Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clusternote (talk | contribs) at 10:15, 26 March 2015 (→Table-lookup synthesis: (corrected link for music-dsp ML)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Calendar synthesis?

In this edit User:156.61.250.250 cites some early 20th century news stories and concludes "This is a paradox, since a church or country cannot change to the Gregorian calendar twice (unless it has stopped using it in the intervening period)." The editor also concludes "Where a source says that a church or country adopted a certain calendar it is not necessarily correct." I suggest these conclusions constitute synthesis. Furthermore, the sources are inappropriate; news stories are known to often be inaccurate and Misplaced Pages article should rely on secondary sources for events long past. Finally, instruction in how to use sources is not suitable material for a Misplaced Pages article, even if the instructions were correct. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with synthesis, which is conflating statements to make a claim which neither of the statements makes. Jc3s5h says we should use secondary sources - which newspapers are. Since he says newspapers are inaccurate, it is appropriate to use the primary sources. WP:RS says that "the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors" and that the more checking is done of what is reported in secondary sources the better it will be. I have explained this in

For 12 years from 1700 Sweden used a modified Julian calendar, and adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1753.

The only way to confirm information regarding a change of calendar is to examine the relevant legislation. (See Gregorian calendar#Gregorian reform). An authoritative source states that Russia changed on 31 January/14 February 1918 and Greece on 10/24 March 1924.

Areas of Russia not under Bolshevik control at the start of 1918 changed on different dates. The date given for Greece is actually the date that the Greek Orthodox Church adopted the Revised Julian calendar. For civil purposes, Greece changed on 15 February/1 March 1923.

In the twentieth century the Roman Breviary, the most authoritative source apart from the Papal Bull, stated that if the Epact is 25 and the Sunday Letter is C Easter Sunday is 25 April. It may still say that, and it is wrong. Some calendars are so alike that it is difficult to tell them apart. The Gregorian and Revised Julian dates are currently identical. For Muslims, the dates in the Turkish Islamic calendar, Umm - al - Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia and tabular Islamic calendar may be the same but they have different rules. There are a number of variations of the tabular calendar.

and Jc3s5h has raised no objection. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Nautical almanac offices of the United Kingdom and United States, Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris and the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961), pp. 413 - 416.
2. See the summary at Toke Nørby, The Perpetual Calendar..
3. See Social Security Administration publication GN 00307.180 - Gregorian/Julian calendar.

Jc3s5h has tried this trick before. I removed a quote from an authoritative source that he had inserted into Gregorian calendar because mathematically the information could not be correct. Jc3s5h restored it because in his view if it was in a reliable source it should be included. I then had to ferret round for a source which said the information was incorrect before I could remove it again. That's the old "Verifiability not truth" canard which was thrown out years ago. To preserve our reputation we can and must warn readers that authoritative sources cannot be relied upon if that is the case. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the disputed section "Adoption paradox" is not synthesis, but at the same time it's not really about the Gregorian calendar either - rather, the section discusses the accuracy of sources, an issue which is not limited to calendars. As such, it is not suitable for the article in question. Arcorann (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a sub - set of the whole. By definition, what is relevant to the whole is relevant to the sub - set also. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

After rereading the disputed section, I retract my statement about the section not being synthesis. Arcorann (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously synthesis, because it is based upon a particular interpretation laid upon a set of newspaper reports. Simply from the excerpts provided it is unclear exactly what happened other than that the Turks went off the Islamic calendar and (eventually, perhaps immediately) adopted the Gregorian. After all that the point being argued is unclear. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph is absolutely synthesis - your definition is flawed. If reliable sources come to the same conclusion you do in that last paragraph, then cite them. Otherwise, the text is original research. In addition, you either or unknowledgable or wikilawyering when you stated in this diff that "The majority of editors have not said this is synthesis". Consensus is not based on vote counts, and no one supports your edit except you. Finally, I know you are evading, and you know you are evading. That you are obsessed with these articles is OK, if only you could follow WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:OR, and WP:RS. You are heading down the rabbit hole again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Evading? You seem to make a habit of casting unfounded aspersions and editing the SPI archive, something which is not done. Stop leaving stupid messages on my talk page. At least you accept the section is kosher (oksher?) apart from the last paragraph, which you are arguing about. I was unaware of Mangoe’s post when I made the change.

The last paragraph contains five sentences:

This is a paradox, since a church or country cannot change to the Gregorian calendar twice (unless it has stopped using it in the intervening period).

A self – evident truth.

Words mean different things to different people.

I don’t think anyone would dispute that. The word rapariga in European Portuguese means simply a girl. In Brazilian Portuguese it has a pejorative meaning.

Some legislation is clarification of previous legislation after people have been arguing about what it means.

A good example is the Calendar (New Style) Act (1751), which clarified the Calendar (New Style) Act (1750).

You can verify that by reading the statutes (or get a Turkish speaker to do it for you)

What I don’t understand about Misplaced Pages is why some editors like to make readers jump through hoops to get information – a quick journey to the law library and the job is done, but some editors insist that readers must wade through stacks of books in the hope of finding one that contains the information they seek.

Where a source says that a church or country adopted a certain calendar it is not necessarily correct.

Another self – evident truth. Misplaced Pages guidelines point out that there is no such thing as an infallible source. There is one possible exception (not mentioned in Misplaced Pages guidelines), the Pope speaking ‘’ex cathedra’’, but that does not apply here.

Replying to Mangoe, the statement does not rely on any interpretation of news reports. As I say above, it is a self – evident truth. It’s like saying “If you pour water into a bucket which has a hole in it the water will flow out”. No source is required to demonstrate the truth of that. The sequence of events is

1. A reliable source reports that the Turkish parliament has approved legislation introducing the Gregorian calendar.

2. The legislation passes.

3. A reliable source (nine years later) reports that the Turkish parliament has approved legislation introducing the Gregorian calendar.

The point of the section is to alert readers to the fact that secondary sources can and do give misinformation on calendar issues, and it is for that reason that some people (Jc3s5h for example) like to cover their backs by getting it straight from the horse’s mouth. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And that's the problem... If you want to alert readers to the fact that secondary sources can and do give misinformation on calendar issues, you need to find a source that directly notes this fact. Without such a source, stating that fact is Original Research. Furthermore, the concision that the sequence of events create a paradox is OR... it is based on your own analysis of the sources. In order to avoid OR, you need a source that takes the same sequence of events, and reaches the same conclusion (that they create a paradox). It does not matter whether the logic of your analysis is accurate or not. Our policy is that you can't take bits of information and state a conclusion... unless a source has taken those same bits of information and stated the same conclusion first. It does not matter how "self-evident" the conclusion is... if a source does not state it, we can't state it in Misplaced Pages... even if the conclusion is absolutely accurate and true.

(By the way... if you poor water into a bucket which has a hole in it, the water may not actually flow out... It will only do so if the hole is below the level of the water. A bucket with a hole near it's rim will hold water quite well.) Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The highlighted edit is an unacceptable violation of WP:NOR. Whether it is SYNTH or not, I don't think matters. The editor in question has noticed what he/she thinks is a contradiction between sources and wants to write about it in the article. However, it is only that editor's opinion that there is a contradiction. The history of Turkey between 1917 and 1925, that included a war, a revolution, and the declaration of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, makes it perfectly possible that a decision made by one government in 1925 could be similar to one made by a totally different government in 1917. As well as that, the sources do not clearly indicate that the decision was the same; there is talk in the sources of replacing the Muslim calendar by the Gregorian one, as well as changing the date of Easter from the Julian to the Gregorian calendars, and The Times (of London), Oct 26, 1925, said that in finance the Gregorian calendar would replace a solar calendar whose dates were not aligned with either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. The full story is obviously quite complex, which is exactly why we need a source written by someone who has examined the evidence properly. Finally, advice like "Where a source says that a church or country adopted a certain calendar it is not necessarily correct." is true but doesn't belong in an article; put it on the talk page. Zero 01:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no original research. Everything in the section is reported in the sources. It is clear that a decision made by one government can be similar to a decision made by another government. However, once a law is passed it remains in force until it is repealed. That is so elementary that no law book would bother to mention it - same as no editor is required to source the statement "the earth goes round the sun."

If there is an objection to stating the obvious, then the article can simply quote the sources. I think that would be a pity, because it leaves it to the reader to pick up the inconsistency, which he or she may fail to do.

The question of changing the date of Easter is nothing to do with it. By 1917 the Ottoman Empire had broken up, or was in the process of doing so. Under the millet system the various minorities (such as the Christians) had autonomy of religion. It's more than "talk in the sources of replacing the Muslim calendar by the Gregorian one". They say it was done, on two separate occasions nine years apart, which is legally impossible.

From the beginning of Islam there was a solar calendar which ran concurrently with the lunar one. The epoch was AD 632, and all years had 365 days (no leap years).

For the benefit of editors who might want to weigh in, here are the sources:

The Times, 5 January 1916, p. 7

The Turkish Government has prepared a Bill introducing the Gregorian calendar for the civil year. The financial year will begin on March 14. The ecclesiastical year will remain lunar.

The Times, 22 March 1916, p. 7

It is reported from Constantinople that the Bill providing for the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in the Ottoman Empire cannot come into force in the present financial year.

The Times, 23 March 1916, p. 7

The Turkish Parliament not having approved the project, the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar has been postponed sine die.

The Times, 29 March 1916, p. 7

GREGORIAN CALENDAR FOR BULGARIA

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT IN THE BALKAN PENINSULA.)

MARCH 26

The substitution of the Gregorian or Western Calendar for the Julian or Eastern has been voted by the Bulgarian Chamber. The adoption of this change, which has long been delayed on account of the opposition of the Russian Hierarchy, is naturally a demonstration against Russia, and will be generally attributed to a desire to widen the chasm separating the two States.

It is true that, some years ago, shortly before the difference between the calendars had increased from 12 to 13 days, a movement was set on foot in Bulgaria and elsewhere for a change from the Old Style to the New, and the Russophil Stoiloff Cabinet favoured it. But the Russian Holy Synod, under the influence of M. Pobiedonostzeff, then refused to countenance the idea and none of the Balkan States ventured to adopt the reform. A little later the Holy Synod relented so far as to announce the forthcoming issue of a new calendar of its own preparation.

New York Times, 31 January 1917

TURKEY CHANGES CALENDAR

Mohammedan Form Officially Replaced by the Gregorian.

AMSTERDAM, Jan. 30, (via London.)

-A Constantinople dispatch to Reuter's says that the Turkish Parliament, on the recommendation of the Government, has formally adopted the Gregorian calendar.

The Mohammedan calendar, used up to the present in Turkey, was based on the changes of the moon and consisted of twelve lunar months commencing in the Gregorian July.

The Times, 26 October 1925, p. 13

THE CALENDAR IN TURKEY

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

CONSTANTINOPLE, OCT. 25

The Commission for the reform of the calendar has decided in favour of the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, and a Bill for the adoption of the Christian Era will shortly be laid before the Grand National Assembly.

• • Hitherto the Moslem Calendar, which is lunar, has been in force in Turkey except for purposes of finance, for which a solar year with an official date which corresponded neither with the Gregorian, Julian, nor Moslem Era was adopted some years ago.

New York Times, 26 October 1925

WESTERN TIME FOR TURKEY

Angora Commission Adopts Gregorian Calendar and 24 - Hour Clock.

ANGORA, Turkey, Oct. 25 (AP) - Another step toward Western ideas was taken today when a special Government commission decided in favour of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar. The twenty four hour clock will also be introduced.

New York Times, December 6, 1925

Turkey Plans Soon to Adopt Calendar of Christian Era

ANGORA, Dec. 5 (AP). - Following the lead of Rumania, Bulgaria and other Balkan countries, Turkey probably will soon adopt the Christian era and the Gregorian calendar as mediums for measuring time.

A special Parliamentary commission has made a study of the Gregorian calendar with a view to fitting it to Turkish history and current events, and has unanimously recommended its adoption to the National Assembly.

If the Assembly ratifies it immediately, next year will be 1926 instead of 1342. The present Turkish calendar dates from the first day of the month preceding the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which would correspond to July 15, 622 A.D.

EASTER DATE CHANGE AROUSES RUMANIANS; People Disobey Orthodox Synod's Decree Throughout Country .. Twelve Hurt in Riot.

March 30 .. The peace of Easter time is lacking in Rumania this year. The decision of the Synod of the Rumanian Orthodox Church to celebrate Easter on March 31, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar has caused the ...

March 31, 1929 - Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article - Print Headline: EASTER DATE CHANGE AROUSES RUMANIANS; People Disobey Orthodox Synod's Decree Throughout Country - Twelve Hurt in Riot."

FIGHT FOR OLD EASTERTIDE

The disturbances which took place when Easter celebrated in Rumania according to the Gregorian calendar were repeated today when the peasants in many districts persisted in || observing the ' according to the Julian

April 29, 1929 - Wireless to the NEW YORK TIMES. - Article - Print Headline: "FIGHT FOR OLD EASTERTIDE."

It is an essential editorial function to raise suspicion that a source is inaccurate. It's not original research to use outside knowledge and reasoning to reach the conclusion that there's an accuracy problem. When sources disagree on facts, editors should do some digging on whether one of the sources has a reputation for inaccuracy, and whether the consensus of scholarship might have changed between the times of the two publications. If the conflict can't be resolved, the article should report that the conflict exists. It would be original research to anoint one source as more likely to be true within the article itself. It's within editorial discretion to leave out a source entirely if there's consensus that it's flawed. It would require a tertiary source to call out a flawed source in the article, but no sourcing is required to support an editorial consensus. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

To put that more bluntly... This is one of the reasons why we allow a limited degree of Original Research in talk page discussions, but not in article text. Reaching the conclusion (based on OR) that there is an accuracy problem with a source, and bringing that conclusion to the attention of your fellow editors on the talk page is fine. Reaching the conclusion (based on OR) that there is an accuracy problem, and stating that conclusion in the text of the article is not. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The text was also employing original research by the statement "The Turkish legislation of 1917 and 1925 does not mention the Gregorian calendar", without saying what compilation of legislation is being referred to and how one goes about checking that it does not contain something. Complaining that anyone can go to the library and check is not enough. This source (whose reliability I don't comment on) says "Turkey has been following the Gregorian calendar according to law #698 passed in December 26, 1925." I'll also repeat that there is no contradiction in passing similar-looking laws twice. It is even common; see the "terrorism legislation" passed by many countries recently that makes illegal many things that were illegal already. There are reasons why governments do such things. A simple explanation of why this "paradox" wasn't a paradox at all appears in this paper. Zero 14:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This work that I don't have electronic access should be worth consulting too. Zero 14:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to restate legislation. But this case is somewhat different. A Turkish lawyer could go to the 1917 statute book, look up the law and quote its number. In the same way, as Great Britain started using the Gregorian calendar on 14 September 1752, newspapers would, from a certain date specified in the legislation, start showing the Gregorian date and the nation would use the Gregorian date. With the Gregorian calendar already being in use, why would the Assembly set up another commission in 1925 to look at the issue afresh? As your second link put it, "It is a solar calendar, first put into use in AD 1676, and adopted by more areas of trade and administration until it became the official standard calendar of the empire in AD 1839. The supremacy of SM usage then lasted until AD 1917, when it was first modified to accord with Gregorian NS reckoning over Julian OS." (My emphasis). You doubt the reliability of your first link, which is at variance with the second link, but why don't you doubt the reliability of the second link as well? Your third link splits the difference and says that the Hijri calendar was used till 1923. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. The entire section added by the IP editor was clearly inappropriate. First, there is no adoption "paradox." There is simply a conflict between different sources as to when an event occurred. As User Zero pointed out, "The history of Turkey between 1917 and 1925, that included a war, a revolution, and the declaration of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, makes it perfectly possible that a decision made by one government in 1925 could be similar to one made by a totally different government in 1917." This is an encyclopedia: there are conflicting sources on every single subject contained in the encyclopedia (for example, the famous front page news story which mistakenly announced the defeat of Harry Truman in the presidential election) ]

If, for each and every subject, the encyclopedia quoted two conflicting sources and claimed a "paradox," then each and every article would contain such a statement. That would be fatuous. Our job is to find the best possible sources and cite to them. If there is a conflict even among the highest-quality sources, then we don't pick sides but note the conflict in the article without unnecessary commentary.

I am certain that Turkey did adopt the Gregorian calendar at some point. Our job is to find the reliable sources that tell us when. Clearly, newspaper clippings aren't cutting it: we'll need to dig deeper and research more thoroughly.

In any case, an entire section jawboning about exactly when Turkey or Russia adopted the new calendar is probably not appropriate for this article -- it is a distraction from the main thrust of the article. -Xanthis (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely. In fact I modified the article on these lines some time ago. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Donors Trust and Franklin Center

There is a dispute at Donors Trust. Donors Capital Fund, and Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity over whether this Guardian source can be used to say that DT and DCF granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power and to oppose state-level responses to sea level rise. There is no dispute about the reliability of the source. The question is whether this is an over-interpretation of the source per WP:SYNTH. I'm pinging those who have weighed in: HughD, Arthur Rubin, and Champaign Supernova. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The source does not say that $6.3 million was used for an anti-solar/wind media campaign. In fact, closely reading the article gives rise to the obvious conclusion that this was not all used for "a campaign against wind and solar", in fact there is no way in the ref to know how much (if any) way earmarked for such a campaign. This looks like a clear WP:OR problem. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The verbatim lede from the source, included in the ref at Donors Trust for convenience (since deleted): "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects, and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise, the Guardian has learned." Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The title of the source: "Media campaign against windfarms funded by anonymous conservatives." Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Rough paraphrase of the source as used in Donors Trust: "Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power and to oppose state-level responses to sea level rise." Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Rough paraphrase" is the very problem, i.e. should we be sourcing to "rough paraphrases" or do we require sources to say things explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here the intention was merely to distinguish from close paraphrase. Hugh (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a policy on WP editors, not a requirement on the authors and editors of our reliable sources. In this case the author and editor of what is conceded to be a reliable source of the highest rank, writing in plain English, agree on the proposed content. That is what we hope our investigative journalist will do on a good day. Synth if any is in our sources, where it belongs, not a WP editor. This one is easy: no synth, no OR. Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the other side's argument. The Guardian published X. You want to include in our article Y. The question is whether X and Y are close enough (or whether Y logically follows from X) such that we are allowed to do this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No inference of any kind is necessary to accept this content, just a reading comprehension level sufficient to understand The Guardian, which is pretty middling. The proposed content is a reasonable paraphrase of a very reliable source. No conclusions are drawn. No synth, no OR. Hugh (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult. You have an interesting approach to consensus building. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel offended. No insult was intended. Hugh (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that, to not-so-roughly paraphrase, you're saying I don't have the reading comprehension level sufficient to understand The Guardian. So now you have insulted and lied to the one editor who gives you any support at all. Keep it up, champ. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. Again sorry if you took offense. Hugh (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Then who were you talking about? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have made substantial edits to Donors Trust: NickCT, Cwobeel. Hugh (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have made substantial edits to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity: Cwobeel, Fred Bauder.

Why did you choose those editors? There are many editors who have made larger contributions to those articles than them. Now we have to ping them all to avoid the appearance of canvassing. Sigh. Safehaven86 Srich32977 Dr. Blofeld CambridgeBayWeather Hawkswin Iupaulies Safehaven86 Schematica Freemarketguru Rhetorent Joeshbotnick Kokomoto Sfan00IMG --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is a case of WP:SYNTH. It seems the Guardian author might be implying the Donors Trust money was used to fund this anti-wind energy campaign, however the author does not come right out and say "Money given by Donors Trust to the Franklin Center was used for this campaign..." If the author had felt strongly enough that there was causal evidence for this assertion, maybe they would have written this. But they didn't. So it's inappropriate for us, as summarizers of sources, to put such a conclusion in our article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"...the author does not come right out and say "Money given by Donors Trust to the Franklin Center was used for this campaign..." EXACTLY what the author says in the LEDE SENTENCE of the reliable source is the grants to FC from DT & DTF were used for a 1. campaign against wind & solar and 2. to block sea level response, and that's ALL the proposed paraphrase says. This could not possibly be more clear. 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the lede of the article says "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects, and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise, the Guardian has learned." That is different from saying "Donors Trust gave money to the Franklin Center for a campaign against wind energy." Do you see why we are having this discussion? You are substituting in the names of the organizations where you believe they belong, but that's not what the source, in fact, says. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, your pinging of other editors is quite creative, taking a rather selective view of the article's edit history. Please read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. Fred Bauder and Cwoebeel have each made exactly two edits to the article. I ran a contributor analysis and found 14 other editors--not bots, and not editors currently named here--who've made more. Sigh. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources appear to say that $6.3 million was given to the trust, and that the trust was used to oppose wind and solar energy. These claims are in the clear. That the money was given to oppose wind and solar cannot be said unless the sources say so explicitly, which does not appear to be the case. Rhoark (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The quote: "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects, and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise, the Guardian has learned." This quote does not support the edit. This does specifically not say that $6.3 million was donated to fund an anti-wind/anti-solar campaign. Nothing in the article specifies how much (if any) was earmarked for anti-wind/anti-solar "campaigns". Capitalismojo (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought; the article says that $6.3 million was donated by Donors Trust to Franklin, and that (unnamed people) used "a pair of secretive trusts" (well, actually, they aren't "trust"s) to support those specific projects (at Franklin). We know what those "trust"s are, but they weren't explicitly identified in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering how long it would take and who would be 1st to try an litigate that maybe the "pair of secretive trust" of the lede are not Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. After all, how do we KNOW? Hugh (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, come on, that's taking things too far. "The two funds" refers to the only thing it could, "the trusts, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund" that are described 3 sentences earlier. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The source could not be more clear: the funds were used for 1. a media campaign against wind & solar and 2. block planning for sea level. That is what the source says, in plain English. And that is ALL the proposed parphrase says. The source does not use the term "earmark" but neither does the proposed paraphrase. Please help us all focus on the proposed paraphrase. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It could indeed be more clear. Lets take the sea level bit, for example. That is apparently a project of the John Locke Foundation not the Franklin Center which received the "trusts' money". It seems highly doubtful that it took the "trusts" money, and there is no indication in the article that it did. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. There is one grant described in the source, the $6m DT/DCF to FC (another dollar amount in the source is an aggregate of all DT/DCF spending offered on background). FC is identified with the media campaign and the sea level bit with other. so...

Revised paraphrase of the source: "Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power." Hugh (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, the source does not say that. It just doesn't. We can't read our surmises or theories into the text. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some sentence diagramming will help? "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects (Franklin), and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise (Jon Locke and others)" Is this not our mutual understanding of the source if not the lede? Our paraphrase of a source in WP may take into account the whole source, are we now focusing too much on the lede? Hugh (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Now you are inserting your own words into a quote? Really? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that was not proposed content, that was to see if you & I have the same understanding of the source and its lede. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

More insight: John Locke is, according to the wikipedia article, apparently entirely self funded. Donors Trust and DCF 990s list all their donations. In what is not a surprise, there are no contributions from DT/DCF to Locke, ever. Since the article doesn't say it explicitly, and since Guidestar shows it is actually untrue, we had best not put it in an article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We agree, no one is proposing we mention Locke or sea level in DT, DCF, or FC. Hugh (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In an effort to advance the discussion a bit, it's clear to me the source does imply the proposed content. However it does not expressly state it, and for that reason I don't think we should can include it. It's quite unfortunate that a highly reputable news outlet would publish a piece with unstated implications, thereby confusing the reader. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It could not possibly be more clear that the source explicitly supports the proposed content, "Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power." No profound leap of logic is required. Hugh (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If what you're saying is true then why has no one agreed with you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Brandi Love

Is this edit OR? It was removed here stating it is, but I added it to the Lead as a simple observation of the award categories that this person has won or been nominated for. It does not even seem like a "stretch" or exaggeration to make the statement, its just a summary of a significant part of the article. Am I wrong or missing some other aspect of OR? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable summary of the awards section. Not OR. Rhoark (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Interaction of WP:OR and WP:Cherrypicking

I have posted a question at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Is_WP:Cherrypicking.23Contradictions_invalidated_by_WP:STICKTOSOURCE.3F regarding the intersection of WP:Cherrypicking and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Comments are appreciated. Rhoark (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Goes Before Optics

There is an article on Theatrical Lighting Equipment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Gobo_(lighting)

It is about a Gobo. The current article states: "A gobo (or GOBO) derived from "Go Between" or "Goes Before Optics" is a physical stencil or template..."

This has no citation, and is incorrect. I have attempted to update this by citing the history of the word itself from an older dictionary to demonstrate its correct history. I did so using this source:

(Merriam Webster New Collegiate Dictionary. G & C Merriam Company, Springfield Mass 1979 ISBN 0-87779-358-1) Gobo pl. gobos, also goboes 1: a darkstrip (as of wallboard) to shield a motion-picture or television camera from light. 2: A device to shield a microphone from sound.

A dictionary is absolutely the correct publication to cite the history of a word, and by demonstrating a different definition than is stated, and by doing so from a dictionary published in an era before these items were commonly employed, I believe I have conformed to the strictures of Misplaced Pages.

However, my corrections were discarded, and the erroneous "Goes Before Optics" item is back in place, without a cited source of any kind.

I am a Professor of Lighting Design at an accredited university. I am open to seeing any argument about this, provided that it is cited. However, it is highly improper for my cited argument to be dismissed in favor of an uncited conjecture.

Thank you for your consideration.

Matt Kizer

There does not seem to be a verifiable scholarly etymology, but it is often treated as an acronym in actual parlance. Both aspects should be reported. Rhoark (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It has no citation and I have removed it. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki

• Article: Reiki
• Source: Lee, MS; Pittler, MH; Ernst, E (2008). "Effects of Reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials". International Journal of Clinical Practice. 62 (6): 947–54. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x. PMID 18410352. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
• Source language: "In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven."
• Proposed content: "Used as a medical treatment, reiki is ineffective."

Is this an over-reading of the source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good paraphrase (full disclosure: it's mine). We need to summarize the whole source faithfully and it finds that reiki is an ineffecive treatment (beyond placebo) which in the context of evidence-based medicine makes it an ineffective treatment; this we need to relay in lay terms for the general reader. One of the source authors has blogged about the paper which gives us a lay summary; he writes "Those that are rigorous show quite clearly that Reiki is a placebo. Our own review therefore concluded that 'the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition… the value of Reiki remains unproven.'". Since this is a question of how medical-speak is translated into general text input from WT:MED may be helpful. The proposed alternatives at Talk:Reiki like "studies to date have not shown any medical benefit", as well as not accurately accounting for any placebo effect, are holding the door open to later research coming good for reiki, a fringe practice, and this is a game we shouldn't play. Alexbrn 07:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• "We need to summarize the whole source faithfully and it finds that reiki is an ineffecive treatment (beyond placebo)..." I think what you're saying here is there's other language in the source that supports the content. Please provide the relevant language.
• "One of the source authors has blogged about the paper which gives us a lay summary.." Different source. If we're relying on it it must be cited per WP:V, and it wouldn't survive WP:MEDRS.
• "The proposed alternatives...are holding the door open to later research coming good for reiki, a fringe practice, and this is a game we shouldn't play." Total misapplication of WP:CBALL, but regardless, if there's a problem with my proposed alternative then you're free to suggest another, but we can't have contested content that fails verification. That's a bedrock principle here. If we can't find appropriate language then the source shouldn't be cited at all (an outcome neither of us wants). (Work with me. Put down the battle axe.)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Alexbrn in this matter, and oppose any language in our article that hints at possible different future results. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• I think the paraphrase goes too far. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'd prefer to report what was said as precisely that: "there is no evidence to suggest that reiki is effective'. Banedon (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The paraphrase is a bit bold. No responsible researcher would make such a sweeping and absolute conclusion from their own literature review, which is no doubt why such strong language does not appear in the original source. What can we say? It depends, as Dr. Fleischman correctly notes, on what else the source says. Taken by itself the sentence above only says that "reiki is unproven", and as Banedon points out, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." However, it seems likely that the clinical trials reviewed in the source were designed to detect any difference in clinical outcome between the placebo group and the experimental (reiki) group. If the trials showed no difference in outcome then it is not merely absence of evidence: it would be positive evidence of absence, and it would not be inaccurate to say "there is substantial evidence that reiki is ineffective."

Still, even if all the trials reviewed by Dr. Lee showed no benefit, it would be quite a leap to such an absolute statement as, "reiki is ineffective, period." There might be questions as to the particular method that Dr. Lee and his team used to conduct the review (was it a meta-analysis? Was it a simple literature review? How many studies were reviewed, and what were the criteria for including/excluding individual studies? What method was used to select reiki practitioners in the underlying trials?). Dr. Lee, who is no doubt aware of these variables, does not claim that his review is the final word that can ever be uttered on the subject - therefore neither should we. But I also agree that we shouldn't understate the evidence, nor should we hint at possibly different future results if no such results are on the horizon.

Based on the source given here, I would recommend something like, "There is substantial evidence that reiki is not effective. Numerous experiments have failed to show any benefit." -Xanthis (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

GENEALOGIE,Gerard bronsard, 2001.

To whom it concern,

You are using datas of my book GENEALOGY, GERARD BRONSARD, 2001, given as a gift to the Church of Later Day Saints of Utah.

Don't panic I won't sue you ! I just ask that you mention the source and the author when you do so. This is to allow the researchers

to reach me when needed because there is a lot of new informations founded since the edition of 2001.

You have my permission to submit my email address in reference when you cite my book.

Many thanks, Gerard Bronsard.24.202.21.240 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).: Propos sur les BRUNSEREYTE,BRUNJEWERTE,BRUNSARTSKY,BRUNSERT,BRONSERT,BRUNSART,BRONSART

                                             von BRONSART,BRONSARDT,BRONSACK,BRONSOR,BRUNSARD,BRONSARD,BRONSART von Schellendorff,
                                             BRONSARD dit l'angevin, certains LANGEVIN.
                                             généalogie, Gérard BRONSARD, 2001.

GENEALOGIE,Gerard bronsard, 2001.

To whom it concern,

You are using datas of my book GENEALOGY, GERARD BRONSARD, 2001, given as a gift to the Church of Later Day Saints of Utah.

Don't panic I won't sue you ! I just ask that you mention the source and the author when you do so. This is to allow the researchers

to reach me when needed because there is a lot of new informations founded since the edition of 2001.

You have my permission to submit my email address in reference when you cite my book.

Many thanks, Gerard Bronsard.24.202.21.240 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).: Propos sur les BRUNSEREYTE,BRUNJEWERTE,BRUNSARTSKY,BRUNSERT,BRONSERT,BRUNSART,BRONSART

                                             von BRONSART,BRONSARDT,BRONSACK,BRONSOR,BRUNSARD,BRONSARD,BRONSART von Schellendorff,
                                             BRONSARD dit l'angevin, certains LANGEVIN.
                                             généalogie, Gérard BRONSARD, 2001.

gerardbronsard@gmail.com

All dictionaries say

We have a dispute at Celibacy that ought to be pretty easy to solve.

Background

Celibacy is a word derived from the Latin word for "marriage", and used to mean (only and exactly) that you weren't married. Since approximately the Sexual Revolution, when sexual activity and marriage got divorced, it has developed a secondary meaning of not engaging in sexual activity as well as not being married. It has also developed stronger religious tones.

And there are some internet groups and a couple of authors pushing the idea of "involuntary celibacy", by which they mean that some people have a hard time forming and sustaining romantic and sexual relationships. Most of us here know how easily new-ish ideas on the internet can degenerate into POV pushing on Misplaced Pages.

But there are other people that say that not being successful at relationships has nothing at all to do with celibacy, because celibacy, from their POV, is always a voluntary abstention from sexual relationships, and almost always for religious reasons.

Small dispute

The article asserted "All dictionaries define celibacy as necessarily voluntary". The source was a three-paragraph-long encyclopedia article that didn't say anything at all about any dictionaries.

When this was disputed, it was changed to say "all major dictionaries" (I guess the definition of a "major" dictionary is any dictionary that agrees with this claim?), and three more encyclopedias and two actual dictionaries were added as sources.

References

1. Johannes P. Schadé (2006). Encyclopedia of World Religions. Foreign Media Group. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-60136-000-7.
2. "the Encyclopedia Britannica - (Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee.)". global.britannica.com. Retrieved 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia - page 359, 'the deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice.'". books.google.se. Retrieved 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
4. "Oxford Dictionary - The state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations". Retrieved 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
5. "Children's Britannica A voluntary refusal to marry or engage in sexual intercourse, celibacy is often associated with taking religious vows. The three types of religious celibacy are sacerdotal, monastic, and institutional. ". Retrieved 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
6. "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, 2011". www.thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

However, once again, none of the cited sources make any assertions at all about what "all dictionaries" or "all major dictionaries" say. Also, none of the dictionaries actually include the word voluntary. Instead, they refer to "abstaining", which is in turn defined primarily as a voluntary choice to not do something (at least, voluntary within limits; it's not unusual to speak of people with severe food allergies as needing to "abstain" from foods that might kill them).

I think this is a straightforward case of {{failed verification}}. You can't pick out four encyclopedias that don't mention dictionaries at all, plus two dictionaries that include the word "abstaining", and then declare that "All dictionaries say that this is voluntary". These sources do not comply with WP:V or WP:SYNTH. All this sort of sourcing really does is give me an excuse to tell the old joke about proving that all numbers are prime numbers: "One is prime, two is prime, three is prime—let's publish!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For the talk page discussion regarding this dispute, see this link. As seen there, I share WhatamIdoing's WP:Synthesis viewpoint on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

United States of Europe

United States of Europe, European federation, European state, are names given to several similar hypothetical scenarios of the unification of Europe as a single sovereign federation of states, similar to the United States of America, both as projected by writers of speculative fiction and science fiction, and by political scientists, politicians, geographers, historians, and futurologists.

The term United States of Europe, as a direct comparison with the United States of America, would imply that all the European states would be reduced to a status equivalent to that of a US state, losing their national sovereignty in the process and becoming constituent parts of a European federation.

This concept was advanced by Winston Churchill as the British view of how to structure Europe. He never implied that Britain would become the analog of a US state, quite the opposite. Raggz (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Table-lookup synthesis

• Table-lookup_synthesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clusternote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A tag for WP:SPEEDY deletion was placed on this article that is clearly an invention of User:Clusternote and is, at best, a WP:CONTENTFORK. The user has immediately removed the deletion tag as if his judgment is all that is needed to end the discussion. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Now I'm consulting to administrator about a continuous stalking for over two years by this IP user 65.183.xxx.xxx. (possibly a banned user who have convened meat puppets on music-dsp ML) --Clusternote (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Does this summary of press releases count as a "secondary source"?

I would like to confirm if this article by the Anime News Network, which summarizes four press releases, counts as a "secondary source":

• "Viz Manga/Book News" (Archive). Anime News Network. November 12, 1999.

Here are the Viz press releases for comparison purposes:

• "Press Releases : November 1999 : Magical Pokémon Journey " (Archive)
• "Press Releases : November 1999 : New Pokémon Books" (Archive)
• "Press Releases : November 1999 : Short Program Graphic Novel" (Archive)
• "Press Releases : November 1999 : Electric Pikachu Boogaloo Graphic Novel" (Archive)

Notice that the texts between the press releases and the article summarizing them are not exactly the same (I do notice possibly a bit of close paraphrasing and sentences that seem the same, but the above article is not the verbatim press releases). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution