Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:56, 12 September 2010

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

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

The policy that governs the issue of original research is Misplaced Pages: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to WT:NOR.

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

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

Archives

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

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

Related to Topic Above, is using a Great Circle Calculator to calculate distances OR?

RE: Opening paragraph to the Falkland Islands article. The lede was edited to include a number of distances calculated using a Great Circle Calculator. I opposed the edit at the time as WP:OR but walked away when the proposers got needlessly personal. I see they went ahead and did it anyway despite the fact I questioned whether it was OR. Opinions as to its removal before I do so? The article previously said approximately 300 miles from the SA mainland, so I would propose changing the text to something close to that. Justin talk 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See the previous discussion. Practically the same thing applies here though it might be acceptable to give an approximate distance as general geographical common knowledge. It would be far better to give a citation where someone said some figure even if not exactly accurate rather than calculating anything. Dmcq (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should take a step backwards and ask what Misplaced Pages is all about. It is about cataloguing information that is available elsewhere. Every Misplaced Pages article consist of information extracted, often in summary form, from one or more documents. Documents do not have to consist of text, they can also be maps or diagrams.

Now back to Justin’s questions. If I can go to Stanfords (London’s premier map shop), buy a map and using the scale on that map, extract a particular piece of information, then I should be able to publish that finding in Misplaced Pages. It is, after all, no different to extracting a piece of information from any other source document.

If by using Google Earth and a Great Circle Calculator I reproduce the exercise of buying a map and making measurements, then this is fully in line with my earlier arguments – moreover if I publish the coordinates used then the exercise is fully verifiable. Martinvl (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some actual real query or are you just here to argue points? Misplaced Pages is not a forum., please see WP:ISNOT which I believe also answers your point. Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I intend to remove the WP:OR later and return to the previous lede. Justin talk 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned. the Falklands Island Government website says about the islands location that it is about 400 miles whereas the current text says 290 miles, I thought I read somewhere before about it being about 300 miles so why does the Falklands Island Government website says something so very different? Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of a POV thing around the exact distance concerned. The Argentines argue that the Falklands should be Argentine because they are geographically close to Argentina. Argentine estimates of the distance thus tend to be a tad low. The British argue that it's irrelevant, but their estimates (apparently) tend to be a bit high. This is why Google Earth was used: to get a distance that is independent of the two sides, to avoid claims of POV.

Saying that the FI are 400 miles from South America is a bit like saying Cuba is 500 miles from the United States. Sure, there are parts of the FI that are 400 miles from parts of mainland South America - in the same way that there are parts of Cuba that are 500 miles from parts of the United States. But it's not a coast-to-coast distance: that's 290 or so miles to mainland South America. Pfainuk talk 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something for a consensus decision for the articles talk page. I'm certainly not happy with the 400 miles figure even if their government endorses it. I'm sure there must be some reliable citation that gives a closer figure to the coast to coast figure and doesn't suffer from a POV problem. Otherwise you'd be setting up OR in opposition to a 'reliable source'. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FIG tends to be somewhat Stanley centric and the 400 miles figure is the distance to Stanley, rather than a POV issue. You could argue for a mid-point of the islands group, a coast to coast figure is fraught as the Jason Islands to the West of the group are used as the basis for the Argentine figure; these are closer to Argentina but although under FIG control they're usually considered a separate group of islands. I suggest the discussion moves to the talk page. Justin talk 07:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the map suggests to me that this is the distance between the Mount Pleasant Airport and the closest international airport on the South American mainland. This raises the general case of whether a Wikipeida editor should do some basic research in order to qualify the original statement, and if so, to what extent. Martinvl (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the place for this dicussion. Justin talk 11:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The point that I raised is a genenal point of which the Falkland Islands is a specific instance. That is why I raised it here. Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is a fine example of one reason original research is problematic. It may be acceptable in this case as a general knowledge sort of thing that people are interested in but it is still original research. Your definition of 'distance' is completely different from the Falklands Island government one. But even without that in general you can't just stick in figures you calculate yourself just because they seem interesting to you. Now it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Dmcq (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP policy specifically excludes basic calculations from being original research. A Great Circle calculation would certainly seem to qualify there. The real issue here isn't the calculation itself, but from which two points you choose to calculate. The distance between two points has a precise definition; the definition of the distance between objects such as nations is, at times, open to interpretation. Many times two nations quibble over borders, especially islands, which can change the "distance" between them by hundreds of miles. I would say to avoid any political issues, the article should include language such as "as measured from the nearest point on the coast" or "from the international airfield", etc, to make the situation clear to the reader. Fell Gleaming 03:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO that's stretching the bounds of "simple calculation". The examples given are "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". A great circle calculation is a fair bit more complex than that (not least because it doesn't give the exact distance between two points, and judgement is involved in deciding where it is and isn't accurate enough). --GenericBob (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh? A Great Circle calculation *is* a simple calculation. It's repeatable, deterministic, accurate, and not open to dispute or interpretation -- the very spirit the "calculations" exclusion exists for. It also does give the exact distance between two points -- when those points are on the surface of a sphere such as the Earth. There are no "accuracy concerns" or disputes with the calculation itself. The only issue is when you're calculating based on regions (such as nations) rather than between two points -- you must obviously select what those points are. However, it should be painfully obvious that this isn't a unique concern to a Great Circle calculation; it exists no matter what method you use to determine distance between noncontiguous polygonal regions. Fell Gleaming 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Earth is not a sphere. The diameter at the equator is roughly 40km more than the pole-to-pole measurement, which means that great-circle formulae do not give the exact distance between two points. Depending on which great-circle formula you use, you can also run into calculation problems - the most straightforward derivation leads to a formula that is exact in theory for spheres, but susceptible to floating-point errors, especially when the points are close together.

Do those errors matter? In most cases, probably not. But there is more of a judgement call involved here than in the examples listed for "simple calculation". If I use a textbook formula to convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit on my calculator, or add two numbers together, I can expect that the answer is accurate pretty much to the limits of the display; that is not the case with a great-circle calculation. --GenericBob (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Using FRUs to make claims in Misplaced Pages's neutral voice

The question relates to this article - Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. A primary document - United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa pg. 921 - is being used to support a claim that 'The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.'. The relevant paragraph from the primary document says "I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn-that the US did in fact recognize the union."
My opinion is that using this ambiguous (at best) statement from a primary source, which says on the one hand that the State dept does not issue formal recognition, but on the other that the the US "accpets" the action, to claim this constitutes recognition is not permissible, since it involves interpretation of a primary source. There are numerous secondary sources that state the opposite - e.g: this}, which says only the UK recognized the annexation. Other editors disagree see the Talk page discussion here:

Can anyone offer advice/comments at Talk:Prahlad_Jani#New_RFC. It is a long story but a quick review of the latest RFC as well as the one above from last month should provide some background. I didn't have much luck with my request on the same topic on this noticeboard more than a month ago. The old RFC didn't yield any comments either. Hopefully this time someone who sees this message and wants to help will try to bring some much needed fresh perspective on the synthesis and original research problems this article faces. Thank you. BTW User:Science Apologist advised me to go to WP:FTN last time I talked to them. Would that be a better venue perhaps? (In the sense that it may be more frequented, since I still think this is an original research and synthesis problem primarily). But unfortunately it seems that this noticeboard is not as lively as ANI where once you post there at least you get an answer. Dr.K.  20:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is either a not very popular subject or this noticeboard is nowhere near as lively as ANI. Dr.K.  19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could summarize what you feel the core issue is? The RFC is very long and painful to read. Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is nice to get a response for a change. The core issue is that a user wants to insert their personal analysis/observations about a video which was used by Edamaruku of the Indian Rationalist Association to criticise Prahlad Jani. The user thinks that adding the video alone is not balanced criticism. S/he wants to add their personal analysis/observations in the form of the following paragraph in order to criticise/critique the video itself:

The video clip linked as a proof to that statement is overlaid with Polish subtitles saying: ""Prahlad Jani “Bathing” 2003 -- nie podawano mu żadnego jedzenia, ani wody; nawet kiedy pozwalano mu na kąpiel, ilość wody była mierzona przed i po kąpieli", which says in Polish 'he wasn't given any food neither water; even when he was allowed to bath, the quantity of water was measured before and after the bathing'. The dates in Hindi comments to the episodes of alleged 'obstruction by devotees' are indicating 2003 as well, and the age of Prahlad Jani in overlaid Hindi text is shown as "65 साल से प्यासा", which means "...65 years fasting without water..." (in 2010 he has been fasting already over 71 years).<ref name="rationalistinternational1">{{cite web|last=Edamaruku |first=Sanal |url=http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/2010/20100518/en_1.html |title=Prahlad Jani and his powerful protectors |publisher=Rationalistinternational.net |date=2010-05-18 |accessdate=2010-06-14}}</ref>

S/he wants to highlight the fact that the video criticises Prahlad Jani for things he did in 2010, but the contents of the video appear to be from 2003. So s/he wants to point out this discrepancy. Trouble is, there is no reliable source making such analysis so we have WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues. There are also WP:BLP issues involved because without reliable and verifiable sources we should not synthesize our own rebuttal of Edamaruku's video to try to discredit him. S/he even calculates Prahlad Jani's age: (in 2010 he was over 71) to make the discrepancy between 2003 and 2010 clearer. Dr.K.  21:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the commentary added in this edit is original research and should be removed from the Prahlad Jani article. My suggestion would be to maintain the current wording which shows that Sanal Edamaruku made certain claims (i.e. the claims are attributed to the person who made them), and to use the Guardian article as the source (it is given as the original of what appears at rationalistinternational). I watched a bit of the youtube video and it is far too confusing and jumbled for anything to be clear. A kind of inverse WP:REDFLAG applies: commonsense tells us that a gigantic con is being staged, and that the tests conducted by 35 doctors and researchers which confirmed the subject's powers are bogus (the subject claims to have lived without food or water since 1940). Anyone wanting to demonstrate flaws in a criticism of the test is going to need good reliable sources. The issue is quite simple: for unexplained reasons, various people in India claim that a person has not eaten or drank since 1940; an article in the Guardian contains an opposing view. A very reliable source is required for any text in the article which supports the concept that is is possible to live for many years without food or water, or which counters claims made in the Guardian. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq. The Guardian is a good reliable source. In addition, aside from the OR issues, youtube is generally not a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the Hindi translation above. Sorry, it was a technical mistake on my part. Regarding the removal of allegedly OR-influenced information, let's leave it be. I still believe the readers should be made aware of the discrepancy in dating (without analyzing any implications of this discrepancy in the article), but I guess time will bring more information on this subject. Subsequent DIPAS reports should be enough to clarify the doubts... Thanks everyone. -- Nazar (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think DIPAS itself should be investigated if it is a reliable source or not. I do not think it is. But this is just my opinion at the moment. Dr.K.  16:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

hmmm. start a new RFC, ask the consensus. if it says that DIPAS is not a reliable source, we may remove all the info taken from DIPAS site. you might as well even nominate the Prahlad Jani article for deletion, as we have practically no verifiable academic sources to use in that article. and, to be honest, the reliability of all the other sources used (like the official site of Sudhir Shah, and all the press references) is very questionable too. best you just delete it all :) or, no, leave the information from "The Skeptic's Dictionary". this one is reliable 100% and must be preserved and protected :)))-- Nazar (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

After some consideration I'd add, that I do not believe that dating of the material or direct text citation from it can be considered an original research. I might agree that youtube is not considered a reliable source, but in the mentioned case it's used together with the Guardian article and is a constituent part of it, which makes it a special case. A definition of 'inverse WP:REDFLAG' is probably Johnuniq's own original research, and it's really hard to see any common sense in not believing a team of 35 medical experts, supervised by governmental agencies and possessing all possible accreditations, just because 1 showman (Sanal Edamaruku) says they are all cheating. It's very noteworthy to point in this situation that this 1 man is definitely cheating and staging a con himself. I'll cite Johnuniq's own words: "video ... is far too confusing and jumbled for anything to be clear". And these are the words of an editor who seems to vigorously support Sanal Edamaruku's claims. I'll say the following: this video proves none of the points mentioned in Sanal Edamaruku's criticism. It is manipulated and cleverly used to mislead the readers. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:OR says that original research "also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources". You are advancing the position (however obliquely) that Edamaruku is using inadequate or manipulated footage to present his argument, yet no sources back you up on this analysis. There are many ways in which you could be wrong in your interpretation of the video (maybe Edamaruku misspoke when introducing the clip, maybe you misheard him, maybe the footage was wrongly captioned, maybe the television station inadvertently broadcast the wrong video), which is why Misplaced Pages avoids using original research. If a journalist writing for a reliable source analyses the video and decides Edamaruku is a fraud, we can quote them - but we can't quote you. --McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, whatever we believe as individuals, we have to report what the sources actually say. Also, although I recognize that this forum is oriented to OR issues, I'd also like to point out that this youtube video can't be considered a reliable source according to WP:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F. It's not just a posting of a newscast or documentary--it has been edited, apparently more than once, so it is completely unverifiable at this point. It may also be a copyright violation, and we're not supposed to link to those either. With this many issues clouding the picture (pun intended), it seems to me that use of the youtube clip at all is out of the question. But if that is disputed by anyone, we can take it to the other noticeboards for further discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I said I might agree that youtube is not a reliable source. Therefore I'm not pushing my position at this very moment (to restore the citations from this very video) given the current set of references and not trying to edit-war the article. However, I do not agree with McGeddon that my attempts to include the citation (leave out the youtube issue) constitute an original research. I might have my own views as an editor (which are not necessarily 100% in support of all the extraordinary claims about PJ's 70 years of fasting). But when I provide direct citations from the references, this is not an original research. There are too many "maybe"s in McGeddon's logic (which are his own personal analysis, btw), and it's not up to the Misplaced Pages editors to remove referenced content based on these "maybe"s. It's up to the readers to decide how to interpret the facts, which we provide. And if we try to conceal some facts based on such "maybe"s, then it's our own WP:Synthesis first of all. -- Nazar (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Policy says: "in some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher". And the authenticity of the clip in question is confirmed by the direct link to it from both the Guardian article and multiple other places where Edamaruku published his criticism. The link is everywhere to the same clip (same URL), which is published by the Rationalists Web TV, and the identification of the publisher links back to the official site of RATIONALIST INTERNATIONAL. I'll, however, not try to restore the citation based on that logic for the meanwhile, and wait for more references to come. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the RS issues aside for the moment, and with all due respect, I think even in the proposed link between the article in the guardian and the video clip, you're engaged in OR. The guardian article says" "While the test was running, I exposed some of those loopholes in a live programme on India TV: an official video clip revealed that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view; he was allowed to receive devotees and could even leave the sealed test room for a sun bath; his regular gargling and bathing activities were not sufficiently monitored and so on." And from what I can see in the video, after the section with the polish subtitles, there is section of video apparently from 2010 (starting about 4:48 in the timeline) showing him stepping out of frame and with apparent visitors. Thus there is footage apparently from 2010 in the video that correlates with the text in the guardian article. So to mention the 2003 footage in the article only is OR in one respect since that mention selectively ignores the footage from 2010.

But most importantly, we're not talking about a single clip here--it appears that there is CC footage from 2003 that has been overlaid with polish subtitles and CC footage from 2010, both of which are shown in a clip of a news report and interview segment, which itself may have been substantially edited and augmented with slides in English. Who did what is not clear. The guardian article does not go into detail regarding the video, so it cannot "validate" (for want of a better word) what that video portrays. Hence anything we say about what it shows or fails to show falls, I think, into OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A cogent and precise analysis. Exactly what I was thinking and then some. Thank you for taking the time Nuujinn to explain all these non-sequiturs of this WP:SYNTH edit so well and with so much detail. Unfortunately it seems no amount of explaining has had any effect so far. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K.  22:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for McGeddon's comments. I just happened to notice them. Dr.K.  22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Nazar: Your suggestion above that my statement regarding WP:REDFLAG might be original research is incorrect because WP:OR only applies to article content. If you believe that I mistated the WP:REDFLAG requirement, just say so. However, my statements are correct because WP:REDFLAG mandates that exceptional claims require high-quality sources, and my statement that "A very reliable source is required for any text in the article which supports the concept that is is possible to live for many years without food or water" is completely compatible with the verifiability policy, not to mention commonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujinn:regarding the supposed 2010 footage, there's a permanent Hindi comment overlaid saying "65 साल से प्यासा", which means "...65 years fasting without water..." (in 2010 he has been fasting already over 71 years), which speaks for the footage to be from 2003, and not from 2010. The date 2003 also appears in the running Hindi text commenting the same episodes. Besides, no official footage from 2010 has been released by the researchers as of yet. Moreover, there could not be such a footage available while the tests were still running. I might agree that Edamaruku was using 2003 footage to show that he thinks that in 2010 PJ was allowed to move out of CC Camera view in the same way, but such a thinking does not prove or reveal anything. Regarding the supposed WP:OR on my side, my rendering has been amended to take that into account, and now it does not include any description of the failures of the video, or any analysis of what it shows or not shows. My latest idea was just to include the direct citations from the overlaid subtitles in the video, without any comments. If that makes you think that the video fails to show something, then it's your own interpretations. Other readers may think differently. But the dating of the footage and text comments overlaid for the whole duration of the video are important for the reader to understand the context of Edamaruku's claims. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq is correct that the exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. Nazar, while it may be that all of the footage is from 2010 (and I am perfectly willing for the sake of discussion to accept your interpretation), it's still a primary source that we are interpreting. I think the only way this footage could be used at all would be to treat it in its entirely and provide a neutral synopsis of all of it, and that could only happen if it were considered a reliable source (and youtube generally isn't considered an RS) and verifiable (which, I think, the footage is not, since it consists of modified clips of footage from the tests, overlaid with subtitles in two different languages shown as part of a news/talk show that appears to have been further edited prior to being uploaded to youtube). To choose a small section of the video and comment only upon that is selective and interpretive. That being said, I also think Johnuniq is correct that the Guardian article should be used as a source rather than rationalist international's website. Nuujinn (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"all of the footage is from 2010" -- you mean, from 2003? I generally agree that there are many complicated issues with that video, therefore I'm waiting for more references to amend the article. As to the "exceptional claim requires exceptional sources", we are not speaking here about the genuine verification or truth of the claims about PJ's 70 years of fasting. We are speaking about Edamaruku's criticism, which seems very unreliable and uses manipulated evidence material. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, 2003. Nazar, you said "We are speaking about Edamaruku's criticism, which seems very unreliable and uses manipulated evidence material." That makes it seem as if you're trying to insert your evaluation of Edamaruku into an article, and that's OR. If the youtube video were a decent source, it might be worth discussion, but it's not. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm just expressing my dispute-related POV on the discussion page, not trying to hide it. I think every editor has some kind of personal POV. But I'm doing my best to avoid including this POV into the article. I also appreciate Edamaruku's POV and his criticism and try and include it into the article as much as possible, but in a holistic and neutral manner. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a head's up, I posted to the RS noticeboard to get others opinions regarding the youtube video's status as a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENTISM

I also reverted this edit on the article of Prahlad Jani under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENTISM. Dr.K.  16:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at the DIPAS site before pushing WP:CRYSTAL etc. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you are such an expert on *pushing* SYNTH I will comment no further. Dr.K.  16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is going too far, Dr.K.. Why have you reverted my fully referenced info for the second time? I used an official source, which was directly involved into the tests. If you think that 'opinions are just opinions', please start removing the totally unsubstantiated opinions of Edamaruku. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

DIPAS is advertising their results without scrutiny from scientific publications or anyone external to them from the wider scientific community. There is no need for a reader to be exposed to such propaganda. Since they assert that they are going to silence the critics who claim it is not posible for a man to live for 70 years without food or water, they effectively say that Prahlad Jani is superhuman and can defy the laws of Physics. Do we really need to push such propaganda on the readers? Dr.K.  17:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

All above logic is your own personal interpretation. It's up to the readers to decide how to interpret the facts. I could give you a bunch of reasons why the results haven't yet been published in scientific journals. Confidential military research is just one of the many possible options. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

SYNTH spilling over to Inedia

Can anyone also watch the Inedia article because we have over the past few day POV and SYNTH edits, which I reverted, calling the members of IRA "young" and Edamaruku's criticism "popular" so as to discredit them? Thanks. Dr.K.  16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man. This is really becoming ridiculous :) your corrections to Inedia edits are fine, I support them 100%. I used 'young' because that is what Edamaruku says in his claims (he says that ‘young members of IRA’ did allegedly expose some frauds. And ‘popular’ just because Edamaruku is so popular amongst the rationalists, who want to advance their POV. But your corrections are OK. Relax! :) -- Nazar (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot do without personal comments can't you Nazar. And if my edits by reverting you are "OK" (to quote you) and they are SYNTH and WEASEL why did you make them in the first place? No need to answer. Dr.K.  16:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

They are SYNTH and WEASEL from your personal point of view. My point of view is different. But once you amended them I may agree that the corrections your made are not seriously damaging to the article, and maybe make it better in certain aspects. If you're happy with these corrections, that's fine on my side. :) And you're welcome to answer. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, everyone, focus on content and not the contributor. Nuujinn (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

List of wars between democracies again

I wonder if anyone who customarily frequents this board would give an opinion on this discussion . The question is - is it sufficient to populate a list of democracies that fought each other in wars from three statements

• "X is a democracy" (source A)
• "Y is a democracy" (source B) and
• X and Y fought a war" (one normally finds that both source A and source B support this, but usually A says nothing about the government of Y and vice versa),

Or does the scenario described constitute synthesis or Original research. A number of reasons have been advanced as to why this would be original research, but I think the central one is: "a war between democracies are not three separate statements, it is one statement, because of it's controversy and connection to democratic peace theory.", ie it is necessary to have one source confirm that both sides in the war were democracies.

Be grateful for more views of all kinds on this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's evidently not an easy question to answer. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be reasonable in a normal article, but these 'list of' articles tend to be a bit freer about OR once the notability of the subject itself has been established and the criteria for inclusion established. I'd leave it to consensus on the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with this list is that different sources may use contradictory definitions of "democracy". I am sure that we could find a source that claims Nazi Germany was a democracy (Hitler was elected to office after all). I am also sure that we can find sources that state it was not. So should WWII be included in this list? Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That one is easy, by 1934 Germany was a one party state so no longer a democracy. For a list (and the fact this is a list is important), if reliable sources say the two states were democracies AND there is no conflict in the sources as to that definition it should be enough. --Snowded 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WWII is mentioned; but I haven't seen anyone actually make that claim - as opposed to using it as a strawman to beat up on other arguments. (And since Hitler held single-party elections between 1934 and 1939, the claim would have to be quite sweeping.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my point wasn't really to argue that Nazi Germany was a democracy, or that WWII should be included in the list. I was trying to highlight the fact that different sources often use differing (and even contradictory) definitions of what constitutes a democracy. And because of this difference, I think we do end up with an improper synthesis in the article when we use separate sources to cite the fact that each of the nations in a war were democracies ... I think we need one single source to say that both nations were democracies (although I might be argued into allow two sources that clearly use the exact same definition of democracy). Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already said it and will repear it here: in the world of abstract, purely academic concepts like the Democratic peace theory the article must stick to each competing theory, never mixing them up. So there will be "list of wars..." according to Groucho, followed by "list of wars" according to Harpo, etc. East of Borschov 15:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is *exactly* what I have been saying, but nobody listened. I don't think they even understood what I said. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It would help if actual problems were brought up instead of theoretical things about Nazis. Is there a specific OR problem the talk page is unable to resolve or are people just writing to exercise the muscles in their arms? The OR talk page is for the theoretical stuff and test cases, this is a noticeboard for actual problems. Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think the very existence and name of the article constitute synthesis and also violate NPOV. There seems little rationale for the article unless it tacitly alludes to democratic peace theory or statements of a similar nature. So the list, by implication, basically means something like "examples refuting the theory that democracies are less belligerent than other forms of government" (the fact that what is being refuted is not clearly stated does not make it better). It looks to me as if the implied synthesis is: A is a democracy. B is a democracy. There was a war between A and B. Therefore the statement that democracies never wage war against each other is false (without qualification, this would imply that peaceful relations are not furthered by the spread of democratic forms of government). That seem to be the main motivation for having such an article at all. It looks to me as if the article falls into a class of articles or potential articles where the very existence of a non-empty list (or even an empty list) is intended to support an unstated but implied judgement, and inclusion of any particular item in that list reinforces one side of the argument, the other side of the argument being excluded by the title of the article. If this article is justified, how does it differ in principle from the following?

• List of wars between countries that both possess nuclear weapons
• List of wars between countries with capitalist economies
• List of professed Christians who have had sex with each other outside their marriages to other people
• List of Muslims who have killed Muslims
• List of countries with a lower infant mortality than the United States

To maintain a neutral point of view and avoid an implied conclusion not stated by the sources, the list would have to be of all countries involved in wars, possibly with a table that includes the form of government of the belligerents. In that way the reader would not be pushed toward one conclusion implied by the inclusion criteria.

--Boson (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I have to agree that there is a fundamental flaw with the topic of this list. That flaw is the idea that "wars between democracies" are in some way different from wars between countries with other forms of government (or wars between democracies and counties with some other form of government). And that goes directly to the question of whether the topic of this list is Notable enough for a stand alone article. It seems to me that the list arbitrarily carves out a subset from a notable topic ("wars") based on a POV (and Original?) set of criteria... resulting in a non-notable sub-topic. I would suggest that this be sent to AfD. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Drawing up a list of wars where both parties were democracies is synthesis, unless the sources specifically state that they were wars between democracies. However, as noted in this abstract, there is literature that could support this article: "It is often asserted that democratic states never fight wars against each other, but there is a rather lengthy list of exceptions to that rule that are consistently or prominently mentioned in the literature on the democratic peace phenomenon" (my emphasis). If such sources can be used it would overcome the issue of synthesis. I would hold off on an AfD to allow editors to find these sources. TFD (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... If such sources do exist, I could see the list being merged (back?) into Democratic peace theory... to give it context. Or perhaps as a sub-article tied in the lede to that theory... Apparently the list started as List of exceptions to the democratic peace theory which I think is more workable title if given the clear inclusion criteria (stated in the lede) that it is limited to wars noted in reliable sources as being exceptions to that theory. My concerns are with the article as it currently stands. I have raised those concerns at the article talk page, and am certainly not in any rush to send it to AfD. But sending it to AfD remains an option. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly chocked and very happy to see TFD issue one of my long standing arguments against PMA+2. Indeed, it is in my opinion synthesis to have separate sources for the democracy of the countries, because the sources can have different definitions. I showed that by giving sources that claim Cuba is a democracy, for example. These sources tend to claim Cuba is a democracy and USA not, hence nobody agrees that it's a conflict between two democracies, but we could claim it in the list. But the problems with the article doesn't end with the synthesis, but with the interpretation of the sources that is then used to make the synthesis. See this for an example. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For G-d's sake, can you discuss this in some coherent manner, not just snipe at PMA. Incidentally, visitors to the talk page might note that OF recently proposed and supported the notion that the list remain at its current title and not be reconnected to DPT. No particular idea why - it wasn't connected at that point to anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that a snipe at PMA? Is it now a snipe to say that PMA is incorrect? Can you keep to discussing the topic for once, or does everything you write have to be a discussion of my conduct? not be reconnected to DPT. - More lies, I never said that anything like that. Your behavior is dishonest and despicable. Stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is in any case a snipe against me. I have consistently supported following WP policies. TFD (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm just surprised that you agree with me. It's the first time we agree on anything, I think. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this violates any community policies on original research. BigK HeX (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." It seems to me we are using separate sources to conclude that various wars were wars between democracies. How is this an exception? TFD (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that the only reason for the list is to support the Democratic peace theory and the list has no separate intrinsic interest. At best the list is a subsection of the the article and I think it should be treated as such rather than as a notable list in itself. Personally I support merging the list back applying criteria about established link to the article topic and then deleting the list. Dmcq (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's rather there as an argument against it. :-) But that's another question, which we just have discussed on the talk page, the consensus seems to be that the list should exist separately. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat intro

Editors are revising the intro to Prem Rawat, a controversial article that has inspired a couple of ArbCom cases. Here is part of the proposed text:

• He also received media attention for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences.

An editor objects to this text on account of it being, in his words, "a feast of WIKI:SYN". Here is the text in the article that it directly summarizes:

• Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s. Some media reports said that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. That Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes Benz limousines and sports cars, some of them gifts. Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace". "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West.

Here are excerpts from seven reliable news sources:

• He has a sprawling $80,000 split-level house here, plus homes in Los Angeles and India. There are two Mercedes- Benz automobiles for use in the U.S. and two airplanes. In London, his followers have given him a Rolls-Royce. Queried about this opulence, he asks whether he is supposed lo throw away gifts the mission accepts in his name. 11/4/73
• The guru's "Divine Residence" in London is worth $125,000 and is only one of his many homes around the world. February, 1974.
• Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces. March 14, 1974 (reporting on a November 1973 press conference)
• Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars, and because of his marriage last year to his secretary. April 9, 1975
• In his first three years in the United States, new converts were common and their contributions led to the Maharaj Ji's homes in three states, a fleet of cars, a wardrobe of flashy clothes and two airplanes. Followers are encouraged to live in ashrams, communal houses where the virtures of celibacy, poverty and meditation are practiced. "If I gave poor people my Rolls-Royce, they would need more tomorrow and I don't have any more Rolls-Royces to give them," the guru once said in defense of his worldly goods. July 13,1975
• The young holy man owned a green Rolls Royce, a Mercedes 600, a Lotus sportscar, several motorcycles, homes in London, New York, Denver and the palatial Anacapa View Estate (complete with tennis courts and swimming pool) overlooking the sea on 4 acres in Malibu, California. 1983
• Things haven't gone so well for the guru in the last 20 years, though success is relative. He didn't bring the world peace, as he promised, but at last report he was living in a Malibu mansion valued at $15 million, with other homes in England, New Delhi, Rome, Madrid and who knows where else; driving his choice of a Rolls-Royce, a Maserati, a Ferrari or a garageful of other expensive cars; jetting around the planet on a $25 million Lear jet; or sailing on his $3 million yacht. 1998

Here is what sociologist James Downton wrote, which we quote in the article and the proposed intro:

• Reports in the media were unfavorable, repeating often that he seemed to live more like a king than a messiah." 1979

Does the proposed text violate WP:NOR?   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but it violates other policies, because you are seeking to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, cherry-picking quotes and sources to malign individuals or organizations that you dislike. A more straightforward and factual approach is to be preferred for encyclopedia articles. Peg Woffington (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't dislike this individual. I don't have any opinion of him. Second, we have scholarly sources (not just Downton) that say this was a significant part of the subject's public image. Third, I notice this is only your second edit to Misplaced Pages, and I'm not sure how you found this page or why you're responding here. In any case, thanks for your input on the main question.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the main purpose of the lead is to establish notability and summarize the article. This sounds to me like starting to do the article in the lead. It already summarizes this sort of stuff saying basically his thoughts are shallow and he lives the good life. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text would replace some text already in the intro: Rawat has been criticized for ... leading an opulent lifestyle.

We're revising the intro to make it a bit longer and to cover more material from the article. I should have linked to the discussions. Talk:Prem Rawat#Millennium, and other '70s material, Talk:Prem Rawat#Lead proposal, Talk:Prem Rawat#Two proposals, please choose. It's been a difficult process.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rawat has been criticized for ... leading an opulent lifestyle is the sort of straightforward and prosaic wording that one would expect from an encyclopedia. At Misplaced Pages, editors with an agenda are always attracted to more flamboyant and provocative formulations like living "more like a king than a messiah", because it is more propagandistic, which is exactly the sort of thing that we should be avoiding. Peg Woffington (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we're just here to discuss NOR issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The first thing you'll notice is that nowhere in the section Will Beback says he's summarising are "residences (single or multiple)" mentioned. The second thing is that Will Beback has provided quotes for his opinion that Rawat had "multiple residences" in 1973 but hasn't supplied the sources or importantly the dates of the quotes. New people to the topic may not be aware that the Malibu property which WB has told you was one of the "multiple residences" used by Rawat in 1973, wasn't bought until "November 1974 and served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters" (as per the article). Another source says "in the last 20 years" so it can hardly be about 1973. And several of the other quotes also contain material that dates it to the late 70s, even 80s. In short there is no justification for Will Beback to insert "in 1973 Rawat had multiple residences" into the lead.Momento (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added dates to the excerpts, though I don't understand the issue with the timing of these comments since we're not saying that the home owner occurred in a certain period. The proposed text does not include "1973". The issue we're discussing here is original research and I don't see anyone suggesting that the proposal would be a policy violation.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"We're not saying that the home owner occurred in a certain period"?!?! Really? You are summarising the period 1970-1973 for the lead and in it you want to claim something happened and provide quotes about what was happening in the years '74, '75, '79, '83 and '98 to justify it. Apart from the fact that at 15 he couldn't legally own anything the only quote about 1973 you offer says "Guru Maharaj Ji lives comfortably with the other members of the "Holy Family" - his three older brothers ranging up to 22 years of age and his mother".Momento (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we're summarizing the whole article. We're just attacking the problem section by section. As for the legal ownership of the homes, we don't get into that and neither do the sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right Will but it was you who brought up "the home owner" in your previous post. And yes we are doing it "section by section" and the section you want to insert "multiple residences" into is the 1970-73" section. Could someone please take over explaining to Will that just because someone said something happened in 1975 or 1983 or 1998 that you can't claim it happened in 1973. Momento (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A) We're not claiming it happened in 1973. B) It did happen in 1973, as well as subsequent years.

We're not discussing ownership in the intro, so let's avoid red herrings. The reason for this noticeboard request is to see if uninvolved editors think there is a violation of NOR. So far, we've gotten two responses and neither one has said that the proposed text has that problem. Let's not fill up the page with more of our arguing - there is enough info already for an outside editor to form an opinion.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was OR, I said it was WP:SYNTH. Taking a comment about one year and saying it applies to another as per "do not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".Momento (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a section of WP:NOR. See for yourself. The proposed text doesn't include any specific year year. Maybe you should re-read it. He also received media attention for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences. Nowhere does it say "1973".   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved with this article in the past. The line in question does not appear to be a violation of NOR or SYN. As far as including it in the intro, I think there could be arguments made for either inclusion or exclusion. A content RfC, with separate sections for "involved" and "uninvolved" opinions, would probably resolve it. Cla68 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback wants to put the line is question into the "1970-73" section of the lead which covers the period from Rawat's arrival in the west until the Millennium event of 1973. There is no supporting sources for "multiple residences" prior to Millennium. But it's academic anyway since it has, quite rightly, been removed from the proposal.Momento (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no 1970-1973 section of the intro. Intros don't have sections. Thanks for pointing out that the "multiple homes" were accidentally omitted.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The intro and the article, like the majority of literature, are written in chronological order so putting material that happened in 1974 before material that occurred in 1973 is confusing as in "Paint the walls and prepare them for painting".Momento (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we start this again

Start again, and NO-ONE argue about whether this guy is the bees knees or a dirty dog. Someone please explain in words of one syllable what sentence or paragraph is supposed to be OR or SYN and why. As far as I can see, summarising multiple newspaper reports that say he has been criticised for owning multiple accommodations into a sentence that says "he was criticised for owning multiple homes" is neither OR nor SYN. Quoting the king vs messiah line would be WP:UNDUE (it can't be OR because the quote exists) except that there are multiple sources which criticise him for living in a palatial manner rather than in the manner his teachings led one to expect. In which case, the editor was just picking the best summary text, as he is entitled to do. If you don't like it, I suggest you need the WP:BLP/N BLP noticeboard, as this seems to be a dispute about how to represent this person's character, not anything to do with original research.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been blown out of all proportion. We were engaged in summarising for the lead the section in the article that covers what Rawat was doing between the time he left India in1971 and December 1973 when he turned 16 and took control of DLM US. Will Beback wants to insert -

"Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers.

I prefer -

"At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed by the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah".

In order to bolster the need to include "multiple residences" in the summary Will Beback has provided several sources that include "multiple residences", and here's where the WP:SYN comes in. Only one source is from 1973, the period we are summarising, and it refers to homes in LA and India. All the rest are from and about 1974, '75, '83 and 1998. It is clearly WP:SYN "to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", and the conclusion Will Beback is implying is that is that there are multiple sources that support his claim that "multiple residences" existed in 1973. They do not. When I pointed out that the sources don't refer to 1973 Will brought the discussion here. I haven't suggested OR.Momento (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. At least the issue is clear now. In my opinion you are correct to say that text about the view of this guy in the US in 1973 must be supported by references from 1973. If the text was a general statement of the US view, it would be OK to say that 'multiple residences' was a criticism frequently levelled at him. On the other hand, the king vs messiah quote may be WP:UNDUE, unless there are other comments from 1973 criticising his flashy lifestyle. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotes Will provided come from the media. The "king/messiah" quote comes from the sociologist James V. Downton's "Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission". New York: Columbia University Press. He is the most authoritative scholar for this period.Momento (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could still be undue if he was the only one saying it. However, given that there are also more lightweight criticisms in the media, I think it more likely he's just saying it elegantly :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Downton is referring to the media, he writes - "Reports in the media were unfavorable, repeating often that he seemed to live more like a king than a messiah". That's why I want to use it, a scholar's summary rather than an editors version of events.Momento (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know wht Momento keeps saying that the proposed sentence is limited to 1973.

• Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences.

There's nothing about 1973 there. The media attention covered about a decade, from the early 1970s to the early 1980s.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbelief

I am not sure if this is more appropriate on the Fringe noticeboard or here. But this entire article seem to be nothing but a homemade unsourced essay, which claims that a sociological school of thought called "unbelief" has been in continous existence since the 18th century until the present times, where some fringe groups apparently adheres to a belief system of this name. The task of turning it into something encyclopedic seems enormous, and I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to delete it altogether until someone comes along to write a scholarly article on the subject? --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like bunk to me, I've AFD'd it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I will head over and support. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular monarchy

This article is presenting an argument based on an essay by a journalist. The only reference is that essay. As the article is not 'Kingsley Martin's essay' but instead purports to be a general article using that essay as a reference it would seem to be original research. --Utinomen (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that this article was AFD'd by Utinomen on July 1st and closed as keep. (really should have included that in your post) Ravensfire (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical calculation

I have a question: is it original research to do a mathematical calculation on sourced numbers in order to provide perspective? Here is what I did, with letters instead of the original names of the things:

Up to $100,000 per year is raised by Y. However, only $300 of this total is given to each of 12 P each month (or about $43,000 yearly for all 12 P combined)

The bolded part is my calculation, and someone told me it is OR. 300 x 12P x 12 months so the calculation is 300 x 12 x 12 or 43,200.

Thanks for your help. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The multiplication itself is basic and not OR... however, if you draw any conclusions from the multiplication it could be. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. No conclusions were drawn. Thanks (: Anyone else want to weigh in? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In theory it's ok - keeping in mind that there are lots of ways to make it not ok. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, there are many ways to POV push, and practically anything can be used to do so. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This question seems to come up quite often. Perhaps it's worth thrashing out a guideline to clarify WP:OR on this? (My personal view is similar to AFH's; routine calculations are OK, but people aren't always able to recognise when their calculations are non-routine.) --GenericBob (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been done..., which I didn't see before asking here but might be expanded into deductive reasoning. Like if the first source says that A and B both have the same father and the second source says A's father is C we can say B's father is C. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be very unhappy about anything that encourages synthesis. Two different sources will often have different contexts and different shades of meaning; taken individually they're both reasonable, but trying to squeeze more meaning out of the combination gets us into trouble.

For instance, one of my family members A was adopted at birth by C, but is in contact with his biological mother D and her other child B. He refers to both C and D as 'mother' on different occasions - so you can find a source that says A and B have the same mother, and another that says that A's mother is C, but it would be wrong to conclude that B's mother is C. I've seen issues like this trip people up quite often, on and off WP.

Obligatory syllogism:

Source A: "Nothing is better than eternal happiness."

Source B: "A ham sandwich is better than nothing."

Synthesis: "A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness."

--GenericBob (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol... that's cool, playing on contexts of the word "nothing." You may be right but it's a sad comment on common sense. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd translate the policy as suggesting simple math is okay, while conclusions formed from syllogisms are not. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Even sensible people get tripped up sometimes when they don't know enough about the field. Some of the problem areas I've seen:

• Epidemiology: Source A says "In 2005 the rate of HIV infection in West Fenwick was 600 cases per 100,000." Source B says "For East Fenwick, rate of HIV infection in 2005 was 120 cases per 100,000." It appears reasonable to say that in 2005 the rate of HIV infection for West Fenwick was 5x greater than that for East Fenwick... but 'rate of infection' can refer to several different things. It could refer to the prevalence (what proportion of people are HIV-positive?) or it could report to the incidence (what proportion of people become infected each year?) Within those, there's also the question of whether we're looking at reported rates, or estimates that attempt to compensate for underreporting.
• Demography: The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in the 2006 Census, 6.3 million people indicated English ancestry, 1.8 million Irish, and 1.5 million Scottish (plus some smaller number Welsh, not going to go digging for it just now). If we don't want to include every single nation in the article on Australia, it looks reasonable to add these numbers up into a "British Isles" category. The catch is that the survey allowed people to give multiple answers, so simple addition gives the wrong answer. (We had a long and tedious argument about this a while back over on Talk:Australia.) --GenericBob (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Renoir (surname)

(Unsure if this belongs here or BLP noticeboard; will post on both for now.) Article Renoir (surname) addresses origin of name Renoir and lists prominent members of the artist's family. http://en.wikipedia.org/Renoir_(surname) In Feb 2010, IP user introduced a "Gabrielle A. Renoir" to the article, including a spam link to a page advertising a novel in progress. In June, this edit was noticed and challenged. Since then, IP user and user WikiEditorandWriter have persistently introduced edits and comments that appear to directly and indirectly associate this "Gabrielle A. Renoir" with the artist's family without providing supporting references. Rather than continue an edit war, would ask a more experienced editor or an admin to take a look at the page and ensure that material meets Wiki standards on verifiability, COI, and NPOV.Hiernonymous (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen

Can somebody have a look at this?
There is a controversy/edit-war at Spitsbergen#Etymology, and this section seems to be the sticking point:
"The Arctic explorer WM Conway, in 1906, was of the opinion this was incorrect though this had little effect on British practice "
The part in italics has been deleted as OR. Is this statement original research? And if so, how should it be fixed?

notes

1. "Spitsbergen is the only correct spelling; Spitzbergen is a relatively modern blunder. The name is Dutch, not German. The second S asserts and commemorates the nationality of the discoverer." – Sir Martin Conway, No Man’s Land, 1906.
2. Lockyer, N The Conway expedition to Spitzbergen Nature (1896)
3. British documents onforeign affairs British Foreign Office (1908)

Background:Just to be in the clear, this is the latest chapter in a wrangle which has lasted a couple of months. It started here (my talk page), and continued on talk pages here (User:Jonas Poole, now deleted), here (PQ 18 OOB), here (Spitsbergen) and is currently here (Spitsbergen, new section). Xyl 54 (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jägala concentration camp

Can I ask for some eyes at Jägala concentration camp? Editors there apparently dissagree with a few of the sources listed in the article and are adding their personal analysis , using other sources, to "explain" why the sources are incorrect. I have tried to explain the talk page that this violates WP:SYNTH, but am not getting anywhere. There may be some nationalistic pov's in the mix there. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

The main body of the article is OR. At least the editor who has inserted it has refused to produce any references to the text despite of a year of requests to her on the talk page. A fortiori, the material is rather contentious, featuring unverified claims of Rotaru being the first or the best in a number of things. It is difficult to verify the claims for a non-Russian editor as a lion's share of the material published on the topic is in Cyrillic. Advice on how to proceed would be most appreciated. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-medication

IP 75.179.176.190 edited this referenced sentence in the self-medication article to have an opposite meaning to before. Looking at his/her previous edits, this appears to be something of a trend. I could simply revert this last edit (though how do I know the user isn't correcting a mistake?), but there seems to be an ongoing attitude problem here: frustrated with feedback about uncited edits, the user has taken to sneaking in OR by editing cited sections. I can't find any policy in WP:CS regarding editing previously cited content. Is there something we can point the user to to clarify citation requirements? --pmj (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

George Burton Drake

the sources mentioned in the article are two phonecalls and a family tree (altought provided by a library). I may be wrong, but to me this sound like original research to me --Melaen (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Golden Rule

Per Talk:The_Golden_Rule#.22Four_forms.22_WP:Original_Research.3F, this editor just doesn't get the point that he can't just personally synthesize a new way of categorizing the differing types of rules - including in a snazzy table. I told him he needs a WP:RS that describes this or any other categorization scheme and he says he understands. He says he's complying with WP:OR - which he evidently didn't realize existed before - by adding a couple of refs, but he's not. He needs more than one person telling him before I start editing out his WP:OR and an edit war ensues. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. the creation of a table in and of itself is not OR, unless that table is being used to create a novel understanding of the topic. what's the novel understanding here? --Ludwigs2 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the lead he create his own way of organizing 4 different versions of what is called "the golden rule" and then uses typology of positive/prohibitive and passive/active forms. There are no refs for any WP:RS creating those 4 versions or those 4 forms. The table is just a latter expression of that WP:OR. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the references and I couldn't see any justification for the passive/active split and have said so in its talk page. In some societies they seem to have great problems saying to do things in the active voice but it is still a command and one can't guarantee what happens when they translate to English. Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's an interesting categorization, but not supported by the sources as far as I can see. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding:

• I'm not the editor who first created the "four forms" of The Golden Rule in the article on The Golden Rule. Nor am I the editor who created the two forms (done even before the four forms). I am simply the editor who formatted the four forms into a table. I did this after the "four forms" were already created into a numbered list by a different editor.

• The only reason I formatted these forms into a table was stated in my "Edit summary": It states, "created section to help those who are visual learners." My goal was to help, not to hurt.

• Since my goal has always been to help, and not to hurt, I would never start anything that comes close to an "edit war" over this type of issue.

• The description of the Golden Rule has gone through the hands of many, many editors. Here is a brief history:

• • This edit from June 11, 2009 has the following edit summary: "Negative/positive form difference description"

• • July 6, 2010 this edit created a numbered list of two forms (done by an editor other than myself)

• • July 6, 2010 - this edit created a numbered list of four forms. (done by an editor other than myself)

• • July 9, 2010 - With this edit, I created a new section (much less prominent than the lead section) which formatted the existing list of four items into a table "to help those who are visual learners."

I want to stress that since my goal has always been to help, and not to hurt, I would never start anything that comes close to an editing war over this type of issue. Feel free to edit the article without that fear. (I'm not sure where that fear began. I didn't mean to frighten anyone with my long-winded discussions. Long-windedness and thoroughness is just my style.) - Boyd Reimer (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all assuming good faith, and I appreciate your clarification. Seems not so long winded to me, but then, I'm a pedant who goes on a bit myself. Regardless of whoever first put this classification in place, it should go unless reliable sources for it can be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you do see the policy problems, no matter who created it originally. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy

There's a long-running dispute on the talk page of this article about if the following passage in the article is original synthesis:

Sociologists such as Irving Horowitz and Peter Conrad have made comments on the role of the media. Writing partly in his capacity as managing editor of the publishing company, Transaction Publishers, that had published the Snyderman-Rothman book and more recently a controversial book by hereditarian researcher J. Philippe Rushton, Horowitz (1995) pointed out that researchers into heredity and intelligence like Rothman "sought media attention as a mechanism for making their policy views known."

The supposed source for this passage is Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995), "The Rushton File: Racial Comparisons and Media Passions" (PDF), Society, 32: 7–17, while the subject of the Wiki article is a book called The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, published by Horowitz's Transaction Publishers in 1988. Horowitz's article is about the psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, but Rothman and Snyderman are mentioned in it in passing, and the article begins with a disclaimer saying that "This statement reflects the views of its author, not only as an academic concerned with policy-making and social sciences, but also as a publisher of academic and scholarly books". However, The IQ Controversy book is not mentioned in Horowitz's article, nor is it said in it that Horowitz has ever published anything by Rothman or Snyderman; Rothman and Snyderman are not even mentioned in the same sentence. Horowitz's 10-page article contains only the following two passages about Rothman and Snyderman:

To be sure, in a thoughtful and sympathetic early review of the Rushton book in The National Review (September 12, 1994), Mark Snyderman wamed of the barrage to come. "Philippe Rushton has written his own epitaph. Any genetic predisposition toward the defense of one's race only adds to the near impossibility of rational response to the scientific study of race in a world that has seen the Holocaust and racial subjugation...Rushton's work may be ignored by the fearful, damned by the liberals, and misused by the racists. It is unlikely to be truly understood by anyone." Subsequent events have proved Snyderman prophetic; although Malcom Brown's review in The New York Times Sunday Book Review made a valiant effort at understanding and empathy.
...
In the 1960s there was the work of the late William Shockley, in the seventies that of Arthur Jensen, and in the 1980s that of a group of people much closer to media studies, such as Stanley Rothman. These individuals sought media attention as a mechanism for making their policy views known.

The question is if Horowitz's article can be used as a source in an article about IQ Controversy book. More specifically, firstly, is it correct to say that Horowitz writes in the capacity of Snyderman and Rothman's publisher, even though he does not say in his article that he has published anything by Snyderman or Rothman, and, secondly, is it correct to imply that Horowitz talks about The IQ Controversy book when he says that Rothman has sought media attention as a mechanism for making his policy views known, even though the book is not mentioned at all by Horowitz? In other words, is Horowitz's article directly related to the IQ Controversy book and does it directly support the material in the article?

This is, as such, a very minor issue, but it has been hotly debated, because The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy is one of the articles related to the Race and intelligence controversy, which was recently the subject of arbitration, leading to, among other things, the topic-banning of several users involved in this original synthesis dispute. I'd appreciate if some experienced users who are not involved in this dispute commented on this, as it might also help resolve similar disputes in related articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would point out, for editing this article in question (which is about a book) that there is no doubt that Horowitz was the publisher of the book, and there is no doubt (from the overall context of his article, which I have in a full-length copy) that his article is about the practices of his publishing house over a long span of time, including when it published the book by Snyderman and Rothman. I am not the author of the disputed paragraph, and I am not particularly invested in how it is worded, but my interpretation of the Misplaced Pages sourcing rules is that it is excellent editorial practice to find a reliable secondary source by a book's publisher when editing a Misplaced Pages article about a book. P.S. Thanks to Victor for bringing this issue to the attention of this noticeboard, which will offer some uninvolved editors a chance to ponder the issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No takers?--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Potentially libelous original research in Elie Wiesel entry

A single user has repeatedly inserted original research claims in the entry for Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel that he has no Auschwitz tattoo, notwithstanding that Wiesel has written extensively about his tattoo. The only evidence of this claim is a link to a YouTube video with selective edits, out of context, from a documentary about Wiesel revisiting his hometown. The sound is removed from the clip and someone has re-edited with a biased point of view. To use this as a "source" clearly seems to violate the original research policy, and I wrote on the Elie Wiesel talk page as to why. It might help if some seasoned editors took a look at this article. The user inserting the original research is "Someone ua" and he/she has only ever edited this single article and only added the claims about the tattoo. As another user wrote on the talk page, it is potentially defamatory to make such a claim about Wiesel in his Misplaced Pages article. I agree this could be libelous because it questions Wiesel's honesty and the accuracy of his published books. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since youtube is generally not considered a reliable source, I'm not sure if we need to decide the question of OR in the first place. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that particular policy? It would help if I could add that in the talk page. I was not aware of that policy. Thanks. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

it's WP:OR and novel synthesis and should be removed on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, looks like someone else out in the net agrees, the url is dead now. 71.175.4.207, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F this, short version is such videos are self-published and cannot be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from the Bible being used without a RS and claimed as references for Israelites being white

An IP address added this this morning. As I thought and still do that it a list of quotes with the introduction " There are quite a lot of Bible references to the Israelites being white. For example : " is original research, I removed the section, leaving an edit summary saying it was OR. It was replaced with the edit summary "Quoting from the Bible is no more O.R. than is quoting from the New York Times". This isn't the only OR in the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Quoting from the Bible is no more O.R. than is quoting from the New York Times".... Classic. That's going on my wall of fame. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, merely quoting from a source (any source) isn't automatically OR. The potential for OR happens when we attempt to tie the quote into the article's topic... when an editor analyzes or interprets the quote and says that the quote has any baring on a particular topic. That is what is happening here. An editor is interpreting passages from the bible as meaning that the Israelites were white.

That said, I am not sure that this is completely OR... I have a feeling that it is just POV writing and a lack of proper sourcing. After all, the bible has been used and misused to "prove" various racial (and racist) theories for centuries... I would expect to find lots of sources that use the bible to "prove" the Israelites were white (and, given the nature of antisemitism, I would also expect to find sources that use the bible to "prove" they were not).

Given the likelihood of this, what is needed is attribution... instead of going right to the primary source (the bible itself), the article needs to tell the reader who uses the bible to make the claim... what is needed is attribution to a secondary source: "According to Rev. Ima Bigot, dean of Biblical Studies at State University (1903), the bible makes several references to the Israelites being white, including... " Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read the entire Bible in its original languages after quite a few reads of it in various translations into other languages (both Indo-European and non-Indo-European), and it is completely anachronistic to claim that the Bible follows the "race" categories sometimes mentioned in modern Western culture. That's a misreading of the Bible. Anyway, on that issue the Bible would not be a reliable source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree - on the talk page of the editor who I quoted above, I said " Using the Bible in this way is classic original research. It would be ok to say 'notable person x says that this quote and this quote show the Israelites are white', but you need a WP:RS to do it. Some editor saying that is original research.. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Dougweller here that the editor is engaging in OR, I have to take exception to Weiji's statement that the Christian bible isn't a reliable source for an article entitled "The Race of Jesus". Unless God himself rides down on a flaming chariot to edit the article, what more reliable source could there be? The historical record is pretty much mute on the personage of Christ. (and I'm an atheist btw). Fell Gleaming 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the proposition that there isn't a more reliable source about Jesus as a historical personage, but sticking with my proposition that the Bible is not a Misplaced Pages reliable source on an issue of "race" of the Israelite people (an issue actually not addressed at all by the Bible in modern terms). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the only source that implies Jesus was a Semite is the Bible itself, I think you'd have difficulty arguing against a Biblical passage that called him white....assuming such a passage existed, of course. Fell Gleaming 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source as we use the phrase, and our policy says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said, isn't it? If a biblical passage existed that said Jesus was a blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian, that would certainly qualify as a reliable source. The problem here is that the IP editor is interpreting adjectives like "fair" (handsome or comely) or "lily white" (assumed poetic hyperbole) as relating to race. Fell Gleaming 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just thought it would be useful to cite policy. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg

Please join the discussion at Talk:Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg#Synthesis, continued at

Talk:Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg#RfC: Keep as one article or split

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Claiming to contact the Author of an RS, then using the purported email as a source in discussions on the talk page about the content of the article.

In a series of edits beginning here and ending here User:128.255.251.167 Wishes that we consider a email she received from the author of one paper as a source. They want to use it to argue about what should be in the article on the talk page.

My reading of WP:OR and WP:RS WP:V has such a email as not being a reliable source for Misplaced Pages, not verifiable by the average reader in any reasonable way, and in particular Original research.

I have no way of knowing weather or not that supposed email is authentic, none what so ever. In fact even if I emailed the author in question it would still be OR because the next editor to come along could not verify it, unless we expect the author to answer emails ad infinitum.

What say the rest of you?--Hfarmer (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is the second time today a conflict with Hfarmer has gone to a noticeboard. Please let me give you the actual background of this subject, with cites.

Hfarmer has been trying to oppose, against the wishes of most of the people discussing the subject, the merger of the article Homosexual transsexual, an article which she considers "her baby".

The proposal is to merge the three separate, highly redundant, confusing articles on Ray Blanchard's theories of transsexuality (Autogynephilia, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, and Homosexual transsexual) into one. "Homosexual transsexual" is a term that, due to its confusing (since transsexuals change gender) and oft-insulting nature (it assumes the birth gender), is almost completely unused outside of the context of discussion of Blanchard's theories. Blanchard's mentor, Freund, used the term as well; Blanchard's theories are derived from Freund's.

To argue against the merger, Hfarmer has been trying to come up with "independent support" for the term in other papers. First, she tried proof by ghost reference with Zucker et al (2003), insisting that a term was used in papers that didn't discuss it at all. When it was exposed that the paper didn't say at all what she said it was about, she switched focus to papers from Vasey about the fa'afafine. This was always an odd choice, since she even admitted that Vasey didn't use the term, but insisted that "androphilia" (love of men) means the same thing as "homosexual transsexual" (it doesn't; a straight woman is androphilic). It's even an odder choice because the Fa'afafine aren't transsexuals. Yet she kept insisting that the papers proved independent confirmation of "homosexual transsexual" being a valid topic outside of Blanchard's theories.

Rather that insist that the sky is blue over and over, I decided to simply email Vasey. No surprise -- just like the last time, when I had to do this with Moser, Vasey staunchly disagreed with how Hfarmer was representing his papers.. Rather than accept that she is misrepresenting his paper (in a way that I still can't comprehend how she could possibly think it's about "homosexual transsexuals" without using the term or being about transsexuals), she instead accuses me of WP:OR. Yes, that's original research on a talk page, not the article, for quoting the author of a paper about how someone is grossly misinterpreting his paper.

I obviously welcome any outside input.

As a final note: if anyone wants to verify with Vasey himself, his email address is which you can find on his webpage -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute: Hfarmer, are you canvassing this? WP:CANVAS In particular, votestacking? You posted private messages to at least one person who you've worked with several times before. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with contacting someone and noting what they say on the talk page... the information gathered by e-mail, however, can not go in the article and the e-mail be used as a source. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, personal correspondence such as this is clearly OR, and should not be used. That it's being used for talk discussions is slightly different than using for an article, but nonetheless, I think it's not a good approach. Also, it is probably best to not post people's email here. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

British Empire - 15 million Indian famine deaths

I am claiming a WP:SYN violation in the following statement of the featured article "British Empire ":

Pages 132, 133, 134 from the cited source are being used - . My reasoning is that the editor has juxtaposed two sentences in a way that attempts to shift the blame of the famine deaths from the British government to British East India Company (EIC). The source records (and it is universal knowledge) that power transfer of governing of India from the EIC to the British government happened in 1858. The source clearly states that all of the relevant famines happened after the British government assumed power. Yet User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick denies that this is WP:SYN. The discussion is found on the talk page of the British Empire - .

Please provide an outside third opinion to eliminate any misunderstanding. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the cited source, all the article says is that there was a change in policy - from the East India Company having no coordinated policy re droughts etc, to the British Crown setting up investigative commissions after famines. It is not assigning blame (famines weren't invented by the British - they occurred under the Mughals too you know) and there is no synthesis here at all - the text faithfully conveys the meaning of the cited text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The passage seems fine to me. I don't see any 'blame' being assigned. Paul B (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If it did not have "which took until the early 1900s to have an effect." then i could see how it may mislead people but the paragraph looks neutral, covers the main points and is backed up by the source. This is not Synthesis. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut is adding POV stuff to articles as well. This edit clearly lacks neutrality and needs some attention. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds a bit wrong to me. The major famines during the East India Company' rule were in the eighteenth century, just taken on its own mentioning the nineteenth century one might ask why would they put in widespread measures about famine. It sounds like there is a little bit of synthesis but it should be easy enough to fix. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion none of the sources reach by themselves. Given that this is all from one source, and given that the conclusion stated in the text is the same as the one in the source, can you please explain in what way it is synthesis, even "a little bit" of synthesis? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The two sentences require careful reading. It took me three goes to pick up "during its period of rule" - I was too confused by the mention of the 19th century followed by 1900. I think a change in wording would make it clearer, but there is no synthesis present. The source clearly states that there were famines in India from time immemorial but during EIC control the EIC opted to do nothing about it. When the British Crown took over, they started work investigating famines and started to put relief efforts in place, but this did not prevent some major famines in the second half of the nineteenth century, and it wasn't until around 1900 that they started to get a handle on things.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Similar to my feeling about it as being confusing. And the table on the talk page talks about the company starting in 1818, what on earth is that date about? The really big famines under the East India company as far as I'm aware happened in the eighteenth century and they're the ones that should have prompted it to do something and they certainly had time to actually do something between them and handing over control to the crown. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the NOR board, so seeing as we have established that there is no synthesis here, I suggest anyone interested in matters of confusion continues the discussion on the article talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's give this some more time than a mere day. Here's some simplification for readers who are feeling confused. Let's start with some background knowledge/vocabulary:

• British Raj (BR) is another term for British government.
• India was governed by EIC until 1858. In 1858 power was formally transferred to BR.
• Let's assume "late 19th century" is defined as the period between January 1, 1851 to December 31, 1900. This is our time period of interest.

There are three sentences involved here.

1. Sentence 1 says: A series of famines happened during this period leading to roughly 15 million deaths.
2. Sentence 2 says: EIC had screwed up because of inaction. No time frame/context is given.
3. Sentence 3 says: The BR fixed things - again no time context given. It then goes on to say that the fixes of the BR took until 1900 to have any impact.

Juxtaposing these three sentences together gives the reader the following impression (IMO):

This misleads the reader by suggesting that the EIC continued to screw up things even after it had given up power in 1858 (oxymoron). It also misleads the reader even by suggesting that the causes of deaths between 1858 and 1900 are to be blamed on EIC and not the BR. The reality is the BR was to blame for the deaths between 1858 and 1900, not the EIC. Classic WP:SYN. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the real reality is that famine was to blame for the deaths... and it is an opinion that either the EIC (or BR or whoever) should have been able to prevent the famines. We need to be careful here. We should not state (or even imply) this opinion as fact. If the author holds the opinion, we should directly attribute it to the author. Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such suggestion. The sentence clearly states that the EIC had (past tense) done very little, but the BR instituted investigations. We all know that EIC rule ended in 1858, and nothing in the passage contradicts that. Your attempt to imply that this distorts the facts is wholly unwarranted. BTW, the passage says nothing about the EIC "screwing up", just that they just that they didn't do anything much, for whatever reason. Whether the BR is "to blame" for later famines is a matter of interpretation, not "reality", but there is nothing in the passage that suggests that such famines did not occur under the Imperial government. Paul B (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The author states that the cause of deaths was starvation, not the famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Same difference. My point is that to conform to WP:NOR (and WP:NPOV) we should neither state nor imply any governmental responsibility for the deaths (or responsibility for preventing the deaths) unless the source does so... and if the source does so, then we should word what we say in the article as being the author's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, this is not synthesis. It is possible, though unlikely, that the wording gives the incorrect impression that the EIC was unable to handle famines but that the Raj was. That is easily taken care of by changing the last two sentences to "After the end of the EIC in 1858, the British government in India set up commissions after each famine to investigate causes and implement new policies. However, it was not until the early 1900 that the results of these investigations had an effect." I don't think that would be a mis-stating of the citation. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Marshall, pp. 133–34.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution