Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 04:15, 17 May 2015 (→Bad Elk v. United States: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N 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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Genocides in history

This is an exchange from as section called: Talk:Genocides in history#RfC: Inclusion criteria:

• Oppose. The inclusion criteria states that you cannot classify something as genocide unless the source defined the act as genocide, but the term "genocide" wasn't even used until 1944 (see ). Are we going to eliminate every source that was written before that date? GregJackP Boomer! 03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  @GregJackP The UN convention on genocide (CPPCG) explicitly states in its preamble "Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity". Since 1948, academics and other reliable sources retrospectively categorise historical events as genocide for example see the Whitaker Report (United Nations) published in 1982 that "The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary Iranian killings of Baha'is.". Besides if no reliable sources has stated that an event was a genocide to include one in this article would be a breach of WP:SYN (OR). Please reconsider you opposition. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  @PBS:. Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide, and it is not a violation of WP:SYN or WP:OR. See WP:SYNNOT. In addition, you did not address the basic question, of whether pre-1944 sources are now worthless for genocide articles. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide. If not how does one assert that it was a genocide, without SYN? This is just as true for post 1944 events as those that pre-date the coining of the word genocide. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide." No, you don't. Again, see WP:SYNNOT, especially WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not obvious II. If you have a source defining genocide by stating the elements, you can state those elements, cite to the post-1944 source, then cite to the individual facts in pre-1944 sources proving each of the elements. "Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison." It's not WP:OR, therefore it is not SYNTH. All this does is provide support for genocide deniers, and I'm not going to support a proposal that is slanted towards a denialist POV. GregJackP Boomer! 23:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• There are many different definitions of genocide and even experts on the subject do not agree in many instance on what constitutes genocide, see for example what the ECHR has to say about how opinion among legal scholars over the interpretation of the CPPCG between early German court judgements and the later ICTY judgements (Bosnian Genocide#European Court of Human Rights). There is no single source single stating the elements of genocide, and even if there was Wikipeda editors are not qualified legal or academic scholar who can authoritatively make such an analysis. To do so is OR. You write "Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide". I have no idea what you mean by that. What is a genocide denier? A genocide denier is someone who denies that a genocide took place when the majority of expert sources have concluded that one took place. A genocide denier is not a Misplaced Pages editor who requests that another editor--who has alleged that a series of events are a genocide because that editor thinks it fits a pattern of one of the many definitions of genocide--produces reliable sources that state that those events were a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you're wrong on the OR and SYNTH, as well as the ability of WP editors (many of whom are qualified to make a legal or academic analysis without going into OR). There is no point in continuing the discussion, I'm not going to change my position, at least as long as the current criteria is part of the package. GregJackP Boomer! 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Others thoughts on the points raised in this exchange would be appreciated. To summarise:

• I do not think that an event can be called a genocide unless reliable secondary sources have described it as one. For a Wikidepa editors to compare a series of events with a definition of genocide and draw the conclusion that those events were a genocide is a WP:SYN.
• From my understanding of what GregJackP has written above (and I invite him to explain if I have got it wrong), if an bird walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and so meets the requirements of a definition of a duck taken from a reliable source, then Wikipeida editors can describe the bird as a duck even though no reliable sources has been found that states it is a duck, because it is not a SYN to do so.

-- PBS (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• That is an over-simplification and inappropriate application of WP:SYNTH. First, if it is not WP:OR, it is not SYNTH, period. See WP:SYNNOT (yes, I know that is an essay). Second, if I'm talking about a 1956 Ford Thunderbird, I don't have to have the source say that it is a car for me to say it is a car in the article. See WP:OBVIOUS. If you have an established definition of genocide, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is genocide, any more than it is OR to say that a source that describes a murder but does not use that term can have that action identified as an unlawful killing, a homicide, or murder. See what Jimbo said here. It's not appropriate to limit Misplaced Pages sources on genocide to those published after 1944, when the word was first used. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with PBS - We have Duck blocks, we refer to people we're certain are socks as duck socks, so yes, the reasoning is sound, further, when we look back in history itself, we see examples of this, i.e: In colonial times when a person died of a certain lung disease, it was called "Consumption", when we look back at that same period of time, we don't call that disease "Consumption", we call it "Tuberculosis" because that is what it's properly called. It meets the symptoms, and therefore recieves the label. PBS is right KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Undead and Ezekiel

• Undead#Literature
• Talk:Undead#Resurrection_VS_Undeath
• Last revision with portion as of this post

While that section (and the article) needs a lot of work, the area in particular that I contend is original research is the portion about Ezekiel. The verses in question do not state that the individuals are undead.

1) The Ezekiel quote needs a non-primary source

1a) Including the Ezekiel quote asserts an undead interpretation: To (as User:A_Georgian put it) "include the quote" obviously asserts an interpretation that the bodies described are undead, otherwise the quote is pointlessly irrelevant and utterly out of context.

1b) A non-primary source is needed for any interpretation: Per WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

2) The interpretation that they are undead is opposed by the interpretation that they are resurrected

2a) "Undead" and "resurrected" are distinct concepts: wikt:undead specifies that the undead, though animate, are by some measure dead; while fully returning to life is wikt:resurrection. Thus they are not compatible interpretations, but competing ones. While I am aware that this would be original research if used in an article, it is reasonable for a Misplaced Pages: or Talk: page for determining article content.

2b) The undead interpretation should only be given due weight: Per WP:DUE, we should weigh the non-primary sources that support the each interpretation, and determine article content accordingly.

3) No non-primary sources support the undead interpretation, only the resurrection interpretation

3a) The Ezekiel quote is not mentioned in any of the other cited sources: As shown at Talk:Undead#Resurrection_VS_Undeath.

3b) Secondary sources support the resurrected interpretation, none support the undead interpretation: non-primary sources support the concept of resurrection. I tried searching in Google books for "ezekiel undead" and only pulled up horror fiction and pop-theology that recommends using zombie walks to get kids to come to church (not exactly academic sources).

While I've personally used that portion in Ezekiel to argue that the Dungeons & Dragons spells Animate Dead and Create Undead should be an option by good-aligned clerics, the undead interpretation of Ezekiel has no place on Misplaced Pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

All I want is a non-primary reliable source that we can use to give the quote some context and not leave the reader wondering why it's stuck in there. I believe Ian is after the same thing. --NeilN 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Were there good sources for it, I'd be fine including it (save me time breaking in new Dungeon Masters). There aren't, so I'm not. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the interpretation that Ezekiel 31 has nothing to do with the undead because it is about true resurrection. While the skeletons are symbolic, a vision, rather than specific dead people, the vision is clearly that God, through Ezekiel, is raising them to full life. In Christian usage, this chapter is treated as prefiguring the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus, and the New Testament is very clear that they were alive after their resurrection. (If a reliable Jewish resource provides a different interpretation, I have not seen it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If one wants a valid Biblical example of the undead, it would be the Witch of Endor being asked by Saul to summon the ghost of Samuel. While interpretations disagree as to whether the ghost was indeed that of the prophet Samuel, it is clear that the witch or medium was summoning some sort of incorporeal undead spirit. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Interviews?

Hello there. I have a question in regard to original research. If I was editing a biography and I sent a set of questions to said person and they replied with answers and information, would that be "original research" even if the person themselves is stating this information? Leorion PO (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Reegardless of whether answers to your questions were considered original research (which I suspect might depend on context), they would be unpublished, and accordingly unverifiable. Misplaced Pages requires sources to be published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of book as source for it not mentioning something

User:Valerius_Tygart has repeatedly added "(This was the Stargate Project, although Ronson never refers to it by name.)" to his synopsis of the book The Men Who Stare at Goats. He states on his talk page that " We clearly differ in our interpretation of WP:NOR, and you have not made a case that seems at all convincing to me. The statement is not my "personal observation and opinion". And it is not OR. It is a fact that I have included in the synopsis of the book. What is my source for the statement that the Stargate Project is not mentioned by name in the book? It is the book, The Men Who Stare at Goats, passim. Put the reference in yourself if you like." Unless something has changed, both the statement that it isn't referred to by name, and that the thing being discussed was the Stargate Project, are original research. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Any interpretations, inferences, or perceived allusions must come from secondary sources. Pretty simple. --NeilN 20:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The lack of mention by name can surely be sourced to the book. Not quite, but in the spirit of, WP:BLUE and WP:When to cite. (It presumably is not complicated to verify by reading the book, and I presume it is trivial to verify in a Kindle edition.) That the name is the topic of the book would normally have to come from secondary sources. Choor monster (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any discussions here that have agreed that you can use the original source to claim it doesn't mention something. But the editor isn't interested in policy so far as I can tell and has replaced the text that has been removed by several editors (and again edited my comments on his talk page, or rather moved them around and added their own section headings. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The lack of a mention needs to be cited to a secondary source to show its relevance. Otherwise we'll get stupid stuff like, "Obama never stated he was not beholden to the Chicago unions in his autobiography". The material in question has been re-added (twice) by User:Valerius_Tygart. The first time I reverted as a self-published source was used. The second time, a book by a seemingly independent publisher was added along with the self-published source. I don't have access to the book so I cannot verify what is actually stated. --NeilN 15:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He reinstated the sources. I've removed the text and sources because, as you say, the first is self-published. The second is by a martial arts expert who almost immediately after the mention of Ronson in a footnote writes "According to at least one knowledgeable source, an accomplished Japanese psychic in the employ of Japanese intelligence (or, some maintain, a remnant of the Black Dragon Society) caused Bush to become ill by using an ancient ninja mind control influencing technique known as ki-doll." Pretty clearly fringe and in any case a search of the Amazon book, where I found the quote, doesn't say the book doesn't mention Stargate. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that User:Dougweller has (apparently) accepted the identification of the unit as Stargate, there remains only the issue of whether the absence of mention by name in the book is "relevant". User:NeilN states that "The lack of a mention needs to be cited to a secondary source to show its relevance." I would disagree, asserting that its relevance is obvious to (almost) everyone in context. The author, Ronson, spent many months interviewing Stargate participants, and writing up his findings for his best-selling book, then failed to mention anywhere between the covers the actual name of the unit. (Don't ask me why.) The material on Stargate occupies something like a third of the book. The name of the unit is clearly relevant to a synopsis of the book, and the absence of the name is also relevant, as a reader of the synopsis who then proceeds on to the book itself, will naturally be confused by not finding it there. Valerius Tygart (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate that I consider the book itself an acceptable source for the lack of mention of of some detail. I add that if the book spends a significant part on something it is worth informing our readers of what that something is called. The stupid stuff concern is a non-starter.

It's easier to think with an actual example. I faced the above issue in an article I created a month ago. The book Ohio Town is all about Xenia, Ohio once upon a time. Remarkably, the main text does not mention the name of the town once! The first edition did not even name the town on the dustjacket, with location information about the author omitted. I put the main text lack of mention in the article, I can assert its truth having read the book (with foreknowledge that the name was not mentioned). As a point of fact, at least one review noted this lack and interpreted it as a sign of the book's greater significance, all about "Everytown, USA", so to speak. However, I have not bothered to reread the reviews to find this comment. As such, I restricted what I put in the article to the bare fact about the omission (since I consider the text to be a valid source). Any mention of the significance of the omission, no matter how "obvious" it is, would need to be cited.

I will point out that all the reviews referred to Xenia by name, so the problem of sourcing the name did not exist in my case. I have absolutely no opinion or interest whether the name "Project Stargate" is properly sourced or not. Choor monster (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Once it has been established that the unit described in Ronson's book is Stargate (& I think that surely has been establshed by now) nothing could make more sense than Choor monster's statement that "I consider the book itself an acceptable source for the lack of mention of of some detail".... The book is, of course, the DEFINITIVE source as to what is, or is not, in it. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If i t isn't mentioned in the book but is mentioned in reviews I think it would be okay to say 'according to reviewers this was the Stargate Project' rather than stating that it actually is. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Stating that "according to reviewers this was the Stargate Project" would seem to imply that there is some doubt or debate about it. But there is none. No one has claimed (Misplaced Pages editors or otherwise) that the Stargate Project is not the one in the book except User:Dougweller, and even he has recently given up on that.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, since I have no idea why Ronson neglected to mention the name I would not include any speculation about that or about the "significance" of the omission, in the article. And I have not tried to. (I will speculate here: Surely he did know the name, having done extensive research & interviews, so I suspect he left it out to heighten the mystery or mystique of the group, or to exaggerate the government's desire to hide it.... But this is mere surmise...) Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any more discussion on this?? If not, I propose adding the phrase "... which the book never mentions by name" after the existing link to Stargate Project. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As there have been no objections in 3 days, I will restore this edit. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeframe of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Over at Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn there is a discussion going on regarding the propriety of including specific dates to establish the timeframe of the story. Some months ago specific dates (1835-1845) were removed from the article as unsourced and possibly anachronistic; I happened upon this comment and thinking it fair removed similarly unsourced dates from a related article (Huckleberry Finn).

Another user then came around and pointed out that since Mark Twain described the book as having happened "40 or 50 years ago", this, combined with the fact that the book was published in the mid-1880s, sufficed as a source for the 1835-1845 claim.

I contend that this is OR, specifically SYNTH, on the grounds that Mark Twain intended only to vaguely situate the book at a time similar to his own childhood, sometime before the start of the American Civil War. From a stylistic perspective I don't think "1835-1845" is more descriptive than some variation on "before the Civil War", which is what we had in the article before the dates were reintroduced.

However another editor seems to agree with the first that 1835-1845 is a fair deduction from the established facts, and that as simple arithmetic it shouldn't qualify as OR. I am aware that arithmetic calculations are exempt from OR policy in cases where it is straightforward, but I don't think this qualifies.

As a point of policy, should this or should this not be considered OR? Eniagrom (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's an inappropriate synthesis. It's not simple arithmetic, because the "40 or 50 years ago" is taken from a different source than the date of publication of the book, and because it is necessary to interpret what is meant by "40 or 50 years." (I'm assuming that the source of the "years ago" statement is not signed and dated.)

The exception to WP:SYNTH applies if there is only one way to interpret the information available. Here, several assumptions are being made that constitute OR. "Forty or fifty years ago" is an ambiguous expression; it could mean 38 or 53 just as easily as 44 or 45. The statement is also tied to 1885, which is arbitrary since the book was published in 1884. Choosing a time frame where the years end in a 5 is OR, because the editor, and not the source, is doing the rounding.

To address the time period of the novel, you could say something like you said above: that Mark Twain described the events as taking place "40 or 50 years ago," and that the book was published in 1884. Going on to say that Twain intended to write about the time period of his own childhood would be OR without a source, although there probably is a source. Roches (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad Elk v. United States

Here is a passage for discussion.

Internet meme and myths

The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State. The most commonly quoted version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 . This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

References

1. Plummer v. State, 34 N.E. 968 (Ind. 1893).
2. Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, Rayservers (Jan. 2, 2010, 1:00 PM); Protesters Have the Right to Protest … and to Resist Unlawful Arrest, Infowars.com (Nov. 13, 2011, 7:52 AM); Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, Freedom-school.com (Dec. 12, 2012, 12:26 PM).
3. Wright at 388 (noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests); see also Miller, at 953 (only 13 states allow resistance to an unlawful arrest).

discussion

This suffers from a whole host of problems.

• The first paragraph (including the quote) is WP:OR in two ways. First, with the unsourced claim that the quote is from Plummer and not from Black Elk. The ref there is to the Plummer case, so cannot be a source for current internet sites. A few random websites are presented to justify the claim that is on many websites. Second, the editor who created this went around to various FRINGEy blogs and gathered quotes to present here. I have looked for secondary sources on this claim that there are a bunch of websites claiming wrong things about resisting arrest. I didn't find any law review articles, real law blogs, etc, that discuss this. So the editor who created this decided himself that this is a problem that he should address on Misplaced Pages. That is WP:OR.
• the 2nd paragraph hangs on the first, and without the first, it has no reason to exist. WIthin that paragraph, the sentence "All of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful force—not defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest" is unsourced WP:OR - neither the Wright source nor the Miller source says this.
• I tried to delete this policy-violating mess and have been met no answer other than "there is consensus for this". Meh. So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution