Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 12:45, 11 February 2010 (→IRFU flag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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

Mass killings under Communist regimes

It has been asserted that Mass killings under Communist regimes is a coatrack, synthesis, and thus original research.

The argument placed for this is that:

The article implies by listing in proximity that there is a specifically communist cause for the events listed

No cause is forthcoming which is specifically communist:

Some causes have communism as a descriptive subset, for example, Valeninto theorises a category of "dispossessive mass killings", and describes communism as a subset

Some claims of cause are patently FRINGE (Weiss-Wendt)

Some claims are not explorations of the subject, Courtois' throw away three paragraphs on criminality and non-catholicism as the fundamental cause in the introduction to the black book

Some claims are single society specific, and are not general to "communism", such as Conquest's

Without an academic theorisation of specifically communist causes, and general causes, observed in academic literature specifically discussing multiple societies, the article is OR

What help can NOR/N provide? Given the heated nature of the debate on the article, I've taken the liberty of giving space for a specific summary counter argument to my own, and separated the space for involved and uninvolved editors, to avoid drowning NOR/N editor advice below an export of article discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article makes no claims which are SYNTH, and this is now procedure for the sake of procedure. I was accused of SYNTH and OR for this Talk page post contains no OR or SYN, and is not even in the article for any such claim to be made. As the premise is faulty, this is not a "counter argument" of any kind or sort, and immediately follows the post from Fifelfoo. Collect (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To Fif: Listing sources when an editor has asked specifically for such does not qualify as SYN or OR. See "What did you do to improve the article from RS today Collect? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC) " which, for some odd reason, I interpreted as asking for some RS sources. Amazing that I am that gullible. Collect (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Space for a summary counter position to Fifelfoo's above

For involved editors

Smallbones

I'll just repeat the examples I've given on the talk page to show that no matter what evidence is shown some editors continual cry "Synthesis, synthesis."

I asked who they would consider to be mainstream scholars in the area and they answered Benjamin Valentino and Helen Fein:

from Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century‬ By Benjamin A. Valentino In Chapter 4. Communist Mass Killings, The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia p.93

"Why did the communist utopias of the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia become history's greatest slaughterhouses? I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social changes they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments."

Helen Fein -"The study also confirmed our expectation that genocide is most apt to be practiced by authoritarian states and (e)specially by one-party communist states, which were more than four times more likely to have committed genocide since 1945 than other unfree states were."

The "synthesis" and "original research" arguments they harp on for deleting this article are pure nonsense.

Fifelfoo

Responding to Collect above, Collect's diff of their talk contribution is a perfect example of SYNTH and OR by listing in proximity. By listing unrelated items, without a RS'd structural explanation for the list, an implied commonality is created. While this was a talk page contribution, it is a beautiful miniature example of the SYNTH problem with the main article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you stated, "As for asking for RS sources try: And so on == all RS, all directly on point for this article as it is titled.". That's a SYNTH argument for the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminology:

"Mass killing" is a relatively neutral term used by Benjamin Valentino for preventable premature deaths. There is a genuine research object in genocide studies of preventable premature deaths caused by both neglect and action; and, another genuine research object which separates preventable premature deaths that were neglectful from preventable premature deaths that were caused. Democide, politicide, genocide, mass killings are all terms that have been used. I'm not bothered by this, but there's a problem in the article's capacity to express these differences at the moment. That both types of preventable premature deaths are objects of study isn't in question in RS.

In response to questions:

No currently discovered sources lump these objects of horror together in the way done in the article; no sources used in the article discuss the sub-topics in the manner conducted in the article

Courtois et.al. in the highly disputed and attacked, "Black Book of Communism," present a number of separately authored chapters without a sustaining narrative or thematising introduction. The individual chapters are RS single society case studies, but do not make comparative evaluations, or describe instances as connected. Courtois' introduction and conclusion are focused exclusively on the Soviet Union and do not present general theories.

Benjamin Valentino restricts his work to Soviet Union, China, Cambodia

Demographic studies conflate the preventable premature deaths of all these instances, but do so in tabular lists without theorised discussion typology or category

There is a FRINGE tendency to claim that "Communism" was/is a monolithic structure which doesn't need internal differentiation.

Only the content on theorisation attempts is not described separately in a main article.

There is no scholarly discussion of lumping events. Attacks on the Black Book have focused on the quality of the research. FRINGE claims of universal monolithic communist criminality have been slammed for being FRINGE.

IMHO there is no purpose served by the detailed chronology of events except to attempt to prove an Original Research claim by COATRACK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Blueboar:

Valentino has a category Dispossessive mass killings which contains (a b c d e f g) of which China, Cambodia and the Soviet Union are described as, but not categorised as "communist mass killings"

Authors such as Rummel or other demographers use the terms democide or politicide covering all major preventable death incidents in the 20th century, not making theoretical claims particular to communism

A variety of single case authors describe individual events as genocide.

The Four Deuces

Although there is no academic literature connecting mass killings with Communist regimes, there is a non-academic theory that communist ideology leads to mass killings. The theory was developed by theorists who equate communist killings with Nazi Germany (moral equivalence). The theory has its immediate origins in holocaust denial, but instead of denying the holocaust (holcaust trivialization), it equates the crimes of communists with the natural reaction of Europeans against the "Jewish threat". Many Eastern European advocates of the theory were upset when their governments apologized for their involvement in the holocaust because the Jews had not apologized for causing WW2. The main point is that while Nazis may have killed 6 million (although that is questioned) the Jewish communists killed 100 million. Communism is equated with Jewishness although some versions replace Jews with Russians.

Originally I voted to delete this article because of its inherent POV, OR, and SYN problems. However on reading more about its significance in far right ideology I think it is a legitimate article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

The "Terminology" section is composed of some statements that do not reflect adequately the sources, and thereby create a distorted picture. In the second section's paragraph

("Valentino uses the term "mass killing," which he defines as "the intentional killing of a significant number of the members of any group of noncombatants (as the group and its membership are defined by the perpetrator)," in his book "Final Solutions: The Causes of Mass Killings and Genocides." In a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China and Cambodia", He focuses on these three as "history's most murderous Communist states," but also notes that "mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa."(p91)")

a Valentino's definition of mass killing is provided that is supplemented with a detailed description of one chapter of his book that is devoted to mass killings in three Communist countries. This fragment is intended to create an impression that Valentino developed a "Communist mass killing" concept, what is obviously false, because he clearly wrote in the same chapter that "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as Communist or been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." My conclusion is that the second para is SYNTH.
The third para

("Regarding the use of democide and politicide data, Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago have shown that depending on the use of democide (generalised state-sponsored killing) or politicide (eliminating groups who are politically opposed) as the criterion for inclusion in a data-set, statistical analyses seeking to establish a connection between mass killings can produce very different results, including the significance or otherwise of regime type.")

is, probably, the most vague way to present a very clear authors' conclusion ("It would therefore appear (assuming for the moment that there are not any big measurement biases) that autocratic regimes, especially communist, are prone to mass killing generically, but not so strongly inclined (i.e. not statistically significantly inclined) toward geno-politicide."). In other words, Wayman and Tago simply state that there is no statistically significant linkage between genocide and Communism, although some connection between autocracy and mass killing does take place. My conclusion is that this para is pure OR. One way or the another, this para deals with connection between Communism and mass killing, not with terminology.
A fourth para ("Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars has termed the mass state killings in the Soviet Union and Cambodia as the "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide".") also pretends to create an impression that Helen Fein put forward the term "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide". In actuality, according to Fein's own words ""However, while totalitarian states have been more likely to commit genocide than are other states, most cases of contemporary genocide since World War II were committed by authoritarian, not totalitarian states, and are not ascribable to ideology." it is impossible to speak about genocide or democide as something pertinent to Communism. My conclusion is that the para is pure OR.
The fifth para ("In his book The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century Manus I. Midlarsky compares similarity of killings of Stalin with those of Pol Pot.") is quite obscure for me because it has nothing to do with terminology.
The sixth para ("Communist states are alleged by some genocide scholars, such as Daniel Goldhagen and Benjamin Valentino, to be responsible for deaths far in excess of any other regime type") deals with the number of Communists' victims and also has nothing in common with terminology.

Summarising all said above, the whole section pretends to create an impression that some special terminology exists that describes Communist mass killings. I believe I was able to demonstrate it is absolutely false.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the "terminology" section is only the emerged part of the iceberg. AFAIK the article's previous name was Communist genocide. The article was renaimed to avoid deletion (if I am not wrong). I personally have no major objection against the old name (as well as against the present one) provided that, but only provided that the article combined only well established cases of mass murders and genocide (Cambodia, Stalin's Great Purge, etc) and briefly mentioned other cases of preventable prematutre deaths that, according to some scholars, can be considered "genocide", "democide", "politicide" etc, (and, according to others, cannot).
By contrast, the article tends to become a collection of all cases of premature mortality under Communist rule, and even a single mention of certain case by one scholar apperars to be sufficient for its inscusion into the article. In my opinion it is WP:FRINGE and WP:SYN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Blueboar (1, 2, 3)

I believe, we have a mixture of 1 and 3. (i) Some (very few) sources, mostly Valentino, combine all premature mortality cases (including, mass murders, mass executions, prisoner mortality, deportations' mortality, famine victims, and even low fertility) into the "communist mass killing" sub-category (with reservation that mass killing are not pertinent to Communism in general). Some other scholars (Rummel) blame Communism more explicitly, however they use a "democide" (not "mass killing") term. (iii) Many scholars describe the same events taken separately, or group them according to different criteria, and use the terminology other than "mass killing". (For instance, Helen Fein (quoted in the article) discusses Cambodia and Indonesia as examples of genocides perpetrated by "communist" (she considers Khmer Rouge not Communist, but a kind of fascist regime) and anti-communists and finds many common features.) Other scholars provide much different (lower) numbers of the victims of Communism, argue that not all governments' actions were deliberate, and conclude that there is no direct connection between Communism and genocide.
Summarizing all said above, the article has a strong tendency to become a collection of all cases of mass killings, genocides, mass premature (not coercive) mortality under Communist regimes without explanation why all these quite different and sometimes very controversial cases have been combined in the same article named "Mass killings under Communist regimes"--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Given the article title, there is a clear implication that all of these events were caused because the regemes in question were communist." I proposed to add a separate section devoted to this issue, however I encountered a vehement opposition to this idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For uninvolved editors

Questions

1. How many of sources cited on the page actually lump these events together the way it's done in the article?
2. How much of the content of this article is not already described in a separate main article?
3. And if there are sufficient sources cited claiming these events can be or can't be lumped, why not concentrate on the discussions surrounding that central question? What purpose is served by the detailed chronicle of independent events?

I haven't studied the article, but it and the similar Anti-communist mass killings do have aspects that make them appear to be coatracking beyond where the sourced analysis takes the subject. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just note that the Anti-communist mass killings seems to have been written as a WP:Point. Apparently some editors thought that any argument used to advance the deletion of "Anti-communist mass killings" could also be used as an argument to delete "Communist mass killings". Nobody has taken the bait. "Anti-communist mass killings" should be deleted, but only because it violates WP:Point. Smallbones (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

wow... that article definitely has issues... I will have to read it very carefully to see if the problems stem from SYNT or other OR related issues, or if it is simply just a rampant POV nightmare. My first reaction is to say that it uses an overly broad interpretation of "mass killing". The article treats both overt acts (people being executed) and pasive acts (people dieing due to famine or in the process of being deported) as being "mass killings"... which seems wrong to me. Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For which the article Talk page is the proper venue -- and such discussions have occurred. Generally the deaths which were not due to government actions or policies have been removed. This is, moreover, to be seen in context of a half-dozen or more noticeboard complaints in short order, while WP has a WP:DEADLINE. Collect (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about a deadline? As for OR... I think Prof. Marginalia asks the key question... are there sources that lump the different events that the article does mention together, and do so using the term "Mass killing" (or a even an analogous term)? If not, then it could well be WP:SYNT for us to do so. (and as for having multiple complaints on multiple noticeboards... I would take them as a hint that there is something seriously wrong with the article... and that perhaps it needs some serious rethinking.) Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If there were more than 3 complainants, you might have a point - but it is the same ones, over and over <g>. And since there are several thousand references which use the term, I suggest that SYN is not a problem, indeed. Collect (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do all of these thousands of sources mention all of these events, using the same term... or are we talking seperate sources, all using the same term, but focusing on seperate events. This is important to determining if there is a synth... To make this clear, take the following three senarios:

1. Source A say that events x, y and z are all examples of "mass killing"... so we say event x,y and z are all examples of "mass killing".
2. Source B says that event x is a mass killing, source C says that event y is a mass killing, and source D says that event z is a mass killing. so we combine these sources and say events x, y and z are all examples of "mass killing"
3. Source B says that event x was "genocide", source C says that event y is "a horror of totalitarian brutality and death", source D says event z resulted in "thousands dieing due to deliberate governmental inaction"... so we say events x, y and z are all examples of "mass killing".

What we want is is the first senario... one single source that discusses all the events and applies the term "mass killing" to all of them. The second senario is iffy... it might be an example of Synt, or it might not... this depends on whether each source uses the term "mass killing" with the same meaning. The third senario is definitely an example of synth... each source is discussing different events, using different terminology, and we are the ones tying it all together under the banner of "mass killing". From looking at the article under discussion... it looks as if we are dealing with the third senario.

And this does not even address the issue of implied cause... Given the article title, there is a clear implication that all of these events were caused because the regemes in question were communist. So what we really need is: Source A saying that event x, y, and z were all "mass killings" which occured due to the fact that the countries in which they happened were communist. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly 1) e.g.

• The Black Book of Communism (from Harvard University Press) gives examples from 10 countries, using terms such as "mass executions" and "genocide," which are clearly subsets of "mass killings." While it concentrates on totaling up and documenting the numbers, it also briefly mentions motivation related to Communist ideology and totalitarianism.
• Valentino - see quote directly below - uses the term "mass killing" and concentrates on the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cambodia, and gives ideological reasons.
• Goldhagen (former Harvard prof, forthcoming PBS series on the issue) in Worse than War , uses the term "genocide" (a subset of "mass killing") gives examples from probably about 20 countries, both Communist and non-Communist, certainly covering all the countries covered in the Black Book, and gives specific Communist ideological and "practical" reasons for the Communist genocides. The ideological reasons echo Valentino

So you asked for one, I've given you three. There are lots more, but they do tend to focus on 1 or 2 countries at a time, and some just mention the ideological reasons in passing. Smallbones (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• from Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century‬ By Benjamin A. Valentino In Chapter 4. Communist Mass Killings, The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia p.93

"Why did the communist utopias of the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia become history's greatest slaughterhouses? I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social changes they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments." (put here for your convenience Smallbones (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Smallbones has clearly missed out Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars who has published back in 1993 a chapter on the subject under 'Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides' in 'Genocide: a sociological perspective.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fein, Helen (1993). "Soviet and Communist genocides and 'Democide'". Genocide: a sociological perspective; Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides;. Sage Publications. ISBN 9780803988293. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

(Although only uninvolved editors are supposed to post in this section, let me continue a dispute with involved editors, as soon as they decided to post here). Both Valentino and Fein clearly state that there is no direct connection between Communism and mass killing. Valentino explicitly states that most Communist regimes committed no mass killing, whereas Fein unequivocally notes that most mass killings in 1950s and after were not connected to ideology. I have already provided the quotes several time, so I don't think I heed to reproduce them literally here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That by Paul Siebert seems like wishful thinking. both Helen Fein and Valentino are very clear about the connection between the ideology and the killings. and from there you have it "Communist mass killings" by Valentino speaks for itself and Fein even puts her chapter on "Soviet and Communist genocides and 'Democide'" under Ideological Genocides.--Termer (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like one thing that would help is to clearly attribute ideas to their authors. To say "Helen Fein argues X..." and "according to Valentino, Y"... rather than mearly stating X and Y as accepted fact. This would help clarify what is and is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll all make an effort to attribute ideas to their authors (it would help, of course, if folks don't keep on removing reliable sources in the article and the text that summarizes them!), but as long as everybody accepts the interpretation of OR and Syth put forward for this case by BlueBoar, there is absolutely no case for saying the whole idea of the article is syth. Can we all agree that BlueBoar's interpretation is correct, and that at least one of the 4 examples given above satisfy the required conditions to be non-synth? Smallbones (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What is OR-ish in the article is pretty clear, for example a statement like this according to Rudolph Joseph Rummel turning into a self commentary by combining sourced that do not speak about the same thing --Termer (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This subject is outside my area of expertise. I've made a few comments based on the title of the article on the talk page. I find the title objectionable, because it sounds like red-baiting and sounds unencyclopedic. I find titles such as anti-communist mass killings, or Christian mass killings, or Moslem mass killings equally objectionable. To single out any group, and then say only bad things about it, is wrong. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The title is what it is, I don't think it's perfect either, it's partly borrowed from Valentino, "Communist mass killings" (who, right or wrong, is one of the scholars who has singled out the mass killings sponsored by states ran by communists) and the article was renamed so by an uninvolved administrator after WP:Consensus was achieved at Requested_move_II.--Termer (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Um... at this point people should look at WP:NAME, and WP:NPOV#Naming articles. The title of an article should reflect that used commonly by English language sources... not what is used in one source. And where possible they should be neutrally worded. Are there other sources that use this name (or something close to it) for this topic? Do other sources use different names? Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Google scholar to search for the exact phrase "Mass killings under communist regimes" and also "Mass killings by communist regimes". There were zero hits in both cases. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... but we are not done yet... the next step in that process is to determine whether there is some other name that is commonly used for this topic. I would expect not, but I don't know this for sure. If not, then we are in a situation where there is no "common name"... and we are free to "create" a name. When doing this, we must create a name that is neutral in tone. "Mass Killings" is certainly more neutral than "Genocide" or "Murder"... but is it neutral enough. And (this is probably the key part) is specifying "under Communist regimes" neutral? Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything on the current title please read Requested_move_II. In case anybody can think of a better title than the current one for the subject that is known by scholars as the "Communist genocide" (Helen Fein) Communist democide (R. J. Rummel) or Communist politicide (Midlarsky), or "Communist mass killings" by Valentino etc. I'm more than sure there are many open minded contributors on Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes who'd like to hear about it.--Termer (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the examples you give are names of areas of study. That is only the case if Valentino, to take one example, claims that communist mass killings are different in character from other mass killings throughout history. In the quote above, he does make some extraordinary claims, but it is not our place to review his book, only to decide where to report his views. There are two questions. First, is "communist" is an adjective, like "New York" would be in the phrase "New York crime statistics", or is "communist mass killings" a subject different from other mass killings. Second, is this a mainstream view, and is there a commonality between the various authors cited above, or is it just Valintino's view, in which case it belongs in an article on Valintino. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those questions should be addressed to the authors listed above, for example to Helen Fein the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars why has she published a chapter called "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide" under "Contextual and Comparative Studies I:Ideological Genocides" in Genocide: a sociological perspective ISBN 9780803988293--Termer (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

Although the latest edit here] was introduced as a compromise, I still see it as OR as no evidence is given that the scholars in question have mentioned LDS 'Reformed Egyptian' or compared it to other scripts. The second paragraph is probably more of an RS issue, I don't see how we can use a character from a religious story as a source in this way. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about OR issues and also about using an angel as a reputable source for a statement. However, the OR issues are on both sides of the fence. (For example: "Standard language reference works contain no reference to "reformed Egyptian"." That is clearly a bit of original research, making arguments not made by the sources, and argumentum ex silencio to boot.) This is unfortunately typical for articles focused on LDS-orientated pseudoarchaeology. It's perfectly fine to present both the skeptical and apologetic viewpoints, but both should be done according to reliable sources, not the observations and conclusions of Misplaced Pages editors. Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Vassyana is exactly right here. The statements used to debunk the notion of "Reformed Egyptian" are classic OR; even worse, they're based on a survey of what selected works don't say. WP:SYNTH could hardly be any more clear: it's first sentence states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." None of the sources reach any conclusions about "Reformed Egyptian"; they couldn't, since, as the author of that material helpfully points out, they don't even mention it. For a topic like "Reformed Egyptian", which is both astonishingly dubious and moderately well known, there are, no doubt, reliable sources that explicitly debunk it. Rely on what they say. Jayjg 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Militant atheism synthesis issues

Could editors please check militant atheism with respect to original research. There are many problems with the article obviously, but I'm interested in the sentence from the lead: Recently, the term has been used to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. The sources used to back up this statement are not sources about the usage of the term, but are instances of such usage. It seems to me that Wikipedians have engaged in amateur lexicography to observe how the term is applied in media; however, this kind of backing up a statement by way of example is fairly common on Misplaced Pages. For example, I've seen statements like John has published five papers backed up by means of citing the five papers rather than using a secondary source, such as a biography. It would be nice if people here could clarify where the line should be drawn. Thanks, 77.4.42.172 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is indeed an OR and SYNTH mess. In the lead it fails to provide any definition of the subject matter. Instead it just lists a wide variety of examples of use of the term with no attempt at discerning. There is just one paragraph where the definition of one scholar is mentioned (the Julian Baggini definition), but that definition makes the reader end up with more questions than answers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree with the above. I think this clearly falls over the line of original research. In similar cases where original research is carefully avoided, it is still almost a certainty that the result is not properly balanced reporting. A good rule of thumb is if reliable sources have not made an observation, drawn a connection, or so forth, neither should we. Vassyana (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's most weird about this situation is that clear WP:BLP violations have been locked into the edit protect. Other than that having about 965 returns on google scholar and 818 on google books it should't be too tough to write a decent article on the subject militant atheism.--Termer (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it treats 3 different subjects that share the same label as if they were the same thing. First, there is the soviet movement. Second, the legitimate description of some historical figures as militant atheist and lastly the neologism use of the term in a somewhat pejorative fashion and devoid of any criteria. The first should be covered somewhere in an article about soviet policies or movements. The second should be mentioned in the individual articles of the persons when relevant. The last should be deleted from Misplaced Pages a as neologism and a breach of WP:BLP. --LexCorp (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a synthesis of uses of a term, rather than a summary of sources that discuss the term. It's clearly WP:NOR. Jayjg 03:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger effect

I have concerns about WP:NOR, WP:NEO and (arguably, but not such a priority) WP:CIRCULAR on the Dunning-Kruger effect article.

First, note that none of the article's sources mention the phrase "Dunning-Kruger effect". There is plenty of psychological research on these superiority effects (see Illusory superiority, Self-enhancement or Positive illusions) so there's a legitimate question of whether there is a separately notable phenomenon here.

The article exists now because it was de-merged from Illusory superiority. The justification given in the edit summary was that "the effect is composed of illusory superiority and illusory inferiority". This doesn't seem to be based on sources, and it at least looks like the "effect" was re-defined on the fly simply to justify the existence of the article on WP. "Illusory inferiority" looks like a WP:NEO.

The term itself seems to have originated on Misplaced Pages. Neither the article's initial creation as "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome" or subsequent renaming to "Dunning-Kruger effect" seem to be based on sources, and I haven't found sources that pre-date the appearance of these terms on WP. However, this isn't the focus of my complaint. Since I first raised the issue and merged the article into Illusory superiority, it was pointed out that some peer-reviewed sources use the phrase "Dunning-Kruger effect". They seem to come after the term's invention on WP, but I'm personally not so bothered about that. However, the article itself does not seem to be based on these sources so we've no indication that the "effect" defined in the article is not OR.

For completeness, here is where I first raise the OR issue: Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect#Title_constitutes_original_research and here is the merge discussion: Talk:Illusory_superiority#Merge_Dunning.E2.80.93Kruger_effect_into_this_article and Talk:Illusory_superiority#Delusion.2C_not_illusion

I would normally pursue this purely through article talk, but I'm being opposed by a couple of editors whose arguably uncivil tone and rather free interpretation of policy suggest that this will just become an edit war. One of them is User:Michael C Price, who performed the de-merge described above. He has already twice removed the OR tag. Thanks in advance for any comments. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The OR tag was removed because it was clear that the tagger was seeking references for statements which are accepted as factual and sourced (e.g. that the highly competent underrate themselves and that the D-K moniker is used in academic literature). If the problem is just one of providing refs then it is not an OR problem. --Michael C. Price 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of original research in the article. For example, the connection of the Russel quotation and the accompanying assertion that it was held a prior by philosophers for some time seems clearly over the OR line. Backwards attribution is rarely an uncontroversial or obvious matter in academic studies. Assertions of this nature need to be supported by reliable sources (possibly with the view attributed in-text). These points are relative minor in contrast with MartinPoulter's stated concerns, though still important to note. I do not see the problems that MartinPoulter perceives. A brief search indicates the term is discussed in reliable sources. Peer-reviewed papers have debated the perceived trend. There are even papers mentioning that others have questioned the substance of its existence as that particular model and others mentioning that the existence of such a phenomena is a generally accepted fact. There seems to be a clear, if focused, selection of reliable sources available for writing about this topic as framed. The Russel bit seems the biggest OR problem in my eyes. I think everything else is either acceptable or will resolve itself as the article is expanded with the available reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you infer "the connection of the Russell quotation and the accompanying assertion that it was held a prior by philosophers for some time ". They are in different sections. --Michael C. Price 12:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over academic reference to the color of Hindu deities in Talk:Avatar (2009 film) as OR.

Greetings,

This one should be pretty easy and straightforward. In this section of the Avatar (2009 film) article I added the following revision (shown here in bold), citing Cameron's own published statement:

The look of the Na'vi, the characters native to the world depicted in the film, was inspired by a dream that Cameron's mother had long before he wrote Avatar. She dreamt about a 12-foot-tall blue woman and he thought "that's kind of a cool image". So in 1976 or 1977, he put into his first screenplay a planet with a native population that was 12 feet tall and blue, and "gorgeous", which later became the basis for the Na'vi in Avatar. Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to the Hindu deities,

and then clarified it by references to reliable academic sources:

alluding to the fact that principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are traditionally depicted as dark-blue.

The reason for this clarification was that, based on the Cameron's phrase alone, an average reader unfamiliar with Hinduism is likely to think that all 33 million Hindu deities are blue, which is false, or to be left simply wondering about the "conceptual connection". Therefore, in order to clarify Cameron's statement I provided two academic references showing that some deities in Hinduism are indeed blue and that they happen to be the principal ones.

Another editor disagreed with the clarification starting with "...alluding to", opining it to be OR, and removed it. A discussion ensued here here. On his suggestion I am taking the issue to this notice board, seeking to be educated about the application of WP:NOR in this particular case. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept terse, it looks acceptable clarification to me. I've commented there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the other editor that Cinosaur referred to above. I added a {{reflist}} here so access to the above sources is more convenient:

1. Cite error: The named reference themes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Svetkey, Benjamin (January 15, 2010). "'Avatar:' 11 Burning Questions". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved January 16, 2010.
3. Klostermaier, Klaus K. (1994). . SUNY Press. p. 715. ISBN 07-91-42109-0. Retrieved January 17, 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help)
4. Bryant, Edwin F. (2004). Krishna: The Beautiful Legend of God, Book 10. Penguin Classics. p. 608. ISBN 0140447997. Retrieved January 17, 2010.

The OR problem I saw was with sources and that are used to support the statement. These sources do not directly relate to the topic of the article, which is Avatar (2009 film). Please note the 2nd paragraph of the lead of WP:NOR.

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob - that 'directly related' and 'directly support' terminology is really intended to prevent editors from drawing in wildly divergent sources to build an argument for some novel claim. I don't see that Cinosaur is involved in making any particularly novel claim here (Cameron did mention Hindu deities), and including a source that talks about the fact that fact Hindu deities are in fact blue is not objectionable on OR grounds. it might not merit attention in the article (it does seem to be pressing the envelope on the "who really cares" dimension), but that kind of balancing is normal, and should be hashed out in talk. --Ludwigs2 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "it might not merit attention in the article (it does seem to be pressing the envelope on the "who really cares" dimension) - I essentially agree. I saw it as a digression.

Re "that 'directly related' and 'directly support' terminology is really intended to prevent editors from drawing in wildly divergent sources to build an argument for some novel claim." - I didn't see this in WP:NOR or anywhere else. Where did you get it from? Thanks.

Also, please note that I wouldn't have enforced WP:NOR if I thought the edit would improve the article. I would have kept in mind WP:IAR, which I feel would have been the way to handle it. But I didn't think the edit improved the article so I felt there wasn't a reason to not enforce WP:NOR. Also, one should try to avoid as much as possible, waiving enforcement of WP:NOR because the article may be less stable if that is done without good reason. As you mentioned above, the edit "does seem to be pressing the envelope on the 'who really cares' dimension" so there doesn't seem to be much motivation for keeping it. However, I accomodated the editor by putting the info in a footnote with a source that is directly related to the topic of the article, but the editor still wants it in the main text. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

from my view, these kinds of things are usually better handled through discussion than policy - most people are reasonable about balancing things if you work with them. the bit about 'directly related' and 'directly supporting' is really just my reading of NOR - The biggest NOR problems come when an editor wants to say something that isn't said directly in reliable sources, so the editor starts to pull together bits and pieces of what he wants to say from divergent sources to make his own argument. so basically if you want to say 'X is true' you need a source that says 'X is true' directly (not one that says 'Y is true' and another that says 'Y means X'); and you want to be sure that the source that says 'X is true' is actually a reliable source about X, not a reliable source about Y who happens to make a claim about X in passing. I'd just talk to the editor again and make it clear that it belongs in a footnote - while in interesting side point, it is not directly relevant to the movie. --Ludwigs2 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried discussing that with the editor. I've had a previous experience with that editor on that article which involved a very long discussion which ended in a WP:DEADHORSE situation. It looked like the present discussion was heading in that direction too. I thank you for your comments and your good intentions. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the original issue, strictly speaking, does it violate the "directly related" principle of WP:NOR as it is presently written? Also, you might consider editing WP:NOR to either clarify or change it regarding this principle, so that either your interpretation is more clear, or it is in line with what you think it should be. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version looks fine to me - more would be out of balance. would you like me to make that statement on the article talk page? --Ludwigs2 03:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but I think the decision for that should be yours.

Please note the question re WP:NOR and suggestion, in my last message. I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 is correct here. The sources used for citations 3 and 4 are not directly related to the topic of the article, the movie Avatar. Their inclusion, and the material based on them, is original research. Jayjg 03:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

Already under discussion at Talk:WrestleMania 23, Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard#WrestleMania 23, and a thread or two at WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"WWE (the promotion holding the event) and Ford Field (the arena hosting the event), among many others, give one number for the attendance of the event. Wrestling reporter/dirt sheet writer Dave Meltzer looked at WWE's financial reports (WWE is a publically traded company and thus have to release this info to the public) and used to numbers to come up with his own attendance number for the event without having any sources to back him up. This is the first issue, whether to even use his number as a footnote since he based the number on how much money WWE made from merchandise sales. The second issue is less contentious and is what the wording should be IF a footnote is include." - RfC taking place at Talk:WrestleMania 23#RfC

There is an RfC taking place at Talk:WrestleMania 23#RfC regarding the inclusion of the statement: "Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter stated an attendance of 74,687." This is a verifiable statement, since it is sourced to Dave Meltzer in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Several editors (particularly User:JzG claim that it is a violation of WP:OR. The arguments being used are (1) that it ends with a 7, and statistics that end with a 7 can't be trusted, (2) that it is not within an unspecified margin of error, (3) that it is the result of a mathematical calculation, and so forth. I believe that reporting Meltzer's statement in a neutral manner does not consitute original research—there is no synthesis, no interpretation, and no extrapolation. In fact, I believe that a Misplaced Pages editor making determinations about the accuracy of a number based on their belief that it contains too many significant figures is the true case of original research in this situation. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this user making this report is in my view in violation of WP:GAME in trying to push an agenda based purely in policy. If one reviews the RfC referenced, you will see a clear community consensus against him. !! Justa Punk !! 08:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR has been cited improperly, according to my understanding of the policy. I see no harm in asking people who are familiar with the policy to comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• As with your other comment at Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard, I have prepended the (much more neutral) RfC question rather than your one-sided version. The WP:FORUMSHOP is now closed, please make your way to the checkouts. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest or lowest on a list

Is it a violation of WP:NOR to say that something is at the top or bottom of a list? There's a dispute at a university article over whether we can say that Tier 4 is the lowest tier in the "U.S. News & World Report College and University rankings", and whether we can say that it has the highest tuition in its category. See Talk:Maharishi University of Management#Ranking.   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The web site presents bits of info. The text in the article is an inference from the tables. This inference is OR. --BwB (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I'm looking for opinions from uninvolved editors.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You can say it's Tier 4 within its category, meaning lowest quartile (per USN&WR web site: "Tier 3 is approximately the next 25 percent of schools that are just beneath the numbered ranked schools in the top half in terms of their rankings in that category. In other words, schools listed in Tier 3 are ranked lower than those in the top-half but are ranked higher than those in Tier 4. Tier 4 schools are the bottom 25 percent of schools in that category in terms of their rankings. In other words, in that particular group of schools the Tier 4 schools are the lowest ranked.") in "Universities-Master's (Midwest)." "Highest tuition" is OR unless the USN&WR site specifically calls that out and it is verified as such or if there is a table provided of tuition by category and tier which lists Maharish at the top (most expensive) of its tier. Even if so, the category is restrictive enough that I don't see any particular significance to noting they are the most expensive (even if so) in their quartile of their category.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would be reasonably straightforward to find a source that says what tier 4 actually means in practice. Is that not so? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, why didn't I think of that? Here's something from their FAQ:

• Tier 4 schools are the bottom 25 percent of schools in that category in terms of their rankings. In other words, in that particular group of schools the Tier 4 schools are the lowest ranked.

So that just leaves the matter of saying it has the highest tuition in its category. This was added by an anon, so I'm not sure which page he found the comparative tuition information. I can't find a list of colleges sorted by tuition. Without that I'd be inclined to delete the assertion. But if there were such a list would if be OK to say it's on the top, bottom, or Nth location?   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OR question regarding image

There's a discussion going on at Talk:ADE 651 about whether the image on the right can be used to illustrate an article about the ADE 651, a controversial detection device. The image is sourced to the US Navy; however, the original caption does not describe what the device shown in the subject's left hand is. Another editor believes that it shows "an ADE 651 or similar device". This is quite possibly the case, but I'm wary of using this image considering that the angle is poor - it only shows a rear view, so most of the device is concealed from view - and there is no reliable source to describe what the subject is holding. Would it be original research to use the image to illustrate a topic that is not discussed in its original caption? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my position at Talk:ADE 651 but to summarise, I don't consider it creative to suggest, as the caption did, that the image showed "an ADE 651 or similar device", particularly if this is compared with File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg. It isn't going to mislead a reader because the caption is clear that it isn't definitely this device, nor is saying that the image shows either this device or another similar device, nor is the caption advancing any particular position. It is often the case that image descriptions don't cover everything the image portrays so we have to do a little bit of interpretation. Whilst I would certainly agree that this image isn't perfect, it does in my view contribute to a reader's understanding of the subject by showing the context in which this or similar devices are used and I'm unable to see how it is harmful to our readers. Adambro (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am lacking a suitable detection device, but I see more differences than similarities between the items shown in the two pictures.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This might possibly help to resolve it: I've found an alternative promotional image, File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg, which shows a demonstration of what is indisputably an ADE 651. I suggest we use this instead of the image above, since there's no doubt about what it shows (and it shows it more clearly). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To Cs32en, if you could describe the differences then it might be possible to discuss them further. However, whether or not my suggestion that this image shows "an ADE 651 or similar device" is accurate can be discussed on the talk page, ChrisO's point seems to be that we shouldn't make any attempt to interpret the image, if it isn't in the description it shouldn't be in a caption because the OR policy would be violated. File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg is a better illustration of the device being demonstrated but that wasn't simply the point of File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq-crop.jpg and File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq.jpg. Those two images actually show the device (or similar) in use on the ground by Iraqi soldiers and the context of its use and so I don't think the video still can really be considered a direct replacement, particularly when it isn't freely licensed. Again though, that kind of issue can be discussed on the talk page, the issue to be discussed here is that of OR. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised assessment: A picture in the German magazine Der Spiegel shows the device, including the items that are apparently attached to a belt. When I first looked at the picture above, I thought the belt would have nothing to do with the device. The device shown in the image of Der Spiegel does not display the logo, but seems otherwise identical to the pieces shown in File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg. Given this context, I'd say the image File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq-crop.jpg actually shows an ATSC ADE-651.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

May I throw in my vote for Adambro's position. I think that the similarity between the device seen on the picture in question with the ADE651 (as shown and identified in other pictures cited above) is so strong, and leaves so little ambiguity, that it would be excessively strict to qualify its use in the ADE651 article as original research. --Yen Zotto (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming into this from the issue of NFC here is important. The non-free image used now File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg is unacceptable as it is replaceable free content - you have the existing non-free image of the device which clearly shows the "gun" detector portion, which means that by describing its operation by holding this piece and moving it about the object to be investigated, the non-free image is rendered unnecessary.

So the question here is the OR issue with the free image File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq.jpg (or the closeup, but IMO, I think the fact that the closeup has so much of that poor soldier's rear end to make it more funny than informative). IMO, I think the non-cropped picture should be included on this article, but with a caption that only alludes to the ADE-651, something like "U.S. Soldiers uses detections devices similar to the ADE-651 at an Iraqi vehicle checkpoint." It is not OR to say "similar", and if that actually truly turns out to be an ADE-651, it's not a false statement either, but you still get an idea of its use in a real-life and the controversial situation described by the article. Just don't specifically call it the ADE-651. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The crop isn't ideal but it was done so that the bag attached to the soldiers waist could be seen since it looks similar to the bag shown in File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg. Adambro (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The bag's clearly visible in the large pic. Again, the crop is really unneeded as long as you say "this is a device like the ADE" and not trying to claim that it is the ADE; it helps to avoid the unflattering edit as well. Also places the image in better context (we see the car , and the arabic license for it..) --MASEM (t) 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis at IPCC and Criticism of the IPCC AR4

If someone could take a look at the following sections of these articles as in my opinion there is some rampant original research going on and attempts to remove it have been reverted. The short story as all reliable sources are reporting it ( ) is that the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 based on an unconfirmed interview with one scientist and that this date turned out to be wildly false. User:William M. Connolley says that sources such as the New York Times, New Zealand Herald, ABC News, and the Sunday Times are all "badly wrong" and "clueless". Instead, Connolley has proposed his own rather novel interpretation of events which can be read here: . In short, he claims that the IPCC meant to cite the date 2350 which is found in a third primary source that the IPCC never cited. This conclusion is not cited by any reliable sources (I am still yet to see any secondary source that mentions the date 2350 in the context of this), but the assertion has been reverted back in and OR tags have been removed. See talk at: Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#2035.2F2350.3F. Please note that IPCC is currently fully protected and both articles are under sanctions including a 1RR restriction. Oren0 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:NOR, and yet another appalling example of how the global-warming articles appear to be exempt from Misplaced Pages policies. Best of luck in getting it fixed. THF (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because something comes from a reliable source does not in any way imply, much less guarantee, that it is not utter and complete nonsense. And there is no need to hide nonsense. Present it as it is: reliably sourced blooming nonsense. The trap to avoid -- a common source of WP:OR, in fact -- is thinking that WP is somehow obliged to make sense out of nonsense, i.e. to present nonsense in ways intended to lead readers into thinking that it really is not nonsense (just because it happens to be <reverential_hush>reliably sourced</reverential_hush>). rudra (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2035 comes from a WWF report, which the sources state. However if you read the WWF report it quotes the number from a report by the ICSI. Is it still OR when you just follow citations? The only thing you would need to do is go from the news media to WWF 2005 report and than you find:

In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high"

Or just follow the citations from the IPCC report itself. Here is the WWF 2005 report, which might need to be cited in the article though.83.86.0.82 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is OR to "follow citations" when it results in synthesis that does not appear in either of the sources. THF (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Weisbrot

WP:Synth question at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Synthesis - somebody experienced with this please help clarify. Thanks. Rd232 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PARENT; this issue has already been to WP:BLPN and WP:ANI; it seems that, so far, only Rd232 sees synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI had nothing to do with this issue (your choice to drag a clear non-issue there), and having poisoned the well at BLPN by jumping in with an accusation of edit warring, you come here and poison the well too. The only input so far on this SYNTH issue is from someone who apparently doesn't know or care what SYNTH is, whilst judging by your user talk page comment to me asking which of the sources is not reliable, you don't either. Some input from someone who actually understands WP:SYNTH, please. Rd232 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Championship (Detailed annual history)

The Detailed annual history section of the World Universities Debating Championship page looks like OR, can someone more experienced than me have a look and recommend a cause of action ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Can any one offer any help ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a glance, and it desperately needs sources though I'm not sure it's original research. Since the events all took place at major universities, you should be able to find some of the info. There's a lot of puffery there that needs to be trimmed. I recommend going through each section, trying to source each statement, and leave a {{fact}} tag on those you cannot. After some time has passed (a few weeks or a month maybe) remove the unsourced statements. However, much of what I read should be verifiable. AniMate 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that - will do. Codf1977 (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OR concerns at Bismarck, North Dakota

Recent edits to Bismarck, North Dakota have introduced various problems into the article. Chief among my concerns is that the edits, which are completely unsourced, are almost entirely original research. If the OR concerns can be addressed effectively, other problems, such as neutrality, grammar, and style, can be tackled. Several of the most problematic passages are excerpted here. An RFC filed almost 72 hours ago has generated no response as of yet. I would greatly appreciate more eyes on this. Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-Disco??

POV push by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the talk page for an RS source to support the claim.

• The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature.
• The reliable sources available, some of which are cited in the article, overwhelmingly use the term "post-disco" or (postdisco) in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline.
• Much of the article's content is derived from the editors OR based observations and are supported by an assemblage of random references, that happen to feature the term "post-disco"; and in any particular context.
• None of the sources provided, except AMG, refer to the articles's subject in manner that is directly related to post disco as a genre of music.
• User currently engages in edit warring to stifle dissent

The article was recently considered for deletion, where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any. Cross-posted hereSemitransgenic (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Post disco is not a genre, post disco is more like a movement of sound changes (yes it is same, but.. not same at all). New instruments were brought by late 1970s - it gave born to "post disco" music (src no 1). As AMG said, it have some reason to naming post disco as a movement of characteristic elements - for example, innovators like Leroy Burgress, Larry Levan and DJs and producers played in post-disco serious part; musicians, Nick Straker Band, Kashif, D. Train. These artists make disco that sounds different (we should say it is "disco not disco"). As source no. 19 said, post-disco is a style, because we know and sources saying it, rock and funk are musical styles too. Artists like Mtume, Klein + MBO, Change, Central Line, Kano, etc are related to post disco because it is not an era, but something like "genre"; if it is an era, these artists are unrelated to post-disco because post-disco range is from 50 Cent, Backstreet Boys, Snoop Dogg, Blur, Oasis to Frank Sinatra ("New York, New York" song).

"The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature. " - dubious/editorial observation/point-of-view/degrading of the source/trying to discredit AMG

" in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline." however it is questionable, there are also sources that saying it is underground music, but there are songs like "Love Come Down" (US #17) ― Evelyn King, "Big Fun" (US #21) ― Kool & The Gang, "I'm So Excited" (US #9) ― Pointer Sisters, "Call Me" (US #26) ― Skyy. Seems like "underground" music, hmm. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this version tries to mention all variants of post-disco (an era, AMG genre mentioning, Billboard/Cadence mentioning, Techno and house roots in post-disco dance music, etc). ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

There is an ongoing discussion at Scientific opinion on climate change concerning a statement in the lead "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007." which is repeated later in the article here. Both statements use this(PDF) source. The source is incredibly weak, especially for the strength of the statement it is backing up. The quote is from an editorial concerning a review of Michael Crichtons last book and seems totally inapropriate for the way it is being used in the article. There are also WP:SYNTH issues since the source states only the AAPG(American Association of Petroleum Geologists) dissents then cites a statement by the AAPG saying they believe in Global Warming. The article is basically a collection of statements by various organizations affirming that global warming is occuring. The article uses the obove statement to avoid having any discussion of dissenting views which a significant NPOV problem especially given the very weak nature of the source used. I brought up this issues as part of a larger discussion and there seems to be no progress being made in the current discussion. The eyes and opinions of some editors experienced in these matters would be greatly appreciated. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research & content forks

Following on from the discussion about the article Scientific opinion on climate change and it being a possible content fork, I am seeking some input from other editors about the unsourced content in the hatnote and lead of the article that define this topic. The current version of the hatnote and lead read as follows:

This page is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of dissenting individual climate scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.

The problem I have with this lead are as follows:

1. Original research has been employed to provide a defintion for what is the "Scientific opinion on climate change", rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information presented in the article itself. There have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved by citing sources to support it.
2. None of the sources cited in the article define what is ""Scientific opinion on climate change", nor do any of them use or address the title of this article directly or in detail.

My view is that no matter how innocuous the lead is, it is wholly unsatisfactory for an article topic to be defined by analytic or evaluative claims that that are based on original research. My conclusions are that:

1. The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while in the most part, is referenced and ordered, address topics which are dealt with in other articles, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
2. To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
3. If this article topic can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.

In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is based on original research. Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way. Has any editor a view on this matter? Am I mistaken? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The following is a reply to this post of User:Gavin.collins, who has moved it elsewhere while I was typing the reply. The venue appeared appropriate to me. Pcap ping 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the WP:N issue, only the WP:SYNT one here, in accordance with the purpose of this venue. Any article in Misplaced Pages that uses two ore more sources that is usually a synthesis (as opposed to just a summary). WP:SYNT prohibits only a particular kind of synthesis: the kind that promotes a conclusion not supported by any of the sources cited, or at the limit, one that attempts to substantiate a claim from a marginal source with evidence from more respectable ones. If you list dozens of organizations that all have very similar positions, that's not a violation of WP:SYNT. Similarly, if you synthesize their position, which obviously will be expressed with different wording by different organizations, but without altering the meaning of their positions, that is also not a violation of WP:SYNT in my view. By the way, I did not have much trouble finding this source (first hit on google books), so it seems quite feasible to describe the scientific consensus as gauged by WP:SECONDARY sources, i.e. not directly from the organizations' statements. Given that, listing every organization that had a statement on this topic may be a bit overkill, but as long as the sum of those positions does not contradict how mainstream sources have gauged the consensus it's not a violation of WP:SYNT. Pcap ping 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins moved his contribution to a new section at NPOVN . Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have opened a discussion about related issues at WP:NPOV/N which relates to this article and how original research is being used to justify a content fork.
  In reply to Pohta ce-am pohtit, I would ordinarily agree that if you synthesize sources without without altering the meaning of their positions, then that is not synthesis. But if you start off an article with a lead based on orginal research which arbitrarily limits sources to those within the scientific community, then Voiceofreason01 argument that any discussion of dissenting views are excluded makes sense, particularly if those dissenting (or even supporting) views come from outside the scientific community. The original research in question is in the second sentence in the lead of the article Scientific opinion on climate change says:

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Ordinarily, I would expect such a strong exclusion to be backed up by secondary sources, but here it is based on original research. I would also expect both sources from inside and outside of the scientific community to be included within any article, rather than being segregated. Newspapers and magazines regularly carry commentary, criticism and analysis on what the scientific community is saying, and it seems to me that excluding these sources is, in effect, intellectual apartheid.
In this context, I think what Voiceofreason01 is saying is valid: the source is being made to fit a purpose for which it was never intended. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow all of this, but preliminarily: is the dispute mainly over whether there are groups that dispute the predominant view, or is it mainly over whether individual scientists can be excluded from "scientific opinion," or is it impossible to simplify the dispute in this way? At least to me, the first thought is that it seems odd to suggest that "scientific opinion" refers only to the collective view of large groups. Intuitively, "scientific opinion" could either be any opinion that is grounded in the scientific method, or it could refer to the opinions of those considered scientists. I wouldn't think that "scientific opinion" would only regard the statements of groups. Or am I missing the point? This wouldn't necessarily be a concern with the scope of the article, merely a suggestion that the text might be clarified not to suggest a predominant view that "scientific opinion" is a sort of republican process in which only large groups have standing. Mackan79 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article only treats science organizations individually, not all the individual scientists. It also includes surveys of scientists and synthesis reports about scientists opinions It doesn't include individual scientists opinions. See 'scientific opinion' in opinion or scientific consensus. The reasoning is that individual scientists can't talk as authorities on scientific opinion, only give their own opinions unless they produce a study or survey. The article climate change consensus describes the general publics perception of whether there is a consensus and also views of some scientists and there's also a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which lists scientists who've said anything significant which doesn't support the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but are you saying that this use of "scientific opinion" reflects its general usage as a term, or simply that the editors have chosen to focus on a subset of scientific opinion? It seems more like the latter, but then this would presumably need to be clearer. As far as scientists being able to address the general views of scientists, I admit that's kind of interesting. Perhaps in order to find an adequate secondary source we can't simply include the view of any scientist that we find, but on the other hand if reliable secondary sources discuss the view of a particular scientist, then that would seem to conform with our policies. I would still think that an article on "scientific opinion" would include predominant views in the scientific community, whether those came from groups or individuals (logistically, of course, the space would be extremely limited). This may be a different issue than Gavin is raising, also. Mackan79 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly thought tht was the general meaning of the term scientific opinion and what the opinion article or a dictionary says. There's also been articles on the consensus and they just discuss surveys and suchlike same as the article. The bit inn the leader is to make it clearer to people. Which scientists do you think should be in there expressing 'scientific opinion' alongside the various societies? Even Charles Darwin didn't express the scientific opinion on evolution. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment is only about the sourcing, "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" being used to support the statement "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007." The exact quote from the source is "AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." I guess that you can argue that the bit about "national and international standing" is WP:OR. I also don't see anything about the year 2007. You can remove those bits from the sentence or simply find another source.

Also, I'm a little confused at to what our sentence is saying. I get the impression that the AAPG used to have a dissenting opinion but changed its stance in 2007. If that is really what it is saying, the source doesn't appear to support that at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the AAPG source is the source itself. The source is an editorial review of a Michael Crichton novel and some criticism of climate change denial; the claim the AAPG is the only dissenting opinion is the authors opinion and is not backed by any research or study. The wikipedia article then claims that since AAPG retracted its denial of global warming there are now no scientific bodies that deny anthropological global warming is taking place. In this case the SYNTH exception for routine calculations does not apply because the source is very weak in making the initial claim. Similarly, the wikipedia article uses this source to cite some very strong claims, i.e. that no scientific bodies disagree with global warming, but while the source does explicitly state this, the weakness of the source seems to make this violation of WP:WEIGHT if not by the letter at least in the spirit. I don't have a problem with this statement being in the article, I suspect it may even be true, but allowing such an inadaquate source to be so important to the article weakens the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article also references 'DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780262541930.', in the chapter Naomi Oreskes 'The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?'. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between the statement in the article cited above and the the source from which it has been summarised. Of course it is possible to infer just about anything, but with such a strong statement, I would expect the citation to reflect what has been written, perhaps by direct quotation. For instance, the source does not use the term "dissenting opinion" anywhere in the text. It seems to me that link between with the statement in the article and the original source is just not there, and the reader should not have to make a leap of imagination to connect the two. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the reference? You can read quite a bit of that chapter with google books if you haven't access to the book itself. That particular chapter said all the major scientific institutions in the US with a bearing on the subject agree that climate change is due to human action. And that is based upon peer reviewed research. Anyway a leader is supposed to summarize an article and that is a reasonable summary of the position of the scientific organizations. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

{undent} I can't find where it says that part about "all major scientific insitutions", can you provide a direct quote or a page number? However, page 2 says that "the scientific community, with the exception of a few contrarians..." and that chapter Dmcq referenced makes numerous references to a scientific consensus, page 76 seems to be a good one. With some minor rewriting to the article either of these two sections of the text would be excellent sources and we could drop the offending AGU source altogether. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On page 65 it says "Prominent scientists and major scientific organizations have all ratified the IPCC conclusions. Today all but a tiny handful of climate scientists are convinced the earth's climate is heating up and human activities are a significant cause." On page 68 it says "In the past several years, all the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirms the IPCC's conclusions." The AGU one really only backs up when dissenting opinion within scientific organizations ended, without it one might be left with the opinion that it went back much further or more recent. The main complaint as far as I can see of the person raising this section in the OR noticeboard is that the article does not give some dissenting views and thinks scientific opinion should be redefined to include not just surveys of climate scientists, the results of studies of the subject and the pronouncements of organizations but also the opinions of individual scientists. Putting them in without doing a survey or listing a very large number would be OR as far as I'm concerned. Well in fact doing our own survey sounds like OR and how would we get a decent representative selection of quotes to let people infer their own impression of scientific opinion? Or are there particular scientists people would like to nominate as being so august they pronounce scientific opinion of themselves and wouldn't that also be OR? 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I see it now, that's fine. My main point in bringing this here was that the original source was just this(PDF). And then some WP:SYNTH to say that there are no opposing opinions among scientific organizations. The AGU source is woefully inadaquate to make this claim. This "Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren" source seems good enough, stronger sources would still be better. I say we dump the AGU source entirely and just go with this one. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the book would be a better source than the PDF cited in the article. However, such a source as the book has no place in the article because the views of any one particular scientist (even if they are published in reliable source) are disallowed by the original research in the lead:

Scientific opinion on climate change.... does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

It is not clear to me how such a strong statement of opinion that defines the article's subject matter can be sustained without citing a source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The chapter describes the results of a synthesis survey of the literature done by the author to determine scientific opinion, it is not of itself stating the authors opinion though I suspect one can guess the author's opinion having done the survey. The particular statement is not a statement of opinion but of fact, something which a couple of years of heated debate on the subject here on wikipedia has not found any counterexample to. Dmcq (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on what subject? This is the question. It seems to me that many articles feature the opinion of one scientist or another. But their article titles do not start with "Scientific opinion on......(your choice of subject matter here)". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article Scientific opinion on climate change is about scientific opinion on climate change, just like the title says. And by the way the book is referenced from the article in the bit about disagreement by organizations so there's no point saying it would be a better reference. That's where I got it from, I'm not saying anything that's not covered by the article already. In particularly as it says in the leader of the climate change article "In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW)." Questions 20 and 21 in the 2008 Bray and van Storch survey are fairly typical "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" and "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?". Those questions are about opinion, not about scientific results.

If he article Scientific opinion on climate change is about scientific opinion on climate change, then why don't any of the sources cited in the article say precisely that, or provide any definiton of what is the scientific opinion on climate change? There are lots of sources, sure, but none of them address the article title directly or in detail. In short, there isn't any coverage of "scientific opinion on climate change" per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the references but for instance in the article the American Association of Petroleum Geologists say 'the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models', They do not define scientific opinion because they know what it means, it is what you find under scientific opinion in opinion and they know what climate change is about. And they are giving their scientific opinion on climate change in an official statement. If an association like that can understand what scientific opinion on climate change is about without needing dictionaries and glossaries to explain what they are saying in a public statement I think wikipedia can do the same. Dmcq (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that Dmcq understands what "scientific opinion on climate change" is, but it is strange that no external source exists to validate his views. The citation from the AAPG mentions "scientific opinions", but only in passing, and does not constitute a significant coverage that is need to identify Scientific opinion on climate change as a seperate standalone article topic in its own right in accordance with WP:NAME.
What is needed is significant coverage from at least one external source to provide a valid difference between this article and other related topics, such as Climate change and Climate change consensus, for example. Without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, there would be one article topic which could be split into many content forks all addressing the same subject matter from random viewpoints. For example articles with titles such as "Scientific opinion on..", "Scientific concerns about...", "Scientific views on..." are content forks because no meaniful distinction can be drawn between these terms. Instead, article should be separated in terms of the major real-world activities/ideas/processes such as Climate change or Global warming, not by the opinions that different groups of editors have about the emphasis that shold be given to different aspects of the same subject. The bottom line is that when content is organized into articles, it should be divided according to some rational, encyclopedic criteria. In Misplaced Pages, the basis for what is encyclopedic critera is external validation. It seems to me that that as an article topic, Scientific opinion on climate change is not a recognised topic by the world at large, and the reason why it features as a standalone article is because its contributers are ignoring Misplaced Pages's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not about editors opinions. It is scientific opinion. They're totally different subjects. Just because it says opinion in the title doesn't mean the contents are anything to do with editors opinions. I see you have trouble drawing a distinction but that doesn't mean there isn't a straightforward distinction. The subject is noteworthy or otherwise all those scientific societies and surveys and papers wouldn't have written about it the scientific opinion. And the controversy is certainly notable because all those pressure groups and newspapers have written about it. People want to know what the scientific opinion on climate change is and they want to know about the controversy surrounding it. And if any of those other titles were used it would be scientific view or scientific perspective or scientific consensus and they would all mean exactly the same thing. If you have bothered to read the references you have seen the two are deal with differently so even if you don't understand the difference you must see that people treat them differently. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dcmq claims that the article topic in not about editors's opinions, yet there are no external sources to define its subject matter, only original research. The statement that "People want to know.." is a form of mass attribution which is not admissible in Misplaced Pages. The existence of this article topic needs to be externally valididate in accordance with WP:NAME; if Dmcq can cite a particular source that does this, it would be more useful to this discussion than his own opinions on what this article is or is not about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement in that policy for the name like you say and as I have already pointed out to you. Please use wikipedia terms if you're going to keep quoting policies and not refer to 'validation' which is a term for something completely different. And since you're going on about policies this talk page is not part of wikipedia article space and your business about mass attribution is about article content. Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for a recognisable name that is "commonly used in reliable sources" is indeed a requirement of WP:NAME. This is supported by Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article naming which says: "If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Misplaced Pages contributors". If Dmcq can cite a source to substantiate the article tile, then that would settle whether or not Scientific opinion on climate change is or is not based on original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

{undent}Naming conventions are there to ensure that articles are not inherently biased, are clearly written and accurately represent the content of the article. This article seems to satisy those requirements. From Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article naming: "...which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." The title "Scientific opinion on Climate Change" is meant to differentiate this article from Climate Change Consensus. Since both articles seem to cover distinct material I don't see a problem with WP:FORK here. Naming conventions do not require that the article name be specifically used in sources. The section of policy that you have quoted seems to refer specifically to wider controversy concerning the topic of the article, it doesn't apply directly to disputes on wikipedia. As an example there are some towns in Europe that have both a French and German name, the policy you quoted would be used to resolve which name should be used for the article. Can you cite specifically from policy why you feel the name of this article is inappropriate? Also what specifically about the article is original research? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC) WP:NAME says "While not always possible, the ideal title is:" before that bit quoted. It is not a requirerment, that bit is guideline. Titles don't have to be ideal in every way. And as for Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article naming Voiceofreason01 said it all. There is no neutral point of view problem about the article name. And following on about the bringing back to earth about OR I'll have to say my answer is just informative and has little to do to do with the purpose of the noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01 asserts that this article title accurately represents the content of the article, yet an examination of its content indicates that it addresses topics dealt with directly and in detail in other articles. The term "climate change" is cited over 50 times, while the term "scienfic opinion" is cited only once, while the term "scientific opinion on climate change" is not even cited once. Using your analogy of the towns in Europe that have both a French and German names, would you not think it unusual if the town's name was not cited at least once in the article?
The problem is, the lack of a clear and externally validated defintion of what is "scientific opinion on climate change" is a defect which has not been rectified by the hatnote and the lead, which comprise of original research. Simply grouping a large number of different sources together and giving them an title designed to fit their subject matter has resulted in the creation of an article topic that is entirely original and based synthesis of sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic of the article has been written about in books, it has been the subject of surveys, it referred to and statements made about it by learned societies. And please refer to sections in policies and not use strange own terms like validated when referring to them. You cannot validate in any meaningful meaning of the term, you can only make your mind up from the evidence and consensus amongst editors is how things are decided in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If it has, then why are there no books, scientific papers, scientific organisations or surveys cited in the article that actually use the term "scientific opinion on climate change"? It seems to me that your opinion that the topic has been written about is not supported by a single shred of verifiable evidence.
Scientific opinion on climate change is an article comprised of more than 10,000 words with over 100 citations. Yet there is not one reference to the term "Scientific opinion on climate change" in any of the soruces cited, not even a casual passing reference to the term in the entire length article or its reference list. Quite frankly, I think the absence of the term in the article is bizarre. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are just repeating your error about WP:TITLE. Not an original research issue. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for "Comparison of ..." software articles

I've started a RfC on my proposal for dealing with one of these articles, where the discussion has been particularly heated. My proposal is not specific to that kind of software, so hopefully the result of the discussion can be used as a precedent for all similar articles. In my experience, this type of articles sometime include original research, e.g. . Please participate at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#A way forward. Pcap ping 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu

I could use some eyes and hands, here. I have an editor Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) who's been obliquely pushing (so far as I can tell) the idea that the Taijitu - the Yin Yang symbol from Chinese philosophy - was actually adopted from the Romans. He's got some Roman shield patterns that are of roughly the same form but a few hundred years earlier, one author (an italian Lit Crit guy, I think, named Monastra) who has been offering up the similarity as an 'intriguing possibility', a couple of minor reference from odd sources (e.g. a footnote in an article on the roman shield patterns in a museum journal), but he's trying to parlay this into making a huge splash for the European symbolism in an article that is ostensibly about the Taoist figure.

I opened an RfC, but the only person who's responded to date is Pyrrhon8 - my own personal (low-grade) wikistalker (no worries, it's kinda cute). if people could take a look and help put these sources into some kind of proper balance, I'd appreciate it. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, in a way I feel sorry for you because nature seems to have 'blessed' you with an unshakable feeling that you are the chosen knight of objectiveness and guardian of truth. That is a bad delusion. Fact is, however, you have brought nothing to the plate and are strongly running out of arguments. You consider, inte alia, the Encyclopedia of Taoism an odd source? Be aware, if you continue to talk behind my back and involve me in endless debates on talk pages, I might be inclined to ask for action against you for stalking and pushing extreme fringe positions. I have now enough of you. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GPM - I posted this here because a lot of people on this page are more experienced with sourcing issues than you are or I am. yes, I'm sure I'm right, but if the people here look at the page and decide you have a point, I will certainly admit that I was wrong. are you willing to make the same promise?

I don't consider the encyclopedia of taoism to be a bad source (though I suspect it's a tertiary source). I do think that a single author pointing out an interesting speculation (without any evidence or academic vetting) is a fairly piss-poor source for all that you're trying to do with it. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The major source (Giovanni Monastra: "The "Yin-Yang" among the Insignia of the Roman Empire?", Sophia, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2000)) doesn't seem to justify more than a fleeting reference to any linkage to the Romans. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, though I haven't been able to get that idea across on the talk page. I think I'll cross post this over to the NPOV noticeboard, as well; the discussion is going to remain stale so long as it's just GPM and I going back and forth on the issue (we seem to be missing some integral component of mutual understanding). --Ludwigs2 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonny Greenwood

Jonny Greenwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some users, I'm guessing fans of Greenwood, are insisting that the section "Equipment Used" be kept in the article although the information is completely unsourced. Severeal users have removed the section for that reason, but it's been reverted every time. It's starting to turn into a bit of an edit war. Any advice? TheTwoRoads (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of American foreign policy is huge (200kb) POV/Original research essay

The article Criticism of American foreign policy is full of highly POV, uncited statements like But many of the good things and positive influences it has had have a tendency to be overlooked, as the news media has a tendency to accentuate negative results particularly when they're more attention-getting and tends to focus on critics, while overlooking subtler, slower, and more benign but positive aspects of foreign policy which are less likely to sell newspapers., and U.S. taxpayers are seen as subsidizing the defense of allied peoples who fail to carry their fair share of defense spending., and In the history of the world, the U.S. has an enviable record of accommodating peoples from around the world , and so on ... The author (the entire page was almost created by a single author) has mixed these statements in with several claims that he has cited, in order to make it look as if the article is well-sourced, and not OR. But both the numerous uncited OR statements such as the above, the choice of wording, the structure of the page (such as the categories that the author stated that most arguments fell into, without citing a reliable source that says that these categories are appropriate), and the choice/selection of topics covered are unacceptably biased and unsourced. I just noticed this article, and am about to have to step away from the Internet for a few days, but wanted to notify other people so they can start working on this as well. I'll get to it when I return. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• This article is totally unencyclopaedic. I have no hesitation in calling it that. A random selection of totally unsourced statements:
  • The Vietnam War was a costly, decade-long military engagement which ended in defeat, and the mainstream view today is that the entire war was a mistake.
  • Similarly, the second Iraq war is viewed by many as being a mistake, since there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and the war continues today.
  • The U.S. has a wide range of powerful allies, including Britain, France, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India which it has won through steadfast support and intelligent diplomacy.
  • The entire first two paragraphs of the section :"Foreign policy in practical terms: effective or ineffective".

I doubt whether this article is salveagable at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an WP:AFD to me... – ukexpat (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I don't know if that's actually AfD territory. there is a lot of scholarly work on this subject from a lot of different authors; It just so happens that there's a shitload of pundit/opinion stuff that washes out the scholarly work. I'd say the article needs some serious weeding, but there's probably a solid core down in there somewhere. --Ludwigs2 04:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is probably a topic here somewhere and AfD is not the way to go. A clean slate is likely to be the only way forward. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree -- I don't think that AfD is warranted at all. The article just needs a LOT of work, but the topic is valid and important. Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Representing studies from a research review

A review article in the journal Pediatrics on research on the use of meditation as an intervention among youth includes 16 studies on meditation. A two-page table in the review presents all 16 studies and gives details about each. Of these 16 studies, 6 are on Transcendental Meditation. The table shows that 5 of these studies on Transcendental Meditation are randomized controlled trials and 1 is a before/after study. In representing information from this review in the article on Transcendental Meditation, I wrote, " Of the 6 TM studies, 5 were randomized controlled trials." Is this original research? Thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason for mentioning something like "5 were randomized controlled trials" is to make some point to the reader. Accordingly, I would recommend that the article should only contain text that can clearly be seen in the source review article: if that article feels that "5 were randomized controlled trials" is warranted (by using similar text), we might repeat it. However, it would be original research or synthesis to add our own interpretations to a review article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Johnuniq. It was meant to introduce the research in the review that's specific to TM RCTs. Here's how it had been written: "A 2009 review of 16 pediatric studies on meditation that included 6 studies on Transcendental Meditation found that meditation in general "seems to be an effective intervention in the treatment of physiologic, psychosocial, and behavioral conditions among youth." Of these 16 studies 5 were uncontrolled. Of the 6 TM studies, 5 were randomized controlled trials. A primary outcome of the randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation was the reduction of hypertension and improvement in vascular function relative to health education, as well as reductions in absenteeism and attentional problems. The review said that because of limitations of the research, larger-scale and more demographically diverse studies need to be done to clarify treatment efficacy."

Should I simply leave out the sentence that counts the number of TM RCTs? And also the total number that were TM? (The count of 16 studies and 5 uncontrolled was explicitly in the review.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of flags with people

It's what it says, just pictures of flags with body parts/people/statues etc. Pure OR, is there any reason to keep it? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And created by the same editor, Gallery of flags with writing, while others have created Gallery of flags with plants, Gallery of flags with weapons, Gallery of flags with animals, Gallery of flags with headgear and Gallery of bordered flags Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the OR? The article contains no analysis, interpretation or conclusions ... just images of flags that fit the category. I see it as more of a pictorial List. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

However, all the images must be properly licensed (probably public domain); we cannot have fair use images in a gallery. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if statues count as people - but isn't that interpretation? It's odd to see a completely unsourced article. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm el-Qa'ab

IP is unhappy with research that says burials are examples of human sacrifice and is insistent that an alternative view, that they were something to do with early medicine, be added. I keep asking him for references that back this claim but as you can see from the IP's talk page User talk:207.172.10.203 he has no references but simply asserts that the reliable sources are just opinion. He has added material to the article's talk page he wants in the article but he is using references that assert the idea of human sacrifice to reference a statement about early medicine, which is definitely not in the source. Now he's adding pov tags to the references. As there seems little interest in this article, it would be useful to have an opinion as to whether I've got it wrong or some advice as to what to do now if, as I believe, the IP simply wants to add OR. I'd like to persuade him of my case (if I'm right) and could use some help. He seems to be arguing in good faith and I wouldn't want to lose him if he can be persuaded to follow our OR guidelines. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Filter

Hi to any interested party,

Could anyone take a look at Great Filter, particularly Talk:Great Filter#Removing original research? Robin Hanson, the prof who developed the Great Filter hypothesis, has written quite a few articles about the future of technology and humanity, is a member of the Future of Humanity Institute, and so on. This makes him a futurist, by definition, and is very well supported by a large number and variety of reliable sources. So we should call him a futurist either in place of or in addition to his description as a social scientist and economist, since neither of these necessarily implies the scholarly study of the far future, which is critical to the hypothesis explained in this article. At least, this is the view of 2 of the 3 editors working on this article. The remaining editor does not like this at all, and insists it is OR, or interpretation, etc. Although we have found no reference where Robin Hanson explicitly describes himself as a futurist (which is what leads to accusations of OE, interpretation, etc.), here is a quote where he complains the media pays more attention to *other* futurists rather than to him: "I’m not so much against the main claims of these groups as I am against their concept of themselves as the main folks who care about the future. These just won’t be the central issues when the future arrives. Yet when the media reports on the future, reporters pretty much only ever quote these sort of futurists, who have hijacked the future to support their side of certain current disputes." Likewise in Alas Amateur Futurism he complains about amateur futurism, as opposed to the professional kind he espouses.

In summary, this whole dispute seems very odd, since WP:OR explicitly states

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."

To the two of us, this seems exactly what we are doing. Any added opinions on this issue would be most helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2010

It appears there is a hypothesis known as the Great Filter regarding why we haven't detected aliens when there should be lots of them (given the enormous number of places where life should have evolved). The dispute is whether to say that this hypothesis was devised by "futurist Robin Hanson, professor of economics at George Mason University" or by "American economist Robin Hanson" (with the latter being the current version in the now-protected article). The issue is whether it is OR to label Hanson as a "futurist" when there is no source of any kind (as far as I can tell, apart from two very oblique references in the message above) that so describe Hanson (Robin Hanson includes the subject in Category:Futurologists, but does not describe Hanson as a "futurist").

It is "obvious", for example, that Emily Brontë was a novelist, and no citation is required to provide that description. I think those favoring "futurist" feel the same about Hanson. I can see the sense of that, particularly the "by definition" part. Yet, the cold fact is that if it is so obvious that Hanson is a futurist, there should be something better than the two sources given above ( and ) to support that label. Why does the article need the label "futurist" applied to the author? If there is no particular reason, omit it. My feeling is that if there is a reason, that means the word has some significance and should be supported by a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He is described as a futurist here and here. --Michael C. Price 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those links are considered reliable sources for the purposes of claims about BLP's. You were previously informed that the "Intellectual Pornography" site was a blog and the Cato Institute site you provide is only an advertisement for an online debate. Please find an actual reliable source that describes Robin Hanson as a futurist. It should also be noted that Dr. Hanson does not describe himself as a futurist. He calls himself a "social scientist" and an "economist". Is there a reason you are trying to insert the word "futurist" in an article about the Great Filter? Do you have a source about the topic of the Great Filter that refers to Hanson as a futurist? I've looked and cannot find one. It should also be noted that Hanson is not described as a futurist in his biographical article (since there are no good sources that refer to him as such) and he did not appear in the List of futurologists until you added him yesterday, and the source you added to sport that addition does not describe him as a futurist. It describes him as an associate professor of economics at George Mason University, and a research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Cato Institute is a reliable source for futurism. Anyway, we are here to get the opinions of other editors, not to recycle points from before.--Michael C. Price 10:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An advertisement about an online debate at the Cato Institute is not a reliable source for statements about a BLP, specifically Robin Hanson. And I very much doubt the Cato Institute or any think tank is a reliable source for a biography or biographical claims about BLP's on Misplaced Pages. Please review WP:RS to see what the requirements and criteria are for using sources. Hanson's "professional biography" (as he calls it) can be found here; Please notice, the word "futurist" is not used by Hanson at all. Hanson also claims that there are at least 249 press/media sources that mention him. Why is it that you cannot find one of hundreds of reliable sources that calls him a futurist? That should tell you something. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, can't you just let others speak? Your views are well known and don't need endless repetition here as well. --Michael C. Price 10:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will let others speak. But what are my views on this subject? I only write what RS say and report. You should do the same. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a podcast where you can hear Robin Hanson speak in his own words, and say (start about 54:20 into the podcast, to hear the moderator ask Robin to speak, so you know it's him):

So the actual futurist, most business futurists, are focused on a relatively short time scale, about 3-10 years, or not much longer than that. So clearly most demand for futurism, that’s sort of practical, is in that time scale. But I’m most interested in the longer time scale, that you know after 20-100 years or something, and out there most of the people who do that kind of futurism, are basically entertainers, unfortunately. and that’s basically how futurism fails, is that we don’t combine expert (something) from multiple fields.

In particular, the third and last sentences states he practices futurism (he uses the words "I" and "we"). And to avoid any possible loopholes, the first two sentences show that he believes futurism is performed by futurists. This seems quite authoritative, coming from the living person himself. The only problem I could see is that the podcast might at some point disappear, making this hard to verify. So can this be a reliable source from Misplaced Pages's point of view? LouScheffer (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The podcast you are quoting comes from "FastForward Radio -- Countdown to Foresight 2010 (Part 2)", a December 22, 2009, self-produced production from The Speculist a self-published website that hosts "news and commentary about the future with a positive twist." The podcast page specifically refers to Hanson as an "economist" not a futurist, and the podcast itself calls him "an associate professor of economics". This is in direct opposition to the other guest on the show, Brian Wong, whom the website and the podcast both refer to as a "futurist". Has it occurred to you yet that Hanson does not want to be called a futurist, which is why nobody call him it? The website that hosts the podcast does not call Hanson a futurist, it calls him an economist. The podcast introduction does not call him a futurist, it calls him an associate professor of economics. And Hanson does not call himself a futurist in the podcast. For the record, Lou and Michael have been removing the term "social scientist", a term that Hanson uses to self-identify and the subject of his study, and replacing it with the word "futurist", a term that no RS uses to describe Hanson, not even himself. The reason they are doing this is because they both feel that the term "social scientist" is a laughable term and they dislike it. However, that is precisely what Hanson studied and its the field he works in, and it's the term he uses to describe himself. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He's a social scientist AND a futurist. And 'futurist' is much more relevant to the article, which is about the future of humanity, as opposed to 'social scientist' which covers a huge number of sub-disciplines and won't help the reader at all. In the podcast, surely what he calls himself matters more than what the host calls him. And how do you know what Hanson wants? He was very comfortable referring to himself as a futurist on the show, which he did completely voluntarily. LouScheffer (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen to it again. He argues against being called a futurist for very specific reasons:

So the actual futurist, most business futurists, are focused on a relatively short time scale, about 3-10 years, or not much longer than that. So clearly most demand for futurism, that's sort of practical, is in that time scale. But I'm most interested in the longer time scale, that you know after 20-100 years or something, and out there most of the people who do that kind of futurism, are basically entertainers, unfortunately. That's the kind of mode they're in, science fiction, inspirational speakers, whatever else it is. And, I'm an academic, I'm a professor, and I know how much people love to see sort of odd, creative, contrarian points of view, but honest, I think what the future most needs, what understanding the future most needs, is just to take the standard points of view from our various academic fields, and then combine them. Not necessarily to be creative and contrarian, but just to take what computer scientists usually think that's sort of the most straightforward, conservative things. What computer scientists think, combine that with economists think, for example, and put those views together, to make our best estimate of what is likely to happen. And honestly, that doesn't happen today. That doesn't happen today, because when an economist looks at the future, when he thinks about computers, he doesn't use what computer scientists think about computers. He uses what he has read in the newspaper, about computers. So each academic discipline takes their own expert field, and they combine that with their amateur image of other fields. And when computer scientists talk about the future of artificial intelligence, or whatever, they don't go talk to economists about what they think. They make up their own economics, like most people do. They make up their own social science that seems intuitively right to them. And then they use that to make forecasts. And that's basically how futurism fails, is that we don't combine expert from multiple fields. That's the kind of thing I want to talk about, and describe some basic insights from.

So, we see now why Hanson doesn't call himself a futurist, why no reliable source calls him a futurist, and why Michael and Lou are off the Mark. Hanson is a self-described social scientist, who is often referred to in reliable sources as an economist and/or professor of economics. He does not consider himself a futurist, but rather a social scientist who works with multiple fields. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the last sentence. If he meant that futurists fail, but he does better since he's not a futurist, he would have said "And that's how futurism fails - they don't combine...". But he does not say this, he says instead "And that's how futurism fails - we don't combine...". The use of "we", where he could have used "they" just as well, shows he considers himself one of the folks practicing futurism, or in other words a futurist. LouScheffer (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "we" looks like the clincher. He's a futurist. --Michael C. Price 02:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's totally absurd. To recap, there are two guests on the podcast program, Brian Wong and Robin Hanson. Wong is described as a futurist on the podcast website and is introduced as a futurist on the podcast by co-host Stephen Gordon. Hanson is called an economist on both, not a futurist. The material from Hanson above is a response to a question asked of both guests by co-host Stephen Gordon. Gordon asks both guests about the "role of the futurist", specifically he asks, "How do you gentleman see the role of the futurist?" This question is followed by another question about what their plans are for the Foresight2010 conference. These questions are asked by the hosts of The Speculist, a website that describes itself as hosting "news and commentary about the future with a positive twist." There is nothing on the printed transcript that indicates Hanson is a futurist. Hanson uses social science to address these issues and describes himself as a social scientist, not a futurist. The fact is, the hosts of the podcast do not call Hanson a futurist nor does Hanson call himself a Futurist. They call him an economist and a professor of economics, unlike the other guest Brian Wong, who is labeled a futurist. Hanson does not see himself as a futurist, nor do the reliable sources. Per WP:PSTS, you do not get to "interpret" primary sources (like interviews) to say what you want them to say. This is why when any dispute arises about a primary source (like an interview transcript) we require good reliable secondary sources. Please find them. Out of the hundreds of secondary sources on this subject, none refer to Hanson as a futurist. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in all that I missed your explanation of Robin's use of the word "we". What is it? --Michael C. Price 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:PSTS. We don't describe, explain, or interpret primary sources, and if the need arises, we use reliable secondary sources to resolve a dispute. The podcast calls Hanson an economist as does their website. This is true for all podcasts and interviews with Hanson, of which there are many reliable ones, such as the BBC and other news outlets. None refer to him as a futurist, not even a self-published, futurist-oriented website. Do you understand? Has it occurred to you yet that Hanson does not want to be called a futurist? Do you understand that calling a BLP something that neither the subject nor RS call them is not appropriate? All RS call Hanson an economist and a professor of economics. They do not call him a futurist. So then, why do you keep arguing that we should call Hanson a futurist? We write articles based on RS. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So you have no idea of why Robin Hanson refers to futurists as "we"? That's what I thought. --Michael C. Price 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael, we don't interpret primary sources to suit our own personal beliefs or agendas. Hanson was referring to futurists, because he was asked a question about them by the host, on a show about futurism and produced by a futurist website. Is this making sense? No reliable sources call Hanson a futurist, and he does not refer to himself as such. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We all know why he was asked, but that was not my question. Why did he answer talking about futurists with "we"? --Michael C. Price 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please look up pluralis auctoris. It does not mean what you think it means. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your responses get funnier as they get weaker. --Michael C. Price 11:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The self-published, unreliable source you are referring to calls Hanson an economist and Wong a futurist. Please note, it does not call Hanson a futurist. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lou's choice of using one podcast from a self-published, self-described futurist-oriented website to argue that we can somehow interpret Hanson's comments as those of a futurist are way off. Hanson has given numerous interviews all over the place, from podcasts to videos, and none refer to him as a futurist. For only two small examples, see a video interview by the Universidad Francisco Marroquin with Hanson and a podcast interview with Hanson by the Library of Economics and Liberty. Neither refer to him as a futurist. There are many more podcast and video interviews to choose from. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's summarize here. Two editors think we should describe him as a futurist in the Great Filter. One does not think he is a futurist, and asks for a reliable reference indicating he is one. So far, so good. We find a podcast where in response to a friendly and unforced question, he uses the word "we" when referring to a bunch of futurists, indicating that he himself thinks he is a futurist. This seems pretty conclusive, but let's see how it could be wrong. First, the blog is obscure, self-published, run by self-proclaimed futurists, and so on. All this is completely irrelevant, unless the claim is that it's not really Robin Hanson answering the question. Next, there are many, many references that refer to him as an economist or a social scientist. This is also completely irrelevant, since he is a futurist AND a social scientist AND an economist. No number of references to him as a social scientist or economist can show he is not a futurist as well. At this point, as he has referred to himself as a futurist, the shoe is on the other foot - if someone claims he is not a futurist, they will need to find a reliable source *explicitly* claiming he is not a futurist. And this would need an extremely solid reliable source, strong enough to contradict a living person's statement about himself. LouScheffer (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Lou. We do not prove negatives. If someone claims Hanson is a futurist, then we need reliable sources for that claim. Please find them. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Another non-answer, Viriditas. --Michael C. Price 11:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the article is locked and we are still talking about this is because there are no reliable sources that call Hanson a futurist. In fact, he does not call himself a futurist. That should tell you something. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is locked because you got one of your buddies to lock it in your favor immediately after you violated 3rr, because you were editting against the consensus and just can't accept this state of affairs. --Michael C. Price 12:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange thing to say considering the fact that it never happened. But let's work towards resolution here: What reliable sources say that Hanson is a futurist? Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One hour, 25 minutes after you received a 3rr warning (since blanked from your talk page) the article was locked. I leave it others to judge whether there may be a causal connection. --Michael C. Price 12:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "connection", but I suppose the protecting admin could have chosen to block all three editors instead. Is that what you would have preferred? In any case, could you please work towards resolution and supply a good reliable source that calls Hanson a futurist? Hanson lists an incredible number of references about him on his website, and claims there are more than 200 that discuss him. Is there a reason none of the reliable ones call him a futurist? And, why doesn't Hanson refer to himself as a futurist? Remember, we should always write articles based on what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a subject. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The reliable source is Hanson, in his own voice, of his own volition, including himself among futurists. You can't get any more reliable that that. The burden is on you, to show a reliable source claiming he is not a futurist. And what he chooses to call himself in his references is up to him - he chooses the ones he likes best, but this in no way implies he is not a futurist. For example, I've published papers on physics and astronomy, but have never, to my knowledge, referred to myself in writing as a physicist or astronomer. That's because in general I prefer to call myself an engineer (when I'm trying to achieve a specific effect), or a scientist (when I'm trying basic research), or better yet nothing at all and let the reader judge the idea on its merits. But I am a physicist and I am an astronomer, because I've worked on these topics. You cannot infer from the hundreds of times I've called myself an engineer that I am not a physicist, or do not wish to be called a physicist, because it's not true. In the exact same way, you cannot infer that Hanson is not a futurist from the fact he does not call himself that in writing - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. LouScheffer (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The reliable source is not Hanson, and the burden of proof is not on me. You are claiming that Hanson is a futurist, not me. I do not have to prove a negative. If I ask you to explicitly show me where Hanson has called himself a futurist, you cannot show me - because as far as I can tell, he hasn't. This is the second time you have tried to interpret a primary source to say something that it does not. In what can only be described as a silly exercise, you are claiming to have interpreted the meaning of the word we in response to a question asked about futurists in a podcast. Hanson is not referring to himself as a futurist. The response Hanson gives refers to the pedagogical we, and this is clear on the podcast. Hanson is not describing himself as a futurist in the response - that is your interpretation of a primary source. And per WP:PSTS we do not interpret primary sources in an attempt to explain or describe something about a BLP. We always require good secondary sources to support any interpretation, because editors like yourself, no matter how well-intentioned, often see things in the primary source that aren't there. It is clear that the podcast calls Hanson an economist and does so in several places. The podcast that you cite does not call Hanson a futurist, but calls his colleague, Brian Wong, a futurist. Why is that? There are no good reliable sources that describe Hanson as a futurist. And, why is that? Viriditas (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is backwards. The normal meaning of "we", when referring to yourself and a group, is that you are a member of the group. If you are claiming this is a pedagogical "we", *that's* an unusual interpretation. In this case, the burden is definitely on you, to show that when he said "we", he did not mean it in the normal English sense. Failing this, we should take his response at face value. LouScheffer (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing backwards here. If Hanson said "we don't combine expert from multiple fields", then he is referring to how we as a society, fail to take the multidisciplinary approach, and he's right. That you and Michael insist on twisting the word we from this primary source into an interpretation, is the problem. We don't do that, Lou. What we do is find good secondary sources that support whatever interpretation we make. I hope that's clear. See Majestic plural#Difference from other plurals for more info. We certainly don't take this at face value, because we don't write Misplaced Pages articles based on ambiguous interpretations of primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the your interpretation of "we". The spoken sentence was "And that's basically how futurism fails, is that we don't combine expert from multiple fields". You interpret this as "And that's basically how futurism fails, is that we (as a society) don't combine expert from multiple fields". But the normal English antecedent is: "And that's basically how futurism fails, is that we (futurists as a group) don't combine expert from multiple fields". And it's very clear from the sentences before that this is *exactly* what he means - that the futurists (he calls them that) are each using only their background in one specific area, combined with amateur knowledge of other areas. He also makes this same exact point in

We don't make claims about BLP's based on ambiguous interpretations of primary sources. For such claims, we require unambiguous secondary sources. The primary source you refer to explicitly and unambiguously refers to Hanson as an "economist" not a futurist. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Robin Hanson is a huge fan of the marketplace of ideas, and of betting on claimed results. So I'll propose a $10 bet. We send him an email, asking "Are you a futurist?", and ask him to reply yes or no. If the answer is "yes", then you mail me $10. If the answer is no, I'll mail you $10. What do you think? LouScheffer (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS will not add content through e-mail. See WP:BLP/H: Biographical articles "must be rigorously balanced, and written with regard to the highest quality of fairness and sourcing, beyond the normal standard. Anyone may delete biography-related material that is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or otherwise unreasonable for a biography." If Hanson would like to contact OTRS and explain that he considers himself a futurist and has good reliable sources that describe him as such, have him visit: Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and send them the RS. As far as I can tell, Hanson does not describe himself as a futurist and neither do RS because he prefers to be known as a social scientist and economist. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to contact RH. The use of "we" is clear enough. Even the "royal we" is inclusive. --Michael C. Price 02:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael, it isn't "clear enough" and per WP:BLP and WP:PSTS we can't use your ambiguous interpretation of a primary source. In fact, the source you are claiming is "clear enough" clearly refers to Hanson as an economist and the other guest on the show as a futurist. So, the very source you are using does not call Hanson a futurist. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"We are not amused" means "I am not amused". --Michael C. Price 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pluralis maiestatis and pluralis auctoris are obviously not the same, Michael. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So what is your claim? That "author Robin" was talkng? --Michael C. Price 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No claim, Michael. Hanson was simply using the author's voice. Look, it doesn't matter how you interpret a primary source, because we never use interpretations of primary sources to write articles. We use secondary sources. Now, if you could contact Dr. Hanson and tell him that you would like to describe him as a futurist on Misplaced Pages, and ask him to give you a good secondary source for that purpose and mail it to OTRS, you might be able to do it. However, my guess is that he doesn't want to be called a futurist, which is why we don't see him or RS using the term. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why he said "we". He wasn't talking as an author. He was asked what were his views on futurism/futurists. --Michael C. Price 05:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And he was called an "economist" not a futurist like the other guest. Michael, we don't explain primary sources. We cite secondary sources to do that. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't see an answer there. :-) --Michael C. Price 05:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If he does not want to called a futurist, he has not told his friends. From The Myth of the Ivory Tower, "I’m lucky enough to be friends with Robin Hanson, a brilliant economist and futurist who starts where Ayn Rand would’ve suffered a loss of nerve and keeps going from there. "

Nor did RH disagree in his followup response. --Michael C. Price 15:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that an argument from ignorance, Michael? Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course an email cannot be used as a reliable source, since it cannot be independently verified. But it could clear up the search - if he considers himself a futurist, then the search for a reliable source makes much more sense than if he does not.

It's also, according to Hanson, a good way to detect how strongly people believe in their own arguments. I am certain, from the arguments above, that Hanson considers himself a futurist. You apparently believe he does not consider himself a futurist. Is the bet on?

Lou, this has nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with what the majority of authoritative sources say about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's strange. You were telling us to show you just one RS. Now you're requiring a majority. I wonder why? :-) Moving goal posts anyone? --Michael C. Price 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael, it's not strange at all; It forms the fundamental basis of how we write articles on Misplaced Pages. I require you to show me just one RS that uses the term. I've looked and I can't find any. The preponderance of RS on the subject refer to Hanson as an economist and professor of economics. You may want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with basic Misplaced Pages policies regarding minority and majority POV/sources:

• Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Neutral_point_of_view: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view..."
• Misplaced Pages:V#Reliable_sources: "All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered"
• Misplaced Pages:NOR#Neutral_point_of_view: "...when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research."

I hope that makes sense to you, Michael. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all water off a duck's back with you, isn't it? As has been stated many times, the issue is one of summarisation, which is permitted. Can Robin Hanson be summarised as a futurist (and economist etc)? Yes. This is based on his academic publications, positions etc. Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with this editorial judgement is ignorant and needs "reminding" of policy is stupid, insulting and doesn't reflect well on yourself generally.

Another editor said it all with their edit summary "are you kidding? is the pope catholic?". --Michael C. Price 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's address those two things specifically: 1) What reliable source are you summarizing? None as far as I can tell. You are interpreting various primary sources without secondary sources supporting them. 2) What reliable sources support the two categories that Gwern added, namely Category:Transhumanists and Category:Futurologists? All categories must be supported by the article content, which in turn must be supported by reliable sources. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Summarisation is always a form of interpretation. As long as it doesn't require specialist knowledge it's OK. --Michael C. Price 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't summarized anything. Summarization is this context is paraphrasing. What source did you paraphase? Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR says "summarizing or rephrasing", not "paraphrasing". Stick with policy. --Michael C. Price 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael, you are mistaken. Please visit the OR talk page and ask them for yourself. The words, "carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication" refers to paraphrasing. That you say it does not, reveals your own misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to believe that words mean what they say, not what you would rather twist them to mean. --Michael C. Price 17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it appears that Hanson is using "we" to identify two professionals from different fields in close physical proximity (i.e., economics and futurism/Hanson and Wong). Consider the immediately preceding sentences: he comments on how usually scientists do not combine multiple fields (giving examples), and then shifts gears by stating that – in contrast – as representatives of different disciplines, he and Wong need to combine their different perspectives. Or he may be saying that "we," as scientists in general, need to combine multiple views, not necessarily "we" as just two people talking or even "we" as just futurists. I'm not even sure what he means, which goes to show why we need to use reliable sources to characterize the intent of the exchange. Otherwise, it's original research or Synthesis. And yes, summarization does include an element of interpretation, but that interpretation is tempered by Consensus, which we clearly do not have here.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Virditas doesn't seem to be presenting his views well, we really do need a source calling Hanson a "futurist" in order to include the material. His calling himself a futurist (which doesn't actually seem to have happened) isn't (or wouldn't be, to use the subjunctive tense) really adequate for Misplaced Pages to include the information. Others would need to call him a futurist. That he clearly is a "futurist" under an objective definition is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

At least two blogs refer to him as a futurist. --Michael C. Price 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a blog a "reliable source"? (Well, actually, there are examples, per WP:SPS, but not for facts about living persons.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree that a blog is very questionable, unless it is a reliable source who is writing it (like a journalist). It seems to me that if the label "futurist" is so certain, that finding a number of reliable sources who support it would be easy. The difficulty in doing so seems to speak for itself. Find a reliable source or two and you should have no problem introducing the label into the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To return to summarisation (and rephrasing) being allowable interpretation; this implies there is no requirement that we are limited to the actual word(s) used in the source - otherwise it would hardly be a rephrasing. So Arthur's point that Robin Hanson is objectively a futurist is relevant and saying this is just summarising the sources. Also I note that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence implies that obvious and objective facts require a rather lower standard of proof.--Michael C. Price 18:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Except when one actually looks at the sources and reads them, one comes to the realization that Hanson does not want to be called a futurist. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, but irrelevant to whether he is a futurist and so whether he can be summarised as one. --Michael C. Price 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a relevant interpretation; In the self-published podcast you use as a source to support your claim, Hanson describes futurists as "entertainers" and makes a point of describing himself as a professional and academic, in contrast to a typical futurist. Why are you dismissing my interpretation but clinging to your own? Please try to weigh both sides of an issue. Of course, this is the reason we don't use interpretations of primary sources and stick to explicit claims in reliable secondary sources. You know, the ones that describe Hanson as an economist and professor of economics, but do not call him a futurist. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole argument strikes me as pedantic hair-splitting of the worst kind. Consider the following. The first line of the Misplaced Pages entry futurist says "Futurists, or futurologists, are those who speculate about the future.". Then

• On , Hanson says: "I am interested in all aspects of the future, including uploading, nanotech, hypertext publishing, cosmology and the foundations of physics, future economic growth rates, limits of computation, and the origin of life. I'd love to specialize in the economics of science fiction. Some fun places to discuss such issues are the Polymath and the Extropians mailing list which I have participated in since 1991."
• And he not only has been discussing it for 19 years, he has published on it in peer reviewed journals, with citations, such as: "Is A Singularity Just Around The Corner? Journal of Evolution and Technology 2, June 1998.".
• He writes book chapters about the far future, in books that are reviewed in Nature: " The Rapacious Hardscrapple Frontier, Year Million: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge, pp. 168-192, ed. Damien Broderick, Atlas Books, May 19, 2008"
• He writes far-future articles for the flagship publications of top tier technical societies: Economics of the singularity, again cited by others.

All of these are trivially verifiable in a few seconds with a few clicks. At this point, it is absolutely and completely clear that this guy is a futurist, with huge heaps of top-notch secondary sources verifying he has indeed thought and published about the future. This is completely independent of whether he, or anyone else uses the phrase "futurist Robin Hanson" in print. In fact it would still be true if he vehemently denied it, not just in real life but also in Misplaced Pages, for a large number of reliable secondary sources indicate he has indeed speculated about the future, in depth and in writing. Hanson is both an economist and a futurist - they are not mutually exclusive. The number of sources calling him an economist thus has no bearing on whether he is a futurist. He appears to prefer to be called an economist, as is his right, but even his friends call him a futurist, as do other informal sources In short, any normally intelligent reader, looking at these sources, would see Robin Hanson is a futurist, directly from the definition of futurist and the actions of Robin Hanson. No subtle interpretation is required. LouScheffer (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We do not write articles based on editorial interpretation, which in this case, appear to be wrong. Hanson's interest in "all apsects of the future", is true, but his interest is in using social science to address those problems, a fact that you strongly disagree with even though Hanson has said it! You cherry picked Hanson's home page where he says he's interested in the future, but more importntly, in the same paragraph, he also says, "I don't sign onto "Extropianism" though; I don't sign onto any "ism"." Important words. As Hanson said in the podcast that you quoted, "I'm an academic, I'm a professor", and as he said on his personal blog: "I'm a social scientist with a high estimate of the power of social science (especially economics and sociobiology) to trace the outlines of a wide variety of social behavior. I even use social science to estimate our distant descendants’ future, and the astronomical signatures that aliens might leave." Hanson is described by reliable sources as an economist and a professor of economics, not as a futurist, and he calls himself an academic, a professor, and a social scientist, and someone who does not sign onto any "ism". That's about as clear as you can get. He's not a futurist, he does not self-identify as a futurist, and no reliable source refers to him as a futurist as a result. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Futurists, or futurologists, are those who speculate about the future." Robin Hanson speculates about the future. Therefore Robin Hanson is a futurist. QED.LouScheffer (talk)

No. Hanson is a professor of economics, and he holds degrees in Physics and a Ph.D. in Social Science. He has worked on and written on many different topics, including market design, artificial intelligence, and health policy. There are hundreds of reliable sources about his work, none of which describe him as a futurist. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "Futurists, or futurologists, are those who speculate about the future." Robin Hanson speculates about the future. Therefore Robin Hanson is a futurist. If you believe he is *not* a futurist, then you must believe at least one of these statements is wrong. Which is it? LouScheffer (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What I believe has never been at stake here. Robin Hanson works on many different topics, some having to do with the future. Would you also call him an AI researcher or health policy analyst? Why one over the other? Reliable sources call Hanson an economist and a professor of economics, and those are the terms we use. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you also call him an AI researcher or health policy analyst? Yes. Why one over the other? Relevance to Great Filter. But this has been explained many times before. --Michael C. Price 08:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No. According to Hanson, the Great Filter may lie in our past or our future. In fact, the Great Filter has very little if anything to do with "futurism". Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hanson and Bostrom say it has a lot to do with our future. Hence the relevance to futurism. But this is just recycling again.--Michael C. Price 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not say that. The question of whether the Great Filter lies in our past or our future is an open one. What does this have to do with futurists or futurology? Would you call Brandon Carter a futurist simply for proposing the doomsday argument? No, he's considered an astrophysicist and a cosmologist. We don't call BLP's futurists simply because you think it's a good thing. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If Brandon Carter were a research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute, and had published the same papers as Hanson, and created idea futures and prediction markets, then, yes, I would call him a futurist. That's what summarising and rephrasing requires. --Michael C. Price 17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Lou. Summarizing and rephrasing does not amount to creating new interpretations and explanations that cannot be found in reliable sources. Summarizing and rephrasing refers to paraphrasing. Carter is not classified as a futurist because no reliable source calls him one. That's the bottom line. Paraphrasing does not mean "making stuff up". Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

great filter break 5

I think Hanson is a futurist as well as an economist, and don't think he'd object to the characterization, but I don't understand why there would be a fuss in calling him an economist. Or is someone claiming that Hanson isn't a reliable source unless he's a futurist? THF (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is an economist and a futurist and a social scientist.--Michael C. Price 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source calls him a futurist? Does Hanson use the word futurist to refer to himself? If the answer is none and no respectively, then why are editors attempting to describe and call a biographical subject something neither reliable sources nor the subject himself use? Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've read it all above, so no need to repeat what's already been said. What I don't understand is why it's worth all this wasted effort. What are people hoping to achieve by claiming Hanson is/is not a futurist? There's no dispute that Hanson is an economist, and I see no reason his contributions to the subject should be minimized just because he's an economist, so why not just concede the issue, list him as an economist, and move on to better marginal improvements in the encyclopedia? That's what an economist would do, anyway, given the level of resistance involved. I'm trying to understand what's at stake if we agree to the narrowest adjective. THF (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The original dispute began here. You can read that thread if you like. To summarize: Michael and Lou added "futurist" after disagreeing with the use of "social scientist", which is a term Hanson uses to describe himself, and is the subject of his doctoral work at Caltech. Michael is a physicist and Lou is an engineer, and they both take a derogatory view of the social sciences (see C. P. Snow's The Two Cultures). In regards to the Great Filter, Robin Hanson is one of the few social scientists addressing the social science-related values of the Drake Equation, and his credentials in this area are relevant and important. Complex problems like the Drake equation and the Great Filter require a multidisciplinary approach, and that is precisely what Hanson argues in the podcast that Michael offers as a source above. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this effort is to help the reader. A casual reader (which is most of them) may want to know something about the person who proposed the theory. Possible choices include such things as "futurist Robin Hanson", "social scientist Robin Hanson", "economist Robin Hanson", "professor Robin Hanson", and so on. Michael Price and I think the most helpful one is "futurist", as this most commonly refers to one who has thought long and hard about the future, usually in a professional capacity (this implication, while not always true, is precisely correct in this case). Social scientist and economist, while also correct, are much less useful since the fields are so broad. Although each *can* be used to try to predict the far future, this is not the goal of the vast majority of practitioners of these fields. Given that readers will have some mental model of "economists", "social scientists", and "futurists" based on the most common characteristics of practitioners of the these fields, it seems most likely that "economist" or "social scientist" will actively mis-align the readers expectation, where "futurist" will align it correctly. (As a side note, I personally believe as a matter of neutrality we should drop all such designations, and relegate even the name to a footnote, but I recognize that many readers will want to at least partially judge a hypothesis by knowing something of the proposer.) LouScheffer (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that calling Hanson a social scientist (what he calls himself) or an economist or professor of economics (what RS call him) will "mis-align the readers expectation". That's a personal belief that you and Michael bring to the table. Hanson is proud of his work as a social scientist and economist, and his essay on the Great Filter is an important application of social science-related values of the Drake equation. You're assuming, without any evidence, that there is something wrong with calling Hanson a social scientist or economist, and this forms the basis for your argument calling him a futurist, an unsupported assertion. Thankfully, we rely on what the sources say, not on what editors think. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, in terms of what will help the reader understand, we rely precisely on what editors think. Otherwise we'd just direct them to all the original sources. This process involves a lot of common sense about what readers might think when confronted with possible wording. Here's some evidence for futurist is less likely to mislead - if you follow social scientist you find

Social science is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences. These include: anthropology, archaeology, comparative musicology, communication studies, cultural studies, demography, economics, history, human geography, international development, international relations, linguistics, media studies, philology, political science, psychology and social work.

Many of these are well known subfields the reader could be expected to know, but have little relevance to GF. Social science even includes all of economics, which itself has many sub-fields irrelevant to GF. Follow economist to get

An economist is an expert in the social science of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. Within this field there are many sub-fields, ranging from the broad philosophical theories to the focused study of minutiae within specific markets, macroeconomic analysis, microeconomic analysis or financial statement analysis, involving analytical methods and tools such as econometrics, statistics, economics computational models, financial economics, mathematical finance and mathematical economics.

again, the casual reader would be expected to at least know of many of these subfields, again irrelevant to the GF. By contrast, follow futurist - the corresponding list of specialists and specialties is:

More generally, the label includes such disparate lay, professional, and academic groups as visionaries, foresight consultants, corporate strategists, policy analysts, cultural critics, planners, marketers, forecasters, prediction market developers, roadmappers, operations researchers, investment managers, actuaries and other risk analyzers, and future-oriented individuals educated in every academic discipline, including anthropology, complexity studies, computer science, economics, engineering, evolutionary biology, history, management, mathematics, philosophy, physical sciences, political science, psychology, sociology, systems theory, technology studies, and other disciplines.

The hit rate here, while not perfect, is a much closer match to GF than is economics or social science. LouScheffer (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Michael C. Price is intentionally misinterpreting what I said. I said that if no reliable source calls him a futurist, then we cannot call him a futurist. I would argue, in addition, that "futurist" is such a vague term that, although under most objective definitions, Hanson would be considered a futurist, it would still be synthesis to combine the particular definition with the specific facts that support Hanson being called a futurist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? How have I invoked your ire? Please assume WP:AGF and explain exactly how I have stepped on your toes; I'm mystified. --Michael C. Price 10:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Price, you need to review AGF as you've tossed the most aspersions around (and not at the ideas expressed, but at the people expressing them). Find the reliable source (which shouldn't be too hard if it's as obvious as you say) or wait for it to happen. What's at stake here has little to do with the Hanson, but with adherence to NOR.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point, Mr Dunning, adherence to NOR permits summaries and rephrasing. Therefore the question is, does "futurist" summarise someone whose futurist speculations are reliably sourced with a string of publications and affliations?

BTW, please note I am not trying to suppress other adjectives such as "economist" and "social scientist". --Michael C. Price 14:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Call him an economist, and move on. "Futurist" is a far squishier adjective if the concern is that people will somehow discount the theory because he's an economist. THF (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but disagree. I agree that economist is much less squishy, but that's a bad thing. The more people are familiar with economists and what (most of them) do, the more likely they are to face cognitive dissonance in this case, since GF has very little to do with what most folks think of economics. On the other hand, this type of question is precisely in the domain of futurists.

I would suggest "economist and futurist" as one of his friends has used to introduced him. LouScheffer (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If no reliable source calls him a futurist, and he specifically disclaims being a futurist, then calling him a futurist violates WP:BLP as well as WP:NOR. (Even without the recent attempt of extension of WP:BLP to cover non-contentious material.) That he (appears to) meet (most) definitions of "futurist" is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He does not specifically disclaim being a futurist, or at least no references to this, reliable or otherwise, have been found so far. In formal documents he consistently refers to himself as an economist. In less formal blogs and web sites he is often described as a futurist. This includes blogs he posts to himself, and he's not voiced any objection. (See for example here for a fairly widely read and respected blog, written by one of his friends, that calls him "economist and futurist". He posts several replies with no complaints about being called a futurist. LouScheffer (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of people often refer to me as an "asshole," but even though I never bother to take the time to correct them, I hope my reticence isn't mistaken for acquiescence or agreement. lol I agree with Arthur Rubin and Viriditas that we have to adhere to the first WP Pillar: "Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." Find something other than a primary source.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Another WP pillar “Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.” So the issue is, is Robin Hanson a futurist? Does he speculate about the future? --Michael C. Price 22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to what I think you are saying, it's perfectly OK to say "Robin Hanson, an economist who speculates about the future, ....", and you can say "Futurists are those who speculate about the future.", both backed by numerous secondary sources. But you cannot say "Robin Hanson, an economist and futurist, ...". Something is very wrong when the use of a definition is considered to be interpretation, and open to doubt. Indeed, almost every phrase of every article that is not a direct quote has a level of interpretation more debatable than this. For example, the summary of the article now reads

The Great Filter is a hypothesis that concerns the implications of the Fermi paradox, and can be considered an explanation for what is called the "Great Silence". The failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universe implies the possibility that a "Great Filter" might act to reduce the great number of sites where intelligent extraterrestrial life might arise to the tiny number of intelligent species actually observed (currently just one: ours). This probability threshold, which could lie behind us or in front of us, might work as a barrier to the evolution of intelligent life, or a high probability of self-destruction. The main counter-intuitive conclusion of this observation is that the easier it was for life to evolve to our stage, the bleaker our future chances probably are.

whereas what the paper actually says is:

Fermi, Dyson, Hart, Tipler, and others have highlighted the relevance to SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) of the "The Great Silence" (also known as the Fermi paradox), the fact that extraterrestrials haven't substantially colonized Earth yet. What has not yet been sufficiently highlighted or adequately analyzed, however, is the relevance of this fact for much bigger choices we now make.

The Great Silence must force us to revise a standard view in one or more area of biology, astronomy, physics, or the social sciences. And some of these revisions strongly suggest that humanity be much more wary of possible disasters. To clarify these points, this paper will first review how our standard understandings in these areas would lead us not to expect a Great Silence, and will then consider a variety of possible revisions we might consider.

Now I happen to think that the Wiki article is a fair, though imperfect summary of the article. It's a good-faith attempt to get across what various editors believe to be the most relevant points. Nonetheless, it amplifies some points, ignores others, makes statements that are far from universally accepted (for example, it implies that dolphins and apes are not intelligent), and so on. It uses classical deduction and common knowledge of all kinds - take the first phrase "The Great Filter is a hypothesis". Can you find a reliable source that explicitly says that the Great Filter is a hypothesis? (There may be one, but it's not obvious to Google scholar). I personally do not doubt it, but it's true via a chain of reasoning such as "scientific theories are all hypotheses" and "the Great Filter is a scientific theory". At any rate, it's clear that the first paragraph alone has orders of magnitude more 'interpretation' than the use of a definition to refer to Hanson as a futurist. Yet without this there is no chance to usefully summarize anything. LouScheffer (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lou, you're absolutely correct. Misplaced Pages is full of interpretation - which is okay as long as it does not require specialist knowledge. The problem starts with editors who do not acknowledge this fact and try to pretend that they are not synthesising at all.--Michael C. Price 03:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hanson and Nick Bostrom refer to the Great Filter as a hypothesis, as do other sources. For a good secondary source, see Michael Hanlon, Eternity: Our Next Billion Years (2008), p. 65. No interpretation required. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so fast - I don't think the reference shows what the statement says. My understanding is that the "Great Filter" is the one or more unlikely steps that reduce the odds of intelligent life. The "Great Filter Hypothesis" is a hypothesis that such a filter exists. So you will need a reference that shows the "The Great Filter is a hypothesis", as opposed to the "Great Filter hypothesis", which strictly speaking is something else entirely. And assuming you can find this, what about the next six words, "that concerns the implications of the Fermi paradox". The primary source speaks only of "the relevance of this fact", where "this fact" refers to "the fact that extraterrestrials haven't substantially colonized Earth yet". But this is not strictly equal to either the Fermi paradox, or the Great Silence, both of which talk about the absence of communication as well as colonization. So you'll need a reference that the Great Filter concerns the implications of the Fermi paradox. Can you find one?

Lou, please read Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point and Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing as you have now crossed the line. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. It's disruptive to ask for a reputable source for a statement equating "the fact that extraterrestrials haven't substantially colonized Earth yet" and the "Fermi paradox", which isn't even true?? Now Hanson himself equates "Great Silence" equals "Fermi Paradox" equals "the fact that extraterrestrials haven't substantially colonized Earth yet". But many knowledgeable observers would call these three very different ideas - you need to add "life is common" or the anthropic principle to make "Earth not colonized" into the Fermi paradox. And the Great Silence, by its very name, refers mostly to the lack of communication or visible activity, where the Fermi paradox refers mostly to the lack of physical colonization. Now if Hanson believes these are all the same for the purpose of GF, that's fine - it's his argument. But he never explicitly states the GF is an implication of the Fermi Paradox - he stated the GF is a implication of "not colonized yet", and also (incorrectly) equated "not colonized yet" and FP. To get "GF is an implication of the Fermi paradox", you need to combine these two statements, but this entails considerably more interpretation than "Futurist are those who speculate" plus "RH speculates" to get "RH is a futurist", because one of the statements - no colonization == FP - is itself debatable. On a more philosophical level, letting a statement like "no colonies == FP" pass, without noting that most folks in the field would not agree, is a (strong) form of interpretation. This is one of the most valuable (and most difficult) functions of editors, to make sure readers are aware of where proposed arguments agree with the general knowledge of the field, and where they do not. LouScheffer (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's disruptive Lou, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, namely unsourced statements about BLP's. And it's a POINTY distraction from that topic, as you are arguing about the presentation of content related to the Great Filter, not a BLP. I'm sure the wording in that article can always be improved to adhere more closely to the sources, but that has nothing to do with this particular incident report and it should be taken to that talk page for discussion. As I've stated to both you and Mike in the past, I want nothing more than to work with you to improve that article, sticking as closely to the sources as we can. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not disruptive, Viriditas, to point out that your stance is totally unrealistic and selective. --Michael C. Price 10:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Debating the merits of a topic definition is not in any way equivalent to arguing for the inclusion of unsourced claims about a BLP. Continuing attempts to claim it is, is a wonderful example of WP:POINT. All definitions are interpretations of some kind or another. That has nothing to do with the topic of this incident report. We can't make unsourced claims about BLP's. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That Hanson is a futurist is a summary of lots of reliable sources. --Michael C. Price 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, Michael, and you've already been informed and corrected about your misunderstanding of the word "summary" from the OR policy. It means to paraphrase, and you haven't paraphrased anything. When we use reliable sources, we use them explicitly; We don't interpret them. For interpretations, we rely on interpretations made by secondary sources. If this isn't making sense, feel free to ask questions about how we use sources on the RS policy page or noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Paraphrase" does not appear in WP:OR. "Rephrasing" and "summarizing" do. --Michael C. Price 06:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael, one of the requirements for understanding policy and guidelines, is familiarizing yourself with the language that is used to construct it. The words, "rephrasing" and summarizing" in the context of the policy refer only to paraphrasing sources. If you aren't sure about this, you are free to ask someone about this on the policy talk page. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "rephrasing" and "summarizing" means "rephrasing" and "summarizing". End of story. That you try to make it mean something else speaks for itself.

Reference section composed of Flickr links

The Airport bus reference section seems to be composed partly of flickr links. Is this legit under Misplaced Pages policy?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy/Criticism - lead sentense and SYNTH/OR

I've phrased the first paragraph of criticism towards a quite controversial journalist with 3 sources that note his articles to often raise controversy.

Levy's ideological work often raises controversy, and he was described by Le Monde as a 'thorn in Israel's flank' and by Der Spiegel as " most radical commentator". He was criticized for "amateur journalism" for not speaking Arabic and depending on interpreters with an agenda. (Static link to criticism section)

Nableezy, believes that putting the Der-Spiegel source into this line for the criticism section "is OR, specifically SYNTH, for you to use publications that do not criticize Levy and connect that to criticism of Levy."

The text above shows notability of controversy. Other sources and comentators are used for actual "He has been criticized by..." criticism.

Would appreciate some external perspective here. Jaakobou 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simple: the statement that Levy is " the country's most radical commentator" is not criticism. It is unacceptable synthesis to present it as such. It is worth noting that, on the article Talk page, Jaakobou asks another editor "Do you believe that calling someone the most radical does not fall under criticism?" As it happens,m I do believe just that; Jaakobou's view that this is criticism is his own point of view; it is certainly not NPOV. RolandR (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any objection to breaking up the sentence into shorter sentences, while keeping the information involved? That would seem to be a reasonable compromise. THF (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue seems resolved, for now, as other editors suggested the section be retitled to 'reception'. Jaakobou 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War

There is a dispute about whether the War in Iraq article should have the war on terrorism term in the infobox. Please check Iraq_War#NPOV_dispute_-_POV_term_used_in_the_conflict_infobox and comment there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IRFU flag

Currently the IRFU use a flag which contains a copyrighted logo see here as such it can't be used expect as WP:FU. A number of users have suggested we create a flag/icon or use the File:Four Provinces Flag.svg for the IRFU and it's teams. It is mine and others contention that this is breech of WP:OR/WP:OI as it invents a flag/icon or invents an association which doesn't exist between the IRFU, its teams and a flag Gnevin (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced either way, but on its surface, it does seem that you are correct and this would invent a new flag for this association. I'm still open to hear arguments and possibly change my mind if your fellow wikipedians want to present the case for using the suggested replacement. Jaakobou 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That would fail WP:OI I think. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute

Contested as original research is the wording, "The institute has received federal funding through the political support of Nevada's senators John Ensign and Harry Reid, the latter a close personal friend of Harvey Whittemore.

Argument on talk page it is not OR:Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute#08 February 2010 edit summaries

No valid reason given to exclude the support of John Ensign and Harry Reid, or Whittemore's ties to either. That's still the case. Both appropriated funds, both are beneficiaries of HW's largesse, both are friends, Reid is a close friend. Relevant, well sourced.

Argument on talk page it is OR:Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute#Reference Packing

The John Ensign source indicates a funding request. There is no indication the proposed funding legislation was passed, or money was received by the institute (WPI). The Reid sources state the money is for The Center for Molecular Medicine at The University of Nevada School of Medicine. The institute is only part of the The Center for Molecular Medicine. The institute is collaborating with researchers at The University of Nevada School of Medicine. To state WPI received money on the basis of these sources is WP:OR. The two sources talking about the Reid friendship do not mention WPI. The friendship material in the article leads the reader to believe friendship is a factor in the funding. H.Reid has been supporting CFS long before the WPI was conceived. The friendship material is WP:SYNTH.

Ward20 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Butters' Bottom Bitch

There's been a drawn-out dispute over the inclusion of a cultural reference in the article about the South Park episode Butters' Bottom Bitch. The essence of the discussion is whether an allusion to a living person, in this case the real-life pimp "Bishop" Don "Magic" Juan should be mentioned in the article although it is not explicitly mentioned in professional commentary of the series.

• The argument for inclusion is that the main pimp character Keyshone looks, talks and dresses like Don "Magic" Juan. An important hint would be that he wears a belt buckle that says "Bishop". The episode also contains a scene that portrays the Players Ball, a real-life pimp convention which began it's life as a celebration to Don "Magic" Juan. One of the third party sources that have been cited does not mention any allusion to him, but acknowledges that the episode is inspired by the documentary Pimps Up, Ho's Down where "Magic" is one of the main characters (and he is also featured on the DVD cover).
• The argument against mentioning the allusion is that the fact has not been mentioned in third party sources. Including a mention would therefore constitute synthesis and/or original research and thereby violate Misplaced Pages policy.

Dream Focus and I believe the allusion is too obvious to be dismissed as run-of-the-mill original research or synthesis while Gigs AniMate and especially Alastairward believe it should be removed. Presently, the dispute has stalled after low-level edit warring between myself and Alastairward. Both of us have been frustrated by the lack of progress, and I was concerned enough to file a Wikiquette alert. There the lack of progress was recognized, but it was stressed that there had been no deliberate incivilities and that we should try taking the issue here.

Peter 10:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Princeton University WordNet definition for economist. Retrieved on July 22, 2007.
2. Cite error: The named reference Le Monde was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Problems at Israel's Haaretz: A Newspaper Without a Country
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference 7th-eye was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Interview with Gideon Levy (in Hebrew),(2002-2-26)
   Translation:
   About the Arabic language, to my great shame no, that is my great failure. I had a private teacher and for a year I only managed to get one word, which is thank you (which I knew beforehand).
   Original:
   לגבי השפה הערבית, לבושתי הגדולה לא, זה המחדל הגדול שלי. היה לי מורה פרטי ובמשך שנה הצלחתי לקלוט רק מילה אחת, שהיא תודה. (שגם ידעתי אותה לפני כן).
6. Translation:
   Furthermore, and maybe this also does not have to be noted, his whole carrer is touched with unseriousness, since he is one of the few journalists for Arab matters in the world who does not speak Arabic, does not understand Arabic and does not read Arabic. He gets a simultaneous translation, and that's enough. For me, that is amateur journalism.
   Original:
   כמו כן, ואולי גם את זה לא צריך לציין, כל הקריירה שלו נגועה בחלטוריזם, מכיוון שהוא אחד הכתבים היחידים בעולם לעניינים ערביים, שלא יודע ערבית, לא מבין ערבית ולא קורא ערבית. מתרגמים לו סימולטנית, וזה מספיק. לטעמי, זו עיתונות חובבנית.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution