Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 31 March 2008

• ]

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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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}}.

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.

WP:OR claimed in Israel lobby in the United Kingdom

Someone claims that both the intro sentences and the lead off paragraph of the first section are WP:OR Even though both are good faith attempts to summarize a lengthy article, one of many on various aspects of the topic of the existence of such a lobby in the UK. suggestion on non-WP:OR way to state intro.

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying.

In 2002 Dennis Sewell, in an article called "A kosher conspiracy?", alleged the existence of a "Zionist lobby" that included "pro-Israel organizations" and "pro-Israel lobbying." The article detailed pro-Israel efforts of arms trader Shlomo Zabludowicz, allegedly a funder of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) and of Conrad Black, the owner of the conservative British publications Daily Telegraph and Spectator, as well as the Jerusalem Post and his wife Barbara Amiel who they describe as "the enthusiastic Zionist columnist." They wrote "That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent, and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left." However, they concluded "The truth is that the 'Zionist lobby' does exist, but is a clueless bunch."

Carol Moore 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The problem is that the source that is citated for the lead (The line: The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying) does not actually use the term "Israel Lobby" - it uses "Zionist Lobby", which is a slightly different thing. Admittedly, the differences are subtle, but Pro-Israeli is not quite the same as Zionist (and Anti-Israeli is not quite the same thing as Anti-Zionist). Thus, it seems appropriate to tag that sentence as OR.

The second tag (the one that is at the end of the longer paragraph you block quote), however, is not appropriate... the paragraph accurately reflects things stated in the source. It is not OR. It may be POV to have it in the article (since it talks about the Zionist Lobby and not the Israel Lobby) but that is a different question.

So... I have left the first tag and removed the second. However, I have also removed the citation for the lead and added a citation request. You need a source that uses the term "Israel Lobby" to establish that this term is actually used by some reliable source, one which describes it as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain engaged in pro-Israel lobbying". Without such a source it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat what i said on the article talkpage two weeks ago: unless several articles are produced from reliable sources attesting to the presence of an organised, unified lobbying effort on behalf of Israel in the United Kingdom, I will take this article to AFD as OR. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I broke my arm which is slowing down my research and writing on Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. Lost temper with Jayjg today for his deleting subject sentence and paragraph with less than a month notice on WP:OR -- and despite others opinions the second paragraph is not WP:OR -- and while i'm still working on them - and refusing to cooperate to answer question to try to make it a better article. The problem remains despite copious articles referring to an Israel lobby in UK, finding an exact sentence defining it for first sentence is difficult at this point. Summarizing several articles descriptions probably could be done be an expert. It's a matter of time before some one in some RS does so - which means we'd just have to recreate the article all over again. Any help appreciated. Carol Moore 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Looking at my summary again realized that it needed to clarify that the pro-Isral lobby description was the one to be emphasized in an article on that topic. I believe the summarizing is well within WP:OR.

In 2002 Dennis Sewell wrote in The New Statesman about "pro-Israel lobbying" in the United Kingdom by "pro-Israel organizations." (Called "A kosher conspiracy?", the article frequently used the phrase "Zionist lobby" in reference to pro-Israel lobbying.) The article detailed pro-Israel efforts of arms trader Shlomo Zabludowicz, allegedly a funder of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM); of Conrad Black, the owner of the conservative British publications Daily Telegraph and Spectator, as well as the Jerusalem Post, and his wife Barbara Amiel who they describe as "the enthusiastic Zionist columnist"; and various efforts to influence media descriptions of Israel-Palestine related issues. Sewell wrote "That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent, and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left." However, he concluded "The truth is that the 'Zionist lobby' does exist, but is a clueless bunch." REF:Dennis Sewell, A kosher conspiracy?, The New Statesman, January 14, 2002. Carol Moore 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Providing examples of use of a term

A number of editors on an article are searching the internet for specific uses of a term, and then using them as primary sources to advance arguments about the term. I have cited the rather clearly stated argument from WP:NEO:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

I have pointed out that the original research argument is true whether or not the term in question is a neologism. They, however, insist that if a term is used by reliable sources, and is not (in their view) a neologism, then this point no longer applies, and they can search for any number of uses of the term they wish in order to support their thesis. Comments, thoughts? Jayjg 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My first thought is that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary; unless a term (neologism or otherwise) has an established meaning, we're not free to speculate about what it might mean to some people, or how its meaning might be extended.--Leifern (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on context and on the quality of the sources in question. Obviously if the source is itself discussing the use of the term, then that's generally acceptable. But if the situation is one where the editor is pointing to a reliable source's use of the term to then further an original argument, then I'd say that that sounds like synthesis. Can we get a more concrete example of what you're talking about? That might make discussing this easier. Nandesuka (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a nice surprise to see that Jayjg has already started this discussion, since I was on my way here to ask this question from the other point of view. To fill in the facts a bit better, Jayjg has been deleting text from the Jewish lobby page for more than a year with the claim that the term "Jewish lobby" is a "neologism" intended solely as an antisemitic slur (e.g. HERE). He makes this claim even though other editors have found more than a hundred sources from around the world that use it to mean simply what it sounds like: "a political lobby working for the goals of its Jewish members" (in this usage akin to the "gun lobby" or the "health-care lobby").

His claim is that because it is a "neologism" (even though he has produced no source that makes the neologism claim - so this claim is a bit of OR on his part), then there are severe restrictions on the sources that can be allowed in the article - namely that it can only be described in the article as an antisemitic slur. I am one of the editors who has been trying to insert secondary sources (which he claims are primary sources). So I guess I must be one of the editors who he claims is "searching the internet" (when in fact I was most recently checking my local library).

You've asked for an example of the sources Jayjg is deleting. One of my favorites is in fact the Oxford English Dictionary (OED2). This is the paragraph he deleted:

The term "Jewish lobby" has been used to refer to the groups organized in the US and other countries to promote the special interests of their Jewish members. The Oxford English Dictionary uses it in this way to serve as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener: "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby .. backed the Jews".

Not content to remove the OED2, Jayjg moves on to the London Review of Books (maybe he really really doesn't like English scholarly sources???). A more involved example is this paragraph, with a quote cited from the London Review of Books which he claims is a primary source - and he claims is "not discussing the Jewish lobby":

Stephen Walt and co-author John Mearsheimer go further, claiming that a false cry of "antisemitism" is sometimes used as a tactic to stifle criticism of Israel. They write: "No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

There are of course more, but I think this should give you a good idea of what we have been dealing with for the past year. We look forward to an opinion to help resolve this long-standing conflict. Thank you! Jgui (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, but as a general rule it's usually quite difficult to source a claim that a term is a neologism. Unfortunately, this is due to the nature of neologisms: typically very little scholarly discussion exists about the term itself, and they often lack a formal definition, let alone discussion of whether they may be neologisms. I have no opinion regarding whether this specific term is or isn't a neologism, but I thought it important to mention that we may have to rely upon our judgement in this respect.

The usage of the OED source seems dubious at best. To paraphrase heavily, it seems to be saying, "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Misplaced Pages editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." To my eye, that looks suspiciously like original research. In general, we should avoid discussing usage of a term in sources, and should instead rely upon sources that actually discuss the term.

In the case of usage, we're not really using a source as a source, but as raw data for our own analysis. Suppose that we were to write an article entitled "use of language in the Journal of English Literature", in which we analysed word length, mean words per sentence, etc. Even though we're citing perfectly reliable sources, this is quite evidently original research. What's the difference here? To my mind, only the degree to which we're performing the analysis.

Perhaps the most important question is: what does the source actually say about the term?

The second example seems somewhat problematic to me, but could perhaps be used in a different way. As used, the quote seems to be too long and is largely an "example" rather than a "discussion". It could possibly be used in a shorter form to support a statement like "Walt and Mearsheimer state that the term is used by the Israeli media", though I'm not in a position to judge whether that assertion is non-trivial. Jakew (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was all set to believe that it would be impossible to find an OED definition that wasn't an appropriate use, and then you went and proved me wrong. This is a clear misuse of the OED, coupled with an appeal to its authority. The OED in this case doesn't define "Jewish lobby", but rather quotes a third party using it in the context of another definition. So saying "The OED says it, it must be true" is, in this case, disingenuous.

Stepping back for a minute, I think the presence of the term in the OED and the London Review of Books is proof of something, but not necessarily proof of what the term "Jewish lobby" means. I think that if you want to make an argument about what the terms "Jewish lobby" mean, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly defines the term, not infer the meaning from context -- which is original research. That's my personal opinon, anyway. Nandesuka (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In most reliable sources, the term that is used is "Zionist Lobby", not "Jewish Lobby". I think the distinction is both intentional and important. One term implies a political stance, the other a religious one. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. On the other side of the political specrum, not all Anti-Zionists are anti-semetic. The term "Zionist lobby" is definitely not a neologism... the term "Jewish lobby" may be. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

I must say I am very surprised by the reaction here. Perhaps this is because the context of the quote from the OED is not clear. In fact, the OED is defining "lobby", and is defining "special interest lobby", and by extension is defining "Jewish lobby" as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby. This is the context (which I discussed in the Talk page; perhaps more of it is needed in the article):

OED2 p. 1074 definition of "lobby" as a noun; number 3. "In the House of Commons ... chiefly serving for interviews between members and persons not belonging to the House"; c. "In extended use: a sectional interest (see INTEREST sb. 4), a business, cause, or principle supported by a group of people; the group of persons supporting such an interest." Followed by examples of its use in this way as a sectional interest; 1952 from Economist "American interests have maintained their effective lobby against the project"; 1954 ibid. "France has to face powerful colonial lobbies in parlaiment"; 1958 from The Listener "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby backed the Jews"; 1959 ibid. "They even tackled the vested privileges and subsidies of the powerful alcohol lobby"; 1971 Daily Telegraph "The anti-pollution lobby might claim that a spot of exaggeration is justified in such a cause".

You say "as a general rule it's usually quite difficult to source a claim that a term is a neologism", which I think is a fair statement. But doesn't the same argument also apply even more strongly to an adjective phrase which has its meaning exactly as stated, and which has been used in that manner for decades? The phrase consists of the adjective "Jewish" qualifying the noun "lobby", giving us "a lobby for the Jewish", which is exactly how the "Jewish lobby" is being defined in the OED, namely as a lobby for the special-interests of its Jewish members. You are asking us to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term", but that seems to me as silly as asking me to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term" "fast car". Clearly no dictionary will "explicitely" define the phrase "fast car" as "a car that is fast" since its meaning is patently obvious. But does that mean that we should be blocked from using the phrase "fast car" to mean "a car that is fast" in a WP article about "fast cars"?

Your statement that I am "inferring the meaning from context" is very strange to me. In fact I am not "inferring the meaning from context", I am citing its use from the OED to explicitely illustrate a definition of a "special interest lobby". Am I misunderstanding you somehow?

You also paraphrase me as saying "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Misplaced Pages editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." I hope I have shown by giving the full citation from the OED that your paraphrase is clearly inaccurate: that in fact the OED doesn't just "happen" to include the quote: they are using it for the purpose of illustrating what a special interest lobby is, and they are undeniably using it in this way and that the judgement of Misplaced Pages editors is in no way involved.

None of you really discusses the second quote that Jayjg has repeatedly removed with claims of WP:NOR due to WP:NEO except to say "As used, the quote seems to be too long and is largely an 'example' rather than a 'discussion'." I think you will have to agree that the length of the quote is not relevant to whether its use is original research. I would paraphrase that quote as: "There is a lobby, called the "Israel lobby" by us and the "Jewish lobby" by Israeli media, which uses as a tactic a false claim of "antisemitism" to attack anyone who criticises Israel or even mentions that there IS such a lobby". Do you disagree with my paraphrase? And can you explain how you can argue that the quote is an 'example' rather than a 'discussion' when the authors are clearly discussing the use of the term by themselves and by the Israeli media and by the Lobby they are describing? And are you arguing that this paragraph, or at least all but a short portion of it, should be blocked from WP due to a concern about WP:NOR? If so, could you explain where the original research is? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that what you are discussing is a WP:SYNT situation... linking different sources that discuss various terms for lobbying activity all under the heading of "Jewish lobby". Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not a synthesis problem. There's very little synthesis or conclusion left in the article, due to previous objections dealt with long ago. The article is now built almost entirely from quotes assembled by multiple editors. Jayjg (talk · contribs) has gone well beyond objecting to synthesis, to removing multiple citations to reliable sources. Here's an example:

J.J. Goldberg, Editorial Director of the Jewish-American newspaper The Forward, writes that in the United States the "Jewish lobby" was thrust into prominence following the Nixon Administration's sharp shift of American policy towards significant military and foreign aid support for Israel following the 1973 war. Goldberg notes that the "Jewish lobby" predated the Nixon years by decades, playing a leadership role in formulating American policy on issues such as civil rights, separation of church and state, and immigration, guided by a liberalism that was a complex mixture of Jewish tradition, the experience of persecution, and self interest. In a speech in 2004, Goldberg stated: "The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations. The Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, Hadassah, of course, AIPAC." The late Jewish scholar Arthur Hertzberg writes that following the Six-Day War, "he "Jewish lobby" was no longer spoken of in whispers, and its official leaders no longer pretended that they advanced their cause only by gentle persuasion.".

This was deleted by Jayjg (talk · contribs) in this edit, with the comment "(remove original research and unsourced material, in particular material that is not actually about the term "Jewish lobby", per multiple lengthy Talk: page comments. Also, clean up writing)".

That's not "original research". It's cited to death. Three footnotes per paragraph. Removing citations with a claim of "original research" is against policy. Jayjg also deleted other material, to generate an article which matches his point of view. Compare the consensus version with Jayjg's version .

What we're really seeing here is a spillover from an internal dispute within the American Jewish community. On one side there's the traditional, and somewhat liberal, Jewish community, which mostly votes Democratic and has historically focused on domestic US issues, and on the other side there's AIPAC and the neocons, which is tied up with the Republicans and focuses on Israel and Middle East issues. (See Goldberg's "Jewish Power", chapter 3, "The Struggle for the Jewish Soul", for a 1990s summary of the players.) This dispute has spilled over into Misplaced Pages, with Jayjg (talk · contribs) as the main proponent of the AIPAC position. That's why we're in this mess.

So it's not an "original research" issue at all. We're drowning in cited quotes. It's a political problem. --John Nagle (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. I am not a "proponent of the AIPAC position", whatever that is (I have no idea, nor does John Nagle). Please use this page to discuss policy, rather than soapboxing about other editors. Jayjg 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear. Hear. And politics can sabotage cooperative editing and the ability to produce a credible, NPOV encyclopedia. Plus turn people off from editing on other topics. A lot of editors can make money publishing UNsourced opinion elsewhere that would come up higher on internet searches but like the idea of an NPOV forum where we learn good skills and meet editors with similar interests. However abuse of process has and will drive people away. Esp. when it is used to smear people and destroy their lives, as the Jewish Lobby article easily can be -- and probably has been - used to do. I asked a phrase encyclopedia to include "Jewish lobby" - they demurred and wrote back "see wikipedia." Carol Moore 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Indeed, your politics have so far "sabotage cooperative editing and the ability to produce a credible, NPOV encyclopedia." You openly admit you are here to promote some sort of off-Misplaced Pages cause, rather than attempting to build the encyclopedia. Please take your outside causes elsewhere. Jayjg 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, I apologise: when I said "too long" I expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that it was too long compared with the portion of the quote that actually mentioned the subject of the article (which reads: "the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’"), and as a result included a lot of material that was not clearly and explicitly relevant to the subject. Jakew (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to make it clear that controversial issues, in particular, should not be defined by quotes that merely employ the term. Jgui, I think your Walt and Mearsheimer quote is a good example of what not to use. W & M only use the term "Jewish Lobby" in a passing discussion of a group of individuals/groups who lobby for a range of policies. They use variously "the Lobby", "pro-Israel groups", "AIPAC", "Israel Lobby", and finally "America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." They're casting a much wider net than a discussion of the specific tem "Jewish lobby." IronDuke 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has come up many times in many different contexts. I would say that building up a definition of a term based on its casual use by sources is an example of original research. When I say "casual use," I mean in articles that are not about the term or the subject matter, but where the term is simply used in passing. However, if the use is more dedicated i.e. if the articles to be used as sources are about the topic (in this case the Jewish lobby), and if they are high-quality mainstream sources (not sources out to make a political point), then I would say it's not OR, even if the articles are not about the use of the term per se.

As always, where there is doubt about how to use primary sources, and if secondary sources are available, the latter are preferred. SlimVirgin 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed to return here and discover how badly I have been straw manned. Of course, contrary to Jgui's claim, I have not "been deleting text from the Jewish lobby page for more than a year with the claim that the term "Jewish lobby" is a "neologism" intended solely as an antisemitic slur (e.g. HERE)." Rather, as is obvious even from his link, I am objecting to text that is original research and don't even mention "antisemitic slurs". Quite obvious examples can be found in Jgui's latest edit, in which, for example, he inserts arguments such as "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively" based solely on his own reading of primary sources. He also keeps claiming that as long as he uses citations from reliable sources, he can't be doing original research: For example, he claims That's not "original research". It's cited to death. Three footnotes per paragraph. Removing citations with a claim of "original research" is against policy. However, as WP:SYN clearly points out:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

I'm not sure whether jgui, Carol, and John Nagle are deliberately ignoring the WP:NOR policy, but I do know is that they are violating it, and they need to stop. Jayjg 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, it looks like someone has been taking fantasy pills. Lets see what really happened, OK?

Jayjg, you state that I am "straw manning" you (who knew it was a verb?) by referring to your attempts to restrict this article to the use of JL as an antisemitic slur. That wasn't meant to be inflammatory - it was just a statement of fact and is clearly accurate, which is made obvious by comparing your version HERE of the article to mine HERE: your change was to remove a section describing another use of the term (the Descriptive use), and to remove a section with writers who oppose the view that the term is used exclusively as an antisemitic slur (the Antisemitic criticism section). Furthermore, you have made statements in the Talk pages referring to "the sourced claim that the term's use is antisemitic", "use of the term "Jewish lobby" is antisemitic", "Are you going to now claim that ... you can make up your own argument that the term is not antisemitic", etc. Your actions and goals are plainly evident, and its really rather silly that you think you have something to gain by denying it.

Jayjg, you then go on to claim that I am inserting an argument about jewish groups in other countries using the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively "based solely on his own reading of primary sources", when in fact this is clearly supported by M&W and when I immediately cite a Prominent Jewish group (B'nai B'rith) in another country (Australia) using the term descriprively, as Nagle pointed out to you below - unfortunately your quote-mining clipped that out.

Jayjg, you THEN attribute a quote to me THAT I NEVER SAID, certainly not on the JL Talk page (where did that quote come from?). This, I think, says oceans about your ability to carefully and honestly research and represent the views of yourself and other editors.

You close by accusing me of "ignoring the WP:NOR policy" and "violating it" when in fact I am here on this page trying to elucidate and discuss that very policy. And please save your imperious demands to "stop" for someone who is actually violating policy here at WP - perhaps you should look a bit closer to home?

Jayjg, please take those fantasy pills and flush them down the toilet - as Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. And please refrain from attacking other editors for things they haven't done and instead try to focus on the issues being discussed. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, I've explained before, there's no need to start each of your sentences with my userid. Also, what quote did I attribute to you THAT YOU NEVER SAID? In any event, the version I contributed to used only sources that described the term, rather than simply used it. Your "descriptive use" materials were pure original research as many, including G-Dett, have pointed out. You then say that your arguments are supported by your citations; but you consistently ignore the fact that you are bringing examples of uses, and then synthesizing arguments based on those examples, ignoring clear policy, WP:SYN:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Please re-read that paragraph as many times as it takes to assimilate its meaning. Then, whenever you are tempted to find a primary source that uses of the term, and use it to draw your own conclusions, read it again. Keep reading it every time the impulse to do original research with primary sources strikes you. Jayjg 06:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the quote from WP:SYN above truncated by Jayjg (talk · contribs): "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." --John Nagle (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the quote from Jgui (talk · contribs) above truncated by Jayjg (talk · contribs): "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively. For example the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community.""The Media, Stereotypes and the Jewish Lobby"" The exact words of B'nai B'rith are "As such, just as other communities and interest groups have lobbies, there is a ‘Jewish lobby’ – an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community. This Jewish lobby is a player in representative government, and its very existence confirms the ordinary place Jews have within Australian politics. The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power." The shortened version is a reasonable summary of that full quote, properly cited and linked in the article until Jayjg (talk · contribs) deleted it. This should dispose of the "original research" issue with respect to that quote. --John Nagle (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense; the Australian B'nai Brith article nowhere claims that "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively," even though it is used as a citation for that claim; that is Jgui's (and your) thesis, and one not found anywhere in the source. This indeed should "dispose of" the claim that Jgui was not doing original research with respect to that source. Jayjg 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in this dispute for the past couple months and have a different perspective from those expressed above. I broadly agree with the general principle Jay is purporting to apply here, though for slightly different reasons. "Jewish lobby" is obviously not a "neologism," and lacking any sources classifying it as such Jay has naturally failed to convince anyone on the page that it is one. And the criterion he's invoked to make this claim – that the term "Jewish lobby" is not in any "standard dictionaries," so it must be a neologism – obviously doesn't make any sense, because every major unabridged dictionary from the OED on down regularly includes neologisms. My reason for concurring with Jay that the article has to be limited to covering the term itself as it's discussed by secondary sources, is simply this: the phrase is controversial, and considered by many to be tendentious, so a neutral article cannot cover the activities of AIPAC, the AJC, and related groups under the rubric of the "Jewish lobby" since that rubric is contested. And if one accepts that the article has to be about the term rather than the alleged phenomenon, then Jay is obviously right that you cannot – per WP:NOR – simply cull primary-source instances of the term's use; you need secondary sources discussing that use.

Ironically, I had tried and failed elsewhere to convince Jay of the validity of the very principle he's espousing here; Jay had insisted for example that Pallywood – a term arguably more controversial than "Jewish lobby" and certainly more neologistic – could include not only any source that used the term, whether primary or secondary, but also any source that dealt with the alleged phenomenon (Palestinian media manipulation) even if it didn't use the word. And then of course there was the whole "Allegations of apartheid in X" boondoggle – a sprawling mess of OR-articles Jay was cultivating, each of which gathered together primary-source instances of this or that country's practices being likened to apartheid, in order to create a template of "sister" articles appended to the secondary-source-rich Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which Jay had tried and failed to delete. So when I first saw Jay arguing the very OR-principle (secondary sources vs. primary sources) he'd rejected or pretended not to understand elsewhere, I was at first taken aback, then mildly amused; but I soon saw what I thought was an opportunity for precedent-setting collaboration. It was in that spirit that I offered an "outside comment" to the article, expressing support for Jay's position. After all, the same principle I believe applies to articles on blog-slang terms like "Pallywood" or politically controversial analogies like "Israeli apartheid" should also apply to the contested term "Jewish lobby."

Unfortunately, precedent-setting collaboration did not occur. I made my case for a narrow circumscription of the article's mandate, and because I was making the case on solid grounds of neutrality, rather than trying to push a dubious and unsourced claim that the term is a "neologism," I very quickly and successfully enlisted the support of the very editors Jay is now clashing with. All of these editors seemed prepared to limit the article's scope to "meta"-sources – sources discussing the phrase or concept itself – its scope, legitimacy, usefulness, or lack thereof. What stymied consensus and collaboration was not this principle but rather Jay's curious application of it. Any source presenting the term in a negative light was OK with Jay; but with sources like this one that made the case for the term's usefulness and legitimacy –

“No one would read . They used to hide it behind Playboy in the subway,” said Goldberg, now the editor of the Forward, the national Jewish weekly. “We don’t talk about the Jewish lobby. We pretend it doesn’t exist. We pretend we are powerless.”

Goldberg thinks Jews should be honest about the political clout they have acquired since World War II, and in a talk Sunday night at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, he called for an open and frank discussion of the “Jewish lobby” as a positive force in the United States.

– Jay would maintain, to the general bafflement of myself and other editors, that the source was merely using the phrase, not discussing it, and that therefore in this respect Goldberg as a source was no better than Osama bin Laden. In a familiar turn of events, constructive dialogue ground to a halt, and editors have since drifted back to their original camps.

I thus find myself in a peculiar position. I still think Jay is right on the matter of principle; I just wish he'd apply this principle – here and elsewhere – in a meaningful as opposed to tactical and pettifogging way. As for CarolMoore, jgui, John Nagle, et al, I'm not positive we're on the same page in terms of principle (the OED quote for example surely doesn't belong) but I'm positive they're working to improve the article, and I'm inclined to stand back and let them do so.--G-Dett (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I want to emphasize that the reference to "principle" in the last sentence of my post above was intended in its narrow and technical sense – how a particular rule or guideline should be applied with regards to the article in question. I do not mean "principle" in its grand or ethically charged sense. Carol, John, and Jgui are doing excellent work in impeccably good faith, and are showing remarkable patience in the face of obstructionism verging on trolling.--G-Dett (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I'm not sure why you follow me from page to page, posting long diatribes about me. I haven't edited the Pallywood article in over 7 months, ditto for Allegations of Israeli apartheid. You yourself spoke highly approvingly of my attempts to clean up the "Jewish lobby" article, stating User:Jayjg is doing important work right now on the parallel article Jewish lobby; his overdue improvements there should be a model for us here. Specifically, he's emphasized the important distinction between primary-source material that uses the term and secondary source-material that discusses the term itself. Jayjg 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the "me too!" comment, but, well, me too! The article Jewish lobby should only use sources that discuss, in some detail, the influence of various Jewish lobbies around the world. And of course, statements that are not supported by sources at all should be excised. I notice that the "Usage" section of that article begins,

See also: Protocols of the Elders of Zion

For centuries, a key element of antisemitic thought were conspiracy theories that the Jews, as a group, were plotting to control or otherwise influence the world.

This strikes me as a prime example of original research. Is there any indication that the Protocols are generally considered relevant to discussion of Jewish lobbying, or the term "Jewish lobby?" Where are the sources to justify discussion of "a key element of antisemitic thought" in this article? Or are we to apply the most stringent, exacting standards to edits which don't support the "Jewish lobby = antisemitic evil awful slur!" POV, while letting anything through on the other side? <eleland/talkedits> 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean aside from the fact that two of the sources specifically mentioned the Protocols in relation to the term "Jewish lobby"? Only one now, of course, now that Carol has conveniently deleted the part of the quote that mentioned it from the other. That's a neat trick, isn't it? Jayjg 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions. I’ve been watching this page, but am new to this type of discussion and have been hesitant to engage. So therefore, I will provide a new source and asked some questions. The source is the Israel Handbook, by Dave Winter, (1999), ISBN 0658003682 . The section ‘About this book’ on Google book search says, “This guidebook to Israel contains wide-ranging practical information for all visitors from backpackers to pilgrims, backed up with historical details, culture and background information. It includes coverage of all Pilgrim sites.” That is all I know about it, except it is also referenced a few times in Misplaced Pages.

Page 819 of the Israel Handbook, has an apparent ‘background’ section called The ‘Jewish lobby’ in the USA. Please read it for yourselves . I believe it is presented in a reasonably NPOV manner and may have sufficient information to decide on some of the previous questions. I do understand that since only this data, and nothing specific is in the article or talk page already, it may be hard for you to comment specifically, so my questions are of a general nature. Since this reference is not used yet as a source, and believe is appropriate for future inclusion, I present it here to see what happens; I am also interested to better learn how Misplaced Pages works in the real world.

• Does this article discuss the Jewish lobby, or does it just ‘use’ it in passing?
• Does this article ‘describe’ the term Jewish lobby, or say, acknowledge parts of it?
• Is information contained in this blue-linked article of sufficient quality for use as a general (handbook-level) reference in Wiki, for inclusion in the Jewish lobby?
• Are the included references, if used, considered OR regarding the ‘Jewish lobby?
• In the case of Paul Findley, as used in this article, can Findlay be considered as a Primary Source regarding the Jewish lobby?
• Following Findley’s highly documented ‘de-selection’ are his books considered to be from a reliable source, or does he become an author of OR?
• In the case of John Snetsinger’s book, can historical or political science books on a specific historical subject related to the Jewish lobby in historical context be used within the article on the history of the Jewish lobby?
• In the case of Edward Tivnan’s, The Lobby - Jewish political power and American foreign policy, based solely on its reference in this article and the title of his book, would it seem likely to be OR, or a RS?

I understand that some of these questions may seem very basic, but from my personal bias, I tend to find myself within the consensus on the talk page but am having difficulty understanding some editors’ denial or inferred anti-Semitic bias of an important factual topic. I respectfully submit some of these questions, in an effort to head off some future questions at the pass, so they can not be dismissed so easily. I do assume good faith, but on some topics, it becomes more difficult. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Neologism?

Oddly enough, while Carolmooredc, John Nagle, and Jgui have been insisting that "Jewish lobby" is not a neologism, because it was used 30 years ago, elsewhere Carol has described "New antisemitism" as a "neologism": (and others have edit-warred to maintain that description) even though the article itself documents use of the term over 40 years ago, and the Talk: page documents its use as far back as 1860:Talk:New_antisemitism#Data_points_on_usage Very strange. Jayjg 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, you have once again misrepresented the truth. Can you find an example where I (Jgui) have "been insisting JL is not a neologism because it was used 30 years ago"? Please try to be accurate when describing the actions of other editors - it is unfair and unproductive to falsely accuse other editors of things they have not done. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly did you argue it was not a neologism? Jayjg 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so 40 years is the cut off point? I was wondering. ;-) But seriously the bigger issue is double standards on WP:or. Carol Moore 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No, the bigger issue is the constant insertion of WP:OR into the article, along with the double-standards about what qualifies as a "neologism". Jayjg 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to dance the Jayjg dance here, Carol, here are some jigs, steps, and moves to choose from: 1) Type "Please read WP:CIVIL, and focus on edits, not editors." In boldface if you're feeling frisky, like this: Please read WP:CIVIL, and focus on edits, not editors. 2) Type "Yes, double-standards about what qualifies as a 'neologism' are indeed a bigger issue; please stop," or some other variation on I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I. 3) Point out that "new antisemitism" is defined as a "new form of antisemitism on the rise in the 21 century emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel," so it's a little odd to trace its coinage to the 1960s, when two obscures articles using the phrase appeared in the French press. 4) Find some creative way of questioning the credentials of Pierre-André Taguieff, the contemporary writer who cites the two obscure French articles from the 1960s. 5) Type "It's not a neologism? Funny, I don't find it in any standard dictionaries." 6) Beg the question entirely by typing "Please see WP:NEO" or similar.

Or you could opt not to dance the Jayjg dance at all, and just point out that you added the article to a WP:Category for navigation purposes, which is very different from tactically exploiting WP:NEO as a means of limiting content for ideological reasons.--G-Dett (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, as has been explained to you many times, these boards are for specific purposes - in this case, discussing original research. They are not here for the purpose of continually slagging those you dislike. Stop. And adding inappropriate categories to articles doesn't help navigation; moreover, repeating entirely valid and applicable statements about original research from the WP:NEO article, statements which you yourself have agreed with, is not "tactically expoiting" WP:NEO. Jayjg 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There might be a category issue. I took a look at Category:Political neologisms. We could probably drop, as neologisms, ManBearPig (South Park fancruft), Narcokleptocracy (used a few times politically for a brief period around 1980), Robocracy (fancruft), Nanosocialism (explicitly coined in 1996 and didn't get much traction), and Purple America (coined in 2000, and lacks sufficient cites.) But none of those rose to the point of being used much, let alone being politically controversial. They're all far less notable than New antisemitism, which, although coined recently, has a sizable literature. Maybe we should rename that category to "Political terms", with subcategories for the decade of creation. This isn't an "original research" issue, it's a category maintenance issue. --John Nagle (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying Summarizing vs. Original Research

Let's discuss the general issue and how the WP:NOR article can resolve it. Problems in both Jewish lobby and Israel lobby in the United Kingdom‎ are caused because of differences of opinion over whether a summary is vaguely defined "original research" (or sometimes more specifically "synthesis"). And when it comes down to mere opinion the answer is cooperative editing. So what does one do about one or two partisans who subjectively call every summary they don't like WP:OR??

Misplaced Pages:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Start_with_what_you_know ...What we are about is researching and summarizing ideas and information that have already been publicized elsewhere....

Misplaced Pages:NOR#Using_sources - Using Sources: ...A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source....

Misplaced Pages:NOR#Using_sources - Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: ...Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly...

Carol Moore 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I would like to hear more about this as well. Over in Prem Rawat, summarizing a source was described as "conjectural interpretation", following the language in WP:BLP which quotes WP:OR. However, in context the editor was really describing cherry picking of facts, which to my eye would be WP:SYN rather than conjectural interpretation. I wasn't really able to find any guidance about what "conjectural interpretation" means, though. Msalt (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen phrase. But if you can get the source, best thing usually is to re-write material as an NPOV edit. Carol Moore 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Agreed. However, in this case, I think it WAS an NPOV summary. The objecting editor didn't even claim otherwise; s/he seemed to be saying that the simple fact of reducing two articles to a two sentence summary was by definition "conjectural interpretation." Needless to say, I think that is wildly wrong. Exactly what we do is summarize reliable sources. Msalt (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some situations recently where someone has edited an article about a US legal concept or a Supreme Court decision in what I felt was an inappropriate fashion — such as by allowing only an essentially literal quote of the holdings and rejecting (as original research or synthesis) attempts to put the holdings in any sort of context — or insisting on mentioning when a case was cited in another case, quoting something from that other case, and then refusing to allow any addition of context or any other description of the circumstances of the other case that might help the reader to understand what Case B was about or why it cited Case A (again, calling such efforts original research). Examples: Plyler v. Doe (including a quote from U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez without explaining anything about the circumstances of the Verdugo case), and Anchor baby (removal of material explaining the background of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and leaving just an abstract statement of the holding). I've thought in these situations that it was useful (nay, essential) to provide context, based on a common-sense reading and understanding of the case in question, in order for the material to make sense and reduce the risk of its being misunderstood in a POV manner, but I've had WP:OR and WP:SYNTH thrown in my face. Are there any guidelines for what can and can't be done when discussing court cases in a Misplaced Pages article? Richwales (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, you were encouraged to find and provide reliable sources which, in your words, 'put the holdings in any sort of context'. Instead of providing such sources, you made an issue of being expected to do so. The dispuates you are discussing were not over whether 'proper context' should be provided. Rather, they were over whether Misplaced Pages editors should be empowered to take it upon themselves to define what 'proper context' is or whether 'proper context' should be judged by reliable sources (that is, by the same standards other content is judged - WP:NOR being one such standard).-198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a diff from the Plyler v. Doe talk page, illustrating a discussion we had about explaining the context of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez. I felt (and still feel) that my statements supplying background for the "substantial connections" quote from Verdugo-Urquidez were clear from reading the case and required no additional sources; the other editor disagreed.

And here's another diff, from the Anchor baby article; please note the difference in the way these two versions discuss the Wong Kim Ark case. Again, I feel that the first version was a legitimate summarization of Wong Kim Ark which explained why this case is relevant to US citizenship law and tied the case in to the continuing controversy over "birthright citizenship" in US law.

So, again, are there any guidelines for what one can do when summarizing a court case without the summary crossing the line into the realm of original research? Richwales (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Anchor Baby diff you referenced above illustrates what happens when you start using original research to summarize. In the original version, it states, but does not source, that the the Supreme Court found "that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory, and members of Indian tribes". The second version states (and provides a source) that "The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal alien parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment". Note that these two statements are mutually contradictory. Either the Supreme Court never explicitly ruled on birthright citizenship (as per the second - sourced- version) or it did (as per the first - unsourced - version). But more to the point, the issue Misplaced Pages is concerned about is not whether the Supreme Court did or did not do this, but whether an unsourced statement should be treated equally to a sourced one (that is, whether the unsourced statement should stay in the article - in this case because you feel, but cannot source, that it is properly summarizing the court case). I think the answer to that is obvious. There should be no original research in the article.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark went to great lengths to expound the majority's view on how the U.S. had inherited (from English common law) a very narrow view on who might be excluded from being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To give one example, they said the following as a culmination of a long discourse:

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693.)

So the source of my summarization was there — in the court's ruling on the case being discussed. Now, I suppose perhaps I could have explicitly added a note to the text of the article, citing page 693 (or other specific pages) of the court's opinion as my source — and given all the controversy that has arisen, in retrospect I probably should have done that, and maybe this whole argument discussion we're having now might have been avoided. But I assumed that such a note wasn't necessary because the article had already said it was talking about the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case, and anyone who wanted to verify the statement could look up the case, read it, and see for themselves that the claim in the Misplaced Pages article was valid.

Similarly, the context of the "substantial connections with " statement in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez — namely, that the man's only reason for being in the U.S. was that he had been arrested in his native Mexico and extradited to the U.S. to stand trial on drug-lord charges, and that the Supreme Court did not consider this connection to the U.S. to be sufficiently substantial to give him the right to claim the protections of the U.S. Constitution against search-and-seizure activities performed on his property in Mexico — is very clear from the court's opinion in the case. I could, I suppose, have specifically cited U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, where the reader can find the following text:

"JUSTICE STEVENS' concurrence in the judgment takes the view that even though the search took place in Mexico, it is nonetheless governed by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment because respondent was 'lawfully present in the United States . . . even though he was brought and held here against his will.' . . . But this sort of presence - lawful but involuntary - is not of the sort to indicate any substantial connection with our country. . . . When the search of his house in Mexico took place, he had been present in the United States for only a matter of days. We do not think the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the search of premises in Mexico should turn on the fortuitous circumstance of whether the custodian of its nonresident alien owner had or had not transported him to the United States at the time the search was made."

and similar discussions in various other parts of the ruling, which would make it clear to any reader with an understanding of how to do U.S. legal research that this was the context in which the court had made its "substantial connections" statement. But again, I assumed (and still assume) that such a citation of a specific portion of the court's opinion as a source for the summarization in the Misplaced Pages article was not necessary, since the case itself was already explicitly under discussion, and anyone who wanted to verify the claimed summary would already have the tools at hand to do so by looking up the case and studying it for themselves.

If the accepted policy of Misplaced Pages is, in fact, that summarizations of this sort are not sufficiently verifiable, and thus cannot be made, without explicitly noting specific portions of a source text that has already been cited in general as part of the discussion (or perhaps that is the very subject of the article), then OK, I'll try to do that from now on. However, I think that would be an overly burdensome load of bureaucracy to put on editors, for no significant net gain to the quality of the writing in Misplaced Pages, and I think it would establish a risky precedent for (e.g.) articles on topics (such as scientific subjects) where an understanding in both breadth and depth may be required in order to discuss the topic at all intelligibly, and where requiring editors to quote "chapter and verse" for each and every sentence of an article is simply not a reasonable expectation and will drive would-be contributors away to no good end. Richwales (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If the court really did make it as clear as you claim they did, then you should have no trouble at all finding a reliable source which agrees with you that the court made it so clear. The only reliable source which has been provided on the issue states the opposite. Why do you think you are unable to find a source which agrees with you that the court made this so clear and I was able to find a source which states the opposite?-75.179.157.247 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I assume this is the same person making all these different contributions from various IP addresses, right? — but do you think you could please confirm that fact for the other people reading this thread, so everyone will understand that all these different addresses do not represent either (1) several separate editors who all happen to agree, or (2) a single editor engaging in sockpuppetry? This would be another reason, actually, why creating your own Misplaced Pages account (which would, BTW, hide your IP address or addresses from public view) would probably be a good thing if you're going to be doing a lot of editing — though that, to be sure, is probably a discussion belonging somewhere else, and I don't want to distract people unduly and would again be very grateful if some other people who have not yet become involved in this particular OR/sources argument could step in and offer us some outside input. Richwales (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several personal reasons why I don't use an account. Yes, I understand the advantages of using one. However, there are disadvantages to using one as well. Regardless, this is off topic. As for sock puppetry, sock puppetry only becomes a violation when used in a number of prohibited ways (for example, used to vote more than once in a poll, used to engage in disruptive edits, used to artificially stir up controversy, etc.). I don't use IP anon edits in any prohibited manner. I'm very careful to vote only once in polls, I don't use IP anon edits as a cover for disruptive edits, etc. However, this is a side issue. Let's refocus on what this discussion is really about - whether unsourced disputed material belongs in Misplaced Pages articles.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And in addition to "whether unsourced disputed material belongs in Misplaced Pages articles", I want to focus on whether the kinds of material which I've been trying to include, and which you've been disputing, really is sourced or not. I claim it is sourced, because if a court ruling is the topic under discussion, the written record of the ruling itself is the best possible source of what the ruling was about. And I claim that the sort of common sense required to read and understand a court ruling, and to summarize the salient points thereof, is a totally legitimate activity, not "unsourced" and not "original research".

Since we still don't seem to be getting any outside input on this question, and since the basis for the question could involve the question of what sources are reliable (as well as whether sources are present at all), I would propose to stick a note on the "reliable sources" noteboard (WP:RSN) — not necessarily with a view toward moving the discussion off here and over there, but just to alert people there and see if any of them are willing to join the discussion here (or if they really want to take over and pull the discussion onto that other noteboard). I can't take the time to do this right now, but hopefully later tonight. Richwales (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The opinions themselves are primary sources, and the relevant policy reads:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. Do I understand correctly that your anon opponent in this debate has a secondary source which contradicts (at least as regards the status of offspring) what you see as the plain meaning of the primary source? Andyvphil (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize your question was directed to Richwales, but I can answer it.

Yes, a secondary source has been provided which contradicts Richwales' interpretation of what the court case stated. As was mentioned earlier in this thread (12:46, 29 March 2008), "In the original version, it states, but does not source, that the the Supreme Court found "that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory, and members of Indian tribes". The second version states (and provides a source) that "The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal alien parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment". Note that these two statements are mutually contradictory. Either the Supreme Court never explicitly ruled on birthright citizenship (as per the second - sourced- version) or it did (as per the first - unsourced - version)." The source in the second version is a secondary source (The Heritage Guide to the Constitution ISBN 159698001X.).-75.179.153.110 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me first repeat the quote from the majority opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which I mentioned earlier:

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693.) My slip-up for not having mentioned the part about "born on foreign public ships" previously; sorry about that.

I really don't see a fatal contradiction between the above quote (or my summarization thereof) and the commentary about birthright citizenship in the Heritage Foundation's book. Wong Kim Ark did not explicitly address the question of US-born children of illegal immigrants because that wasn't a point at issue in this case: Wong's parents were, at the time of his birth in San Francisco, in the US legally, albeit not US citizens (and in fact ineligible for US naturalization under the laws in effect at the time). So the Heritage book's statement is perfectly OK as far as I can tell. To be sure, I've read some suggestions (albeit mostly in anti-immigration blogs) that any future case involving a US-born child of illegal alien parents would easily and obviously be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark on this point — though, of course, we'll never know about this for certain until/unless such a case actually materializes and is heard and ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

I think a blending of what both of us have been saying would be reasonable and ought to be acceptable, as long as the following points are suitably covered (including sources such as those described below):

• Senator Jacob Howard, in 1866, said in Congress that the newly proposed Fourteenth Amendment would not confer citizenship upon "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States". (This quote can be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2980, May 30, 1866.)

• Despite such assertions by Senator Howard and others (see various comments in the Wong Kim Ark opinion, especially in the dissent), the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship to everyone born in the US, except for the groups mentioned in the above quote from the majority opinion (i.e., children of foreign sovereigns or diplomats, those born on foreign ships, those born in a context of enemy occupation of US territory, and members of Indian tribes). We should note, too, that Indians born in the US were eventually recognized as US citizens via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924; and as for children born on foreign-registered ships in US waters, someone should research that and mention (along with a suitable source) any current law on this point.

• Wong's parents were in the US legally at the time of his birth (this point can, if necessary, be sourced from material in the Wong Kim Ark case), and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case did not explicitly address the question of whether or not a US-born child of illegal immigrants has US citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment (the aforementioned quote from the Heritage Foundation book can be used as a source for this observation).

• Some attempts have been made to have US-born children of illegal aliens declared not to be US citizens — either by bills proposing new federal legislation to define/redefine "jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause (such as H.R. 133 and H.R. 1940 in the current, 110th, Congress, and H.R. 698 and H.R. 3938 in the 109th Congress), or by proposals to amend the Constitution to deny birthright citizenship to such children (such as H.J.Res. 46 in the 110th Congress, and H.J.Res. 46 in the 109th Congress). No such proposal, however, has ever been passed by Congress — or, for that matter, even been voted upon by either house of Congress. It should also be mentioned that if a federal law of this sort were to be enacted by Congress, it is not clear how a future Supreme Court might rule on the constitutionality of such a law.

Comments on this outline proposal? Richwales (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As what I hope is a "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" I see a problem with the "unsourced" version having to do with the appearance of the phrase "including all children here born of resident aliens" in the quoted opinion. Clearly if you simply parse the sentence it is merely an unnecessary appendage that doesn't change the meaning. And the "unsourced" version treats it that way. But that's not necessarily the way Constitutional law works. Witness the Second Amendment, where the appendage-like "militia" phrase is the subject of so much debate. There appears to be a reasonable argument that those born to aliens who are not "resident" have a different status, somehow. And the supposedly exhaustive list of those excluded from birthright citizenship doesn't appear to be an exhaustive list of those born to nonresident aliens. Can you justify excluding this complication from your exegesis without "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" argument? (Or with it, as a matter of interest, rather than OR policy.) Andyvphil (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing topographical maps for Ski area vertical

Particularly in the article Berkshire East Ski Resort a contentious debate has erupted over the citation of topographical maps for ski area vertical drop. One user accuses myself of partaking in NOR claiming that topographical maps cannot be cited. Their claim is that advertised ski area vertical drops are more are more accurate (earlier in the discussion they claimed they were not.)

I put it to the board, can topographical maps (or google earth for that matter) be cited? My methodology of computing vertical is to subtract the lowest point from the highest point.

I am interested in hearing what others who are not involved in this dispute have to say.

The topographical maps I have been using are government issued and I have never seen any dispute over their accuracy except in this situation.

Regards, Bill Dakunta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdakunta (talk • contribs)

• Note--this user appears to be a sockpuppet; see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that something like a USGS topo map is a reliable source... and the calculation is a simple and obvious one that fits the exceptions stated in the policy. Perhaps the solution is to mention both what the map shows, and what the advertized drop is stated to be, without making a judgement as to which is correct. Something like: "According to the Berkshire East Ski Resort, the vertical drop of the Bunny Slope run is 200 feet (cite), while according to the USGS maps the run has a vertical drop of 150 feet (cite)." Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• We have this matter before the WikiProject Ski group, more specifically at the talk page of the template in question - Template_talk:Infobox_ski_area. Ski area vertical drops are published in numerous books, magazines, newspapers, and other citable outlets. While ski areas may be guilty of rounding upward, some more generously than others, picking numbers off 7.5 minute topographic maps where users estimate lifts start and terminate is not an exact measurement by any means. I have suggested that the stat instead be named something along the lines of "Advertised Vertical" or "Published Vertical" and be cited by the top source of North American ski area stats, SnoCountry. Jrclark (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar for giving some insight on this exception. I will bring forth this information to the skiwiki folks. I am not interested in what JRclark has to say as he is obviously one of the disputers. Are there any other opinions out there from folks not involved in this dispute?? User:Willdakunta (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop disguising your posts with pipes as you have been doing; I have removed the piped forgery . Thank you.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: the account that created this post has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes... we understand that he was using a sock puppet... that has been taken into accout. There is no need to mention it repeatedly. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Describing OSs and/or their reference manuals

There is a rather contentious dispute going on in regarding information coming from the screen or the command line of an operating system. I contend that an OS is a primary source whose output may be described by an editor and all the editor has to do is specify the version of the OS that was observed. Others contend this an impermissible violation of WP:OR.

For one example, see ]. I contend that I as an editor can say:

"PC DOS version 3.10 states disk space and file usage in bytes using decimal digits without any prefixes, or for that matter even commas.

without having to post this screen shot, because this sentence is descriptive and anyone having a copy of PC DOS version 3.10 can readily verify this. The fact that there is a screen shot is nice but not necessary.

Disputed statements have been made by an editor, RFST, regarding Solaris, GNU/Linux, Windows and Apple OS X where there are no screen shots. In order to help, I took the time to find manual citations from Solaris and GNU/Linux that confirm the editors description. None the less, this was still opposed as OR - as the opponent said

"This still looks like primary source - it's a man page. Can't you find a reference to someone interpreting this or commenting on it?"

The dispute is well summarized in the following dialog:

"What would satisfy WP:OR is something like "Joe Bloggs, writing in Windows World, notes that Windows Explorer shows file sizes in 2^8 multiples". This flag once was red 

Either Windows does or does not display file sizes in 2 multiples. If it does so, then to say so is descriptive and what Joe Bloggs has to say may or may not be correct. ..."Tom94022

One contention made is that reading a screen or a console requires specialized skill and therefore is not usable. While it is true that not everyone can operate every OSs, I contend that operating an OS is in the skill set of an educated person of this century and certainly reading the console or screen output, regardless of whether u can operate it, is within the skill set of an educated person and requires no specialize knowledge.

Any comment? Tom94022 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no rule against using primary sources. We certainly can cite a manual to confirm that an OS displays memory/disk values in a certain way if that is stated in the manual. *** Crotalus *** 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Crotalus is correct... caution should be used in discussing primary sources... but there is no rule against using them. In fact the policy specifically states that you can use them: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages..." Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• One problem I found was that some of the references took the form "I did this and ran this command; here's the output". This seems to me to be original research. On the other hand, I think reference a manual (i.e. man page) and indicating something like "ls outputs files using 1024 blocks when such and such a switch is used" is fine, since the manual says as much. The problem with screenshots is that they would be displaying output for a particular file; you would need to use inductive reasoning to argue the general case (i.e. that the file properties of a particular file is representative of all files). As such, I'm not convinced this could be considered a legitimate source. Andareed (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• It was me who objected to the man page; I still have some reservations (the page referenced appears to contradict the claim that Linux uses 1024 instead of 1000: "SIZE may be (or may be an integer optionally followed by) one of following: kB 1000, K 1024...", it's less than clear to a layperson, and is less than authorative - though this last argument could be dispensed with by changing the source to, say, GNU) but I'm prepared to accept any consensus. I agree with Andareed that the main concern was that the "references" consisted of screenshots and "speak to your friendly neighbourhood computer whizz, he'll totally agree with what I'm saying, man." I'm also slightly concerned that the arguments of 5 editors are being misrepresented as an opposition to primary sources; my opposition was to the interpretation of those primary sources and the refusal to provide secondary sources supporting those interpretations. Finally, it's worth noting the comment beside the Apple listing: "informed guess because of its Unix ancestry and comments elsewhere, explicit version and similar verification required because unavailable to the author at this time".

 This flag once was red  08:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Scary Movie 2 and Original Research in the form of parody lists

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Scary Movie 3 about whether or not the list of parodies on that article should be included. One side says it should be as it is useful to the article and the rules should be ignored under WP:IAR and the other says it is a) not useful and b) original research (I have split it into 2 points, as there are 2 areas to discuss really). Please can someone come and have a look and see whether the original research part is justified, ie. does allowing the parody lists improve the quality of the page even though they are original research? Thanks -Localzuk 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the discussion is going on at Talk:Scary Movie 2... I have replied there... To summarize: whether it is OR or not is a bit of a grey zone... the solution is to find sources that mention what is being parodied. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake.-Localzuk 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Publisher & Book

On the article Race Differences in Intelligence users are attempting to add an accusation made against the publisher of the book, in what they themselves describe as "exposing potential bias." This potential bias has not been mentioned by any source, they are simply adding material critical of the publisher in an attempt to muddy the book in what they believe is proof of bias or a "complex web of far right activists." The argument against this is, first information about the publisher should not be replicated in each book as its off topic to the book itself, and further that is WP:OR for Wikipedians to attempt to show possible bias in a book without a source stating such bias exists.

The discussion is taking place at Talk:Race_Differences_in_Intelligence#RfC. Additional comments on the page would be welcomed. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:SYN issue to me... I think you would need a source that discusses the bias of the publisher in the context of criticising the book itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple arithmetic considered OR?

Please see discussion between myself and User:DAGwyn here. Basically it comes down to whether simple arithmetic calculations based on verifiable inputs is considered original research. In other words, if a and b are known and verified, then is stating c=a*b considered original research? --WayneMokane (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The multiplication itself is no problem. The first issue is that DAGwyn seems to ask for sources for a and b. The second issue is why the multiplication is being done. If it is being done to support a particular argument, then we need to assess the neutrality of the argument and possibly look for a source that already makes the point the argument is making. Once we have that source, we can probably use it directly instead of making our own argument. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by formation dates

The List of countries by formation dates article is one, big, unreferenced pile of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The information contained in the article bears almost no relation whatsoever with the information on formation dates contained in the actual country articles (which are all very heavily edited & watched; and nearly all well-referenced). Here are two of the more idiotic examples: apparently Denmark (among the oldest still extant states in Europe) acquired its sovereignty in 1945; and South Africa gained its "current form of government" in 1910. The article survived an AFD, but if it is not grabbed by the scruff of the neck then it will have to be nominated for deletion again. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While the list certainly needs serious referencing, this seems to be a content disagreement focused on whether the most recent (re)acquisition of sovereignty, the establishment of the current reigning constitutional government or some other form of indicator should be used for the establishment date. Vassyana (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree... not an OR situation. It is a debate over article structure and the definition of terms. I happen to agree that the current definitions and criteria being used are silly... but that needs to be argued at the list's talk page, not here. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Is this edit original research, in which an editor has gone to the Internet Archive for historical information about Warnborough College? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like to use analogies to answer such questions... Would you ask this question if the editor had gone to a library, found an old print copy of a Warnborough College catalogue that listed exchange programs offered by the college, and cited that? Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the analogy is apt. TimidGuy (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, what about this use of an earlier version of the Misplaced Pages article on Warnborough as a source? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not... Misplaced Pages articles should not be used as a source within Misplaced Pages (see WP:SPS). The only exception to this would be an article about Misplaced Pages. That does not apply in this case. In this case, we have a statement is about what a previous version of the Wanborough College article stated. That is not reliable. I would have to go back through the archives of the article to see why this bit of information was removed since the original was posted... it could be that someone demonstrated that the information was inaccurate, or perhaps someone simply challeged and removed the information for not being cited. But when we get down to brass tacks, it does not matter why the information was removed. If we wish to return this bit of information we need to cite to a reliable external source, not slip it in through the back door by quoting a previous version of the Misplaced Pages article. I have removed it. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Blueboar. Really appreciate your input. (By the way, I still have in mind to draft some material that was discussed for the article on Catholocism and Freemasonry.) TimidGuy (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Veracity of sources

The following quote and source was removed from the "Illegal immigration to the United States]].

Illegal immigrants trying to get to the United States via the Mexican border with southern Arizona are suspected of having caused eight major wildfires in 2004. The fires destroyed 68,413 acres (276.86 km) and cost taxpayers $5.1 million to fight.

with the justification that "The citation was to a site quoting another site, which preferred evidence so weak as to be not worth noting." (by Pingpongabyss). This raises a question I've seen raised elsewhere and that I'd like to see a definitive answer to. Given an otherwise reliable source (the Associated Press is a reliable source on issues of news) should editors be involved in judging the veracity of that source or is doing so original research?-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The original resarch policy only restricts what information may be contained within an article and how it may be presented. Editors are completely permitted to engage in original research in determining what sources should be used or what content should be presented at all. Thus, it would not violated the original research policy to completely leave that allegation out of the article. But given that the associated press article linked to does not seem to explicate its source or evidence, it would violate original research to add a rebuttal to the claim, unless that rebuttal itself comes from a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither adding the source in question, nor removing it violates NOR. Blueboar (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up question: How should sources be treated when they, through general oversimplification or in a pithy summary statement, ultimately misrepresent their material? Part of an ongoing disagreement at Islamic psychological thought (explained at the talk page, but affecting several other articles as well) relates to how certain meaningful terms have been translated, such that they afford erroneous interpretations when read out of context by non-experts. Is the correct action just to leave the NPOV tag up indefinitely? Or is there something more productive that could be done that doesn't also count as OR? At the moment, the edit war is at a stalemate. Some advice about what to do would be welcome. -JTBurman (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If the claim is legitimate that some sources are oversimplifying, then must it not also be the case that some sources do not? Those sources, then, would not disturb you if they were the basis of information in the article. And as an absurdly straightforward example of this, no experienced editor in their right mind would use a kindergarteners' "how the world works" book over a college physics textbook in a physics article. It would be even better if you had reliable sources that criticised the simplistic sources as being overly simplistic, then you could present their claims and attribute the followup claim that they are oversimplifications, followed or preceded of course by the "correct" interpretation. This would be the ideal case, as many people might be reading those oversimplifications, and it's best to explain to them what's up. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarot interpretive material

Many of the articles dealing with the Tarot trump cards, eg. The Magician, have much unsourced material which has not been attributed for almost two years. Is it about time to remove it? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend dropping a line to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Occult. There are tons of books with Tarot interpretations and I'm sure a few of the project members have books on hand. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am trying it now, but if experience taught me anything, is that is these areas it is tough to get cooperation on the respective WikiProject. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the content goes back to the times at wikipedia when inline references weren't considered that essential, which isn't the consensus view today, and the section looks like it was tagged more as a clean-up, To-Do type post-it rather than to resolve a content dispute. I think it's probably source-able but a laborious chore considering this is just one Tarot card article among many with tags to clean up. I'll try to give it a go just to see if we can clean up the tag in this one. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'd love it. I've found some of this actually comes directly from Waite himself, duh :) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Some (older) sources are easily accesed here--BirgitteSB 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Office_Open_XML Licensing

Note: The user who posted this section is currently on Wikibreak. He was the only one arguing this point on the article's talk page, so I don't think anyone else needs to have this question answered. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am taking a break, that doesnt mean I am not interested in the answer to this question. Walter, it is not your place to say that this question, that I asked, doesnt need answering. This page is for people to get answers. So help me, post in another page that I posted on like this again and I will find some place to file a complaint about it. Kilz (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Office_Open_XML Licensing section of the OOXML article I have places a statement by The Software Freedom Law Center. In order to contradict this another editor has placed quotes that he says contradict The Software Freedom Law Center statement. But he does not have a reference that says they contradict The Software Freedom Law Center statement. Only quotes that he has gathered that in his opinion contradict The Software Freedom Law Center statement. I think this is original research as do others. Are we correct? Is this in fact original research? Kilz (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the page such that it no longer says anything about contradiction. (Diff: ) Now it says "Others have a different perspective," before documenting their perspective. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That edit still does not remove the original research or place a reference that would remove the possibility of the orignal research. The dif is to a different section. I would rather have not copied the whole section , but I will copy the part that I believe is original research.

Others have a different perspective. An article in Cover Pages quotes Lawrence Rosen as saying, "I'm pleased that this OSP is compatible with free and open source licenses." Mark Webbink; a lawyer and member of the board of the Software Freedom Law Center, and former employee of Linux vendor Red Hat; has said,

The Software Freedom Law Center statement is directly above this section. The sections above are gathered from different sources. But none of the references in any way place the statements as being made against The Software Freedom Law Center statement. They were all made in 2006. The Software Freedom Law Center statement was made in 2008. There is no reference that says they contradict or have different opinions than The Software Freedom Law Center statement. As I understand WP:NOR they cant by themselves gather quotes and say they contradict or have different opinions compared to The Software Freedom Law Center statement. They need a reference that says it does. They are below The Software Freedom Law Center statement and were placed as clear statements to refute The Software Freedom Law Center statement. If they didnt then there would be no need to have them on the page following The Software Freedom Law Center statement. Kilz (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping someone, any third party, will give me an answer. A shortened form of the question, with the latest version.

Several experts have stated a different perspective. An article in Cover Pages quotes Lawrence Rosen as saying, "I'm pleased that this OSP is compatible with free and open source licenses."

I placed the {{fact}} tag at the end of the problem sentence, but the quote is part of it. An editor clearly wants to use the Lawrence Rosen quote to refute the SFLC statement that is directly before it. Take a look here if you want to see it. Is the use of the quote original research? There is no reference that says the Lawrence Rosen quote is about or in opposition to the SFLC above it, in fact the Lawrence Rosen quote is 2 years older. Kilz (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Radar loop

2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak was nominated for GA. The reviewer suggested more references in the meteorological sypnosis section. I found that a radar loop provided a good reference for the convective mode description. Would this be considered OR? Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis = original research?

I wonder about this example, specifically at Asteroids in astrology#Ceres:

These myths, including the fact that Ceres is the roundest asteroid (it resembles the Moon) signify that in astrology

Reading the policy, it appears this might be the case? --Nate (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Without inline citations, it is hard to say whether it is an original synthesis or is repeating a synthesis made by one of the sources that are listed at the bottom of the article. I would suggest tagging the section in some way. Point out the problem on the talk page and give people time to fix it. It may spark some work on proper citation and improve the article. Blueboar (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, I'll do that. --Nate (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Does referencing a third-party dictionary definition constitute OR?

This is a question about whether linking to a dictionary definition (or a similar source of term definitions) constitutes OR when that dictionary contradicts another source's use of the word.

Specifically, this is about The Exorcist (film) and its use of images that briefly flash on screen. One set of sources call these subliminal images/subliminal edits. Another set of sources refer to them as "semi-subliminal" or "not truly subliminal". In addition to these sources, would further discussion of (and links to) the technical meaning of "subliminal", as presented in dictionaries and psychology texts, be considered OR? -Clueless (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Original synthesis prohibits making the sorts of inferences, "John says X implies A, Bob says X implies B, therefore, John is wrong." So what you're suggesting could be construed as original research. There's a very easy way around that, however, and that's to link to the most relevant Misplaced Pages article on the subject. That way, interested readers can follow the link and find out about all significant interpretations and meanings of the phrase, assuming we actually have a decent article on. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Would it be appropriate, then, to merely point out that "John says X implies A, but Bob says X means B" (without the "therefore, John is wrong")? -Clueless (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that mere juxtaposition of such facts can be a violation of original research if one of the sources is not about the subject of the article. And the reasoning is pretty simple. If a source is being used that actually has nothing to do with the article's subject, than its viewpoint is either entirely irrelevant or it is being used to make an argument it doesn't actually support. And such arguments are precisely what WP:SYN exists to prevent, and it doesn't matter if the argument is explicit or implicit. So in your example above, Bob's opinion on X is either irrelevant or it's being used to suggest that the movie doesn't contain subliminal images, and if Bob never mentioned the movie, we can't use him to make that argument, even if we never go all the way and say it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Someguy1221. That clarifies things :) -Clueless (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Someguy gets it right... but I do want to clarify further... if Bob says "The Exorcist contains subliminal editing" and Joe says "No the Excorcist contains semi-subliminal edits" both opinions can be mentioned in the article on the Excorcist. That is not a synthesis, it is a juxtaposition of facts backed by reliable sources (at least I assume they are reliable). The synthesis would occur by your adding "The Dictionary defines a subliminal edit as 'X'..." Since the dictionary is not specifically defining the term in the context of discussing The Exorcist. By including the dictionary definition you are implying that either Bob or Joe is wrong, even if you don't spell it out. To include the dictionary definition, it would would have to specifically mention The Exorcist in the context of defining the term. The only exception to this would be if either Joe or Bob (the sources) mentioned a specific dictionary's definition in the context of discussing the Exorcist. At which point, that specific dictionary's definition can be discussed further in the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing a dictionary definition is not "original research". Also there's no consensus that "original research by juxtaposition" exists, though there is an essay on the WP:RELEVANCE of what to bring to the article. Though if it was me editing the article, I would simply put "subliminal" in quotes to convey that the images flashed may not technically be "subliminal" in the strict sense and either leave it at that or put an explanation in a footnote. I would also avoid wording like "accused" because it makes it sound like some group made a fuss about the film clips, which I don't know if that is so or not. There was a _lot_ of controversy over subliminal messages in music years ago and we don't want the reader making assumptions about whether that movie was part of that controversy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

Just wanted to share with everyone the most interesting bit of original research I've ever seen: .--Father Goose (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OR in Archaeoastronomy?

If I had realised this board existed sooner then I would have posted here earlier. As it is the debate has got a bit heated, so I'll try and summarise this neutrally.

There are two topics under debate in the Talk:Archaeoastronomy page.

• Is the citation of an article on Metrology being used to support a novel synthesis in the History of Archaeoastronomy section?
• Do the citations of an articles on Kennewick Man and the Solutrean hypothesis support the claims of Barry Fell or is this a novel synthesis? That's discussed in Talk:Archaeoastronomy#Pre-Clovis_Material_does_not_discuss_Archaeoastronomy

It's tied into an RFC which asks if two editors are being abusive and some 3rd party opinion may help.

Thanks to everyone who takes the time to look it over. Alun Salt (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In opposition to Alun Salt, and as the one responsible for posting the RFC on possible abuse, my name is Scott Monahan and I edit under the user name below. Mr. Salt has a tendency to narrowly mischaracterize my citations in, what I believe to be, a systemic and self-serving manner. For example, The battle of the standards: great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1990 is not isolated to Metrology per se. Historian Reisenauer identifies profound academic reformation in British astronomy that put a new face on antiquarianism of the era. Antiquarianism fostered modern archaeoastronomy. This is no leap of faith. It happened. Mr. Salt also enjoys isolating TIME's Who Were The First Americans? article to the controversially-charged Kennewick Man straw man, instead of acknowledging what authors Lemonick and Dorfman say about many other examples of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact that invariably raise the hairs on the backs of mainstream archaeology with a dogma that has kept it in an intellectual straitjacket since Franklin Roosevelt was President. For the record, I have unequivocally renounced in my RFC that the TIME article and (according to Mr. Salt's latest addition herewith, the BBC's Stone Age Columbus - transcript regarding the Solutrean hypothesis), supports the claims of Barry Fell. Yet my protestations do nothing to dissuade my opponent from continuing to deviously twist matters to his own advantage. Can we tolerate such dishonesty and flagrant mischaracterization? I must conclude Mr. Salt either fails to read my Talk remarks, my citations and defenses, or he is too busy advancing his own POV, winning sympathy for camouflaged autocracy and a Good Article attaboy if he can get away with it. He has a pattern of deleting my edits with tortured rationalizations that must somehow make sense to him. He is not the victim here, I assure all. What he and partner Steve McCluskey desire, IMO, is absolute, irrevocable power to lock content. This is fundamentally violative of the spirit of Misplaced Pages, its mission and goals, and must not be allowed to go on unchecked. Breadh2o (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As is all to often the case, in this dispute Original Research has slid over into the kind of Disruptive Editing in which the editor supports his original point of view by complaining about academic archaeologists, who dismiss the diffusionist ideas he shares with Barry Fell. Thus, despite the documented evidence that archaeologists, anthropolgists, and other social scientists play a major role in archaeoastronomy as it is currently practiced, Breadh2o tries to push the POV that his bête noir, the archaeologist, can have nothing to do with archaeoastronomy, which he sees as a struggle against the academic establishment.

Alun and I have struggled to explain to Breadh2o how he could move from original research by turning to relevant secondary sources, but thus far he has not responded in a positive fashion. In a sense it is a shame, since he is familiar with specific aspects of archaeoastronomy expressed in rock art, and I really would like to see him provide documented discussion of those sites and their reception. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have I said that archaeologists should have nothing to do with archaeoastronomy? Of course they have something to do with archaeoastromy. I simply don't think they are qualified to be final arbiters of what counts as fringe and what counts as mainstream due to demonstrable limitations in their ability to evaluate non-indigenous epigraphy and an inability to exhibit impartial judgment regarding a whole host of new discoveries based on an institutional dogmatic rejection of much evidence tied to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I agree archaeology has a say, just not the final say, as you would endorse. The delineation between mainstream and fringe is not a simplistic and distinctive line in the sand. It is a gray area, instead. There are a whole spectrum of opinions, and to address this I chose to introduce articles in some popular periodicals, the BBC and now CBS (in my latest balancing act) that discuss it openly, something I gather you consider to be disruptive. I do insist that astronomy is the root of archaeoastronomy and archaeo-, as a modifier or adjective, is entitled to limited influence in what archaeoastronomy is. As you certainly must recall, Steve, you initiated the section of the article that introduced the attack on Barry Fell with your citation of W. Hunter Lesser's adolescent name-calling skreed. To offset your one-sided POV, I summoned a quote from archaeology professor emeritus David H. Kelley's conditional defense of Fell, "Proto-Tifinagh and Proto-Ogham in the Americas", from the Quarterly Review of Archaeology:

I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported are genuine Celtic ogham. Despite my occasional harsh criticism of Fell's treatment of individual inscriptions, it should be recognized that without Fell's work there would be no ogham problem to perplex us. We need to ask not only what Fell has done wrong in his epigraphy, but also where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World.

But you instantly deleted my stuff, characteristic of the very head-in-the-sand attitude I say that archaeologists exhibit.. We had a bit of an edit skirmish and you quickly agreed to pull your unilateral Fell-bashing in exchange for your rub-out of my defense of Fell. Barry Fell is no longer an issue in the archaeoastronomy article because of your choice to bury it and avoid any embarrassing consequences. You opened the door and you closed it, but I must wonder now, days later, when you and Alun continue to raise it as a red herring, if you want to restore the attack. Otherwise, there is no point in arguing Barry Fell any further. If you do, count on me to try to balance things again. That's how it goes on Misplaced Pages. It is not disruption. It is prevention of a unilateral POV. Why you insist on dragging this somewhat embarrassing faux pas of yours back into the mix now, when its relevancy has expired, betrays some desperation, don't you think? Breadh2o (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Nice bit of name-calling there by you Scott. Glad to see you aren't being dogmatic :-). I've got a copy of AAI by the way, and Clive Ruggles on Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland and Christopher Walker's Astronomy Before the Telescope, so please don't think I am entering this discussion with no knowledge of the subject even though I won't claim to be an expert. I'm with Steve and Alun in this debate.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller is a member of the Archaeology Wikiproject. No surprise about where his sympathy lies. Breadh2o (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The Oxford English Dictionary, p. 1074, 2nd Edition, 1989
2. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: Authors, "The Israel Lobby", London Review of Books, March 23, 2006. Accessed January 21, 2008.
3. Illegal Immigrants Tied to Costly WildfiresAssociated Press, Dateline Tucson, Arizona, September 9, 2002 19 Jul 2004
4. "Microsoft's Open Specification Promise Eases Web Services Patent Concerns". xml.coverpages.org. 2006-09-12.
5. "Microsoft Open Specification Promise".
6. Peter Galli (2006-09-12). "Microsoft Promises Not to Sue over Web Services Specs".
7. "Microsoft's Open Specification Promise Eases Web Services Patent Concerns". xml.coverpages.org. 2006-09-12.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards