Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 30 January 2013

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Historical Jewish Population

• Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons

Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish" can mean different things. Depending on what the questions are, some surveys/censuses might capture people who are jewish in a religious sense, whilst other surveys/censuses might capture people who identify as jewish for cultural or family reasons. (Obviously there's a lot of overlap between the two sets, but they're exactly not the same thing). Is that table comparing like with like? bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs merging with Jewish diaspora, which would then need to be split in another, more logical way. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is OR by Synth, but I partially agree with Itsmejudith that the topic could perhaps be better in a different article. Andrew 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also Jewish population by country as a potential merge target. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If the table just copies numbers from reliable sources it's likely not OR, because it does not reach a novel conclusion, but just collates existing data. The more significant problem with the table is that it is unsourced and therefore fails WP:V. Once sourced, the table should also note what definition of "Jewish" each source used.  Sandstein  00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Combining numbers from different surveys/censuses is almost always synthesis unless the sources give confidence that they were taken on the same basis for the same reasons. I'd also have to doubt the credibility of some of these numbers, such as the 1942 numbers from the Vatican: in the middle of a world war, nobody could possibly collect current, headcount-quality numbers of anything. I should also like to point out that the 1906 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia specifically say that "The accuracy of these figures is doubtful since, as stated above, England and the United States have no religious statistics." A great deal of their article is, in fact, devoted to learned (and generally wise) discussion of the difficulty in obtaining decent data, featuring for instance a table of estimates of the Jewish population of Jerusalem at the time. Picking one column of data out of their article and presenting it without all these many caveats is not really acceptable. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Court protocols as source for allegations

At Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority there is a dispute over what the actual allegations against Mr Assange is. One contention is that the court protocols can be used as sources for the allegations contained in them, while another editor's contention is that it would constitute original Research. (There is also a dispute over what the allegations actually are, and this issue is a part of that dispute) The dispute arose after a revert, and the discussion can be found here: Talk:Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Revert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.161.146 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 January 2013‎

This is a complex issue, not least because we are dealing with two different languages (Swedish and English), two different legal systems (ditto), and a highly-charged case. Whether the actions allegedly carried out by Assange would constitute rape under Swedish law is presumably for the Swedish courts to decide, if it ever comes to court. Whether this would be seen as rape under English law is actually a moot point, as I understand it - the extradition issues would be the same in the case of sexual assault as for rape. As for what Misplaced Pages should say in regard to the allegations, policy seems clear enough - we don't use court documents as sources. But why do we need to anyway? At the moment, Assange hasn't formally been charged with anything, as I understand it. Allegations concerning serious sexual offences have been made, and the Swedish authorities have asked that Assange be extradited for formal questioning. This we can report, using secondary reliable sources, as guidelines suggest. If Assange is indeed ever charged with rape under Swedish law we can report the fact, and also report anything of significance that secondary sources say about whether this might be seen as 'rape' in other jurisdictions - but it wouldn't prevent us from reporting what he'd been charged with under Swedish law. For the moment, the consensus amongst the mainstream media seems to be to be non-specific about potential charges, if for no better reason than that they haven't been laid yet. There is no reason whatsoever for Misplaced Pages to act differently. We aren't here to interpret law. We aren't here to speculate. We should report ('conservatively' according to WP:BLP policy) the facts as deemed of significance by secondary sources - and such sources seem not to use the word 'rape' in relation to the allegations, quite possibly because of the many uncertainties I've outlined. We should do the same. I can see no legitimate reason to do otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Use reliable secondary sources for such stuff - like the New York Times reports at etc. Avoids the entire "Misplaced Pages use of court records" quagmire. Collect (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to help.

(And for signing my previous post for me. I think I read somewhere that when an issue was brought to the noticeboard it should be neutral and unsigned, but I may have confused this with something else.)

Structure

It is, as you say, a complex issue. There are several interconnected problems with it, and it’s hard to untangle them so that they can be solved. I don’t really know how to go about it without the discussion rapidly expanding into several different issues (like on the article talk page).

I find that the different issues are ordered something like this:

1. What is the subject of the article, what kind of claims should be in it?

2. What does policy dictate regarding articles of that type?

3. What is the actual claim, and who/what is the subject of the claim?

4. What does policy dictate regarding claims of that type?

5. What sources are relevant on the subject?

6. What does policy dictate regarding sources of that type?

7. What do those sources say?

The issue I would like to solve here is located in point 6 and 7. (This means, that even if it were to be found that there are no obstacles in these points, obstacles in prior points may render the issue moot anyway. (I obviously don't believe there to be such obstacles. I'm happy to discuss it, but this is probably the wrong place to discuss those issues))

The reason for this is that I suspect it would be a lot easier to find consensus at this level, and therefore a time saver to start here, rather than begin with heavier issues.

For sake of discussion:

2&4 are beside the point.

1: The article is about a legal process, and not Mr A as a person.

3: The claim is "Sweden wants Mr A extradited for allegations X". This is a claim about Sweden, not Mr A. This renders "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." moot. Misplaced Pages:BLPCRIME#Misuse of primary sources

5: The court protocols, press releases, and the "summary to assist the press" are deemed relevant on the subject.

The issues:

6A. Are the court protocols all primary sources?

6B. Is the "Summary to assist the press" (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf) to be considered a primary source?

6C. What does policy say regarding sources in this (narrow) context? I.e. Is it OR to cite the allegations spelled out in the court protocols, the summary, and press-releases?

6D. Does quoting the allegations spelled out in the English court protocols constitute OR?

6E. Does quoting the allegations spelled out in the "Summary to assist the press" constitute OR?

7A. Is it OR to conflate (From the "Summary to assist the press" p 3)

"In respect of Offence 4, Mr Assange contended that whilst rape was a Framework Offence and therefore didn't require dual criminality, the conduct described in the EAW was not fairly and accurately described and that if it had it would not be rape. (para 59)" and "The Court ruled that Mr Assange's objections raised in relation to Offence 4 fail. (paras 104 - 127)" to mean that the alleged conduct is to be regarded as rape according to the court?

My contentions:

6A: The English court protocols are secondary sources, as they reference the allegations in the EAW.

6B: The "Summary to assist the press" is a tertiary source, as it references the English court protocols, which in turn references the EAW

If contentions A and/or B are wrong;

6C: per WP:PRIMARY " primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages"

“A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.”

6D: The court documents are reliably published, and are used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", therefore citing them is OK and does not constitute OR.

6E: The "Summary to assist the press" is reliably published, and is used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", therefore citing it is OK and does not constitute OR.

7A: Mr A claimed it to be not rape, and the court said he was wrong. This is not OR, since it is spelled out, and no interpretation is needed on behalf of the reader.

83.254.161.146 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Court docs are primary sources ("...original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"). The statements in them are from the source of the doc. A secondary source would be an article referencing the court doc, offering context and explanation. Also, please take note of WP:BLPPRIMARY, specifically "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.". Ravensfire (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And please note per "The article is about a legal process, and not Mr A as a person" that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages - not just to articles about persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it policy to treat court documents as primary sources regarding any claim? If that is so, I have misunderstood the policy.

I understood it as Court docs are primary sources regarding claims originating within them.

I based my argument on the fact that the English court documents are not original materials regarding what the allegations by Sweden is (since the Swedish docs are the originals), and that the people in the English courts are not directly involved in the legal process in Sweden.

This point is of minor importance. I won’t concede it just jet, but I would be happy to receive help on interpreting the court document paragraph.

In 6C I argued why I think it’s irrelevant if the sources are primary. What is wrong with that reasoning?

The policy regarding secondary sources is “Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.” No such statement is drawn from the court documents. Therefore there is no absolute need for secondary sources.

"Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

A committed B is an assertion about A

C thinks A committed B is an assertion about C

If A is a living person, this particular policy only applies to the former example.

I agree. WP:BLP policy applies. I have not argued this point. I don't understand what sections within BLP are being violated?

What do you think of the "Summary to assist the press"?

83.254.161.146 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, BLP would apply to A in both examples. If you mention a living person, you've got to consider BLP. C is making an allegation about A thinking something about B - all three can fall under BLP. Ravensfire (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As before: I agree that BLP applies. What I'm arguing is that this particular section within BLP is irrelevant.

Is your point that the quoted text should be interpreted as: ... to support assertions involving a living person?

Thanks again to everybody for all your input. I would however just like to echo that although the current BLP discussion is highly relevant to the issue at large, it was not the issue I turned to this noticeboard about. (I will obviously not insert the sources and material into the article until the issue as a whole has been resolved)

What I would like to resolve is whether the six contentions I named would be considered OR, (and if so: why).

83.254.161.146 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

court documents and statutes are primary sources that are specifically outlined as NOT acceptable as sources for any content in an article about living people. see WP:BLPPRIMARY -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need some specifics here

I'm a little unclear over what exactly needs to be resolved. I would assume that the dispute is that different editors want to put in different versions of what the allegations are. It's important what the various sources are and why they might be giving different versions. If one of the versions is an editor's translation of a document in Swedish, then that one is right out as obvious research: we are inevitably going to prefer an outside source's translation unless it contains an error extraordinarily gross and self-evident to any Swedish reader. Thus we'll never prefer an editor's translation of a court document which is in Swedish.

Looking through the discussion, it seems to me that the "Summary to Assist the Media" published by the British judiciary constitutes a perfectly valid and accurate secondary source. It is recounting what is in the warrant put out by Swedes, and it summarizes the charges as well as justifying that summary through (presumably translated) quotations. Comparing that with the documents in Swedish is Right Out. I see no obstacle to using that summary. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rampant OR by IP

Gospel of the Hebrews‎ is getting WP:OR by an IP - needs help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "Comparison chart" that was added here? Andrew 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's got big problems, starting from the long list of direct citations to scripture. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of thought

The following section from this article is entirely sourced with primary sources (Bible quoations), yet the supplementary statements consists of interpretations of these passages in an attempt to connect them with the article subject (freedom of thought, a term they don't mention themselves):

The obvious impediment to censoring thought is that it is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, and harder to regulate it. Many famous historical works recognize this. The Bible summarizes in Ecclesiastes 8:8: "There is no man that has power over the spirit, to retain it; neither has he power in the day of death." A similar sentiment is expressed in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he likens those who attempt to control the emotions of their neighbours to "the children in the marketplace" who try to produce dancing with a happy song and mourning with a dirge, and then express frustration at their futility in trying to do so (Matthew 11:16). The concept is developed more specifically in the writings of Paul ("For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience ?" 1 Corinthians 10:29.)

I first made aware of the problem of OR July 2011, and have since taken up the subject again, however no reliable secondary sources has been cited in the section. Still User:Til Eulenspiegel reverts my attempt at removing the section in question, claiming that there are lots of sources, yet having himself failed to provide a single one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not true; I added several sources covering this material only yesterday. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You have exactly zero citations to that specific section. The above quote is a direct cut-and-paste from the article. As you can see it contains no citations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? More than enough references to cover this material plus a LOT more was added to the "Further Reading" section, which if you bothered to read first, you might actually know something about this subject. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A "Further reading" section can't substitute inline citations, as policy clearly states: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". You will need to add citations to each of these claims citing a page number in the book or article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Biblical passages may not be interpreted without citing the interpreter source. I removed the offending passages. Also: nothing can be harder than "impossible". Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Saddhiyama's point that 'further reading' can't be considered references. We have guidance on further reading sections, eg "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject". In particular, "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States (Statistical breakdown)

Several editors have brought up similar concerns on the Talk page without any real discussion ensuing, so I am bringing the question here. Most of the article is well referenced, but the section about the statistical breakdown appears to be completely original research. Andrew 03:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted it. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

VFP essay

At Visual FoxPro‎, an IP and new editor have repeatedly added an unreferenced section to the article that appears to be original research. Could someone else take a look at it? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Description of opinion polls results in UK w.r.t. UKIP

Hi all. Recent months have seen the UK Independence Party (UKIP) do better in opinion polls in the UK. UKIP claim to have supplanted another party, the Liberal Democrats, as the third party in British politics. There has been much editing activity around UKIP's rise and how best to reflect this. The particular OR concern here is over how to report and describe the opinion poll data. The key discussions here are at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory. There are various issues here, but the OR one is around text written by Sheffno1gunner that I and some others feel constitutes OR. Sheffno1gunner (and some others) feel it does not. (There is also a somewhat related issue around what to highlight in a table: see Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, although I'm not certain if that counts as an OR issue or not.) Some additional perspectives and thoughts on this would be very valuable to help resolve current disagreements. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 Background Section

The article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 is going through a peer review here. In the peer review, it was suggested that a background section was needed to provide more context to the discussion. However, one user brought up the fact that it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I would ask for your opinion on the subject. Thanks for your time.Casprings (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to Background section: Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012#Background

Link to peer review

Link to allegation of WP:OR on article talk page Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012#Background

FiachraByrne (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the article is in relation to the 2012 election. The background is not the background of the 2012 election and the view of rape related pregnacies, it is a research view of the question of rape related pregnacies. I have written enough papers to see the clear research presentation in this section. In a research paper it would be called the lit review aspect of the research. By creating this section you are in effect writing a research paper on the this article. Hence this section is contributing to Original Research. Furthermore you are trying to link previous research to this event which is Synthesis of Material. Simply put, any information included must be relevant to the article and specifically mention the effect regarding the 2012 election. The big problem the approach being done here is that you, the editor, is framing the background outside of the scope of the article. If Casprings wants to write a research paper, I suggest he/she do it somewhere else, and the get it published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that Azrel hasn't constructed an argument that is pertinent to any existing wikipedian policy, much less to that of original research or synthesis as defined on the relevant policy pages. This is an individual interpretation of what constitutes original research and as such Community consensus is required before seeking to apply it at individual articles.

Azrel has also introduced a distinction between what they think is appropriate for inclusion in the background to a given article without actually defining the basis for that distinction in any meaningful terms (other than their assertion that they are somehow able to identify said distinction having "written enough papers").

That the material is relevant for inclusion in such a section is determined in the first instance by its presence in reliable sources and not by the idiosyncratic interpretation of what is germane as advanced by individual editors. The sources, cited in the section additions, have identified the theories of Mecklenburg and Willke as pertinent to the topic of this article. In terms of improving the article, they make the controversy more rather than less intelligible and provide much needed context for the reader.

The additional statements that the theories of the Mecklenburg and Willke are "medically inaccurate" and without scientific validity is derived from policy relating to WP:FRINGE - as these are demonstrably pseudoscientific medical theories it is necessary for the article to state that fact per WP:FRINGE/PS on the basis of reliable and authoritative medical sources per WP:MEDRS. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FiachraByrne; I could not have said it better. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you FiachraBryne for showing a great example of WP:TRUTH and to Both for showing your bias. FiachraBryne is obviously incapable of peer review for this paper as shown by their comments above. Furthermore has clearly stated that this section is exactly what I said it was. WP is not the place to write your research papers. Arzel (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again this is assertion without argument. If you have a case, outline it please with reference to the actual sources used and relevant wikipedia policy. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see any synthesis in the contested section. The section is largely constructed around a skeleton provided by an article from the Seattle Times, with examples of similar cases in the past. All of the MSM sources I checked relate these statements to Akin, so there's no question that this is material that is not thought relevant to the case in question. The material is obviously helpful to me in placing the controversy in a historical context. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss these issues when reporting the various 'rape and pregnancy' controversies, then the Misplaced Pages article should discuss these issues as well (referencing both the news articles and the academic research articles). It's what I would expect from an encyclopedia article. FurrySings (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources stating an opinion about what they think is the relationship is entirely different than using those same sources to make a factual link between events. It is clear that the editors of this article are trying to take these opinions to make a factual link and as a result are writing a research paper. If WP editors wish to write research papers, then they should follow the proper protocols, but WP is not the place to publish it. Arzel (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1. You still use no policy to back up your argument. 2. I am at a loss to understand your "research paper" argument. 3. What is a background section supposed to have in it if not something that provides context, and is commented on by WP:RS as giving context.Casprings (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The background has absolutely no link to the 2012 section. You seem to confuse the opinions of some with actual linkage. WP is not the place to promote new linkages (ie OR). Perhaps this is an underlying fault of too many college and high school students trying to use WP to write their HS and College papers. Activist editors like yourself only compound the problem. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis deaths?

Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you. petrarchan47tc 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance, I'd say no. I'm not familiar with the journal, so I'm not sure if it's considered reliable. But, from the abstract, all they're saying is that THC was present when the person had a heart attack. They aren't concluding that it was the cause, just noting the correlation. That's not enough to be included in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Can I copy your note to the RfC? (I doubt anyone will see it here.) petrarchan47tc 19:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

History of the metric system

Can OR experts please review the above mentioned article and help to decide whether it fully complies with the WP:OR policy.

It contains many statements which are not directly supported by a specific reliable source, but which are based on personal interpretation and extrapolation from one or two sample sources. Examples include:

• "The origins of the metric system date back to the sixteenth century when Simon Stevin published details of his decimal notation," - no specific cited source says that, the editor seems to have concluded that for himself.
• "Since then writers have also focussed on Wilkins' proposals;" - no specific cited source says that, the editor has concluded that because he has found a 2012 source that focusses on Wilkins.
• "Most writers credit the Flemish mathematician Simon Stevin with introducing the decimal system into general use in Europe." - no specific cited source says that, the author has concluded "most", because he has found some that do.
• "In contrast, in England the Magna Carta (1215) had stipulated that "there shall be one unit of measure throughout the realm"." - added, per talk page comment because "the point being made was that whereas France had thousands of units of measure - the pied varied from town to town (depending on how the lord could fleece the peasants), England had the principal (not alweays followed) of one unit of measure", but with no specific cited source saying that.
• "Wilkins was raised to the episcopacy a few months after his book was published, and devoted the remaining four years of his life to his ecclesiastical duties." - was added because "its only impact is to show why Wilikins did not follow up his Essay", with no source to support that reasoning.
• "Interest in Wilkins' Essay was confined mainly to those interested in the field of onomasiology: for example..." - personal, unsourced, conjecture.
• "British commentators of the Essay devoted little space to Wilkins' proposals of measurement;" - not directly sourced, but a personal conclusion.
• "there is little evidence to show whether or not Jefferson or the French Revolutionary leaders derived their concept of defining unit mass in terms of a unit volume of water independently of Wilkins." - not sourced, but based on personal conclusions.

Additionally, when questioned about the reliability of a self-published blog, the editor replied on the talk page: "As regards the reliability of his 2007 publication - how "reliable" was the small boy who shouted "Why isn't there emperor wearing any clothes?"

Stevengriffiths (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"3rd party lead" in opinion polls

The article on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election gives the results for the four main parties in UK politics (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP). There is an additional column giving which party is in the lead. As you can see in the discussion at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, three editors (User:Sheffno1gunner, an IP editor and User:Nick Dancer) agreed to add a column marked "3rd party lead" comparing which of the two smaller parties, LDems and UKIP, are ahead in each poll and by how much, with additional colour shading of the 3rd party leader. This is in response to UKIP's rise in the polling in recent months. Subsequently, myself and two other editors objected to this change. There has been lengthy discussion and a degree of local consensus has emerged to keep the new column.

However, I remain perturbed. This looks like original research to me and that core policy should override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so I seek further input on the matter.

Reliable sources should be our guide. I've not seen any reliable source that presents polling data like this. That said, some reliable sources do discuss the UKIP/LDem difference and who's ahead (as cited in the article). "Third party lead" as a phrase is not used (in this context) anywhere on a basic Google search, except in references to this page. No other Misplaced Pages article has a "3rd party lead" this. This all seems like a massive warning sign to me.

It seems to me that "3rd party lead" largely represents the interests of particular editors and while those editors may have an argument about why such a statistic is interesting, as they've laid out in Talk page discussion, it clearly constitutes OR/WP:SYNTH. It also represents a bias in the article because it is there to draw particular attention to UKIP's rise in the polls. Talk page discussion has not engaged with the OR issue. Reliable sources do not present polling data in this way. While there is some RS interest in whether the LibDems or UKIP are ahead in the polls, it is not pronounced and it is not reported in this manner.

Some further background notes... The rise in the polls of UKIP in recent months has led to considerable discussion on Misplaced Pages around how best to cover the party. Sheffno1gunner, the IP editor and Nick Dancer have generally argued for more coverage of UKIP, while others have felt that some of the changes proposed would be undue. I recognise a balance is required here and am not suggesting that either side of that debate are inherently right or wrong. However, there have been concerns and discussions as to whether content on this issue has strayed into original research. We've had lengthy discussions at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory on other possible OR issues around UKIP (and I came here before about the former -- see above). In the latter example, discussion got rather heated and the IP editor expressed some fundamental disagreements with policies like WP:RS.

This very issue of how well UKIP are doing in the polls compared to the LibDems has itself been used by some of the same editors as an argument for greater coverage of UKIP, in particular in a number of discussions on what parties to include in infoboxes for forthcoming elections: see Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Addition_of_UKIP_Debate and Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Election_Box.

What to include in tabulations of opinion polls has often been fraught. Articles about other countries have tackled OR concerns before; see Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 for example. There is much that one could include in a table of poll results, so it becomes an almost artistic judgement about how much is too much. Sheffno1gunner has, for example, opposed including the Greens etc. on the polling tables for the 2014 Euro-elections on the grounds that it makes the table too busy: see Talk:European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_Polling.

My concerns about OR may be misplaced, of course. But with the discussion often getting heated and difficulty coming to agreement, it would be very helpful if we could get some more heads looking at the problem. Bondegezou (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution