Nableezy's sources?--'']] ]'' 19:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Well, everyone's entitled to an opinion, I guess. However '''Sources are not OR, by definition'''. I think you should keep that in mind. It is something editors are supposed to be informed about in the first few minutes of editing wikipedia.] (]) 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Is niggling productive?--'']] ]'' 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I don't know. I do know that understanding a subject or a discussion thoroughly before one edits on it, is not obligatory. It's just good manners, and an exercise in conscientious responsibility to the hapless world that reads us, and to our fellow-editors. This whole charade blew up because I took the trouble to provide a source for a statement that exists unsourced on a dozen wiki pages. I.e. I documented a truism, deeply relevant to the article's subject matter, from an author who devoted a whole book to the Jewish Christian context of the New Testament, and several pages to anti-Semitism, and am being taken to account for it. Perhaps it pays more to be lazy, and just edit away. ] (]) 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::So now I don't "understand subject." We moved from niggling to insulting.--'']] ]'' 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's no direct and obvious connection between the subject of the article (antisemitism in the New Testament) and whether the authors of the New Testament were Jewish or not, hence including such material is original research, even if sourced. There may be an ''indirect'' connection, in the sense that authors have linked the two, but (assuming that the topic can be discussed in the lead while giving appropriate weight) the proper approach is for Misplaced Pages to report on the arguments linking the two. Citing sources outside of their original context is not only OR, but also has NPOV implications since it is very easy to argue a point instead of reporting on others' arguments. ] (]) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
::Do you not see the quotes above directly connecting the topic of antisemitism in the New Testament and the fact that the authors were Jewish? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
:::Yes, Nableezy, I did see them. I can't see any obvious problems with citing one or more of those instead, in an appropriate way. My comments were about the original issue brought to this noticeboard; sorry for causing any confusion. ] (]) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Recap. Two people of vast administrative experience are arguing here that in an article dealing with Antisemitism in the New Testament, it is a ] violation to cite a statement on the ethnicity of authors of the NT, unless that statement comes from a page or in the immediate vicinity of a page where anti-semitism is discussed as well. I say 'on a page or close to' because Sandarini's whole book addresses Matthew as a Jew and examines anti-semitic interpretations, at the outset, in the conclusion, and in the notes which follow his general thesis. My 'original research' consists for both Jayjg and jpgordon in citing a statement about the Jewish ethnicity of a NT writer from a book which does not mention anti-semitism on the same page or in the vicinity of that comment, but before it and after it. It's that simple. What therefore is behind this very peculiar construction of ] is the premise that if an article deals in A+B, the sources for that page must specifically deal with A+B, and then any reference to A must occur within a page or two of a reference to B. If this is what wikipedia is about, then you may as well abolish the project. The problem, which is imaginary in my view, only arises, even were we to accept this odd construal of the rule, because given the formatting of Saldarini's book, the notes, where he mentions anti-semitism more extensively (the introduction cites it as one of the 4 major themes of Matthean studies), are located at the end. If the notes had been printed at the bottom of the page, then 2 pages after p.18 where my quote comes from, you would see a relevant note on anti-semitism. .] (]) 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks Nableezy. Those are certainly more relevant and informative sources. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Then you owe us an explanation. They fit exactly what Langmuir and Gager say, which I added to the footnote several days ago, only to meet your objections again.] (]) 13:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
::::<blockquote>The person inserting insists that the book in question does indeed mention antisemitism; not, however, on page 18, where this quote is from, but in "n.16 p.228." '''That's a pretty long distance away'''.</blockquote>
::::I still would ask for a clarification by ] authorities on why page distance should be a decisive factor in determining whether one is engaged in original research or not. As it stands, the argument is that, even if one's source fulfils all requirements (New Testament+Ethnicity+Antisemitism), this is not enough: the quote on ethnicity must appear on a page that is '''not distant''' from a discussion of 'antisemitism'. The implications of this interpretation of ] strike me as enormous for all future editing if such is the case, and it becomes a precedent.] (]) 07:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::It seems to me that page distance is not important by itself, but it is useful as a measure of contextual relevance. That is the key issue, after all. Let me discuss a couple of illustrative examples. At one extreme, if the source were, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (setting aside questions about citing tertiary sources), it would be perfectly obvious that the content of the article about bananas would have no relevance to Barbados, even if the two were on exactly the same page. On the other hand, if a chapter (or an entire book) were titled, say, "Antisemitism and the New Testament: An Analysis", then contextual relevance would be established for the entire text of that chapter/book, even if those words appeared only on the title page, perhaps dozens of pages from the relevant material.
:::::::That is exactly what I did long ago, and it did not appease Jayjg. from Gavin I. Langmuir, ''Toward a Definition of Antisemitism'', University of California Press, 1996, p.7, and John G. Gager, ''Origins of anti-semitism: attitudes toward Judaism in pagan and Christian antiquity,'' Oxford University Press US, 1985 pp.113-14, books on antisemitism that say exactly what Nableezy's later evidence from Guy Stroumsa Craig A. Evans and Anthony Tomasino say. It's risible that I am being challenged by Jayjg for a ] abuse for providing citations from Langmuir and Gager, experts on anti-Semitism, which are identical in statement to those provided by Nableezy, which, lo and behold, now satisfy Jayjg? The only difference is who is proposing the edit. Personal antipathies should not affect one's judgement on content, or interfere with one's interpretation of policy.] (]) 13:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Returning to this situation, it seems that the author does not make a direct, explicit connection with the subject of the article, and that is the fundamental problem. So the obvious question is, does the author provide any indicators that it might be contextually relevant? For example, what about the chapter and section heading(s) under which the words appear? What about nearby paragraphs (if the previous paragraph began "There are several reasons to reject the notion of antisemitism in the New Testament. These include...", for example, that might be evidence of relevance)? Apparently there are no such indicators, and the sheer distance between the text and the closest reference to antisemitism appears to reject any possibility of implied relevance. ] (]) 09:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the obvious can at times require construal. But this is not being done. So I would ask that one engage strictly, literally, with policy outlines, and not in generic impressions or suggestions about what anyone thinks policy might mean.

Jayjg in his query above uses the phrase ‘direct connection’ to refer us to that section in ] headed ‘Synthesis of published material that advances a position’ in order to challenge my almost literal paraphrase of '''one line from one source.'''

He elsewhere, alluding to the same section, insinuates I have conducted ‘original research’. He suggested (see below) that what I was doing appeared to him to be a ‘], and the link behind this directs us to ].

The section Jayjg bases his call on reads:

:<blockquote>Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. </blockquote>

I.e. '''it deals with multiple sources''', harvested to make a conclusion that is the editor’s and not in any source.

So this is simply inapplicable to the case, since '''I used only one source'''. Despite this, he insists I am engaged in a violation of ], in lirterally paraphrasing one line from one author who deals with both the New Testament and Anti-semitism.

It is strictly a question of how to read ], and the burden of proof lies with Jayjg to explain how that applies. So far, he has provided no evidence.

(a) He first objected, asking

(b) ]; we need to rely on the arguments made by reliable sources, rather than those we can think up on our own].

(c) .

(d) , so these specifications are covered by my edit's source.
(e) ] raised above. Can you include the part of the quotation that mentions '''antisemitism'''?]

(g) From requiring that a source on the ethnicity of the authors of the New Testament also mention anti-Semitism, Jayjg, once he is satisfied on that score, ] and insinuates that any citation from a source on the ethnicity of authors of the NT must come from a large quotation that simultaneously mentions anti-Semitism.

In his reformulation above, he now introduces a page-distance criterion. I can find no ground in Misplaced Pages policy for this remarkable hermeneutic invention, and simply ask authorities on ] to cite chapter and verse, instead of flag-waving a generic link, where this criterion is ostensibly laid down. There is no synthesis, since it is one source and one proposition, not synthesized. Therefore Jayjg was wrong in adducing ]. He now says ] means that '''a text''' (not '''texts''', as in the ] section on ]) must not only deal with A+B, but deal with A+B in referential proximity - the distance factor. This appears to be an idiosyncratic construction by Jayjg since there is nothing on the ] pages which sets forth anything even vaguely like this.

So, I repeat, where in the linked sections to policy, is this interpretation grounded?

The only point in ] relevant here is the intro remark that 'Paris is the capital of France'. That Christianity arose from a sectarian squabble among Jewish communities is a truism. The fact that I provided a source, unlike editors on several other wiki pages who have, unchallenged, made the same point, is under contention. As my extensive evidence on the talk page, further citated sources in the article, and Nableezy's sources confirm, this is something any reader knowledgeable about the subject should sight and recognize as a truism. And truisms should not be subjected to pettifogging, especially with imaginative interpretations of policy. ] (]) 12:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:The requirement that sources must be directly related to the subject is not limited to synthesis. To quote from the lead of ]: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are '''directly related''' to the topic of the article, and that '''directly support''' the material as presented." (emph. as in original) The onus is on you to show that the source is directly related to the subject of antisemitism in the New Testament. If you can't, then Jayjg is absolutely correct: use of that source in that situation violates NOR. ] (]) 14:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::<blockquote>you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are '''directly related''' to the topic of the article<blockquote>
:::(1)You appear to be unfamiliar with the record, even when reminded of it. To go half way to meeting what I regarded as a trivial piece of obstructive ] I added two more citations, from Gager and Langmuir, 'directly related to the topic of the article' since they are specialists in Antisemitism and the early Church. They say exactly what Saldarini says, whose whole thesis is on why Matthew, as a Jew, is not to be read as an antisemitic outsider.


Discussion regarding ] has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at ]. ] (]) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(2), though they say exactly what Nableezy's three sources state.


== Jackal (character) ==
:::(3) There is no onus of proof on me. The only burden here is for Jayjg to supply evidence that 'page distance' forms part of ] policy. I'll put it ].


The article ] seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the {{oldid2|1263622722|most recent edit as I'm writing this}}, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. {{oldid2|1263534172|An edit}} I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character {{oldid2|1263602067|was reverted}} by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. ] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Since he (a) accepts Nableezy's evidence, and (b) Nableezy's evidence confirms Langmuir and Gager's evidence, which Jayjg rejected days ago, he (c) owes the page an explanation as to why he rejected my two authors, but now accepts three others, when they all say the same thing. He also should explain on what grounds he bases his innovation in the interpretation of policy for which there is, so far, no evidence. I don't have an onus. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes a charge that lacks any support.] (]) 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


: There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: ]. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be ] to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the ] could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is ]. My two cents. ] (]) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Since threads run on into a drift, and the effect is to forget what the original point is, and all sorts of emotions come into play, as the logic of a dispute is lost from view, I'll simplify the evidence.
:It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. ] (]) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== SYNTH-edits at Team Seas ==
::::(A) '''Not accepted by Jayjg, as violating ]'''


There's an ongoing thread ] on a contested edit to the article. The in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that {{tq|This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).}} There is clear consensus of a ] violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are ] any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --] (]) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*<blockquote>'Most agree that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the land of Israel'. Anthony J.Saldarini, ''Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community'' </blockquote>


:See also ] ] (]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*<blockquote>'Christianity had started as a Jewish sect,’ Langmuir ''Origins of anti-semitism: attitudes toward Judaism in pagan and Christian antiquity.''</blockquote>
:: Clearly SYNTH; also ] by this point. I've left ], which I hope will help resolve the situation. ] (]) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) {{nacc}}
:::When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not ] on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ] (]) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
*<blockquote>The very earliest groups of those who confessed Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) are now generally seen and studied as religious movements within Judaism. Gager, ''Origins of anti-semitism: attitudes toward Judaism in pagan and Christian antiquity,''</blockquote>


Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading ] from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.] (]) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Two of the three book sources above deal specifically and at length with anti-semitism and early Christianity.
- - - - - - - -
:::(B) '''Accepted by Jayjg as not violating ] '''


== Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership ==
*<blockquote>‘the belief in Jesus Christ was at first held within a Jewish sectarian movement.’Ora Limor, Guy Stroumsa, ''Contra Iudaeos: ancient and medieval polemics between Christians and Jews.''</blockquote>


Editors are invited to comment at {{section link|WT:WA|Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership}} on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. ] (]) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*<blockquote>‘a first-century Jewish sect, centered around a revered Jewish teacher thought to be Israel's Messiah, God's Son, and the fulfillment of Israel's scriptures.’ Craig Evans, ''After the passion is gone: American religious consequences.''</blockquote>


== Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research ==
*<blockquote>‘The New Testament authors were themselves Jewish.’ Anthony Tomasino, ''Judaism before Jesus''.</blockquote>


::::One of the three book sources above deals specifically and at length with anti-semitism and Christianity.
I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. ] (]) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Go figure.] (]) 16:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
::The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum.
::The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement.
::There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. ] (]) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:29, 11 January 2025

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
    This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
    • Include links to the relevant article(s).
    • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
    • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
    		 Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    		 Shortcuts
    If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

    Additional notes:

    • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages.
    • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

    Archiving icon
    Archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52


    This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Edits to “Game Science”

    Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Jackal (character)

    The article Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the most recent edit as I'm writing this, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. An edit I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character was reverted by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be WP:OR to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is WP:OR. My two cents. Novellasyes (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    SYNTH-edits at Team Seas

    There's an ongoing thread Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions on a contested edit to the article. The edit in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing). There is clear consensus of a WP:SYNTH violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are WP:STONEWALLING any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    See also this recent discussion at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
    When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I linked it, you can read it yourself." They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not WP:DROPIT on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Marxism–Leninism–Maoism

    Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading WP:NOR from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.Prezbo (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership

    Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA § Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research

    I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum.
    The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement.
    There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic