Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:14, 26 October 2010

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

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

The policy that governs the issue of original research is Misplaced Pages: No original research (WP:NOR). 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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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 WT:NOR.

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

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

Archives

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

Original Research by editor Esoglou on the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article.

Talk:Roman_Catholic–Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences#Intervention_by_Andrew_Lancaster The Editor Esoglou is attempting to force into the above article the idea that there is agreement between the two theologies of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church based not on Roman Catholic official sources and directly against Eastern Orthodox representatives, sources. The editor Esoglou continually does not like what sources (Orthodox theologians) have said about the differences between the churches and continues to wiki hound and edit war and go against consensus in order to deny or discredit or under mine what the sources posted in the article say. Please look at the Talk:Roman_Catholic–Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences#Orthodox_Church_of_America section for example.

The Editor Esoglou is doing this not by posting Roman Catholic sources or any sources information but by creating counter sources in misrepresenting Orthodox sources. Also Esoglou is wiki hounding by misusing source tagging requests and also not listening to corrects pointed out to by editors to the article other than just me. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I find curious the claim that I am trying in the

Nothing you posted has anything to do with your created apologies for the Roman Catholic church from synthesising other peoples work and there by putting words into their mouths that they do not say and that you admit you can not find them saying. Thats on the talkpage to the article in question. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear football photo

This article of "A briefcase alleged to be the nuclear football"--i.e., a briefcase that some Misplaced Pages editor(s) think is the nuclear football. To me this seems like original research, but it keeps getting added back so other opinions would be useful.Prezbo (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A briefcase that the person who put the photo in said was a nuclear briefcase. I don't think this is covered by the original research policy, I'm not sure exactly what policy covers a dispute by people saying they want more proof that a photo is correct but without any grounds that I can see for doubting them. The images as far as I can see are included for illustrative purposes rather than as an integral part of the text. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't think this is original research, or you think the evidence that it's the nuclear football is adequate? The grounds for doubting this would be that the nuclear football isn't publicly identified and there might be other reasons for military personnel to be carrying a briefcase in the president's vicinity. Everything is "covered by the original research policy."Prezbo (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think both that this problem is not covered by the original research policy and that the evidence is that it is the nuclear football. The photo is identified in commons as the nuclear briefcase and I see no reason to doubt that. You should have better arguments against illustrative photos than you gave. Exactly how many people walk near the American president carrying briefcases like this? Do you think the whole idea of a nuclear briefcase is made up? Misplaced Pages customarily allows photos for illustrative purposes which haven't appeared in reliable sources and if anything the appropriate policy against that would be verifiability. You're not going to get very far with trying to remove nine tenths of the illustrations on Misplaced Pages on the grounds of verifiability though, the major ground you could use is that they are wrong, bad or doubtful and I don't think you have shown that. I believe there should be something to cover this area explicitly and there may be one but I don't know what it is. Dmcq (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought all "material" on this project should be verifible by reliable sources? What if there was a picture that said breifcase with President's dildo in it or whatever? That would be ok? As far as 9/10ths of the photos not being "verified", that says more about the problems with this project that should be improved, not a defense. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)ps, I just read article, the caption says "alledged", so never mind :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, can we know from the photo and caption associated with the uploaded file that this person and case are anywhere near the president or his entourage? I do not know what policy obtains on this issue, but it seems to me a problem if we're just assuming that a photo of a general nature is that specific--one would think that a photo would be available showing a president being followed a member of the military carrying a case. But then I would also suggest that the image does not add much, if anything to the article since it is so general. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Who alleged it's the nuclear football? The person who took the picture? A newspaper? A prominent blogger? We just don't know. Kansan (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem

There is a dispute as to whether or not certain material is synthesis at the article Judaization of Jerusalem. The material in question is in this diff. AMuseo argues that it is "inappropriate" to have an article on Judaization efforts by the Israeli government and not include what he feels is important material related to religious freedom. Two users, Tiamut and myself, argue that sources must relate that material to the topic of the article. Is it OR to include material that sources do not relate to the topic of the article? nableezy - 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it uses a term "Judaization" that has both religious and ethnic implications. The editiors then define the article to exclude the religious implications of the term. it seems misleading to call an article Judazaiton and then excluse information on the religious rights of Christians and Muslims under Israeli rule. The editors have resisted attempts on the talk page to change the title to something that would have exclusively ethno-national )but not religious) implications. But, with the title as it stands, it does seem to OR to argue that no information on the rights of religious minorities may be included.AMuseo (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of Lebanon

Hi, I've been having a content dispute with Humaliwalay, who keeps inserting that 25-49% of Lebanon's population is Shi'a. Before their addition, the article stated that approximately 28% of Lebanon's population was Shi'a, cited to this 2008 State Department report, which states that "the most recent demographic study conducted by Statistics Lebanon, a Beirut-based research firm, showed 28 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim, 28 percent Shi'a Muslim, 22 percent Maronite Christian, 8 percent Greek Orthodox, 5 percent Druze, and 4 percent Greek Catholic." To support their addition, they cite this report by the Pew Research Center, which gives a range of "1-2 million" Shi'a in Lebanon. Humaliwalay is combining that range with Lebanon's total estimated population of only 4 million, to create the 25-49% figure. First, that seems like pure synthesis to me. Second, right below the chart that gives the 1-2 million range, the Pew report itself states that "The figures for Shias are generally given in a range because of the limitations of the secondary-source data... Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding." I view the information as synthesized, and I see no reason to include it, as it is less accurate and older than the State Department's estimates. Thoughts? ← George 05:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is synthesis, they shouldn't be combining things that way to give the impression that someone actually reported such a figure. If they had actually taken the bother read the Pew report properly rather than just taking the figures rounded to a million they would have seen another reference to 45-55% of the muslim population being Shi'a which agrees much more closely with your figure, plus their figures are from a report of 2005 - why didn't they look that up?. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your feedback. ← George 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Power Rangers: Samurai and Samurai Sentai Shinkenger

User:Ryulong says this info: "As with all previous Power Rangers series, Samurai uses the costumes from one of the many Super Sentai Series; Power Rangers: Samurai uses said items from 2009's Samurai Sentai Shinkenger." in the Power Rangers: Samurai article and this info "Its costumes will be used for the American series Power Rangers: Samurai." in the Samurai Sentai Shinkenger‎ article are original research because "By visually comparing the costumes in Shinkenger and the costumes in PR Samurai and saying that they are identical, it is still considered original research to say that the former is the basis for the latter. You don't get to say "Shinkenger" on that page until the ending credits roll on PRS episode 1." I think that info is not original research as the Power Rangers website and a news article from Variety about Power Rangers: Samurai have images that clearly show the Shinkenger‎ costumes. What do you think is this info original research or not? Powergate92Talk 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As there is no official statement from Saban Capital Group (yet) concerning the origin of the costumes, etc. of the characters of Power Rangers: Samurai, it is most certainly considered original research or synthesis to say that based on visual comparisons between (for example) this image and this image that Power Rangers: Samurai uses all of the trappings of Samurai Sentai Shinkenger. I believe that the only time we can say this is for certain is when the ending credits roll on the first episode of the new Power Rangers, and have that say in big block letters "BASED ON from TOEI COMPANY From the Japanese series originated by SABURO HATTE/YATSUDE". They may be identical, but we here at Misplaced Pages can't say that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The bandai website also now has an image for Power Rangers: Samurai that shows Shinkenger and the villain from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger, Doukoku. Powergate92Talk 23:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how many things from Shinkenger you can identify in the new Power Rangers press material. If they don't say "Shinkenger", then we can't either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit! That is NOT original research. And the actors are confirmed by the way, their photos are on powerrangers.com now. Digifiend (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is original research. Yes, it's very obviously Shinkenger. But making that conclusion by yourself is considered WP:OR. And the same goes for the actors. There are no names outside of the fandom.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, can you quote what part of WP:No original research says using images as sources for that info is original research? Powergate92Talk 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Powergate92, the fact that you are using images as sources is not the issue (images aren't WP:Reliable sources anyway). The original research you are performing is that you are stating that Samurai Sentai Shinkenger is the basis of various elements of Power Rangers: Samurai. This is because you have pre-existing knowledge of the existence of Shinkenger. You cannot analyze two images and say that they are related. That is a violation of WP:RS and WP:SYN. And the actors' names Digifiend are also an issue of WP:RS. If there had been no obsessive following of the casting process by fansites like Rangerboard and Henshin Justice, then we wouldn't have the names that you think are confirmed. The only confirmation we will get for any of these facts will be in the airing of the first episode at the latest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's called synthesis. You are making a connection that reliable sources do not actually make. In other words, you're saying that because you saw it in a picture and have interpreted as such, that means it's true. That's not appropriate. Sorry. --13 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur - looking at images and coming to conclusions other than the ones that a reliable source made the photos for or points out is original research. If a photo of some rock group at Ayers rock on a particular day shows a helicopter in the background then we're not allowed to say there was a helicoper there on that day without some reliable source pointing it out. All we can say is that the group was there. Dmcq (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this news article would be a reliable enough source for the info? It showed up in a Google News search and it doe's say "The series will be adapted from the 2009 Super Sentai Series, SAMURAI SENTAI SHINKENGER." Powergate92Talk 05:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What about "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue"? I know it's not a policy, but still, the costumes look identical and assuming that they didn't come from Shinkenger would sound ridiculous. NotARealWord (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NotARealWord, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue says "there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious and generally accepted." It's obvious that Power Rangers: Samurai‎ uses the costumes from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger. Powergate92Talk 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, only the costumes they've shown would count. Maybe the statement should be more specific like "the cor five rangers' costumes were taken from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger", since we don't yet know what else is taken from Shinkenger. It's likely that they'll use othercostumes and hours of footage, but it's not impossible for Saban not to. So, only the costumes officially revealed. NotARealWord (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying "the sky is blue is one thing". Making comparisons between two possibly related images is another. I am not making an assumptions that the costumes are not from Shinkenger. I am merely stating there is nothing that explicitly states that they are. In the ending credits of every episode of every Power Rangers show, they mention the original Japanese series. We can wait for Saban to credit Shinkenger in the ending credits to add this information to the English Misplaced Pages. Just because it's obvious and true does not mean the information is verifiable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue says "there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious and generally accepted." It's obvious that Power Rangers: Samurai‎ uses the costumes from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger and that fact is accepted by everyone but you. Powergate92Talk 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying it. I am saying we don't have anything verifiable to back up the statement. WP:BLUE is not policy and has no bearing here. We can't say anything about Power Rangers: Samurai and Samurai Sentai Shinkenger in the same sentence without a reliable source to back it up. Yours and NotARealWord's comparisons are still WP:OR.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Powergate92, that blog posting is not a reliable source. It's a blog posting made over a month ago. We don't know who their sources are, as they could very well be working off of the same non-reliable sources that the fandom has because they know Shinkenger existed and they know who the actors are. None of this information has been officially stated by Saban.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"The sky is blue" thing would only apply to the costumes they've shown. Only that bit is patently obvious. NotARealWord (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Obvious to you and I but not to everyone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Obvious to anybody who had any more than a passing glimpse (or maybe even that is enough) of Shinkenger. NotARealWord (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's still not enough to ignore all of our policies on content verifiability.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's now an official promo for Power Rangers on MarVista Entertainment website that shows footage from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger‎ when talking about Power Rangers: Samurai. Powergate92Talk 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Until the WORD "Shinkenger" appears in regards to Power Rangers: Samurai, it's still all original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If we can't put in "the costumes came from Shinkenger" regardless of the stuff shown on the Power Rangers website, then the stuff in thast promo is also not enough. The footage is no more obvious then the costumes. NotARealWord (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what's being said here is that even though the suits are the same as those in Shinkenger and footage from it has been used in promos, that's not proof that any actual footage will be used in the series itself. There is a possibility, however small, that all footage for the series will be put together by Saban itself. Until the actual series comes along, uses Shinkenger footage, and then credits it, there's no absolute proof that footage will be used. ComputerBox (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversies of Jersey Shore

I am not really sure if I am in the right place, but the whole "topic" of this article appears to be in violation of some type of Misplaced Pages policy - WP:POVFORK doesnt quite cover it and I am not sure WP:OR does either - or am I way off base and this is a completely appropriate topic. Active Banana ( 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it just a spinoff article from Jersey_Shore_(TV_series)#Controversy per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (summary style) although maybe the section and the main 'Controversies' article need a new title per Misplaced Pages:Criticism ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I did notice someone on the talk page complaining that some items in the article didn't have a sourced controversy even if they had the potential to be controversial. If there is no evidence of a controversy for these they should of course be removed as original research. Dmcq (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...and everything has to comply with WP:BLP or it needs to go. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

WP:OR has been alleged at Famine in India as shown in this diff . The actual content that's the target of the OR allegation can be seen in this diff . The Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and European Journal of Development Research Prize winner Olivier Rubin have been used as the sources. A direct like to Google Books or web sites has been provided for easy access and verification. A discussion between the editors can be seen in several sections of the talk page . Is this OR? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you see an OR issue. I think there may be a weight issue in removing a conflicting view in the diff - cutting down two views to one because it is a bit long looks wrong to me. That the English is not of the best is a reason to improve the English nothing more if the content is okay. Dmcq (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and violence

Several editors have expressed concern that the entire article may be WP:SYTH violation. I invite others to look over it and make comments on it. Two ANI threads and a RFC have been the result of this dispute. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is SYNTH. Topical articles are difficult to write, and require sources that actually substantiate the topic being relevant. In this case it is not sources which mention Judaism in connection with violence, but sources which explicitly and specifically cover as their topic the reasons why Judaism causes violence and/or the reasons why Judaism restrains violence. Only one RS is present in the article which actually covers the topic of the article, "Reuven Firestone (2004), "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An examination of key sources" in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham Univ Press, 2004". Blank and rewrite from Firestone (2004) and equivalent academic reliable sources which specifically deal with this topic as their topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with that analysis its also worth mentioning the ANI were due to claims of Tedious Editing and POV pushing of some one who claimed the article as being WP:SYTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This same argument has been presented in multiple venues, by some of the same editors, but that's not really relevant here. FWIW, I disagree that the article violates WP:SYNTH, as I see it as essentially a summary style article, and, more importantly, I do not see a conclusion being reached in the form of "A and B, therefore C", which is the essences of synthesis. It is a collection of subtopics with a common theme, but the subtopics I've looked over seem appropriately sourced. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It violates basic sourcing requirements. Misplaced Pages is not meant to write articles on topics that don't have a preexistence outside of Misplaced Pages. "Judaism and violence" is not found in any sources, hence it doesn't mean anything but what the three English words strung together might suggest. As a safeguard against the downside of editors pontificating about whatever they feel like pontificating about, Misplaced Pages has put in place a requirement for verification in the form of reliable sources. This is standard operating procedure at Misplaced Pages: if you wish to create an article, you must demonstrate that the topic of that article is found in sources. This is embodied in such policy language as, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it," found at WP:VERIFY. I find the same sentiment expressed at WP:RELIABLE: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The proper place for such an argument is at AfD to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, discussion here should be limited to questions about issues of original research. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um no what is tthis for discussing whether it is OR. I came here seeking outside opinion because this is where you come to get such thingsThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn wrote, "It is a collection of subtopics with a common theme, but the subtopics I've looked over seem appropriately sourced." I think we've found an essential editorial disagreement (regardless of content issues). Some editors believe that a collection of subtopics which relate to a common theme must have their relation to the theme established in an RS whose subject is the theme. To illustrate for article "A", subtopics b, c, and d must be related to A in a RS, the RS1 saying A(b, c, d), or RS1 saying A(b, d) RS2 saying A(c). For other editors a collection of subtopics may be inserted in a theme article, if the subtopics are perceived by editors to be relevant, and if an RS establishes the general topic as encyclopedia. To illustrate, for the second group of editors RS1(A) RS2(b) RS3 (c, d). These different opinions on SYNTH/OR appear to be a fundamental editorial difference, much like deletionism versus inclusionism. As I appear to be making this realisation for the first time, if someone wants to take this meta for an essay, I would like the positions to be called explicitism and implicitism on the SYNTH/OR issue. As an explicitist, I see the only RS that explicitly supports the topic to be Firestone (2004), and any sub-topic content not included in the topic by Firestone (2004) would be included on a SYNTH/OR basis. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One approach is conservative. The other approach is liberal. One approach strengthens Misplaced Pages's core reliance on sources as a prerequisite to article-writing. The other approach loosens article-writing's tether to sources. One makes editors functionaries. The other glorifies editors as activists. One approach makes Misplaced Pages a reflection of what already exists outside of Misplaced Pages. The other approach allows Misplaced Pages to break new ground and "…advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Bus stop (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, yes, there's a fundamental difference, but it's not so clear cut as you are describing it, and I would suggest the core difference relates more to lumpers and splitters than anything else. But this discussion doesn't belong here. ResidentAnthropologist is after a narrow opinion regarding a particular article, I suggest we respect that. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Bus stop): I would have agreed with your description of the two positions if you hadn't chosen to make that spurious political battleground analogy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Saddhiyama): Do you mean my reference to conservative and liberal? I didn't intend that politically, I meant conservative and liberal Wiki-centrically. I should have been more clear about that. Bus stop (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All the article does is provide a pseudo-academic veneer for an article about Jews behaving badly, while pointing out, like the person who says some of his best friends are Jews, that non-violence co-exists in Jewish tradition. TFD (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All the article does is provide a veneer of sourcing. When the proponents of the article argue that it is well-sourced, they are referring to the sub-components having sources provided, and that may well be. But Judaism & violence is not a topic anchored in any source whatsoever—there is no source for the ostensible topic of the article. The article topic is just a few common English words strung together. And that undefined phrase is serving as an excuse for what in essence is a discussion forum masquerading as an article. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces point is valid. there is scope on Misplaced Pages for specific topics, such as War in Jewish thought, or Capital punishment in Jewish law, Violence in the Bible, Jewish pacifism, and so forth. Specific, knowable topics. But to take a 3,000 year old tradition and link it with a enormous concept like violence can only be OR. it is just too big to make sense of.AMuseo (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree that these sort of huge, encompassing topics are just silly. Any time an article is linking two things, it should be clear (from the article and the sources supporting it) that there is a link (real or imagined) between the two subjects. These articles that just list examples of things that share two traits and hint at drawn relationships that reliable sources don't discuss are pure OR. ← George 22:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian drive-by shooting

I believe that the article Palestinian drive-by shooting is largely filled with improper synthesis of published material and have tagged the article and opened a section on the talk page to discuss it. The tag has been edit-warred out of the article but what I feel is synthesis remains. Could editors who understand the rules on synthesis please comment at Talk:Palestinian drive-by shooting#synthesis? Thank you, nableezy - 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the synthesis problems you were originally concerned with have been addressed, with the addition of numerous sources, some of them directly discussing the topic of Palestinian drive-by shooting as a topic, and the others highlighting notable instances of Palestinian drive-by shootings. As compared to the parent article, Drive-by shooting, this article is much better sourced and contains far less, if any, synthesis. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry

A question has come up here about the creation of a coat of arms which is then presented in an article as "the coat of arms" of the subject, how much artistic license is acceptable in that creation, and what might be regarded as original research. Since this is not a subject I'm at all familiar with, and so far I'm the only one talking to the editor who uploaded the coat of arms, I'd appreciate some comments on that thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms are based on blazons, written descriptions of the arms, so there are wide variations in artistic interpretation even with the same blazon. A good example of this is the Royal Arms of the British monarchs, one artist interpreted the blazon here, while another artist came up with this here. So long as the requirements of the blazon are met, it is the coat of arms of the subject, and any drawing based on a written description is not original research. XANDERLIPTAK 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have conceded that the main part of the drawing is a depiction of the written description, but the coat of arms as presented has three small shields at the bottom with images on them, which Xanderliptak describes as "allusions" to Roosevelt's life. The reference Xanderliptak has provided contains no indication that those "allusions" are part of the coat of arms, and he's been unable to provide a reference that does. He also has evaded answering my question about whether the "allusions" have any historical basis, or if they were added to the coat of arms by him. It is the allusions which seem to me to be potentially original research, as they do not appear to be supported by a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I think it would be best if discussion was centralized on the article talk page, since I also posted notices about the issue on WP:AN and on the Heraldry Project talk page. No particular reason to have three discussion when one will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay I added my comment there. I think they should just use the bookplate, it is perfectly adequate without some editor here thinking they are better. Also adding bits to adorn designs in heraldry has come up before and it is synthesis, it is implyig something that is not in the source. It should not be done, the design should be be simple and not adorned in a misleading fashion. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Communist terrorism

Is the lead for this article properly supported by the source or does it present an original interpretation? The source itself does not use the term "Communist/communist", let alone define or even refer to "Communist/communist terrorism". (The source itself is considered reliable.)

WP Article: "Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claimed adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during the revolutionary struggle and also in the consolidation of power after victory".

Source: "Marxist socialism was pragmatic and revolutionary. It was action oriented and was adopted by many revolutionary leaders and movements throughout the 20th century. For example, Vladimie Ilich Lenin in Russia, Mao Zedong in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Fidel Castro in Cuba all based their revolutionary doctrines on Marx's precepts. Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory."

TFD (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see the real source of the term is Karl Kautsky with 'Terrorism and Communism' which is sourced in the article. I not altogether sure the title is a good one or the topic is very well defined but it's not definitely bad. Dmcq (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The basic question here is whether or nor Gus Martin was referring to communists in the context of his discussion on page 218 of his book when he states "Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory". What revolutions was Gus Martin referring to? Gus Martin certainly uses term "communist" several times in the preceding paragraphs on page 218 when he discusses Marxist ideology, the context seems quite clear to whom he is referring to as the adherents of "marxist socialism" and that these adherents resorted to terrorism in both the revolutionary and power consolidation phases. i.e communists. But evidently TFD thinks I am not conveying what Gus Martin is actually saying correctly. --Martin (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede is a literary mess. It vacillates, fails to introduce the subject of the article in the first sentence, and fails to identify social revolutionary terror as distinct from modern "terrorism".

"Martin" is not an adequate citation. Martin is not given in full elsewhere.

Archipelago isn't reliable, it is a literary work.

Radzinsky is quote pecking from an inappropriate work.

"The Black Book Of Communism" is improperly cited. It is a work containing solely authored chapters, with chapters of varying quality.

The topic of this article exists. The coverage is currently weak (Finland? Hungary 1919? Germany 1917?). The lede implies, originally, that revolutionary terror, and the terrorisation of civilians to foment revolution, are the same. (But they should both be under this article. What about the title "Terror in Communist movements", which covers revolutionary terror and terrorism?) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Do the sources group together Joseph Stalin, a Communist who consolidated power using terror, with Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist who killed a U.S. president? Is it the same thing, "Communist/communist terrorism"? Or should Stalin be grouped with other despots, while Oswald is grouped with other sociopathic assassins? TFD (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The best sources are single society case studies, or political inquiries into theory of revolutionary terror. AFAIK, no academic literature links revolutionary terror with modern terrorism. YMMV. If anything, they link modern terrorism with propaganda by the deed. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "terrorisme" appeared in late XVIII without any connection to Communism and denoted what we currently call "state terror". Individual terrorism initially was used by non-Communist revolutionary (initially by Narodnaya Volya and then by Socialist-Revolutionary Party) or by nationalists (e.g. assassination of arch-duke Ferdinand) and was condemned by Communists. Then Communists, as well as other totalitarian societies used state terror to maintain their power. After, or in parallel with that some Communist states organised, or tried to organise acts of sabotage against their opponent states (and these states acted in similar vein). Communist states also organised killings of their political opponents (and some non-Comminist states did the same). Finally some ultra-leftist groups, as well as some rightist or nationalist groups performed a series of terrorist acts against civilian to reach their political goals.

In connection to that, could anyone explain me how some of these tangentially related historical events can be combined in the article named "Communist terrorism" and what is the ground for their grouping according to that trait?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming there's at least one scholarly monograph in the article's bibliography that explicitly draws these connections? If not, AFD for SYN/OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if one monograph would be sufficient. However, AfD would be incorrect, because such a phenomenon as Communist (or leftist) terrorism did exist. What is needed to do is to narrow the article's scope to describe this phenomenon proper.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The book cited by TFD above , and which he asserts is reliable, is extensively cited in TFD's other favourite book, has a good coverage of communist terrorism so I'm not sure why Fifelfoo thinks it is not an adequate citation. --Martin (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean a work who's citation isn't mentioned here, or in the article? For those of us who are slow, and can't convert books links into full citations without actually going to books, pulling out the metadata which is poorly presented for human reading, and then conducting a publisher search

1. Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues Sage 2009.
2. Unknown articles and authors In Organizational and Psychological Aspects of Terrorism Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism Ankara, Turkey, (ed.) Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2008. IOS Press is Scientific, Technical and Medical academic press.

Is Martin 2009 a tertiary textbook, if so, is it aimed at undergraduates or post-graduates? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not quite understand your point. It was fully cited in the article, using the citebook template, until TFD removed it. It was linked here with a URL for convenience in this thread. Is it really that burdensome to your index finger to click through the link to discover the information you need? If Martin is a tertiary textbook, it doesn't appear to be an issue for the Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism which extensively cites Martin in their book Organizational and Psychological Aspects of Terrorism. --Martin (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, namely, how concretely Martin's book combines together the facts listed above (including the facts that Communists invented neither individual terrorism nor state terror, as well as the fact that individual terror was condemned by most Communists). Are you sure that the word "Communist" is not just an adjective here (i.e. "Communist terrorism is a terrorism committed by Communists") and, therefore, the words "Communist terrorism" define any separate single phenomenon?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over "forfeit" vs. "lost"

A dispute has arisen over the use of the word "forfeit" as opposed to "lost". It occurred at 2004 European Open (snooker) over the sentence "White lost the frame after three consecutive misses with a red ball in sight". In snooker if a player makes three consecutive misses (and the cue ball is in sight of a red), he automatically loses the frame. The source says that White made three of those misses and consequently lost the frame; the rules are here. Armbrust changed the wording from "forfeit" to "lost", saying that he lost, not forfeited (see here). I reverted explaining that he both lost and forfeited the frame. Discussion went to Armbrust's talk page where I asked if he would agree on "forced to forfeit", but he didn't as there were no reliable sources saying that he forfeited. My position is that "forfeited" is just a dictionary word and we don't need a source to say that when that word accurately describes what happened in the source. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is NOR fetishism gone mad. This debate may seem petty, but it's a matter of principle. Yes, surely 'forfeit' is better, and on principle it should be used over 'lost'. If we insist that every word has to be literally sourced, the project with become stuck in fast-drying concrete and editorial effectiveness will vanish. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking generally, one "forfeits" a match in pretty much any sport, certainly individual competition, when they are unable to continue, for example, for physical reasons, or on a matter of procedure where they are found to have violated rules. The example here of losing a frame in snooker is no different from automatically losing a frame in pool by inadvertently sinking the 8-ball (assuming that is applicable to the specific game being played)—that is simply losing the frame. Speaking personally, applying the word "forfeit" while logically correct and perhaps more accurate in the absence of context is, in the context of sports, a misapplication of the word in this case as there was neither physical impediment nor transgression of rules. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To bolster what Vecrumba's saying, and to disagree strongly about this being an issue of "NOR fetishism" and even more strongly against misuse of forfeit: The difference between loss and forfeit is not a snooker issue, or even a cue sports matter more generally, at all, but basic and very simple sports terminology, with a quite clear difference. A forfeit is something that you do voluntarily (by declaration, e.g., conceding mid-game because you have to leave your match to deal with an emergency), by default (e.g., because you didn't show up for your game), or by referee declaration (e.g., because you punched your opponent in the face). Forfeits are part of the rules around a game or other contest for its smooth operation, but are not part of the rules of a competition proper. The three consecutive misses rule in snooker, analogous to the three consecutive fouls rule in nine-ball (one probably derives from the other, though which way I'm not sure), is an on-the-table rule of of the game and its play, not an off-table rule about the game and conducting it. Your opponent winning because of a rule of of the game-play, such as the rule in question here, is your loss, not forfeit. A three-miss violation, like its pool counterpart, is especially obviously a loss because either your opponent craftily put you in a position to fail by that rule, or you are less than maximally competent and put yourself there. Either way, that is 100% game play, and 0% competition administration, ergo a loss by definition, and cannot possibly be a forfeit. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over Youtube video content and claim of original research

I am currently in a dispute over at Ergun Caner, where I linked to a Youtube video which shows the subject of the article reciting the Shahada incorrectly, while appearing in an expert capacity. I added an edit remarking that he recited it incorrectly.

Given that Caner has presented himself as an expert on Islam, and there has been considerable controversy over whether he has been honest about his past, I think this is highly relevant.

Does any of this count as original research? As I see it, I'm not advancing a position the video itself does not advance - all I'm stating is the fact that he got this phrase wrong, and explaining what the phrase is. Any help would be much appreciated. 90.209.80.240 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If some source outside has pointed out the problem then it's not original research. If you looked at the video and spotted the problem yourself it is original research. I think about the maximum you could do under WP:Common sense is come to some consensus about cutting down what you say about the video so it doesn't say he actually did it or says he says he did it without stating it as actually having being done, but saying he did it wrong because you looked at the video and think it is wrong is original research. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is definitely original research. You need a third-party reliable source stating that Caner recited the Shahada incorrectly. First Light (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Figure captions in Senkaku Island/Diaoyutai article

Hi experienced wikipedia editors,

I would like to seek your opinions on whether or not a recent edit of mine has violated the "no original research" code of conduct.

Before I start, I present you with a couple of references:

- A discussion in which this is debated

- Disputed figure caption that has been reverted by another user

My argument:

(1) The first sentence of the first disputed caption, was partially reverted. The kept part was "It refers to the islets as the "Senkaku islands in Okinawa"" and the removed part was "without identifying the rightful owner of these islands." It was claimed that the latter is an instance of original research and my view is that it is not. The reason being the removed section is an observation that is equally objective as the kept section. As well, the figure itself had no citation so my stance is that the figure and its entire caption should either be removed or that the entire sentence be kept.

(2) In both captions I appended a sentence that stated the sovereignty status of the referred territories at the referred time. Others claim that it's an instance of synthesis. In some sense one can hypothetically accuse the same of any text with numerous independent facts from different sources by simply citing some arbitrary form of synthesis. I disagree with their views in my case on the grounds that the information provided is simply a general background and did nothing to contradict or alter the point of the previous sentences. At the same time, the information on sovereignty status is crucial because without it may misrepresent the actual contents of the figure. For example, the line about sovereignty status in the second figure will prevent readers from falsely assuming that the Okinawa belonged to Japan at the time when it was in fact in U.S. possession at the time. If we allow that line to be removed, then we run the risk of misleading the readers which may lead to a case of indirect POV pushing. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your additions just give appropriate context to the captions, and are not original research to advance a position. You should back up these well-known facts with sources, though. For example, a source may say that Joseph Stalin was born in Georgia, even though that is an anachronism; Georgia was not independent and so Stalin's infobox says he was born in the Russian Empire. (Ideally, there is an extended discussion of Georgia's status in the main text) Without your additions, the captions subtly suggest that "part of Japanese empire" = "part of Japan", which is not accepted by most people, not least by the Chinese newspaper. Quigley (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this here. Here's a concise logic of my arguments: (1) The figure also does not state the population of the Senkaku islands, the name of the ruler of Japan at the time, or the distance between Tokyo and Milan. That is, there are a million and a half things the picture doesn't state; choosing one of them on your own, particularly to advance a point, is a form of original research. (2) This is exactly the definition of synthesis. One source (the picture) names the location, a second source defines the sovreignty of the islands according to that one source. Combining them together draws a conclusion; that's synthesis. This is exactly analogous to the situation described on the policy page about the UN's mission and the number of wars. To be clear, I would not at all oppose the addition of a third source (probably in the article proper rather than the picture caption, which is not the place to put extended claims) that explicitly made the connection.

In response to Quigley, any time you find yourself putting to sources right next to one another, or adding information not explicitly in a source, in order to "provide context," there's a very good chance that you're engaging either in generic original research or, more specifically, synthesis. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There is a great difference between the U.N. example and this scenario. In the example's case, the two facts have the potential to contradict each other. In my case, the second facts don't - The letter claimed China called addressed the island as part of a Japanese territory and the sovereignty clarification said Japan had possession of this and surrounding territories at that particular time.

However, an issue can arise for those who want to use this particular figure to opine on something that was not implied in the original letter... namely that the islands has always belonged to Japan because a Chinese official addressed it as part of a Japanese province during some time in history. While that second fact in my case still does not in any way directly interfere with this view, it would certainly serve to dispel illusions such as... the letter was written before Japan annexed the entire overseas territory of China. Since pro-Japanese arguments that utilize this letter are quite apparently just some messy patchwork of simple logical fallacies, I am not at all surprised if some would try to somehow throw this clarification out of the window.

As for why this piece of information was added instead of the distance between Tokyo and Milan, it's really just a matter of relevance which can be subjective. If you feel the need to state there are some 4230989 people living in some place at that time, then go ahead although other editors would dispute the addition. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Qwryxian has made some good points. For the moment I don't have anything to add to that. John Smith's (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the first one is not a SYN case, but it's an unnecessary explanation. Once you read the whole Renminribao article, it is clear what China thought about the US administration of Okinawa and other islands including Senkaku and China didn't think the senkaku Islands as their territories. Here is the text of the article. Oda Mari (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing full text. It just renders the alleged WP:SYN void for that particular caption, since the article already addressed that the question of sovereignty of the islands at that time. After reading the article a little bit, it appears that the author of the article also did not think those islands belong to Japan either and that the Americans and Japanese conspired to made the Okinawa island chain an extension to the American military power. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, unfortunately. I'm confused. The article Oda Mari linked to appears to be from 2005. Is that a reprint of the 1953 article, or is a commentary about the 1953 article? In other words, are you saying the 1953 article states that, according to the Japanese author, the Chinese explicitly indicated that Senkaku were a part of Japan? If so, then you are correct that there is no SYN here. The second part still appears to be SYN, unless the author also addressed that. If neither is SYN, then I recommend that we take the whole picture out and instead just deal with this in the text, because the picture doesn't help our understanding, and we need a fuller explanation we can't fit in the caption. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd presume it is no longer meaningful to argue about WP:SYN for this article because there's apparently more to it than the circled part. The article that Oda Mari linked was written in simplified Chinese. It apparently copied and pasted the entire text of the original 1953 article. The second part of the reverted caption was also addressed because the author of the 1953 article was railing about U.S.-imperialism and that the occupation of the Ryuku islands were all a conspiracy of Japan and U.S.

Anyhow, there's definitely something wrong about the original figure because it only presented a portion of the facts which could've easily been used to push a particular POV. In some sense, the other figure suffers from a similar issue although the entire context of the situation was left out in that case. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism (again)

Could editors please comment on this posting by an editor at Talk:Communist terrorism, "Quoting passages from Marx and other leading Communists showing that they advocate terrorism does not constitute "original research" by any accepted standard". TFD (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In the discipline of history and politics, textual analysis constitutes original research by scholars. In terms of wikipedia, close reading of PRIMARY sources, such as Marx's own works, to produce a SYNTHETIC view, "that Marx advocates terrorism" is Original Research. Wikipedians as editors of the encyclopaedia are unable to conduct time scoped and corpus level analysis to draw the scholarly opinion, as this would be original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes by themselves may be presumed to stand on their own two feet. Interpretation beyond what is clearly stated should be done by a secondary source, but quotations are one case where "primary sources" are fully proper. IOW, if John Doe wrote "It is necessary to flog all gum chewers" then that statement is fully proper in a WP article. It is only if one writes "John Doe was opposed to gum chewing" that any faint tint of OR appears. Scholarly analysis is not needed for simple quotations. Collect (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism is one of several Misplaced Pages articles created by anti-Communists to support their views. None of these articles with unencyclopedic titles should be in Misplaced Pages, but a small number of devoted editors have defeated any attempt to remove them. If these people can band together to achieve their aims, cannot we band together to defeat their aims?

The real and undeniable evils committed by various communist governments should be reported, objectively, in the articles on those governments. But Misplaced Pages is no place for articles such as Communist terrorism or, for that matter, Capitalist terrorism, Christian terrorism, or Moslem terrorism. Every nation, political philosophy, and religion has, from time to time, engaged in terrorism. Should we have, in addition to the article on Vikings, an article on Scandinavian Terrorism?

In reference to the specific use of "terror" by Marx, there is a difference between "terror" and what "terrorism" has come to mean today -- the organized killing of civilians with no immediate tactical goal. This is why scholarly analyis is needed, even for simple quotes, especially for quotes in another language, at another time.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. This is not AfD. 2. The argument that it is only nasty anti-communists who add articles is a tad absurd. 3. sourcing issues are dissed on article talk pages. 4. The word "Terrorismus" in German, strangely enough, is translated as "terrorism." German has another word "Terror" for "terro." German and English are not all that different. 5. The question here posed is not answered by any such claims of nasty groups of editors at all. Collect (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement that anti-communists add articles is not logically equivalent to the statement that only anti-communists add articles. The question here is whether anti-communists are using Misplaced Pages to publish their original research. It seems clear to me that they are. And nobody called anti-communists "nasty". That's your contribution to the discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never understood why anti-Communists use exaggeration and dishonesty when discussing Communism. For example they claim that water fluoridation is part of a Communist plot, that Eisenhower was a Communist agent and that the local PTA is run by Communists. This type of writing undermines their message, because normal people wonder if anti-Communist literature is dishonest and paranoid then perhaps Communism is not as bad as they say. TFD (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Most (but not all) of the communist or former communist regimes have failed and led to wide-spread suffering. So in that sense, it's not unreasonable to suspect it may be a bad system. On the other hand, one can also legitimately lay the blame on the prominent communist leaders that were in power. Stalin and Mao, for example, are some of the most ruthless dictators in history who also happen to be powerful enough to set the tone of communism when it first rose to prominence after the Russian Civil War. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But in order to persuade people that Communism is bad, should we make up things we know not to be true, such as the claim that water fluoridation is part of a Communist plot, that Eisenhower was a Communist agent and that the local PTA is run by Communists? In the long run, does this not backfire? TFD (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess I was off on a tangent. Yes, making up stories about anything is bad. And of course, we are kind of seeing similar kinds of stories being told these days. Instead of having the communists as the bad guys, we have Taliban and Al Qaeda Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sipuleucel-T

Requesting additional eyes on Sipuleucel-T as a new user appears deadset on including WP:SYN content regarding the pricing of the drug by pulling in Medicare rules rather than the existing third party sourcing specificly identifying the cost of this treatment. This edit may also indicate that the user has a potential conflict of interest re: cancer treatment articles. Active Banana ( 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

original research examples

hi i was pointed here. i am in the middle of a discussion at the page for Paraprosdokian, where i think that all of the examples listed count as original research since there are no citations showing that they are actually examples of what the article was about. isnt that what original research is? the writer has to decide if they are truly examples for themselves and this causes a lot of problems where people remove and add only because of what they think not because of anything verifiable. please tell me if im wrong in how i see original research thanks. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point, although that's a strict interpretation. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism (Berlin)

Isaiah Berlin wrote the following in Karl Marx:

Still comparatively unknown in England, had grown abroad into a figure of vast fame and notoriety, regarded by some as the instigator of every revolutionary movement in Europe, the fanatical dictator of a world movement pledged to subvert the moral order, the peace, happiness and prosperity of mankind. By these he was represented as the evil genius of the working class, plotting to sap and destroy the peace and morality of civilized society, systematically exploiting the worst passions of the mob, creating grievances where none existed, pouring vinegar in the malcontents' wounds, exacerbating their relations with their employers in order to create the universal chaos in which everyone would lose, and so finally all would be made level at last, the rich and the poor, the bad and the good, the industrious and the idle, the just and the unjust. Others saw in him the most indefatigable and devoted strategist and tactician of labouring classes everywhere, the infallible authority on all theoretical questions, the creator of an irresistible movement designed to overthrow the prevailing rule of injustice and inequality by persuasion or by violence. To them he appeared as an angry and indomitable modern Moses, the leader and saviour of all the insulted and the oppressed, with the milder and more conventional Engels at his side, an Aaron ready to expound his words to the benighted, half-comprehending masses of the proletariat.

Some editors believe that Berlin was saying there are only two ways to view Marx. My reading of this is that he was saying that the influence of Marx was exaggerated, both by his supporters and by detractors. Does anyone have any other ideas about how to read this? TFD (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be referring to a specific historical period, presumably during Marx's lifetime, hence "Still comparatively unknown in England, had grown abroad into a figure of vast fame and notoriety.". The quotation refers to this particular period, which is presumably specified in the book. It doesn't look as though it can be used to imply that Marx's influence "was exaggerated" beyond this particular historical moment. Paul B (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism 2

On Talk:Communist terrorism one editor is saying the following is synth, i should like some outside opinions. The Red Brigades was a marxist/leninist urban terrorist group (sic) and most lethal of all communist organizations It is being said that this does not describe them as Communist/communist terrorists and as such it cant be used to have the Red Brigades in the article mark (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It can be used to say it was communist since the source specifically states that it was a communist organization, but the communist terrorists description would probably be considered synthesis since it's not explicitly stated in the source. When using words like terrorist, I think it should be explicitly stated, word for word, letter by letter, otherwise it shouldn't be included. The fact that this source uses "terrorist" earlier in the source does make it more complicated, but since it's not in conjunction with "communist" it shouldn't be used in that fashion. I would just leave the wording as-is and describe it using the same terms the source does. --13 15:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think i may not have been clear enough, it is being said this source can`t be used to have the red brigades in the article as it does not describe them as a communist terrorist group. His exact words being Again please find a source that calls them Communist/communist terrorists the source does that, does policy actually mean it has to have the two words together? I mean look at the line The Red Brigades was a marxist/leninist urban terrorist group marxisim/leninism is communism after all mark (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1992 book begins "this book examines a particular strain of terrorist group that is found primarily in Western Europe - the 'fighting communist organization' or FCO. For almost a quarter of a century, FCOs have caused politicfal and security problems in Western Europe." The authors were writing about a group of organizations active in the 1970s and 1980s. If we could show that the concept of FCOs had been accepted in the typology of terrorism, then we could write an article called "Fighting communist organizations". Since it has not been accepted, the best we could do is create an article about the book. What we cannot do is change the terminology and then decide to include groups such as the Soviet government that the authors would not have considered to fit into their category. That is why editors should read sources and let them drive article content rather than develop their own theories and seek sources that support them. TFD (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1992 book begins "this book examines a particular strain of terrorist group that is found primarily in Western Europe - the 'fighting communist organization' or FCO and still you say this book does not describe the red brigades as a communist terrorist group? mark (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations 39 hits in that book for red brigades mark (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you recommending that we use the typology in the book and if so then we should change the name to FCOs? TFD (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not mark (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard. We have to discuss it on the WP:NPOVN. The mark's source is reliable, however, other reliable sources exist that call these terrorist groups leftist but not Communist. Since all Communists are leftists, whereas not all leftists are Communists, the story about these terrorist groups belongs to the more general article, namely leftist terrorism, which, for some unexplained reason is currently just a redirect page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

History shows the move - presumably as a result of some discussion (lots of archives). Ask RD232, I suppose. Collect (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Extinction Event Section

The following section is in a edit conflict beween myself and Martin. Is it original research to subtract ICS dates selectively to show repeating interval sets. Is this paragragh original research?

Geologic Chronology

The International Commission on Stratigraphy International Stratigraphic Chart Period dating includes a interleaved sixth period 417Ma interval between Holocene - Silurian (0-416), Oligocene - Ordovician (28-444), start* Maastrichtian - Cambrian (71*-488), and Jurassic - Vendian Ediacaran-Varangian(146-563) unconstrained date. The Carboniferous 417Ma interval pair (703Ma-ago) extends further into Precambrian eons. Carboniferous 286Ma-ago date is circa 1961 thru 1982 geologic dating and is within the Karoo Ice Age. The Cryogenian (or Sturtian-Varangian) Ice Age 800 to 600 million years ago is equivalently constrained at 417 M-years earlier. The Phanerozoic pattern includes the Planetary Equidistant Rupture extending across the Proterozoic, through the Archaean and into Hadean starting at the 4.5Ba ago Moon-forming impact. Hyperthermophile life spawned upward from that event and frequent ocean boiling stages 4.3Ba-ago. The physical environment bounded life on Earth. Starting with CO2-dominated biosphere into the present and Pre-Cambrian global oxygenic Eukaryote plant life photosynthesis. The ISC documents evolution of Eucarya, a unintended compendium of PER and 417Ma Period intervals. 'Physical perturbations break incumbancies, removing dominant life forms, opening opportunities for previous minor groups' . Understandably, major extinction events are common to Period transitions, that represent an environmental biotic evolution process.

Reference: Snelling 1985 Chronology of the Geologic Record; Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications. ISBN 0-632-01285-4.

1991 Kevet, Radan 1991 Complete Periodical Geological Time Table, GeoJournal 24.4 417-420 Kluwer Academic Press.

Rothschild, Adrian 2003, Evolution on Planet Earth, The Impact of the Physical Environment. Academic Press ISBN 0-12-598655-6.

Barrera, Eniqueta, Geology, vol. 22, Issue 10, p.877, Global environmental changes preceding the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: Early-late Maastrichtian transition.(unstable temperature 4 to 7Ma before the KT event).

Morbas (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw on the talk page of Extinction event a perfectly civil and constructive debate about a chart of the events. For someone like me who is only slightly acquainted with geology and palaeontology, the chart would be very useful. Simple arithmetic and tabulation is not usually considered original research. Make sure that you are not slanting the data in any way to make a point. Expect that scientists will be pernickety about details and presentation. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou...I need two more positive votes before I dare put the above paragraph back into the article... Morbas (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor arguing that he can use a book describing Welsh law to make a claim for dynastic succession

At History of Plaid Cymru an editor has added material claiming that Burke's peerage links the Anwyl of Tywyn Family with the now extince House of Aberffraw. His sources do not make this claim. and in fact 3 of the 4 don't even mention the family. His justification is that "I dispute. Burke's Peerage links the direct familial decendents of Owain Gwynedd living today. This is important in the discussion of a restored monarchy in Wales. Source 2 A History of Wales gives more info on the Aberffraw family, their history for Wales, and buttresses Owain Gwynedd and decendents. Source 3 details the laws of succession before the Edwardian Conquest of Wales." (There are 4 sources). One of his references says "^ Lewis, Hurbert; The Ancient Laws of Wales, 1889. Chapter VIII: Royal Succession; Rules to Marriage; Alienation pgs 192–200. According to Hurbert Lewis, though not explicitly codified as such by Hywel Dda, the edling, or Heir apparent, was by convention and custom the eldest son of the prince and entitled to inheirit the position and title as "head of the family" from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certin circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim materinal patromony through their mother in certin circumstances." -- no mention of this family at all - at Talk:Anwyl of Tywyn Family where similar claims have been made about the current head of the Anwyl family, he has just said "who is and is not considered a prince/(petty) king is detailed by Herbert Lewis in "The Ancient Laws of Wales" 1889. Chapter VIII: Royal Succession; Rules to Marriage; Alienation pgs 192–200. According to Hurbert Lewis, though not explicitly codified as such by Hywel Dda, the edling, or Heir apparent, was by convention and custom the eldest son of the prince and entitled to inheirit the position and title as "head of the family" from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certin circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim materinal patromony through their mother in certin circumstances. By this application, the senior legitimate claimet/pretender to the throne of Gwynedd and Wales is the Anwyl of Tywyn family. My response is that sources much make the specific claim, and despite being asked a number of times neither of the two editors making this claim has brought forward any sources making the claim. (There's another issue in that none of this mentions the history of Plaid Cymru, it's just an argument being added to the article that a certain family should be king if Wales had its own king, but with no sources). Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

They need to go and convince somebody to write it in a reliable source first. Currently it is just their own original research and very obviously so. 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No “original research” is being attempted. Good faith edits to illustrate the familial decent from Owain Gwynedd of the “House of Aberffraw” (a term interchangeable with House of Gwynedd, Line of Gwynedd, Line of Rhodri the Great, ect used by historians such as John Davies and John Edward Lloyd, both eminent historians of impeccable credentials, both who cite Herbert Lewis and his extensive research in the matter.) Burkes Peerage reveals the familial relation between that dynastic line to the Anwyl of Tywyn line, and the Anwyl’s connection with the senior royal family of Wales (Davies, Lloyd, others too). Because of their historic connection, mention of the Welsh succession practices is appropriate in the article. No attempt at “original research” is being attempted, but the desire to correctly identify that family in context. At best, further clarification needs to be made (various authors concerned on multiple pages, (“too many cooks in the kitchen” as it were), rather then a rush to judgment. Further time needs to be given for concerned authors to strike the desired tone meeting wiki standards. I am not the only editor involved here, only the most recent Mr Weller wishes to engage with. I have implored him to let myself and others meet discuss with other uninterested (in the subject matter).♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In Mr Weller’s criticism of the research, he cites that the authors do not mention the Anwyl family by direct name. But this is a misunderstanding (I hope) on his part regarding the decent of the various branches of the family (ies). Clearly Davies and Lloyd do not mention Anwyl, a name for that branch of the family, by name because at the time of discussion of the text that particular branch had yet to fork off of the main branch of the family. But it does not … erase their decent or placement thereof as head of that family regarding their familial heritage or significant thereof. Except for Burkes Peerage, no other source has documented this branch of the family in great detail (that is available in England, or online. Such studies may be revealed in the Uni of Wales however)♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Mr. Weller, I believe he is "jumping the gun" and now allowing the various authors to revise said articles in question. I cordially ask for Mr. Weller to remove himself from the discussion for a bit so that said authors may go about the revisions. Of cores, I ask this as a gentleman’s agreement, knowing such restraint on his part would be unenforceable by us, the editors concerned. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim is original research Drachenfyre, not just here but also on the Anwyl article. It seems to be linked to romantic attempt to establish a Welsh Royal Family which is very dubious, even if there is a descent from a cadet branch. --Snowded 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Drachenfyre, please understand that Original research does not mean the material is "wrong". It simply means that the material has not been published before (ie that Misplaced Pages is the "first place of publication" for the material). You need to publish your research elsewhere... and if it becomes generally accepted, it can then be included in Misplaced Pages. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• nod* you all have me at a disadvantage as at the moment I must make an appointment here. But I understand your points. For the history of Plaid page, at present with the most recent reversion there I can be happy. But I wish to further this conversation for the importance of linking the Anwyl of Tywyn family with the House of Aberffraw. But at the moment I must depart and can not continue. Thank you Snowded, and everyone for your comments. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... we will be here when you get back. The answer, however, will be the same. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly synthesis of published material to advance a position not directly taken in that material. He's wanting to take a formula for determining succession from one source, and applying it to a genealogy found in other material, in order to say that the Anwyl of Tywyn family are the heirs to the House of Aberffraw. In order to include that claim at all it would have to appear directly in a reliable source.--Cúchullain /c 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alas - all I can think of os The Short Reign of Pippin IV. Collect (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. He now says he will "email Sion Jobbins" and suggest he publish something on this, presumably at the online journal Cambria Magazine. I'm not sure that would be a RS for a BLP, which this concerns. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be bad faith to presume that he might be seeking to cement some sort of legitimacy for a patent of nobility for himself or his folk? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis on Mad Men episodes article

I've been encountering an editor and an anon IP contributor who insist on adding in in-universe dates for various Man Men episodes. I've argued in discussion that since the episodes themselves are not dated (ie, July 3, 1963, etc.), any application of an editor's historical knowledge constitutes synthesis and original research. They are arguing that the knowledge is common and uncontested. Without citation as to these dates, we are being asked to reply upon one editor's Sherlocking of the episode to glean the date, which I don't think we allow. As well, I personally disagree with a number of these date insertions. I've pointedly asked that either of the users supply reliable sourcing of these dates, to resolve the problem; as yet, they have been unable to so so. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clearly synthetic OR. If they want to publish analytical criticism of the in Universe material, let them find a RS fan magazine. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fan magazines are a morass of crap, for the large part. Though this is clearly not the place to go into detail about it, where is the bar currently set at to be RS? The Midnight Star? The Harry Potter Fan Club? The Hair Club for Men? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I could use a bit of a hand here; I'm getting deluged by folk who have little understanding of synthesis and OR at the article, and its getting tiring reinventing the wheel for some of these folk. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no analytical criticism of "in Universe material." The policy under synthesis clearly states that sources must be juxtaposed such that they advance a new position (ie assert a POV) to constitute a synthesis, and the examples given are entirely dissimilar to the instance at hand, which involves the simple inclusion of uncontroversial dates based on clear and uncontested references.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the editor or anon IP contributor referred to above, but I think Jack Sebastian is entirely wrong here. The "source" Jack is asking for is obviously the primary source itself: the TV episodes under discussion. It's also wrong to say the episodes aren't "dated." This is true only in the sense that the opening scene of the episode doesn't state specifically what day the episode starts. This, obviously, doesn't mean the primary source doesn't provide exact and verifiable knowledge of when the episode was supposed to take place. For example, when an episode ends on the day of the Nixon/Kennedy presidential election, we know that this episode ended on Wednesday November 9, 1960, etc. Aurelstein (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to Aurelstein before, common knowledge is not that common; we require explicit citations for explicit claims, and no reliably-sourced reference has been supplied, despite numerous requests for such.

Aurelstein points to one episode wherein the Nixon/Kennedy election was talked about in passing. However, the episode takes place over several days, wherein the election is but one, unrelated, non-important part (the episode was not about, nor revolved around the event in question).

How can I declare it as unimportant and not germane to the article? Simple: because no source has been cited that discusses it or dates the episode. The user above asks why we cannot use the primary source offered by the episodes as proof of the date, but seems unwilling to realize that at no point is the date ever mentioned. Aurelstein has been told the definition of synthesis as well as original research, but seems unable to grasp how this Sherlocking fits that bill. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jack, I know that you're now very invested in your position, but you have to really try to be a little bit more open-minded and reasonable. The example of the presidential election 1960 makes this very clear. It seems obvious from your above remarks that you are not very familiar with the primary sources. This very episode (Season 1, Episode 12) is called "Nixon v Kennedy". There is a good and detailed summary on this website: http://www.lippsisters.com/season-1-episode-list/episode-112-nixon-vs-kennedy. As mentioned there (and in other synposes), the episode opens on the election date. It depicts what happens in the office of Sterling Cooper that day, into the night and ends the next morning. We therefore know, exactly, that this episode takes place on November 8 and 9, 1960 (as also stated in the webpage I just cited). This is neither original research nor synthesis. Original research means you don't have sources, here we have primary sources and secondary sources. It is also not synthesis, it is simply explicit in the primary source, the episode itself. There is no justifiable reason for deleting this kind of information from Misplaced Pages. No "Sherlocking" is involved in this example. Aurelstein (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack, according to your reading of the synthesis policy, it would unacceptable to note "Peggy's dress is blue," because that would combine observation of the primary source synthesized with outside knowledge of what colors are. By your reading, if no one on the show explicitly says, "Peggy's dress is blue," inclusion of that information is inadmissible. The text of the synthesis policy and the examples given don't support that reading at all. Synthesis involves juxtaposing two sources "to advance a position." It does not bar the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Aurelstein's comment: It isn't an investment in my position; its simply stating wiki policy. It isn't ever about me, so let's stay on target. First of all, your reference as to the "very good and detailed summary" comes from a blog (which we don't reply upon unless they are production set or director's blogs, etc.), self-described as such:

Basket of Kisses: The unofficial blog of AMC's Mad Men. Where all the cool kids meet & greet to talk about Don Draper, Janie Bryant, Christina Hendricks, Jon Hamm, Matthew Weiner, & subtexty things.

Obviously, we cannot use that blog as a reference, but I think its awesome that you're starting to seek out references for dates, even at this late date. Good for you. Keep it up. :)

Re Sylvain1972's comment: Actually, you are misunderstanding how I am applying our synthesis policy in this matter, as well as misapprehending the actual application of that policy. I apologize that, over the course of a week and almost a dozen posts, I haven't been able to adequately illustrate how our synthesis policy actually operates. I'll do it here again.

The observation that Peggy's dress is blue is a general, common observation. We can observe that they smoke and drink; what we cannot do is express a personal assessment as to what brand Peggy's blue dress is, or what brand of liquor or cigarettes they use. Doing so - in the absence of external verification (citation) is original research. In proposing that the episode takes place on a given date - again, without citation - is advancing a position based on the inadequate primary source material added to your personal knowledge of historical events. A blue dress is still blue whether you are from Lincoln Nebraska or Kuala Lumpur. That's common knowledge, and requires no citation because almost everyone knows what blue is. Not everyone knows who Noxon or Kennedy was, or their election (that's true even here in America). In plain fact, you are unable to either provide actual dates of the episodes from explicit mentioning of the dates within the episodes (which excludes the primary source as a reference point), or references about the episode from a reliable source. Not to sound harsh, but what you feel is completely obvious isn't. To accept on its face your assessments about when an episode takes place opens the door to all sorts of nonsense, like some clown asserting that Obama being a foreigner is utterly obvious, or that the Holocaust is a "total" fabrication. Extreme examples, yes, but it's a very slippery slope.

Simply find some reliable sources. If these are as vital as you both seem to think they are, the net should be teeming with them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No Jack, you are misunderstanding the policy and misapplying it. As I have stated repeatedly, citing the text of the actual policy in question, synthesis involves juxtaposing two sources "to advance a position." It does not bar the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Jack your position isn't the wiki position. We're debating your interpretation of the policy. All of us disagree with your interpretation. As for my reference to that blog, you have completely misunderstood. It points to a methodological problem you seem to be having. This whole discussion has nothing to do with original research (and honestly this board is the wrong place to debate it). We're talking here about a work of art. In this case it's not a novel but a TV show but it would be the same for a novel. If you write the wiki-article on a novel that takes place during the battle of Waterloo, what's the best source for a statement that it takes place in 1815? Actually, the best source isn't some authoritative secondary source (although it may be easiest), the best source is the primary source. Here, we're talking about a TV show, and there is some, but limited secondary sourcing about it. But the best sources for what takes place in a TV show is the TV show itself. Now, to escape from this you have come up with the criterion that we can only cite the primary source if the dating is "explicitly" mentioned in the primary source and you seem to have some extremely rigid interpretation of an explicit mention is. But it's an absurd interpretation of the common sense rule of Wiki that sources must explicitly state what they're cited as a source for. Episode 1.12 is explicitly about the 1960 Presidential Election. The date of the baby's birth certificate is explicit in the episode. Rachel Menken says explicitly that Eichmann was arrested in Buenos Aires "last week". All of those are explicit in the sources and all can be used as reliable citations. Saying that the episode mentioned above takes place during the Presidential election 1960 is as obvious as saying that "Paris is the capital of France", to use an example given in the Wiki article on NOR. Neither statement should need a source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for both statements exist. Aurelstein (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aurelstein, you keep trying to reframe the question. The matter before us regards original research and synthesis. We are an encyclopedia - we do not allow you to place your opinions or assessments about a topic within an article - it is one of the most basic principles of Misplaced Pages. For this reason, your categorization of Mad Men as a work of art actually works against you. In the same way that we are not allowed to assess how (or even who) the Mona Lisa was painted without citation, we are not allowed to assess or determine aspects of the series (ie. dates of each episode). That is a plain and simple fact, arrived at by even the most casual of interpretations of our policies.

The criterion I note - that you find so terribly stringent - is that in order to mention the dates that you think that the episode occurred during - require citation by a reliably-sourced reference. Everything in Misplaced Pages does. Additionally, as Mad Men's own production blog fails to mention these dates, it can be reasonably determined that the only ones who feel the dates of the episodes are important are but a small group of fans. Indeed, its the same three or four people that keep commenting about how this is all child's play and connecting the dots.
You point to a viewing within the episode of less than 1.3 seconds of a baby's birth certificate and expect us to consider this primary research. Find a citation; if this is all so very very important to an understanding of the article, then it should be out there. If it is not, please consider that you are asking us to provide undue weight to the date. As any regular viewer of the program would tell you, the background events hardly/barely/rarely determine the story within each episode.
You keep mentioning the JFK assassination and election; the former which - after many requests, someone was finally willing to roll up their sleeves and find. That is to be commended. Insisting that we trust your instincts and detective skills is absolutely not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is preposterous. The duration of the disclosure of Gene's birth date in the primary source is of absolutely no relevance under policy. Nor is your assessment of whether or not it is important. Misplaced Pages policy our basis, not your whims. No further citation is needed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you stating that you don;t need to cite extraordinary claims? Now that is preposterous.

Tell you what, Silvain, maybe be quiet for a while. You've stated your opinion - let's see how some more experienced folk react tot he problem without the rhetoric about how each other. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what Jack - I will not be silenced by you. What I am stating, which is quite clear, is that no citation of an outside source is needed for Gene's birth date when the primary source, ie the show itself, discloses the information explicitly. Whether the shot lasts for 1.3 seconds or ten minutes is totally irrelevant. You are not entitled to unilaterally add new stipulations to the policy.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

These topics and lists are a horrid morass of WP:NOR, but certainly guessing "in-universe" dates of events would be more egregious examples. The primary events portrayed in these shows clearly did not happen in reality, but rather are a work of fiction; therefore, one cannot take for granted that any events in these shows correspond exactly with actual history. Perhaps it's all some alternate history, who knows? Stick to what reliable, secondary sources say. There's been plenty written about Mad Men, go and use that material. Jayjg 06:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for encapsulating the issue and the attendant solution, Jayjg. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Gäp

(an article abour a Tatar cryptolect)

Hi all, This page looks like it may be based on original research - the only supplied link leads to a unrelated page.

I have just the put OR template.

Regards, Borovi4ok

I have actually tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. The one "reference" is a dead link, the page makes a particular point of calling an ethnic area a "high crime area," and the one example sentence given is about crime. I believe this is an attack page disguised as linguistics. As I mentioned on the article's discussion page, the fact that there is no corresponding article in ru.wiki makes me especially suspicious. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I took off my speedy given that the article was created 3 years ago...I still can't find any sources, though, so I switched it to an AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism 3

Does the text correctly reflect the source?

Source: "This deterministic view of history was to leave its mark on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and would be exploited by Marxist-leaning totalitarian regimes to legitimize their actions, including the use of terror".

Text: "The deterministic view of history in Marxism came to be utilized by Marxist regimes to justify terrorism".

TFD (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like proper paraphrase to me. Unless your cavil is that "Marxist leaning totalitarian" != "Marxist? Any closer parallel construction would verge on plagiarism, which no one would think proper. Would your cavil be that you would prefer "government use of terror" instead of the simple "terrorism"? And none of this remotely approaches "original research" which is the focus of this particular noticeboard. Collect (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to not have understood the meanings of the two sentences. The source refers to a style of governing while the text refers to groups committing acts of terrorism, e.g., blowing up buildings. TFD (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are meaning it should be state terrorism rather than just terrorism. I'm not sure that this would be a reasonable change, it refers to regimes, but they didn't restrict it to their own citizens and also such a change might imply that that when they weren't part of a regime they didn't practice terrorism. SO I lean towards saying the paraphrase is okay. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You impute a meaning which is not apparent in the paraphrase. The initial sentence definitely refers to actions by regimes, and not acts by independent groups. If neither cavil was appropriate, then there is no doubt that the paraphrase is accurate, and required by WP to avoid plagiarism. In any case, it is decidely not OR. Collect (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad paraphrase, rewrite to clarify the nature of the terror meant in the original text. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Original scientific works

I don't know if this has been covered before, but are original scientific works considered as a primary or secondary source on the topic they discuss? For example, would Adam Smith's foundational work on economics, The Wealth of Nations, be considered a primary source or secondary source on the topic of economics? What about Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species be a primary or secondary source in regard to the theory of evolution? What about Albert Enstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory? --Martin (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A similar question was discussed in July (either here or on the policy talk page). My point was that primary sources in the field of natural sciences are raw data, researcher's observations etc, and in history they are archival documents. Accordingly, the research articles (where a scholar discusses these data or documents) should be treated as secondary sources. Although this point was supported by some users, other argued that research articles are frequently primary sources if the author discusses his own observations. From memory, we didn't come to a strict criterion, according to which primary and secondary sources are discriminated. The same article may be a primary or secondary source depending on the context it is being used.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense Paul. Thanks for the pointer, I'll check the archives for July to better understand the issues. --Martin (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? The policy does allow the use of Primary sources, after all... we just need to be careful when using them to use them appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these should be considered as (important) primary sources, and used with appropriate caution. One would not, for example, want to present Darwin's erroneous mechanism for heritability (Lamarckism) as being an accurate description of modern, mainstream scientific thought. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it depends. Darwin did not know anything about genetics and the role of populations. But Einstein's writings are very much up today and were never seriously challenged.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Economics should not be considered a scientific discipline, and, moreover, Wealth of the Nations was part of the discourse of 17-19th century political economy, a discourse commonly seen as having a reduced importance, even in contemporary political economy. For economics, it is superceeded, for economic history, it is a primary source. For the economic history of political economists prior to Smith, it is a secondary source, though probably deserving of attribution when used. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What about a source written by a famous scientist in which he comments on some material of another famous scientist? It may be primary in relation to his own work, but is it not secondary as regards verification of matters to do with the other scientist's work. For example, Maxwell writes an equation for electromagnetic force in a paper in 1861. Some say that that paper cannot be used as evidence that Maxwell derived such a force equation. However, what happens if say Heaviside writes a paper in 1889 and derives an electromagnetic force equation and then comments that it is the same as Maxwell's electromagnetic force? Is Heaviside's paper then a secondary source that verifies that Maxwell wrote such a force equation? Here is the exact case in point. See section 5 in this web link On the Electromagnetic Effects due to the Motion of Electrification through a Dielectric. Heaviside derives a magnetic force equation and then states that it is Maxwell's electromagnetic force. Can this be used as a secondary source to verify the fact that Maxwell wrote such an electromagnetic force equation? That force equation appears in Maxwell's own papers in 1861 and 1864 but some say that the original Maxwell papers cannot be used to verify the fact that Maxwell wrote that force equation. But what about the 1889 Heaviside paper? Is it then a secondary source in relation to what Maxwell wrote? David Tombe (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Some say that that paper cannot be used as evidence...". We need not "evidence" but sources. Just tell that Maxwell wrote such a force equation in such year and give a reference to his paper. This is fine per policy and no one would probably object. But everything of importance about famous scientists could be probably found in books.Biophys (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, Thanks for your response. I think that everybody is now pretty well agreed that it is one and the same equation. The problem is that I don't think that there are any secondary sources in existence which draw attention to this fact. Modern physics seems to teach the idea that the Lorentz force originated with Lorentz in the 1890's as an additional electromagnetic equation which compliments Maxwell's equations. And that idea seems to be pretty well ingrained in the scientific community. It is only in recent times, with easy access to on-line copies of Maxwell's original papers that people have started to notice that the Lorentz force equation was already around since at least 1861. See my response below to TFD. David Tombe (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not look at the substance of the dispute. It is fine to tell with supporting refs that equation was first proposed by Maxwell. But it still will be called "Lorentz force" per every physics textbook, or at least this is my understanding of policies. There are other historical cases like this. For example, Cherenkov effect has been theoretically predicted by someone else. Biophys (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, Thanks for your reply. And yes, we would still be calling it the Lorentz force even though everybody now knows that the name is a misnomer. The problem at the article in question has now been largely solved because the facts have now been generally accepted. David Tombe (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Government licensing body reports: original research?

Suppose you have a person who works in a profession that requires a government license in order to legally practice the profession in that person's location. (If it matters, assume we're talking about the United States.)

• If the government licensing body maintains a website where you can look up licenses and determine their status, is that original research?
• If you run such a search, and you come back with a hit that is positively the person you're asking about, and it indicates that the person was subject to an unspecified disciplinary action, is that original research?
• If the licensing body requires you to mail in a request, with or without a fee, to obtain the details on the disciplinary action in question, is that original research?
• Presuming that we still haven't reached original research, given that the detailed report on a professional's disciplinary licensing action says something along the lines of "Respondent X violated law Y by act Z", can that fact be reported in a biography of a living person without being original research? (I know there are a ton of pitfalls here; the question is: is there any conceivable manner in which the information could be used without violating WP:OR?)
• Is there any reason to believe that such a report from a government licensing body would not qualify as a reliable source?

// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

None of this is original research because there is positive proof that the research was done by the licensing authority, not by the Misplaced Pages editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The website of the licensing body might well count as a primary source. If you can provide the context then people may be able to give more detailed advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My main worry would be whether anyone thought this was worth noting about the person as opposed to just being in a register, not sure what policy that comes under. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue has come up before regarding court judgments and opinions. Unless a decision has been published in a newspaper or legal journal then it lacks notability. TFD (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone else has written about the incident, using any online resource is definitely OR at best. Stating that any law has been violated is absolutely SYN at that point, as editors are not supposed to draw any inferences not already drawn by others, and attributed specifically to the person drawing the inference. And do not even considering sending in money for a copy of an incident report - that is OR by any standards, and grossly improper in any WP:BLP. Granted, this has been "bent" in the past, but it ought not have been. Collect (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the New York Times website is no good, because it is an online resource, and the New York Times is no good either, because you paid for it? A licensing authority is somebody else. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reportage on the NYT website is fine, nor is the "you paid for it" a valid cavil - the issue is paying for an official document not available through reporting by a second party (e.g. court filings) for which WP expressly states that they ought not be used. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that I cannot write to the U.S. Government Printing Office and request any data from them on paper, because (a) I might have to pay postage and handling, and (b) I didn't obtain the GPO data from a third party? A "court filing" is not the same thing as an administrative record from an executive-branch agency. For that matter, a "court filing" is not the same thing as a "court document." A filing is a submission by one of the parties in an undecided court case. Those are obviously right out, as they are arguments, not arbitrated statements of fact. However, Misplaced Pages definitely allows the use and citation of court decisions. If we don't allow court decisions, we'll have to utterly gut every law-related article we have. If we don't allow court decisions that someone had to pay for, we'll have to do the same: there's a lot of articles out there that depend on cites that were obtained from Lexis-Nexus, for example. So: how is the result of an administrative process that has the force of law and no right of appeal any different from a court case? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is exactly an "original research" problem, because I think it's actually "unverifiable". The report-by-mail is not properly published. (The information on the website is.) A report-by-mail is much closer to "I'll forward you a copy of the e-mail message" or "you can call the police, and they'll confirm it."

BTW, I have just discovered WP:Published, which may interest some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Written works, videos, photos, etc., copies of which are offered for sale to the general pubic are published. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Legally, you're probably right. But for Misplaced Pages's purposes, I'm not at all convinced that is the case. If so, then every government document that could be procured through a Freedom of Information Act request is already "published". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anything that a member of the public can obtain via a FOIA request would be considered "published", per common sense: by law, it must be made available to the public upon demand, without alteration other than redactions required by law. It makes no sense to say it's unverifiable: any U.S. citizen can make the same FOIA request and get the same documents. That's the very definition of "verifiable." To say otherwise would be like saying that I can't cite a book I happen to own, because no one else has access to my personal copy of the book to verify the citation. Honestly, a public record is untrustworthy because one was sent a copy by a government worker under a legally mandated process that requires fidelity to the original...? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unambiguous information in primary sources

In Maxwell's 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force, equation (77) is identical to the Lorentz force equation albeit that it is written in cartesian coordinates and split into x, y, and z components. Equation (77) can be found on page 342 which is on page 31 of the pdf file. This same equation appears again in the list of eight original Maxwell's equations in his 1864/65 paper . It can be found at page 484 of the original paper on the supplied web link (page 26 of the pdf file). I have never known anybody, apart from one person, who has ever doubted that this equation corresponds mathematically to the Lorentz force equation. I have even read papers in which it has been transcribed into modern vector format, but I don't have any to hand right now.

I read that primary sources are acceptable where the information is unambiguous. Are these two original Maxwell papers satisfactory for the purpose of verifying the fact that Maxwell produced an equation in 1861 which is mathematically identical to the Lorentz force equation? David Tombe (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In order to assist with this enquiry, I should point out that the matter has also been raised at WT:PHYS and one editor there has already expressed his point of view that the two equations are one and the same equation. However, he has also expressed concern that the use of these primary Maxwell sources for the pupose of verification may be in breach of the policy on primary sources. This is the issue which now needs to be clarified. David Tombe (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No you need a secondary source that has made this observation. Here is a link to a search that may help you find a source. TFD (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Existence of equivalency of equations is a matter of individually verifiable fact (the phrase at college was "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer") and is not a question of "primary" or "secondary" source (that sort of argument means one could not cite Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" as it is a primary source, for gosh sakes). Restating an equation is either correct, or it is not correct (one of the few cases where POV does not enter into the discussion at all!) Collect (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In general Collect is right. However, in this case both equations are already published in primary sources, so any source claiming they are equivalent is of necessity a secondary source (unless the source never read the two equations and derived them independently, which is highly unlikely). Also, for purposes of Misplaced Pages, only trivial judgments should be made by editors as to whether two equations are equivalent. Due to the need to clean up vandalism, and the fact that those who do this clean up do not necessarily have university degrees in mathematics, any statement of equivalency that requires sophisticated mathematics to prove should appear in a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, here are links to the two sets of equations: Maxwell's equations#Maxwell's On Physical Lines of Force (1861), Lorentz transformation#Lorentz transformation for frames in standard configuration. Do you think that it is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" that they are the same? TFD (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Look up the use of "del(ta)" in calculus and the use of matrices as a means of calculating "del cross H" - t-shirts used to have Maxwell's equations on them :) . Collect (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I once saw somebody walking along the street with the Lorentz transformations on their T-shirt, and I even recall spotting an E= mc^2 once, but I have never seen anybody going around advertising for Maxwell's equations. That's news to me. David Tombe (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Try dates the Hillel version to 1977 (with Biblical references). They date to Senior House in 1963, which accords with my memory. The equations are often called "Maxwell-Lorentz equations" by the way. is on point and atstes that Tolman showed Maxwell's equations lead to Lorentz' force law (which is further than the claim at issue). Collect (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the original source is used only to say that a factoid (math expression) occurs in the original source, an observation that can be verified mechanically by a robot and involves no thought process or evaluation. It is a statement about the source, not an interpretation of the source. Likewise, references to later works are observations that the same math expression occur there, and as these sources refer back to the first one, there appears to be no interpretation involved in saying that the later sources draw from the earlier. The objections from editors here appear to be directed at resistance to D Tombe, not to the facts. Brews ohare (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Nobody is talking about the Lorentz transformations. We are talking about equation (D) in the original 8 Maxwell's equations, and the fact that it is the same as the Lorentz force equation. That fact has been generally agreed already. The issue is whether or not a primary Maxwell source can be used as illustration to verify this fact. This equation appears in both Maxwell's 1861 paper as equation (77) and in the 1864/65 paper as equation (D). And everybody knows exactly what the modern Lorentz force equation looks like, and anybody with any knowledge of EM will know that the Lorentz force equation corresponds to equation (77)/equation (D) in all important details. The Lorentz transformations on the other hand is a different topic. The Lorentz transformations lead to a relativistic form of the Lorentz force equation when applied to the 4 Heaviside versions of Maxwell's equations. David Tombe (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please present the equations from Maxwell and Lorentz, so that we may see if, as Collect says, it is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" that they are the same thing. TFD (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Free energy suppression, Tom Bearden claims that "the key to over-unity systems was present in the original form of Maxwell's Equations... he claims that part of the equations were deliberately suppressed in their vectorization by... Lorentz.... Bearden claims this was orchestrated by industrialist J.P. Morgan, in order to protect his oil interests." Is this part of the issue here? TFD (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, The modern form of the Lorentz force looks like this,

${\displaystyle \mathbf {F} =q\left(\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} -{\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}-\nabla \psi \right)}$

It has now been generally agreed amongst the physics editors that this is one and the same equation as equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper, and also equation (D) of the original eight Maxwell's equations in the 1864/65 paper. And so that you can see it for yourself, I have now found a German web link which highlights the matter clearly. Have a look at equation (D) in this web link. It shows it in three forms. The form in the final column is identical to the form which I have just printed above. . And I've found another here. This time look at equation 1.4 . The first column shows it in the manner that it appears in Maxwell's original papers. The only difference is that it is expanded into the three x, y, and z, cartesian coordinates, whereas the modern version is in the modern vector notation.

As regards Tom Bearden's claims, I have never understood exactly what he is saying has been removed from the original Maxwell's equations content wise. At one point, I believe that Maxwell attempted to write his equations in quaternion format. I believe that Tom Bearden is saying that the quaternion format contained physics which has now been removed from modern electromagnetism. Everybody knows that the aether has been removed from the original Maxwell's equations, but I don't think that this is the point which Tom Bearden is making. Certainly the modern forms no longer include the Lorentz force equation which was in the original eight. But nevertheless, the Lorentz force equation is still front page in the textbooks alongside Maxwell's equations. It certainly hasn't been suppressed as such, but there does seem to have been some kind of veil drawn over its original origins. It sits beside the modern Maxwell's equations as being an extra equation of electromagnetism that is not catered for by Maxwell's equations, yet the primary sources clearly show that it was one of Maxwell's original equations. David Tombe (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound like a controversy best dealt with by reference to History and Philosophy of Science academic works. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda)

I stumbled across Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda) today, and I think it's pretty much all OR. Question is, what to do about it? I'm tempted to bring it to AFD, but thought I'd stop here first for some guidance. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that what is there is mostly OR. The article should be cut down to what other sources think is interesting. The list of stuff by Carlos Castaneda can form a list of works by him but shouldn't be used as source for the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like no outside source was used even though there is a couple in the external section. It sholud all be thrown away and the article started from scratch I think. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the external links don't really treat Nagualism, a couple mention that Castaneda was a nagual, but nothing more. I took a peek at google, didn't find much. If there are no sources covering Castaneda's version of Nagualism, shouldn't the article be deleted instead of reduced to a stub? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Source conformity check

I think this is a simple matter of checking 12 sentences to see whether the current or proposed version better conforms to the sources. However, I have dealt with one editor who steadfastly affirms the opposite version to mine, and several editors in various fora who have declined to read the sources. I have now lined up current, proposed, and source versions, with links, to make it as easy as possible. There is an unparalleled high heat-light ratio, but I hope the primary issues are boiled down at that link. Please chip in, thank you. JJB 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being the self-same editor who steadfastly affirms the opposite of what John believes. At one point he had something like 20 sentences tagged, one after another, but we've managed to get him to cut back a bit. I'd welcome anyone who wants to come and check out the sources that currently bother him - just about every sentence in one entire section of the article. (And when that's done I guess he'll move on to the next section, and then the next...). The latest posts on the Talk page are here, but to find the references you'll need to go to the article itself, here.PiCo (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why PiCo is guessing about my next behavior: I have steadfastly stuck with attempting to correct one edit set of PiCo's that is now 5 weeks old, and have not expressed an interest in moving to another section of this article. I don't understand why PiCo is providing new links, because my first link above already indicates where all the source links and quotes are. JJB 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry JJ, I'll stop trying to predict your behaviour. For everyone else: John is sincere, he really does believe that the sources quoted in the article don't back up what the article says. So I support his coming here for third-party input. I do, however, rather doubt that many of you are going to be be willing to go through all 12 sentences that are currently causing him distress. To makle it easier, can I suggest we take them one by one? I'll paste in the first sentence that John has problems with, and the source it's based on, and you can look at it and say "yes" or "no" as you see fit. Number 1: "This Israel, identified as a people, was probably located in the northern part of the central highlands." (A word of explanation: the sentence is talking about a reference to an entity named as "Israel" in a 13th century BC inscription from Egypt - hence the phrase "this Israel". The inscription doesn't say exactly where "this Israel" was. John is querying our statement that it was most probably in "the northern part of the central highlands" of modern Palestine/Israel. See page 38 of the source: Niels Peter Lemche, "The Israelites in History and Tradition" (Westminster John Knox, 1998) pp.35-8) So, does the source say northern part of central highlands, yes or no? Answers please on a postcard, or else put them here... PiCo (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, you did not take my hint above about not confusing the matter with new links, but, instead, for the second time, you changed my question and directed users elsewhere than my links. My question is not yes-or-no but current-or-proposed. And my question is certainly not "does the source use the phrase 'northern part'", which would be out of context because of course it does. Point 7 here is the full question and source context, plus one source sentence that came up later on the page. The short version is that Lemche is vague and you are drawing an unsourced conclusion he does not state unequivocally; when he finally uses the passive voice by mentioning "an Israel placed in the northern part" he is not saying he, let alone a majority of scholarship, is doing the placing; in fact he says earlier the placing was done only by Gösta Ahlström.

So, my original question 7 (which you renumber as 1) is: I would change "This Israel, identified as a people, was probably located in the northern part of the central highlands" to more exact "This Israel, identified as a people, tribe, coalition, or territory, was located in the northern part of the central highlands by Gösta Ahlström" (or simply "... was probably located in the central highlands") because source Lemche pp. 37-8 seems to disagree with the "northern part" proposal and present a western- or full-central proposal. To echo something you said last month, I would prefer you sit back and allow editors to review my links as I requested them, so that my questions can be answered rather than questions I didn't ask. But it may be too late. JJB 09:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a genius for cluttering a page up. Ok, if anyone is interested in reading this far, please help John out in whatever way you think best. PiCo (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution