Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Myspace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#New_Myspace the very last portion of this section contains a lot of original research and dubious sources for its citations.

treehouse attachment bolt

I have noticed that a few of the facts on the treehouse attachment bolt page, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_attachment_bolt, seem to contain some origional research. Specifically those that are linked to the 2nd reference. Both can be found at the end of the paragraphs in the history section.

Police state

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.

---

In the article Police state User:Ghostofnemo added a list of "Features of police states". The list was at first completely uncited and only after an extended discussion at Talk:Police state#New section "Features of police states" did I manage to convince the editor that sources are actually needed for each and every feature on the list. The editor proceeded to add citations from opinion-pieces, political organisations and geographically specific studies to cite a list that makes general claims about all police states.

My view is that in order to have such a list, we will need at least a scholarly study of police states in general which defines the features of a police state. The main problem being that most of the features on the list is not exclusive to police states but can occur in most types of states, making it obvious that the list has been put together on what the particular editor views as being features of police states rather than based on real scholarship on the subject. Googling "Police state" and adding a citation as source for a general claim that a feature is a general characteristic of police states if a columnist just happens to call it a sign of a police state seems to be rather blatant WP:SYNTH violations. And there are certainly a lot of those kind of citations on the list (the mass of citations often being a sign of dubious content in my experience). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Sources for a list of characteristics should come from academic studies. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of the sources are academic, but most are from "mainstream newspapers", which are also considered reliable sources. There seems to be no dispute about the content, just over the appropriateness of the sources, but the editor who is making this complaint completely deleted the section in question, along with the reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And no, most states THAT AREN'T POLICE STATES do [added 1/11/2013] not "disappear" people, torture them, blacklist dissidents, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And I also believe that being published by a reliable source is the basis of notability and accuracy, not the personal opinions of editors as to their accuracy or notability. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And the "mass of citations" (which were added BEFORE the latest "no refs" tag was added) is the result of said editor complaining about the references that were provided! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for news, but this is a political science issue(for my sins, my major at Yale) and they aren't reliable sources for that. As an aside, blacklisting of dissidents has taken place in the US, torture has been used by western democracies - again there are some regrettable instances where it's been used by the US and the UK among other countries. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Most states do torture their citizens by the way, 70%, 112 countries in 2012 according to Amnesty's State of the World 2013. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. Mainstream news sources are not restricted to supporting only news events. The BBC, for example, publishes many reference articles about countries and issues: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14107241. And this is not rocket science. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Check out this article. It has "police state" in the title, and goes on to enumerate why it considers Vietnam a police state: http://www.ibtimes.com/vietnam-police-state-where-one-six-works-security-forces-1401629 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the first line of this section says, "Features of a police state include:" not "any state that does any of these is a police state". But the more of these a state is guilty of, the more likely it is a police state. States that torture people routinely would probably be categorized as police states. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, the definition of "original research" means it's unsourced, and this section is clearly sourced. I agree the quality of the sourcing could be better, but the current version of this section is clearly not original research as the numerous references demonstrate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your mentioning of the Vietnam article just shows the root of the problem. You are using a source on a specific country or instance, in this case Vietnam, and apply it to cite general claims about police states in general. That is classic WP:SYNTH, since it is only your own interpretation that a specific case study can extrapolated to features of police states in general. And yes, original research means that you are making claims not supported by sources. In this case you are making your own interpretations that are not supported by the given sources cited. You can throw on as many sources as you want, but as long as none of them supports the claims made then it is indeed original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I question your definition of synthesis. Here's what the WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." In the case of this section, there is no C. We have many sources discussing police states and noting why they are police states, and I am noting what these sources mention as features of police states. I'm not jumping to the conclusion that any particular state C is therefore a police state, or stating a conclusion C such as "all states are police states". Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I have been saying either. You are making the conclusion that because a particular instance of something is happening in a country that is being termed a police state means that it is a general feature of police states. You are basically doing your own research, finding features and making general claims about the universality of these features. This is the problem, and you have still to come up with a reasonable explanation for why that should be allowed as per WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH (which you quote above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is one of the news articles I'm using as a source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment The top of the article reads, "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms." And then 10 steps are listed. How is this OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Years and years later, and you're still attempting the same SYNTH/OR violations as you were on both Sea Shepherd and 9/11 related articles. Ghostofnemo, I don't understand why you don't understand this. You need to only state exactly what sources say. If a source talks about why Vietnam is a police state, you simply cannot use that as a source to verify why Country X or Countries In General are police states. This is absolutely basic, fundamental Wikipedia policy. And, on the more general issue of sources, just because a source is RS for one thing (news) does not mean it's reliable for something else (political science). As was already mentioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That Guardian "article" is an opinion piece (it even has the word "comment" in the link), and thus not usable as a reliable source for anything but the opinions of Naomi Wolf. Again this is very basic stuff and as pointed out by Qwyrxian, due to the several previous times your edits has been reported on this board, should be something you had understood by now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever edited the Sea Shepherd article. Can you site the policy on this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC) I do recall a discussion in which people were arguing that you can't mention in an article about Brand X cigarettes that the Surgeon General has warned that cigarettes are harmful to your health and increase your risk of cancer, because the Surgeon General does not mention Brand X by name. That, of course, is ridiculous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Ah, here it is. It appears that after a lengthy discussion no resolution was ever reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_52#Questionable_interpretations_of_SYNTH Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolution was achieved, you simply refused to accept it...and, apparently, still do. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting information, Qwyrxian. Based on the long history of OR and SYNTH-violations carried out by Ghostofnemo it seems there is some possible WP:COMPETENCE or even WP:NOTHERE issues with this editor. Perhaps this should be taken further to ANI as these issues seems to go far beyond this single article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you see a resolution to that discussion? Where? So it's ok to delete an entire section of reliably sourced material from articles, but disruptive to constructively contribute by trying to improve the article? I would think the person who was doing the mass deletion would be the one who needed a warning. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Someone who was sincerely concerned about the quality of the sources would find better ones, one would think, instead of deleting the entire section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:BURDEN it is entirely up to you to support the information you add to articles with acceptable citations. As it is quite clear from the process of how you added this list (you first added a bunch of items that you personally thought was features, gradually adding more as you went along, then when asked for citations you began roaming the net for odds and ends that contained just the slightest mention of some of the terms you made up) that the list does not represent anything comparable to what can be found in scholarly sources, the best solution is to delete the list and if such a list is found to be needed in the future, then start over and make one based on actual sources. As it is quite clear that your are in the minority of one here, I have gone ahead and deleted the list from the article. Please be aware that if such a list is to be introduced again, then it has to be based on reliable sources and not factual yardsticks (ie WP:TRUTH). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor above has claimed on the article talk page that a . Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and

fair elections?consensus has been reached on this page to delete this entire section and all the provided reliable sources from the article. Here is the diff of the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582390708&oldid=580697927 Does such a consensus exist? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC) BTW, when an editor is asked to provide a reliable source for an edit, is it a bad thing to supply the requested sources? You seem to be implying this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Everyone to voice an opinion disagrees with you, including myself just now. There is a "consensus of everyone but nemo", and that is good enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So can we have a policy position as to why the reliable sources I've provided are not acceptable? The editor who is challenging this edit has claimed that only scholarly sources are acceptable in this situation. Is this indeed Wikipedia policy? And has it been decided that this entire section is actually original research, despite the scads of RS provided? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Well, it appears a small portion of the section was allowed to remain. Why isn't this a reliable source for noting the attributes of police states? http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/checklist-questions-and-guidelines Is it original research to change "Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?" into "- absence of free and fair elections" or is that an allowable paraphrase? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT once more. I didn't claim that only scholarly sources were acceptable, but that they would probably be the only ones that contained a comprehensive enough study of police states that would include a list of features suitable for the article. My objection was to your piecing together random sources of single examples to create your list, often only because the term "police state" was used in passing, thus making the entire list of features original research. Most of the sources you used weren't even acceptable as reliable sources for any general claim as they were opinion pieces and editorials. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not conceding that my original edit was OR, but as an alternative approach I've taken the questions Freedom House uses to determine how free a society is, and listed them in the article as factors for evaluating the freedom of a society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Features_of_police_states Is this OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source isn't about police states in particular. It is a list of questions used in the research for their study of the degrees of freedom in nations of the world. To infer that those questions are particularly describing the features of police states is your own personal opinion, and thus OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, is it your goal here to describe on Wikipedia what reliable sources state to be the hallmarks of a police state, or what you personally think are the hallmarks of a police state? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the latest attempt at resolution, which has already been deleted. Note how the edit is a direct paraphrase of the supplied reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582794914&oldid=582788773 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) This is the reliable source the edit is based on: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/checklist-questions-and-guidelines Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That checklist is for measuring the "freedom" of a given country. It is only by your own personal analysis that this is a checklist for determining whether something is a police state. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And what do we call an unfree state, a state where civil liberties are restricted, a state where citizens live in fear of speaking out? An "unfree state" (the term used by the RS) is just a euphemism for a police state. We can call them authoritarian regimes, despotisms, dictatorships, but they are all words used to describe states where the citizens are not free. Note that in the article there is a map from this same RS (created using the checklist I'm using as an RS) showing states that are "free" and states that are "unfree". According to your logic, since they don't use the term "police state" this shouldn't be in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope the above comment by Ghostofnemo speaks for itself regarding the fact that this editor, after years on Wikipedia, and after being involved in countless similar incidents as this one being informed of the same policies and issues (their userpage is quite revealing in that regard), either is completely incapable of understanding the most basic policies of this site or are deliberately ignoring them in the vain attempt that doing so will help them in their attempt at introducing whatever POV it is that they adhere to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nemo, the problem has never been the mention of the press freedom index on an article about police states, but your insistence that its authors are describing police states, despite their never having said as much. As mentioned previously, there is no shortage of sources that explicitly discuss police states. Go find them. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The last version (now deleted) does not claim to be "describing police states". It claims to be a list of indicators used to determine how free or unfree a state is. Unfree states are clearly another term for police states. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you don't recognise that last part of your statement as being the very cause of the OR-problem, after all this time and all those similar past incidents that has brought you to this board, just boggles the mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so let's say you are quoting a reliable source that says "Mr. X has been accused in the press of cheating on his wife." Is it original research to paraphrase that by saying, "Some news media have made allegations that Mr. X has been unfaithful to his spouse"? Police state=unfree state, just as press=news media, cheat=unfaithful, accusation=allegation, wife=spouse (in this context). Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You actually got that hypothetical horribly wrong. The attribution should be to the accuser, not the news site that is reporting the accusation. And in no circumstance should you weasel out of saying who reported it like that. That may be besides the point, but perhaps it provides some insight to your understanding of policy. Either way, what everyone here disagrees with you on is that very claim that "police state" is a synonym of whatever phrases are used in the sources you are trying to cite. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course this line would be followed by several refs of press articles which make this accusation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Freedom House, a respected human rights organization (my reliable source), is using the term "unfree states" because to call a state a "police state" is like calling an authoritarian leader a "despot" or "dictator". They are trying to be fair and unbiased, and "police state" is a loaded term. That's why they are using "unfree state" instead. I only have a bachelor's degree in politics, so I'm not an authority on this subject, but this is very basic material for people in that field. I suggest we get a request for comment WP:Rfc because this material seems to be beyond the grasp of some of the editors who are participating in this discussion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad we have you to read the minds of Freedom House's writers. But if you want to continue to beat this dead horse, go ahead. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to read anyone's mind - it's called English. Freedom House is defining unfree states as states "where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied." Which is also the definition of a police state. I suggest the Rfc say: "Is this edit a legitimate paraphrase of a reliable source, or is it original research?" and include the diff of the deleted edit and the url of the source it's based on. And I suggest it be posted at the "Politics, government, and law" page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You can forumshop all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your edits to the article constitute original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. And thank you for the interesting epic on the life and times of Ghostofnemo on your userpage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your main user page is on the Danish Wikipedia. Are you a native speaker of English? That might explain why you seem to be confused about political terminology in English. Do you have any background in politics, government or law? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to point out where I "seem to be confused about political terminology in English". After all I have shown you the courtesy of pointing out, page after page, where you reveal considerable deficiency in the knowledge of basic Wikipedia policies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem unable to understand that when Freedom House refers to a state as an "unfree state" that this is synonymous with calling it a "police state". Are you a native speaker of English? And do you have any background whatsoever in this field? Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can a single editor close a discussion because he or she personally feels it's not constructive? And don't my questions deserve answers? Are they entirely immaterial to this discussion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: It depends on who is closing it, and why. We normally don't "close" noticeboard discussions (instead, we allow them to simply die out because no one has anything further to say) ... however, when it is clear that one (or both) sides in the discussion are being combative, and engaging in disruptive, WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior, then "closing" can be appropriate.

Ideally the "closer" should be someone who has not participated in the dispute. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Family tree

Is this family tree here consider synthesis anymore than Stephen_I_of_Hungary#Family?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"Paris is the capital of France" etc.

I would like the help of 3rd party editors to resolve an emerging issue with "attributable content" regarding the following and similar examples. The struck through text is the stable article text which I believe is attributable content of the vanilla "Paris is the capital of France" variety, and if disputed a tag and a little bit of effort from any editor questioning it is less disruptive than simple deleting.

Brugge/Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area)

The reason why this is in my view falls into WP:OR "Paris is the capital of France" level general knowledge is because it is "flemish+speaking"&hl= easily attributable without having to WP:POINTedly fill the page with standard Tourist Guide footnotes.

The particular case is here where User:Dohn joe is arguing that statements are WP:OR at the same time as deleting sources such as (1) Lonely Planet Turkey (2) Jordan, Adamič, and Woodman Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names: Approaches towards the Resolution of an Apparent Contradiction Vienna 2007 and (3) Jean-Pierre Duteil Alexandre de Rhodes' Histoire du royaume du Tonkin 1999 which supported 3 of the statements the editor has deleted claiming "WP:OR." Since this series of deletions has been justified with WP:OR I defer to experienced editors in this subject (hopefully those who contributed to the current shape of the guideline) to comment. I do not intend to contribute to the discussion. I also do not intend to be frogmarched to adding sources for "English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area" statements known to every schoolboy. Footnote refs should be reserved for less clear statements such as to which the (3) deleted sources above were attached. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate this editor also addressing such claims as

• Ngũ Hành Sơn : Marble Mountains (Vietnamese name more accurately is "Five elements mountains")
• Plzeň : Pilsen (German name no longer used in English)
• Leuven/Louvain : Louvain (old - English used to use French name, though in Dutch-speaking area)

I removed a number of similar claims of terms being "old-fashioned", "obsolete", or of the form "English uses Portuguese name", none of which were cited - and none of which I learned as a schoolboy. As for the refs 1) and 2) cited above, I have explained to In ictu why they were non-sequiturs to the exonym status of Istanbul. If an experienced editor here has any advice, I am quite open to it, however. Dohn joe (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said: "I do not intend to contribute to the discussion." I would suggest to other editors that the whole edit and justification of the edit by WP:OR be considered in relation to (a) the whole edit, (b) the whole guideline. Good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit is not in the least helpful. Where there is something to say about the place name, that should be in the etymology section, not immediately after the article title. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite catch your drift. Would you mind rephrasing your answer? I can't tell if you are in favor of the parenthetical comments or not. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted, for the 3rd time, Dohn joe's removal of stable article content (more lines of the Brugge/Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area) etc. type and sources). The issue having been brought to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard the User should at least give regulars here a chance to comment before deleting stable and uncontroversial content a 4th time. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support position of In ictu oculi. Ideally citations should be provided, but deletion of unsourced items is not appropriate per "Paris". Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Surely all these lists are some sort of breach of WP:NOT in the first place. Formerip (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Original Research Assistance

Hej!

I am looking for help/guidance from experienced scientific editors who can help resolve/guide me on the "No Original Research" requirement -v- the related policy of Neutral point of view. For ex, the NPOV seems to imply some "latitude"

My only question for the present is: Is this better posted here or on the Editor_assistance/Requests? Thank you for your help! 213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Here as you are asking if NOR can be relaxed to meet NPOV. I can't see how. You'd have to provide specifics. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doug! Thank you for your response. My point is when I read WP:OR, I found this under the NPOV section there:

"The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles... But 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."

What is meant by the words in bold? (I can get to specifics in due course, but I would prefer someone who has experience of writing scientific articles in the context of known heuristics for a phenomenon -v- a "requirement" on Wikipedia to thereby elucidate the "cause"...)

Kind regrds 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This was cross-posted at WP:EAR. I'm pretty sure the question generally relates to energetically modified cement and a disagreement at User talk:213.66.81.80 and evidently deals with patent law to a certain extent. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is but nothing to do with patent law. I am struggling with "need" to provide a "scientific" explanation to the "nth" degree so as to prevent any further defamatory comments arising. This is why I ask for guidance from someone who has expertise in writing scientific articles and is well grounded in (observational) science heuristics. The issues are nuanced and will require a careful consideration because I can do what is being "demanded" (by a user who I suspect has little experience in heuristics) but I am worried in so doing it will contravene the Original Research aspect. I need guidance. If you can help, I would surely appreciate it. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The bolded words are in the context of an article where there is disagreement amongst scholars or other experts. It means that when citing a source that represents a minority opinion in the scholarly community one is obliged to indicate in the article that it is a minority opinion. It is not a licence for Wikipedia editors to form their own opinions. Opinions must always be attributed, Wikipedia itself never offers an opinion. Furthermore, WP:UNDUE prevents us from paying attention to viewpoints which are well outside the mainstream (lone voices in the wilderness etc). SpinningSpark 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. This sounds perhaps stupid of me because Swedish is my first language. I took the words "in face value" and wondered if the bold words were an oblique reference to being able to add one's own comments. It appears not. If you have experience of writing science articles can you assist on the major aspect I am hoping for guidance? It would be appreciated. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be helpful for you to consider that what we do as Wikipedia editors is find and compile what reliably published sources have said about the subject and then attempt to present all of what has been said in a manner that appropriately represents the current mainstream academic experts' views of the subject. In the area of scientific works and subjects, we need to be careful about how we use individual research papers so that we limit their use as primary sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Then may I ask you for some guidance on your talk page? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

you could, but asking here will give you much more chance of being answered quickly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting!

"...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..."

Presumably, one must cite a source for a position being prevalent or minority, or else it would be OR, and open to abuse by editors indicating "minority view" derogatorily to views that they disagree with! NZBiota (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

True dat! See, for example, Rupert Sheldrake. For extra fun, check out the article's talk page. David in DC (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Geneologies of Kentucky Governors

I just stumbled across this and am baffled about how it complies with WP:NOR. But it seems to have been stable, across a lot of articles, for a few years and I'm just not WP:BOLD enough to do what I think needs doing. Can I hear the thoughts of other editors?
Here's the explanation.

And here are examples:
Luke_P._Blackburn#Ancestors
Thomas_E._Bramlette#Ancestors
Simon_Bolivar_Buckner#Ancestors
Martha_Layne_Collins#Ancestors
Ernie_Fletcher#Ancestors
J._Proctor_Knott#Ancestors
Preston_Leslie#Ancestors
James_B._McCreary#Ancestors
John_W._Stevenson#Ancestors

Is there something I'm missing that makes these geneologies, which offer no references to secondary sources, approriate to appear on wikipedia pages about Kentucky governors? David in DC (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• In the process of removing all of the Ahnentafels I created for the Kentucky governors. Now it's a non-issue. Spacini (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Macrophilia article

Editor Sage94 (talk · contribs) is engaging in consistent violations of the WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring policies at the Macrophilia article. The matter concerns whether or not the term macrophilia covers females who have sexual fantasies about male giants. The WP:Reliable sources restrict the term to males who have sexual fantasies about female giants (giantesses); if any of the WP:Reliable sources give space to male giants, it is minor space. See this discussion for backstory on Sage94's editing of that article: Talk:Macrophilia#Again With This. It includes Pandarsson (talk · contribs) trying to steer Sage94 in the right direction with regard to editing that article, and recent commentary from me as well. As can be seen at other parts of that talk page, people have been trying to give the topic of male giants space in that article for years. But, of course, we must go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with due weight.

Since in the aforementioned Macrophilia talk page discussion, I have already alerted Sage94 and Pandarsson to the fact that I would be reporting this matter here and have pinged them via WP:Echo, I do not see a need to notify them of this talk page section on their talk pages as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, the edit war covers whether the article focuses on male giants as well as female giants, not whether females have the same sexual fantasies as males. If you want to give the article reliable information, then just take away all the information that has to do with sexual play. The person who's editing the article is putting up information that focuses on sexual fantasies that objectify certain human beings and not the other. That makes no sense. The article should either focuse on BOTH genders, or neither. It's as simple as that.

I don't understand why you're putting this here in the first place, I already tried to talk it out on the talk page. Don't make me into the bad guy for trying to get things settled.--Sage94 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I characterized the WP:Edit war clear enough above; I made it clear that it is about whether or not the term covers male giants and, if so, how commonly that term is applied that way. And like I just told you here, I pointed out what Wikipedia considers fair with regard to WP:Neutrality; read its Due and undue weight section and the subsections to that (Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity"). The fact that you don't understand why I brought this matter here adds to the issues with your editing. I will report this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) if nothing is done here about your wholly inappropriate editing of the Macrophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody before me was editing it to make it inappropriate. I was just making it fair because the edit seemed to be there for a long time and I thought it was considered okay by users viewpoints. Please calm down and try to discuss this before jumping to conclusions.--Sage94 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. The policies have already been explained to you. And I have therefore reverted you. Do not revert and violate the WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Fluidized bed combustion

Hi, I've just noticed that a couple of large sections have been added to Fluidized bed combustion that look like OR, especially when they start "For 7 years we.." - and all is unreferenced. However as I've got a bit of a fever at the moment I'm doubting my own judgement, plus its on a subject I know little about, so thought I'd flag it up was someone more lucid to judge. Cheers — KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)