Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

When primary sources show a secondary is incorrect

I have been informated that "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources". But whenever I have told the story of how at the article about New York's Capital District prior to my complete rewrite/expansion the article stated, and had a secondary source as reference, that the term started by a local newspaper and in the 1970s. Well, I did not believe it, and searching Google books I found numerous references of the term Capital District in reference to the area, many of which were primary sources of the institutions which used term Capital District in their title, along with laws of the state of NY (laws being a primary source). And so I removed the secondary source and used the other sources to show that the term was used in the past in specific instances. I have never been told this was OR until recently at the Village pump (policy), and in fact have numerous times been told what I did was correct. I come here for more opinions, as I've heard other people state similar stories. I find it disconcerting that policy should specifically condone keeping wrong information in the face of contradiction. Depending on statements here, I may push for a change in policy to reflect current consensus, once I know what the consensus is.Camelbinky (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy is correct and no change is needed or desirable. Editors should not correct secondary sources, although if material is believed to be factually incorrect, it could be omitted (if other sources are not available, and subject to factors like WP:DUE). I have not looked at the example mentioned, but it appears to concern the origin of a term, which is a classic case where different sources will make different claims, possibly all true in their own way (perhaps in some sense activities by the local newspaper in the 1970s were responsible for the current usage, even if earlier instances of the term can be found). If there is no secondary source to support an assertion, or if there is only one such source and it appears dubious, it would be better to remove the assertion from the article. At any rate, an editor should not publish the true facts at Wikipedia even when in a good cause because that is a one-way street to madness where every kook on the planet will want to correct sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct approach is to contact the secondary sources and persuade them to publish retractions or to publish a paper in an academic journal correcting the error. Once you are successful, the corrections may be reflected here. Otherwise we would spend a lot of time looking at Obama's birth certificate. TFD (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis on Draft dodger

Hello, there is a user who is repeatedly adding this edit to the Draft dodger article. [1] I haven't addressed WP:SYN much before, but to me this looks like an example of it. IMO, there are a few other important reasons why this doesn't belong in the article, but I guess that's irrelevant for this discussion. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything, it looks like a WP:NEUTRAL issue, and if the source can be properly formatted it seems like a good addition to the article in terms of balance; you cannot write an article about draft dodging without mentioning denied volunteers. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I'm not following at all. Denied volunteers? IMO The editor is putting together a bunch of raw figures to come to his conclusion that African Americans were underrepresented in Vietnam --CutOffTies (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Parts of the added text ("so they were significantly under represented in the war zone", and "it was significantly below the Black military age cohort in the general population at the time") are clearly original research, since they represent conclusions by the editor, not by the (original but now obfuscated) cited source. It seems the purpose of the addition is to dispute the statement "This was the source of considerable resentment among poor and working class young men including African-Americans - who could not afford college." As such, it is synthesis (though I note that the previous statement is itself not sourced). It could be contended that the addition is not to dispute the other content, but rather to provide additional information; if that were the case, it might not be syntheses but also appears to have no relevance to the topic of the article – which is draft dodgers, not Vietnam War casualties – and should probably be removed on that basis. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Clear OR. Stats are presented in order to present an interpretation of the fairness of the draft. But the stats are not even about who was drafted but who served. TFD (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, if the source can be properly formatted and cited it is an issue of balance that needs to be addressed. You all seem to have missed the main point: the editor in question copypasted that from elsewhere, losing the source itself in the process (replacing it with a [4]); how about requesting the editor to come up with the link? Without that link, no one can actually know whether he or she drew the conclusion; for all we (do not) know, it might be in that very source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about missing the point; it's about making the effort to check sources before rendering an opinion on whether they are used properly. The copy-paste was from an earlier version of the article, here, before the edit wars started and when the link to the list of statistics at http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm was intact. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To Heart 2

The article To Heart 2, about a work of anime, has an InfoBox which says "Genre = harem". An RfC was created here to ask whether that was the correct genre. In the RfC, that led to questions about whether editors were able to determine the genre on their own, without a reliable source stating the genre. Or, would an editor be violating the OR policy by stating (in the absence of a reliable source) that the genre was such-and-such. This question (do simple facts in an InfoBox require a reliable source) must have come up before, so any help from experienced OR experts would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Identical question cross-posted on the OR noticeboard here, so probably should post any responses at that thread, to avoid duplicate discussions. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg

The file permsssion and file history links the Anders Behring Breivik article to original research both in the text in comments and in a link in the article permissions. --Hemshaw (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been proposed for deletion at commons. Best to let them sort out the licensing issues. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can mere organization of raw material from a book/film/TV show into a graph/table be called original research?

The heading pretty much speaks for itself, if anything is unclear I will be happy to elaborate. Naturally, the question pertains only to raw material that is collected from various book pages/film scenes/TV episodes and organized into a graph/table using only the material itself, without further deductions that could be interpreted in more than one way. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the noticeboard is meant to review/discuss specific cases, not vague hypotheticals. Is there such a case? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is the appropriate place or not, the answer to the question is no, it is not original research. It has been long held that pictures, graphs, etc, that depict something from a source isn't OR.AerobicFox (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But he can't really take and use that answer without clarifying the question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a hypothetical, there is nothing that states you cant come here and ask one. Second, raw material from a book, film, etc would be a primary source and to organize it into a table or graph in a manner that draws a conclusion would in fact be OR not to mention the problem of using a primary source. So yes the specifics of the case and manner in which it is used is important, but in a generalization yes it can be ok as in- it isnt always prohibited in all cases. Therefore that is the answer to this hypothetical.Camelbinky (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, the example is a fictional character family tree in Family Guy that keeps being removed on the false grounds of OR. There are no drawn conclusions there, only family relations that are stated within the series and are brought together in a neutral manner. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In real life it is very common for people to be called auntie uncle grandma father mother son sister or what have you without being any sort of relation at all. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the chart qualifies as OR or not... the chart is a compilation of "in universe" WP:TRIVIA and should be excluded for that reason. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is called Griffin family, how more can anything pertain to a subject? Should the whole article be zapped? For this matter, should all articles discussing fictional characters/families be zapped as well? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that "zapping" the whole article makes sense, but then I'm not really up on guidelines for articles on in-world fictional entities. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In any case, we are quite clear that this is not OR, am I right? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not agree; material culled from fictional works, without a secondary source, is OR, and trivia. Did anyone say it's not OR? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the OR part for now. Here is a direct answer to your question, from AerobicFox's reply above: "It has been long held that pictures, graphs, etc, that depict something from a source isn't OR." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Illustrations that say no more than what the text says are what I think you are referring to. I would count this as OR but ask for IAR to be applied on the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to invoke IAR. As is, the chart is OR, but that can be remedied: What is needed is a) a section in the article that lays out who is related to whom on the show, with b) that information cited to a reliable source (this citation is important for two reasons... first it demonstrates that the information verifiable; second it demonstrates that someone other than a Wikipedia editor thinks it is worth compiling, ie not just trivia). Then, with that sourced information in place, the image becomes a user created illustration of what that is said in the article (and source) and is no longer OR... at that point it can be used in the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

All the family relations are clearly stated in the series, there are no interpretations here. All trivia doubts aside, how is it OR? Where do you see user created content? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I will put this in a simpler way, quoting some of the replies above: "It has been long held that pictures, graphs, etc, that depict something from a source isn't OR", meaning "[i]llustrations that say no more than what the text says" are what this table represents, e.g. a collection of family relations stated in a clear manner in the work of fiction, containing no deductions or conclusions by a Wikipedia editor that do not exist within the work of fiction. Therefore, quoting this Wikipedia article: "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research[...]This would include direct quotes or non interpretative summaries, publication dates, and any other patent information that can be observed from the work." With all this in mind, there is no rationale to call the table OR, and this is therefore the consensus unless it can be proven wrong. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion

I am a bit lost on which noticeboard I should ask for help. In "Cold fusion" I wanted to add this:

In the "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" (August 2011) from publishing company Wiley, LENR is presented along with conventional nuclear fission and fusion technologies.

It was reverted first for WP:WEIGHT, I undid the revert. It was then reverted for WP:OR, I also undid that revert. It was reverted a third time and we started a discussion: Talk:Cold_fusion#Wiley_publication. The current reason for the revert turned into "add unwarranted sources at certain points in the article in order to imply stuff."

I am afraid that I will not be able to understand what WP rule that reasoning corresponds to, I assume it is still WP:OR

The Cold fusion article offers the reader very solid and frequent guidance towards the notion that cold fusion is pathological science and that it is not excepted by mainstream scientists. I do not question that, I understand to that notion. However, the fact that a reliable source book publisher decides to include LENR/"cold fusion" in his "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" along with regular nuclear fission and fusion technologies is interesting and noteworthy. I did not add any insinuation when I edited that fact into the article. I just presented the fact.

Can somebody look into this ? Also, please first look into User:POVbrigand where I explain my username. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If I cite something from the book itself to use in the article, that's primary source

If I cite something from a book review about the book, that would be secondary source.

But I mention that the book exists, is there something above primary source ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sidestepping which particular "wikilegalism" best applies here for the moment, it sounds like you're implying some self-evident significance in in the fact that an encyclopedia discussed a subject. And why that would in and of itself be particularly interesting or noteworthy is lost on me. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Why is it noteworthy that a reliable source talks about this topic? Many do. If they said something that you'd like to report, backed up by them as a source, that would probably be OK; but to mention that they mention it just seems odd and pointless, essentially OR unless someone else notes that they mention it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@professor marginalia: the notion that is forwarded in the cold fusion article is: cold fusion is pathological science and not taken seriously by mainstream scientists. On the other side, a respected source book publisher put that topic into a book together with mainstream topics and names it the "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia". There is a conflict, the respected source book publisher puts solid science and pathological science in one book, but the WP-article advances the notion that cold fusion is ignored by mainstream science. The fact that this book exists is interesting. So not so much self-evident, but more context relevant. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I agree, there are many books that discuss cold fusion and there are many books that discuss why cold fusion isn't true. But this book pretends to be an encyclopedia and discusses both "as if" there was never a dispute regarding cold fusion. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a wrong way of looking at it. What the text says about the topic may or may not belong in the article. And that depends a whole host of questions about its noteworthiness related to who authored the claims and how much weight to give those views. But the fact that it's addressed there is not in and of itself noteworthy. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

so what you're saying is I should disregard that it is presented together in one book (because I have no second source that highlights that joint presentation as significant) and I should disregard that the book claims to be an encyclopedia. And because I have to disregard that, it is just a publication of LENR that in itself in not noteworthy. Even if it was published by an reliable source book publisher. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't say you should "disregard" it. I said you can't automatically attach or assume any particular significance to it. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"disregard" is my wording for "regard as irrelevant / not significant", so I think we are aligned. Thanks for the explanations. I thought that there was explicitly room in the rules or in the interpretation of the rules to allow for things like this. I am satisfied with this discussion, but very unsatisfied with the result, but well you can't have it all.

Final question to anyone who is versed in the wikilegalisms. Which WP:rules can I read to understand the outcome of this discussion better. I read most of WP:WEIGHT or WP:OR and interpreted that my topic is not perfectly covered by those. Is there some other rule ?

btw, on Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not I found this: "It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research." It that last line a contradiction to the first line. Can somebody rephrase that please ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Graphing a column of numbers

Original data in gray, rolling average in blue

An article I'm drafting includes reference to numerical data - for each day there is an attendance figure. There are several years of data, for a total of over 1600 days. I believe that making a straightforward graph of the data would be allowable under NOR. However the data has a high degree of variability from day to day, so adding a seven-day rolling average makes it much easier to interpret. Does anyone think that would be going too far in the direction of original research, or is it acceptable as a routine calculation?   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends, doesn't it? Isn't the answer relative to the situation? A seven day average of attendance at a Presidential Inaugural or Woodstock festival would be harder to defend than a seven day average of attendance at a cigarette machine. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than daily+7 day rolling average, why not simply graph weekly attendance? This would yield a simpler, cleaner graph -- and would clearly be permissible per WP:CALC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like plotting the data raw makes an acceptable graph. Why do more? Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the graph without the rolling average. My thought was that it made the trends clearer amid the noise.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to show trends, that sounds like it gets close to OR. What's the data? Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• It looks clear enough without the trend IMO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The data is attendance figures. Maybe the average isn't necessary, I just thought it made the overall ups and own easier to see.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure it does; but then it makes the ups and down look big compared to the daily random fluctuations. It's hard to know if this is a fair or neutral distortion of the data, without knowing more about it. Might as well not distort it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - that helps.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines

The Delta Air Lines article contains lengthy passages, sections, statements, lists and general content for which no source is ever provided, in obvious violation of WP:V. There are also editors, most notably User:BilCat and User:Andros 1337, who appear to regularly police/edit this article, and who, despite my suggestions, have been consistently resistant [2] and obstructionist [3] to my requests that, per WP:V, they provide verifiable sources for the material in the article.

But rather than providing the missing sources, instead they have claimed that: there are already "enough" sources in the article; the unsourced material is "common knowledge"; and because I brought verifiability to their attention by tagging the article and many of the numerous unsourced sections, surely I must be pedaling some undisclosed (and unidentifiable) agenda. They have also enlisted 2 other editors who also appear to share their contempt for Wiki's verifiability policy.

Hopefully this forum will impress upon these editors that WP:V is enforceable - and even applies to an article they own - just as it applies to every other article on Wikipedia. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V says content must be verifiable, not necessarily already sourced. Content may be verifiable in various ways without in-line citations on every sentence or phrase - and that's why adding a lot of tags [4] is sometimes viewed negatively by editors. If you think much of the content is questionable or wrong, then give some reasons for disputing the statements on the talk page. I look at the talk page and I don't see much discussion why the tagged statements might be disputed. If discussion doesn't lead to resolution, then maybe section tags for some of the worst sections, or the top of the article, would be appropriate. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

With over 100 references cited in the article, and with most major sections being sourced, the article header really wasn't very helpful. The user was asked to place section headers instead, but just kept reverting back to his original overtagged version. As to the canvassing accusation, I posted a note at WT:AIRLINES, the talk page of relevant project, and no where else. - BilCat (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The first two clarifying tenets of WP:V are WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN. The first simply states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate." So you can't just claim that "somewhere" amongst all the other citations already used is the support for unsourced material. Simply put, if it is not "clearly and precisely" sourced - then it is not sourced. The second tenet says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." So once again, you can't send the reader on some vague fishing expedition in search of your sources. If they are not placed "directly" where they may support a statement - then they do not support the statement. Period. Claims to the contrary, regarding the number of "references cited in the article", notwithstanding. For perspective, it's instructive to review what the article looked like before I realized the sourcing was either non-existent or extremely spotty. While a cursory look at the Reference list suggestions there are apparently several sources, large passages and entire sections went largely unsourced. This is an over 7,800 word article, with 20 sections and 24 subsections. So the 109 citations, many of which are themselves already duplicative, appear to offer very little actual attribution in the broader context of an article of this size and scope. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Material that is not "challenged or likely to be challenged" doesn't need an inline cite. I see you saying "this material doesn't have a footnote", but I don't see you saying "I think this material is questionable/doubtful/wrong because..." Gimmetoo (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does the policy state: "Material that is not 'challenged or likely to be challenged' doesn't need an inline cite?" It doesn't. That extrapolation is entirely your own logical fallacy. Also a syllogistic fallacy. But what the policy does state is that material not supported by a reliable source may be removed. Or I may give editors time to find and append that reliable source. But I do not need to engage in questioning/doubting/debating the relative merits of the material. Why should I? If a reliable source is attached, the policy's threshold is met. Of course, I may still question the reliability of the source(s), but that invokes another section of the policy. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's what the policy you quote says. All material must be attributable. Quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed. Nothing is required that is not stated. Hence, unless material falls in the categories of "quotations" or "challenged" or "likely to be challenged", the policy does not require that it be attributed, only attributable. If your entire argument is that some material doesn't have a footnote, that's purely formal. Do you have any substantial argument against any of the content? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• It appears that you might still be experiencing a bit of difficulty interpreting the policy - and what it requires of editors. Perhaps you're overthinking it. It simply states that quotes and other substantive material must be attributed to a reliable published source. That's all. Material unlikely to be challenged is simply minor content, like "shortly thereafter" vs. "eventually". But anything of substance is quite likely to be challenged. But beyond that, the policy requires such matter be to properly attributed. Clearly, you keep looking for a "substance" argument where none is required. This is a policy issue involving what is required to correctly format attributions. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• You've been told how the policy should be applied to the article in question. If you insist on your own interpretation of policy, then this is not the page to discuss it. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• My "interpretation of policy" is identical to policy, while your responses have consisted entirely of tangential non sequiturs. I would welcome the input of editors who are interested in discussing the legitimate issues raised, rather than interjecting their own. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• What you call non sequiturs are part of the policy, and by ignoring them, you have a distorted view of the policy. If you want to discuss policy, you need to do that at another page, but since you have chosen not to provide any substantial reasons for disputing anything in the article, I will take it as resolved that you don't really have any "original research" concern about the article, and that you are simply arguing about footnotes, and doing so in a rather WP:POINTy manner. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• To the contrary, you failed to quote policy, you misquoted it and therefore you misrepresented it. Policy states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source." But you wrote: "Material that is not "challenged or likely to be challenged" doesn't need an inline cite." That is clearly not the same thing, try as hard as you can to pretend it is. You completely reversed the policy - and tried to claim that new fake, reversed policy, WAS policy. That is plainly wrong and you should know it and not act oblivious to the clear misrepresentation. This page however is the proper forum for these issues because WP:V states: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" and this is the No Original Research noticeboard, is it not? That's the only threshold I need to meet. Substance disputes, like the ones you would like to see, should/must occur on the discussion page of the article. They are not appropriate here, as I should hope even you would agree. But instead, your tone has turned decidedly WP:CIV. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• You have presented a caricature of WP's policies. If you wish to discuss WP's policies, please open discussion on the talk pages of the relevant policies, not here. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of the items he tagged had citations in the same paragraph where the information was found. The user didn't even bother to check the existing rfeferences in those paragraphs. When I pointed this out with an example from the Lead, I received a lecture on proper MLA and ALA referencing styles, that the cites should go at the end of the paragraph, He further stated: "It's not my job to correct your editing errors - only to point them out. It's your job to properly format your own edits." This isn't very helpful, leaving aside the fact that I didn't write the material, nor did I add the cite in question. - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• As I correctly pointed out to you, if - as you claim without a shred of proof - the tagged items had citations in the same paragraphs, it still doesn't matter. The citations were/are in the wrong place. It is NOT the reader's job to go looking for them, just as I told you it's not my job to babysit your or another editors work. The citation tag is a perfectly acceptable method used on this project to say "Here's a problem, fix it!" without removing the item entirely - which was also an available option. I gave you a chance to fix the problems, yet you still complained? Rather than throwing a hissy about it - as I advised you - all you would have had to do was simply move the citations to their proper places at the end of the paragraphs! It ain't rocket science. But it is correct practice, by every measure available. If I went over your head by discussing MLA and APA (not ALA) styles, then that may have been a mistake - but Wikipedia also requires the same practice! As I also mentioned to you, if you're going to play, you must learn to play by the same rules as everyone else. It couldn't be more basic than that. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To address Gimetoo's point, I did a cursory reveiw of the tags when they were first added, and I didn't see anything that was of the nature of something "likely to be challenged". In making a further review of several of the tags yesterday, I did find a few items that weren't directly attributed, but did have sources in the article, which I have now cited. This is apart from the paragraphs that are already cited, as I have mentioned. However, none were of the nature of something "likely to be challenged". - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• As I also discussed with Gimetoo, these items weren't only "likely to be challenged" - they WERE challenged, rendering your entire point moot. But even you concede that some items "weren't directly attributed". Then they weren't attributed. Misattributed = non-attributed. That is precisely why they were tagged. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, I am having troubling reconciling your articulated position here with your actual editing behavior. You seem to state that only material that is “likely to be challenged” needs to be cited. And yet when I removed only one citation out of three for a piece of information that is virtually incontrovertible, you reverted me. Which is it? — Satori Son 20:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the article is being challenged for lack of sources, why would you remove any sources during such a discussion? It might be useful to cite in other places. In addition, I reverted you to avoid an edit conflict, as this was in the middle of my citation efforts. Under other circumstances, I might not have reverted you. - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually here, if I may, surprisingly, I'm inclined to agree with BilCat. Removing sources in the middle of a discussion about removing sources could be construed as unhelpful. While I completely understand your view that 3 sources to document the same thing could be excessive, frankly I commend BilCat for halting further edits of that kind until this issue is resolved. Surely your edit could wait a bit, as I don't believe it was time sensitive? In which case an encyclopedia isn't the best place anyway. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The key issue here is not whether or not statements should be attributed, but how to address the issue. In the essay found at WP:OVERTAGGING, it states:

It is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing too many tags on an article is "tag-bombing", disruptive, or may be a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Placing vague tags on articles results in confusion and discouragement more often than it results in improving the encyclopedia. Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself.

Several editors found the sheer amount of tags palced to be unnecessary and disruptive. which is why the bulk placement of tags was continually reverted. Rather than attempt to adress the need in smaller portions, the user has spent all of his time addressing why he should be alowed to add so many tags all at once. Rather, it would have been far more productive to have have discussed the substance of the items being questioned, addressing what it was in the statements that was actually questionable or wrong. Did he really doubt that "Delta is a founding member of the SkyTeam alliance", or that "Northeast Airlines was acquired in August 1972"? Is it really doubtful that Delta "replaced propeller planes with jets in the 1960s and entered international competition to Europe in the 1970s and across the Pacific in the 1980s"? Does it seem a stretch that Delta Express "ceased operations in November 2003 after Song was established", or that "Song used Boeing 757 aircraft"? This is what I meant when I said that the user used no discernment in adding the tags. Most of these are not credibaly doubtful, ie "likely to be ocntrested. They are simply history, not an interprtation of facts that would need to be cited. I also that that a reasonable editor would discuss this when the tags were first removed. This apparently is the "substance" the user doesn't want to deal with! (Note I'd rather discuss these point by point on the article's talk page, not here, as that is the place for discussing the article specifics.) - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The question posed is a valid one. However, putting things in perspective, which the editor seems hopeful of doing, my concerns are also legitimate. In fact, according to Wikipedia they are even weighted more, because WP:OVERTAGGING is simply an essay. Unlike WP:V - which is a policy. But with respect to the concerns it addresses, as the essay indicates, it's understandable that the editor might feel the number of tags was excessive. But it should be equally understandable that sources are required for content to be included in articles on this project. Those sources should be directly attached and easy to find. If they are not, they are useless. So while this editor, like Gimetoo would love me to debate the merits of each tag, they both miss the point. I merely question the absence of tags to course the content. Something being "simply history" isn't good enough. All good history comes with proof that it IS history. That is a fundamental tenant. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Those last two sentences are not my words. They are Wikipedia's. WP:V. But to resolve this, I'll offer a compromise: I'll gladly work with editors and remove the citation tags, as long as they make serious efforts to place any attribution they claim resides in the article, in it's proper place - and find reliable sources where none exists. And the citations needed article tag remains until this is accomplished. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If your solution is simply to go back and add all of the tags indiscriminantly, and expect us to do all the work, and then you'll graciasously consent to the removal of the tags when you feel your concerns are satisfied, that won't be acceptable. For example, I'm not going to provide a soucre that Song used 757s - that is riduculous, and doens't need to be cited As to your retort of "All good history comes with proof that it IS history": Most if not all of those points are covered in the History article, with proper sources. It also needs some work for new additions, but in general the refs are cited properly. The statement that Delta "replaced propeller planes with jets in the 1960s and entered international competition to Europe in the 1970s and across the Pacific in the 1980s" is an excellent summary of the history article, and would probably need so many cites as to be ridiculous in execution. - BilCat (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my solution. I have no interest in restoring the individual tags. In fact, I'll remove however many remain myself, as long as the article citation tag itself remains. That'll give you ample time to correct the attributes. You can even use the edit history to determine where the old cite tags used to be. Then when you're done and we can agree that the article tag is no longer useful, I'll have no objection to it's removal. Again, I would remind you that if there are multiple places in the article that use the same source, all you need to do is put a ref. tag on them to solve the problem. Perhaps you were unaware of that solution, I don't know. But if/once the content is largely verified, I'll have no further objection. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion of using repeted refs and the old edit history - since it's that easy, I hope you'll get off of your high horse and help out. Btw, I did exactly as you suggested yesterday, without your having to suggest it firat, which if if you'd spend less time being so condescending, you'd have noticed and left the "advice" out. This isn't a class room or a court room, and you aren't the professor or lawyer here. You could have probably cited most of the material you tagged if you'd read the online sources rather than reading the policy pages and lecturing highly experienced users in a such a wonkish manner. But, if you think that sort of work is beneath you, than "In which case an encyclopedia isn't the best place anyway" might be the best advice you can follow. - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, if you want people to "help out", then you need to stop behaving in a manner that clearly communicates you are unwilling to accept help. I think you are having some WP:OWN issues with this article. — Satori Son 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No one, including you, has upheld the IPs edits to the Delta article. And no one other than the IP has reverted any edits that I've made to the article during this time for any reason, including you. And no one other than the IP has criticized those actions in any way, other than you on my single revert of your ill-timed removal of a source. I gladly accept any actual help on the article, and beg for it. I don't have the time to go through the article and cite evey nitpicky thing the IP wants cited. Any genuine help in that effort would be greatly apprecited. Sanctimonious lectures from the hightowers of policy-observation that are far removed from the actual work here on WP aren't helpful, and such "help" is not needed. - BilCat (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have reported the IP to WP:AN3. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. If that's the best contribution toward resolution you're capable of making. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The user was blocked for edit warring. Perhaps we can close this now? - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. As long as you realize that in no way was your own behavior exonerated. You were wrong and the policies prove it. Another editor even noted that you exhibit serious issues re: WP:OWN and called you on it. So on that, we have consensus. You should have been blocked for that alone. However, since you clearly cannot graciously accept the olive leaf I extended, it is withdrawn. Edit the article as you'd like. I'll monitor it and edit as the need arises. But I will acknowledge one probable error. As you wrote, I am not "the professor or lawyer here". I am, however, used to dealing with really smart people who pride themselves on their capacity for perspicacious thought. But in any future colloquy, I'll try to dumb it down to a level you can grasp. Happy editing. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is not that no one understands what you're saying. I fully understand everything you've said. (You seem to be confusing dyslexic typing errors with stupidity!) The problem is with your interpretation of policy aside from its actual application, and as has been pointed out by others, in most cases a wrong view of the policies themselves. You then set out to lecture highly experienced WP editors in a very condescending manner on the assumption that we don't agree with you because we're not smart enough understand you. Futher, you think you now have to "dumb it down to a level [we] can grasp". At some point, you may realize that "wisdom won't die with you", and that there are other ways of interpreting and applying policy, and in fact that others with more experience on WP may well be right. If not, you'll continue to antagonize others, violate other policies in your editing of articles, and eventually suffer the consequeces of that, up to an indef block or ban. As to my own conduct here, I've replied to the admin who "complained" about my reverting him, and that response stands as written. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification: The "dumbing down" reference wasn't directed at a "we". It was directed at a "you". But if you can find a WP policy that makes lazy, sloppy, misplaced or altogether non-existent citations permissible, I invite you to post it. Otherwise I'm afraid yours is a lost cause. As to all the rest, I'll simply refer you to another policy - and it's not even a WP. See Matthew 7:5 [5]. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, I'm done here and elsewhere. Despite what I'm sure will be your determined attempt to have the last word, I am done feeding you. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Darcus Howe

I've removed OR from Darcus Howe more than once in the last couple of hours (see talk page) but another editor keeps restoring it. Extra eyeballs would help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wien bridge oscillator

I am continually running into the well-intentioned WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of User:Circuit dreamer. He makes extensive edits that he claims are obvious, so they do not need sources. He likes to point out how one idea is connected to several others. He does not appreciate the notion of WP:RS. When pressed for sources, he will use blogs. He has been warned about this in many articles.

We clashed at electronic oscillator; see Talk:Electronic oscillator#Negative resistance LC oscillator.

We clashed at Talk:Neon lamp#Why the neon lamp is a negative resistor and how it behaves when voltage driven. (added Glrx (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

I've been meaning to revert many of his edits at negative resistance (see Talk:Negative resistance#About the last major edits), but my time is limited and it appears that other editors have left the field (I can understand why). One of the few remaining editors, User:Zen-in, got into a spat some time ago, and has agreed to never revert Circuit dreamer -- a position that Zen-in is apparently respecting. Circuit dreamer agreed to to never add material without inline sources, but he has ignored that promise.

see ANI/Archive570; User talk:Circuit dreamer#A Reminder; CD's promise carried a condition: "I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense". Circuit dreamer was previously Circuit-fantasist. added Glrx (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The lastest episode is in Wien bridge oscillator. There were discussions on the article talk page about his original research.Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Some intuitive explanations; Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material. He's introduced three unsourced views of the Wien bridge oscillator. He's offered an unsourced explanation of how the oscillator works. There are factual errors. CD does not correctly apply the term loop gain. He does not understand the distinction between avalanche and feedback.

I'm reluctant to continue to revert Circuit dreamer because it will appear that I'm in a continual and global edit war with him.

What should I do?

Notice to

• User:Zen-in
• User:Spinningspark
• User:Circuit dreamer
• User:Chetvorno
• User:Johnuniq

Glrx (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Before any discussion I would like only to note that I have no problems with such a trivial term as loop gain and I feel hurt to see this accusation here. Also, I have thoroughly explained many times what I mean when saying "in an avalanche-like manner" (regeneration with a loop gain bigger than one). Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is now time to seek a community ban on Circuit dreamer from all electronic articles, including talk pages. I intended to do this after the latest episode at Negative resistance but have not managed to find the substantial amount of time needed to marshal the evidence. Circuit dreamer just does not get the need for sources, despite it being explained to him by numerous editors on numerous occassions. He has broken just about every bullet point he agreed to at the last ANI a year or two back at Negative resistance. His error has been pointed out and he has been given ample opportunity to self revert.

I don't believe this noticeboard is a place that can impose community sanctions but it may be a better place than the hectic ANI to have the discussion, marshal the evidence, reach a conclusion, and then go to ANI with it. Has Circuit dreamer been informed of this thread? SpinningSpark 18:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He has replied above you, so yes, he's aware. I agree that Circuit dreamer has been largely out of control, which is a pain. Lots of reverting and patching up is needed. Ideally, he should listen, learn, and change his behaviour. I haven't been so involved with him lately, so I'm unsure how bad it is at present. Much of what he says and knows is correct, but it's hard to sort that out from what he invents that's idiosyncratic, or plain wrong; one can't tell the difference, because nothing is sourced. For now, continuing to remove his unsourced work is the only reasonable option at the articles; at the talk pages, ignoring him is often a good strategy, until he will produce sources. Probably he could benefit from a mentor, but if he's unwilling, then a ban would be appropriate; who knows how to set up a mentor relationship? Are there volunteers for such? Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon's comments are dead on. Circuit dreamer knows some material, but he combines it with other material that is wrong. Circuit dreamer doesn't recognize the boundary.

At one point (20:22, 28 July 2011 ), he stated "I will add to this discussion all RC oscillators (e.g., Wien bridge) that are a big challenge for human imagination. Why? Just because it is too hard for a mere mortal:) to imagine how the humble RC circuit can produce sine wave, how it can act as a "resonator" at all." When his material was challenged, he responded that "I have added extremely simple and obvious intuitive explanations based only on the fundamental electricity concepts. There are references for most of them but it would be comic to cite them." (0630 3 August 2011.) He takes a subject that he acknowledges is difficult, and proceeds to write his own simple and intuitive (and flawed) explanation of it. When challeged, he believes everything is so obvious that sources are not required.

Glrx (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we are each too short of time to combat CD, yet we all agree that CD's edits are often unhelpful. One thing is clear: CD regards the whole process as a game and has a very unfortunate attitude regarding collaboration and sourcing. The Wien bridge oscillator article needs a fair bit of rewriting based on sources, and I am not sure that CD's recent action of moving content from that article to Wien bridge (which had been a redirect) is warranted. Sorry that I can't be more help at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wien bridge article has possibilities, if someone would add a figure and some sources. There are figures on google book search, pre-1923. It's pretty worthless at present. This could be a good "starter project" for CD, to see if he can make an actual article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Glrx, if you use such strong qualifications as "flawed explanation" or "material that is wrong", you should give at least one example to be fair. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

For our purposes here, if this is an accurate defense of contentious claims you've made, "I have added extremely simple and obvious intuitive explanations based only on the fundamental electricity concepts. There are references for most of them but it would be comic to cite them", why not simply provide these references rather than argue about whether or not it would be comical to provide them? "Intuitive explanations" sound like WP:OR, and wikipedia demands references for contentious claims. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Transimpedance amplifier (current-to-voltage converter)

IMO the main problem is that my mind is arranged in such a way that I manage to see, extract, generalize and explain easily basic circuit ideas. This affords an opportunity to me of reducing the complex circuit solutions to extremely simple and comprehensible equivalent electrical circuits that do not need citing ("...it would be comic to cite them"). Maybe, this is a unique mental ability since I cannot find sources revealing circuit ideas in such a way; thus the problem with citing.

I will illustrate this approach by only one example - the transimpedance amplifier. I have seen that in this circuit, the op-amp acts as a compensating voltage source adding so much voltage V_OUT = -I_INR as it loses across the resistor. Thus I have reduced the transimpedance amplifier to an elementary electrical circuit consisting of a resistor R and a voltage source V_OUT connected in series. Is it worth to second this explanation with references? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Like this book? Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The book is good and useful but the simple idea (connecting an equivalent voltage source in series to a passive element to compensate the voltage drop across it) is still not implicitly said. This idea is developed further in some circuits with true negative impedance (VNIC) where the "inserted" voltage exceeds the voltage drop across the element. In circuitry, it is generalized by Miller theorem but it can be observed everywhere around us (compensating energy losses with equivalent additional energy). Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 02:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed a problem; it's incompatible with Wikipedia's top-level policies that material added to articles should be verifiable in reliable sources. A better approach for you would be to write up your intuitive approach in articles that you can get published elsewhere, in a reliable source, and then we can later add the material to WP, citing your papers. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I present them regularly at regional conferences (for example, in September I will present two papers about the basic ideas behind ECL in Ohrid). In the early 00's, I prepared an article about this approach for IEEE Transactions on Education but gave up when realized the issue is not really about education. The truth about circuits expressed in such a clear way seems suspiciously simple, confusing and even insult for professionals and evokes negative reactions. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 03:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have presented them, maybe you have got them published? So maybe there are WP:RSs that you could be citing? If not, give it up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then this will be considered as a self-promoting action. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 05:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think CD has been given ample opportunity to change. I will help compile the evidence. Too many editors have gotten burned out dealing with this. It is time...Zen-in (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It does look like the idea of verifiability and no original research rather than promoting ones own POV has not quite caught on here despite repeated attempts. Lots of people think their own ideas are best, sometimes they are correct. There's more than a few bits where people do not complain about verifiability because the stuff looks fine. However there is no way Wikipedia can quietly get on with the job of improving when people persistently push their own brilliant ideas against consensus. If the ideas are so brilliant they should be put in a book before being stuck in here. The author can get money or fame and we can have a decent reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the good fight. I realize this general Wikipedia policy but yet we should not go to extremes. IMO wikipedians have to act as good translators; they have to process, classify, structure and even enrich to some extent the raw data from sources, not to blindly convey it. It is impossible to assemble an article only from separate poorly connected phrases extracted from different sources; it will be broken by many references and it would be difficult to grasp the general idea (Wien bridge is an example of this approach). Maybe, I have gone closely to the other extreme but to overcome OR, I have limited only to "brilliant" simple, clear and obvious ideas as the exemplary idea above. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you could even put in a link to your own stuff from a conference that would be better. There would be a conflict of interest but that can be dealt with far better than people pushing stuff without sources. You'd need to declare your interest on the talk page and there will be a bit more checking but stuff that is contested and is without a source is far less valuable and can be deleted outright. The basic thing in COI cases is to not start fighting for ones content - it is an offer of content. Basically it is if you don't have source to back yourself but others do if they accept it. Dmcq (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advices. I would like only to add that they sounds very well in the case of normal relations between editors but this is not our case. I always insert my edits with the hope that after other wikipedians will evaluate and possibly improve them. I think if wikipedians like some assertion, they will praise and encourage me to continue working in these lines; if they do not accept some assertion, they will correct or even remove it... But nothing of the kind; as a rule, my edits are completely removed. The only thing that I cannot accept at all is my edits to be totally removed without any explanation... just because I am alive and I can explain thoroughly every assertion if I only had this opportunity... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't need tutors, we need sourced edits. Putting in extra explanations with no source means that even longer stretches are unsourced. Explaining here is just wrong - we are not qualified to assess explanations, only to judge if the sources are reliable. If you can't produce some sort of source and stick in big wadges of your own thoughts then they will be removed. Dmcq (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer is missing the main point. He was asked to support his statements about the Wien bridge oscillator, but he responded with comments about the irrelevant transimpedance amplifier. Making correct comments about a TIA do not show that his statements about the WBO are correct. In fact, his text is full of unsourced misstatements. He does not understand the steady state solution when the linear gain is exactly one. Apparently, when the gain is exactly one, then we're at the peak of the sine wave. He offers up some strange explanations that deny well accepted linear approximations of oscillators. His edits are completely removed with the explanation that it is original research or full of factual errors. Even when several people tell him his work is OR and wrong, he persists in believing that they are all mistaken or treating him unfairly or not giving him a chance. Glrx (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting metamorphosis... In Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material you have said, "The unity gain at the peak statement is false; if that were true, the fundamental would still be increasing" but now you say, " Apparently, when the gain is exactly one, then we're at the peak of the sine wave"... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 03:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for a content argument. If you'd cite sources, then the answer would not generally be disputed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the article and one thing in particular caught my eye:

"There are three different viewpoints at this exotic circuit solution; all they are right and can be used to explain it.

Positive feedback amplifier with high open-loop gain

...

Positive feedback amplifier with small open-loop gain

..."

This does not appear to make sense - either there is a high open loop gain or there is a low open loop gain. On thinking about the matter, it appears to me that User:Circuit dreamer is attemtping to explain the amplifier's operation without using the concept of either phase shift or imaginary numbers - the real part having a high open-loop gain and the imaginary part a low open loop gain. This in my view is an unorthodox approach which explains why very few textbooks use that approach. If this is the case, then Circuit dreamer is using Wikipedia as a vehicle to publish original thought. Martinvl (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The issues are more subtle. For an oscillator, the loop gain is one; it is neither large nor small. CD is misusing the term loop gain. In the linear model, the loop gain is exactly 1 throughout the cycle; the complex poles are exactly on the imaginary axis, so the amplitude neither increases nor decreases. In the almost linear model, the loop gain is slightly higher than one at low amplitudes, and slightly smaller than one at high amplitudes. The result is an average gain of 1 throughout the cycle. Oliver suggests that a reasonable gain variation in the almost linear model is about 0.001 (third harmonic 60dB down). Glrx (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have revealed the circuit operation only for the special case with zero time constant while you and the most people assume the case with nonzero constant. The circuit in the figure has also inert negative feedback. So, I think, there are two alternatives - to leave the current explanation with the reservation that it is "instantaneous" or to replace it with an "inert" explanation as more common. I have not still reasonable explanation of the latter; maybe you will suggest some. You have to show what (and why) the "inert" loop gain is - exactly one, more than one or varying. I cannot imagine how the circuit will oscillate if it is exactly one... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you're in trouble-shoot mode. Wikipedia isn't the place to test balloon bold ideas. And this isn't a routine calculation. Thus it's original research per wikpedia's policy. You have to find another website for this stuff. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean when saying "low amplitudes" and "high amplitudes"? Low and high instantaneous values, peak values or something else? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thought police ?

Can somebody help me to understand this Talk:Cold_fusion#NASA_research_deleted_with_WP:WEIGHT:

"Man, you are doing it backwards. First you read the best secondary third-party published sources in the subject and then you report what those sources say. You don't first make your own conclusions from primary sources and then fish for any source that supports your conclusions, regardless of it being primary or secondary, regardless of it being actually published or not, regardless of it being written by someone who is a party to the dispute, regardless of its relative weight when compared to the best secondary sources, and regardless of the contradictions with the conclusions that most of the best secondary sources make."

I would like to highlight that I did not make edits that would qualify as conclusions from primary sources. To me it seems that this editor actually believes that my thoughts (the ones that I keep in my head) are already WP:OR and therefore any edit I make to WP is also WP:OR. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The second statement is a simple explanation of Wikipedia's content policies. Secondary sources should be used for finding out what is interesting to say. Primary sources have very little weight unless a secondary source references them or they are otherwise obviously of direct interest having read the secondary sources. The next bit is about neutral point of view - we're not here to push our preconceived notions. The 'Man, you are doing it backwards' would I'd guess mean they think you're scratching for sources to push a point of view. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am really trying to figure out what different possible understandings there are for: "Secondary sources should be used for finding out what is interesting to say."

• You need secondary sources for Notability, without secondary sources you cannot start an article.
• Articles should more or less follow what is discussed in secondary sources.
• Articles should strickly follow what is discussed in secondary sources.
• Only what is written is secondary sources can be used in an article.

My understanding of WP:PRIMARY is that primary sources can be used, but obviously you are not allowed to use them to do WP:OR

The next topic is NPOV and WEIGHT. But for an article that is dedicated to a controversial topic it is unavoidable to present both sides of the story, that is what is called balance.

There are reliable primary sources from NASA presenting results from cold fusion experiments, therefore from my understanding there is nothing wrong to add the statement "Experiments were also performed at NASA". I don't think that violates any policy. And there are even secondary sources referring to the NASA experiments. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was quite specific. Primary sources should not be used unless a secondary source mentions them or they are obviously of interest to fill out something in a secondary source or to answer a very obvious question. Yes primary sources can be used, that doesn't mean they can be mined for all sorts of things unrelated to anything you saw in a secondary source or obvious questions anyone would ask.

For instance the Conservapedia article talks about a number of things on the conservapedia site. However the website itself is a primary source about itself and only those things on the site which have been pointed out by secondary sources are discussed in the article and links given. We do not for instance mention their article on kangaroos which I think is of interest with its talk of the kangaroo baramin.

For an obvious question the position of a country or its area are the sorts of obvious questions that can be answered from a primary source without needing a secondary source to provide a justification. So the answer is articles should more or less follow what is in secondary sources with some straightforward extensions. Any extra use of primary sources would be WP:UNDUE, or as WP:IINFO puts it Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because you woke up in the morning and thought some primary source was interesting does not make it interesting enough for Wikipedia. Secondary sources are there to make that decision. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good answer. It was not so clear for me from reading the policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way any peer reviewed paper or newspaper article with reasonable editorial oversight is considered secondary as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'm not sure of the precise reasoning why but that's how it works out. Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War

There is a disagreement on whether certain events took place in the beginning of the war. I found reliable sources, both in English and Russian, that say that there was fighting on September 4th and 5th, 1941 at the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov (or Valkeasaari station). However User:Wanderer602 says that such information is wrong since official Finnish war diaries don't confirm it. He says that he looked in the war diaries of Finnish units (the ones that according to him should have been in the area) and could not find evidence of fighting at that settlement on those dates. Here it is in his own words:

Wrong there, i dug up war diaries of all the units that were in action in that are from September 4/5, no reports of activity at Valkeasaari station [Novyi Beloostrov]. Same is repeated at Finnish GHQ war diary as well as in 'midlevel' (Army Corps or Division) war diaries, nothing on September 4/5 concerning Valkeasaari station. Should something had happened it would have been presented in at least one (most like in several) of the related war diaries. Furthermore there were no excess casualties (no more than in normal trench warfare) during that time from the troops at front duty facing the Valkeasaari station. In other words there were no Finnish troops at Valkeasaari station nor in action at that location on September 4/5. [6]

His edit in the article: [7]

To me this is an obvious example of original research based on primary sources, or am I wrong? -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it looks very much like OR, but maybe "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.". I think his investigative work can contribute to a line something like: "there was fighting on September 4th and 5th, 1941 at the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov (or Valkeasaari station), however this is not mentioned in the war diaries". It would be wrong to put a line: "there was no fighting on September 4th and 5th, 1941 at the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov (or Valkeasaari station), because this is not mentioned in the war diaries". But I cannot decide if war diaries are reliable sources and if any other educated person will be able to verify those statements. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the official Finnish histories of the Continuation War doesn't contain any information about fighting at Beloostrov railroad station at September 4/5. However, at the same time there was a heavy fighting around the Beloostrov village, about 10km north of the Beloostrov railroad station. There are also no mention about fighting at Beloostrov railroad station at September 4/5 at unit histories or any other military history books using Finnish sources (which also mention the fighting at Beloostrov village at the same time). Also fighting at Aleksandrovka, between the Beloostrov station and the Beloostrov village at September 5 is mentioned in those books.

In all, this is a very complicated situation, and I do value Your input in this issue: How is an issue resolved if one side claims that something happened and the other side doesn't mention that at all? It is ridiculous to demand that official war diaries should contain long lists of places where unit was not located and where nothing happened to the unit. In a similar way how should secondary sources claim that unit wasn't somewhere and nothing happened there? There are too many places on earth to list all those places where the unit was not located and while it wasn't located there, it wasn't attacked there. You get my point? --Whiskey (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource. Of course the Finnish source should be reliable in that it is a thorough description of where fightings took place. If the Finnish source never mentions many other fightings where it is clear that those fightings did took place, then of course one must accept that maybe that Finnish source also simply omitted to mention the fight in question and is not reliable for this issue. I glanced over the edit that was made and I noticed that there are a lot of words used to explain what Wanderer602 has found out from the war diaries, that verbose wording might be getting too close to WP:OR. I do not know how much of that wording is directly (word by word) supported by secondary sources. So basically we have conflicting secondary sources the Russian and English on the one side and the Finnish on the other side. And the Finnish one appears to be supported from what can be read from the war diaries. So the investigation from Wanderer is not OR, but an assessment whether the "not mentioning" of the fight by the Finnish source is due to the fight not taking place or due to the source not being exhaustive enough. And it looks like the fight did not take place. Why not just mention the contradiction in the sources.

As a final guidance. I am a perfect example of a WP-reader, so I suggest you write that piece of the history for me :-). I don't mind that there are conflicting sources, so that should be mentioned. I wish to read in very few words and without any conclusions that there is no mentioning of that fight in the war diaries. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What is an interesting piece of history of place names, the name Beloostrov initially (and up to the Winter War) meant the village located along the St. Petersburg-Vyborg highway. But after the Winter War and the Continuation War new buildings were made especially near the Beloostrov station, and gradually the name Beloostrov moved from the village to the railway station. As they are quite close to each other, I presume (this is my original research ;-)) that this is the reason for confusion between Soviet and Finnish sources: Modern historians reading about the Soviet attack to Beloostrov think about the "modern" Beloostrov instead of the historical one. --Whiskey (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I also came to the private conclusion (OR) that it might be a naming mixup. So all sources could be be correct, but they use different definitions in their claims, ie the definition of the place name is not identical. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No there is no confusion there. Russian sources clearly say Novyi (New) Beloostrov, which refers to the newer settlement around the train station.

Again, the issue is that while I have secondary sources and a primary source (that is direct, no interpretation required) that say the fighting happened, Wanderer602 relies on his interpretation of primary sources (which the diaries are). Can he claim that it did not happen because his own research of primary sources did not confirm it, and that not be considered OR? -YMB29 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's new info. So now we have a Russian secondary source and a primary source on one side and secondary sources and a primary source on the other side. Wander602 cannot claim it did not happen, but he can include the fact that his primary source does not mention it. btw. I personally still wouldn't be supprised if the Russian naming somehow got "lost in translation", but I cannot conclude. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

On Finnish side there are no naming issues either. Also there is whole ton of Finnish war diaries (not just a single war diary) of the units (and their subunits as well as higher echelons all the way to Finnish main HQ war diaries) none of which mention any activity at the location at that time. In addition (one difficult to cite) the official Finnish database of war casualties contain whole 3 KIA for the time period (September 4/5) in question for the unit responsible for the area (47th Infantry Regiment). Also at least one Soviet version told explictly how it was the General Pajari's 18th division that attacked N. Beloostrov, while according to all Finnish sources (primary, secondary and so on) 18th Infantry Division (Gen. Pajari) attacked S. Beloostrov at that very day, N. Beloostrov belonged to operational area of 12th division (Vihma). So yes, i have no problems with there being a mention of Soviet version of events that Finns attacked Valkeasaari station (Novyi Beloostrov) as long as its clearly noted that neither Finnish sources agree with it nor can there be found any Finnish casualties related to fighting at Valkeasaari station (of the 3 KIA only 1 died nearby Valkeasaari, at Aleksandrovka). - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the 18th division attacked S. Beloostrov does not mean that its units did not attack N. Beloostrov also. -YMB29 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does. The fighting at S. Beloostrov and all the 18th divisions actions there (successes as well as failures) are well documented in Finnish war literature (primary, secondary and so on sources) since something actually happened there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian sources usually make the distinction between the old settlement and the new one, but I am not sure about Finnish sources. With regard to the fighting at the new settlement (Novyi Beloostrov, railway station), Wanderer602 only has a primary source (the diaries); his secondary sources is just used to reference the fighting at the old settlement (Staryi Beloostrov, village).

If he includes that his primary source does not mention it, would not that still be OR since that is his conclusion based on the primary source? How do we know that he is looking at the right diaries or that the diaries available to the public are complete? It is not something that any educated reader can verify without special knowledge, especially since the source is in Finnish.

To me it seems that the best way to phrase it would be something like: According to Soviet/Russian sources there was fighting at the Novyi Beloostrov settlement on the 4th and 5th of September. -YMB29 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@wanderer: your comment here is way too much detail and interpretation for WP, sorry.

@YMB29: you are an educated person, if you had access to Wanderer's sources, you would be able to observe that the fights are not mentioned. An observation is not a conclusion. He cannot conclude that the fights did not take place. Yes, we don't know if his sources are reliable or exhaustive. "the right diaries" "diaries are complete", yes, but every source can be questioned. Language barriers should not count as accessibility issues, learn Finnish :-). I like your proposal and would add something like "war diaries do not mention it".

Now you both should be able to come to an agreement, with help from Whiskey. If you want I will review your final joint proposal. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And one final comment: if we can't conclude one truth from the sources we must live with a bit of unclear undefined history --POVbrigand (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the Finnish literature mentions it, war diaries or other primary sources are no way unique in that regard - in addition some of the Soviet sources which should mention (ie. primary source, status report of that section of the front on that exact day) makes no mention of fighting at Valkeasaari station, they do however mention fighting at Valkeasaari village. In my opinion whole entry should be removed but if it is insisted that it must be included then something "...however no Finnish source - including war diaries - can substantiate the Soviet claim" is far closer than "war diaries do not mention it" statement. Also it should be noted somehow that neither were there any Finnish casualties (KIA) at that time and place. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So again you think you are a professional historian who looked at tons of Finnish documents to conclude that no Finnish sources can substantiate the "claim"...

You also continue to make interpretations from two random Soviet documents you found (while ignoring the document I found), even though you don't understand what they say... -YMB29 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you or any one else can provide a single Finnish document which supports the Soviet claim i would gladly take such a statement away. Besides I know enough Russian (or cyrilic alphabet) to read/decypher the location names from the documents. In addition to that it is not exactly that difficult to translate the documents - it would be beyond my abilities if those were handwritten but typewrited pages are doable. Good old dictionary and modern translation software can do wonders. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok then let's see you translate them...

I don't have to provide any Finnish documents to you. One reliable source is enough. Wikipedia is not about Finnish sources only... -YMB29 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are demanding that i should translate them for you? Right... And as it happens the war diaries are reliable sources just as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable but you can't misuse them. Are you able to follow what is going on?

Well if you say that you can understand those Soviet reports, you should be able to translate them... -YMB29 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because i can understand them does not mean that i need to translate them for you. I'm hoping however that you are yourself able to read enough Russian to do that but should you be incapable of reading them then i can help you out. - Wanderer602 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You can help yourself out first. At least tell me what it says there if you understand them. -YMB29 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If it seems to be so difficult for you to read Russian text it seems surprising that you were able to find sources in that language.

The 146 report however goes (never said it would be smooth)

Operational summary n. 146/op 16.00 5.9.1941 23rd Army HQ, Agalatovo.

1. Army continues to perform the task assigned (for it) by commander in chief...

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry I can read it just fine. I just want to see if you understand it as you claim. What does it say in regard to what we are talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not make any mention of N. Beloostrov. So, none. First text page refers to other areas of the front and the last page has some content on S. Beloostrov. 1025th regiment (which alledgedly by the other source was at N. Beloostrov) was fighting at S. Beloostrov, results of the battle were not yet known. Rest is comments that some parts of the division were still hadnt been deployed and that units at Siestarjoki (Rajajoki) were firmly holding the line going along old border and that Finns facing him showed no activity (do note that is directly adjacent to the Valkeasaari station). And finally some details of planned unit deployments (of 43rd RD) and information that 941st regiment is fighting surrounded at Kirja(t)salo and so on... - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, it says nothing about the regiment fighting at S. Beloostrov. See that is why you should not interpret primary sources, especially those written in a language you don't understand. -YMB29 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know about the language issue. This is English wiki so I would think a reader should not have to learn another language to verify information from a primary source.

In that context the statement that "war diaries do not mention it" is still a conclusion, not just an observation. He looked at a few diaries and concludes that; this is his own research. The statement assumes that he knew all the right diaries to look at. -YMB29 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didnt' look 'a few diaries' i went through all the digitized war diaries of all the units deployed in that area at that time (JR6, JR46, JR47, JR49), their higher echelons (divisional and army corps level) and the top level war diary (Finnish General HQ, which btw makes clear mention of fighting at Valkeasaari village at that time). List of the units deployed at the area at the time can be found from a number of Finnish sources (primary, secondary, and i suppose even tertiary). Since the digitized war diaries included the main war diary (ie. the timestamped entries of the events - the ones i even linked to the discussion page) of the units in question it was not that challenging to go through the data and check if any of them reported that the unit had taken part or even witnessed combat at Valkeasaari station at September 4/5. So in short, no, i did not miss any of the main war diaries of the units question, and no, none of them took part to the fighting at or even saw any fighting going on at Valkeasaari station. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words i searched pretty much 'every nook and cranny' to prove that fighting would have taken place at Valkeasaari station at September 4/5. However there was none to be found from the Finnish side. On the other hand there appears to be assortment of Soviet documents, some of which state that fighting did happened there, and others which just the Finnish documents do not make any mention of the Novyi Beloostrov at the specified time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Again you only found two Soviet documents, that are very brief in what they mention, and dismiss the one I found, so how does that prove anything I don't know... Maybe if those two documents were the only ones in the world...

So in other words you carried out an exhaustive research of Finnish primary sources? Now only if you can study to become a qualified expert and publish a book... Then you could cite your book and it won't be OR. You can't expect an average educated reader without special knowledge of the issue to verify your research.

Thank you for proving my point... -YMB29 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The two documents do not summarily dismiss the one you found - however you should not ignore them either. So far you have summarily dismissed them. Problem with your logic - with regards to Finnish sources - is that if nothing happened there wouldnt have been any mention of it either - nor would there ever be any books of the topic since if nothing took place there is nothing to talk or discuss about. As usual the lack of evidence on one side does not translate into abundance of evidence on the other. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Here comes the twisted logic again... When there is no evidence on one side and enough on the other, you have to go by what evidence there is, even though you might not like it. A historian can analyze Soviet and Finnish sources in a book and conclude that the Soviet sources are wrong, but you can't do that.

As for the Soviet documents, how many times can I tell you that them not mentioning the fighting means nothing to our discussion, since they are just two reports from a sea of documents. Like I said, I can pick two other ones at random that happen to not mention the Finns at all and conclude that Finland was not in the war... -YMB29 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So... With [8] (the last diff segment) that there is a clear mention of the front at the 12th divisions sector (including Valkeasaari station) was calm and/or peaceful. Clearly opposite from the Soviet claim that there was heavy fighting in that area. But i suppose you will try to dismiss it regardless with some excuse. Also 'Soviet sea of documents' seems very intriguing since you can end with two totally opposite answers by carefully selecting your sources which handle the same area at similar level of detail. - Wanderer602 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Give it up, you don't make sense...

(A) 47th regiment operated in the area + (B) diary entries saying that it was calm and peaceful for the 47th regiment = (C) no fighting at N. Beloostrov <--- clear example of synthesis. Are you going to continue proving my point? -YMB29 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite close with your example however it is the diary source alone which state the 47th regiments area as well as the fact that nothing happened and that it was calm and peaceful. So there is no synthesis (using multiple sources). It is just a conclusion (all data is available from the single source), but nice try. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No wrong again... It does not matter if it all comes from one source; if you make a conclusion based on two separate statements from one source, it is still synthesis. It is not synthesis of sources but synthesis of separate information, since you still reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. -YMB29 (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All true except the information is from a single line and from a single statement (which according you you makes it clear that it is not a synthesis) [9] the first entry on the page on the timestamped 4./5.9.41: JR47: Rajajoki-Aleksandrovka rauhallista. Single line which conveniently IDs the unit facing the Valkeasaari station and notes that night (when according to Soviet sources the attack happened) was calm (as in 'quiet' or 'peaceful'). No synthesis, sorry. Then there is the separate statement in the document that notes that the September 5 1941 in the 12th divisions area of operations was quiet (or 'calm' or 'peaceful'). They are separate statements both stating that it was quiet. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So? From that you conclude that there was no fighting at N. Beloostrov.

You have to learn to read the rules carefully. WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. -YMB29 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... I think we are pushing a little bit the goodwill of the other editors in this noticeboard, so I like to move this rambling back to Talk:Continuation_War. I like to invite all who are interested about the issue continue discussion there. Thank You! --Whiskey (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it would help if someone actually comment here, on this clear case of OR. I posted here for a reason. -YMB29 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone else comment? -YMB29 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I could use some additional assessment on this over at No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith. Given the three sources - [10][11][12] - would the following statements/edits be OR:

The book has also been a basis for genetic genealogy studies to identify possible children of Smith from polygamist relationships. Researchers at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation used Y-DNA testing to test descendants of three of the five children whom Brodie suggested and found that none of the three were fathered by Smith.

I'm not tied to the wording of the statements, perhaps it can be worded better. I would say that it isn't OR given that the news article gives the initial incident which started the research for the two articles as being motivated in part by the book, and given that one of the journal articles states:

• "we explore the question of the biological paternity of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock based on historical sources that support a close association between Joseph Smith and the mothers of these two individuals"
• "In her book No Man Knows My History, author Fawn Brodie shares her analysis, offering her conclusion that there is enough evidence to conclude that Joseph fathered Oliver" in the opening paragraph for one of the case studies before presenting the DNA methodology and results.
• "Provisional list of Joseph Smith Jr.’s purported children as being born from women other than Emma Hale...The list was derived from purported children referenced in Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History (NMK)..." in the caption of a table/figure

Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This material is based solely on Mormon sources, no WP:RS of any kind. So the question is not one of wording but whether the material belongs in this article at all. The geneticist is a Mormon who did not publish his findings in a scientific journal. No mainstream publications covered the findings. Furthermore, the connection between Brodie and the geneticist is WP:OR.--John Foxe (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Full citations for the three sources:

• Perego, Ugo A.; Myers, Natalie M.; Woodward, Scott R. (Summer 2005). "Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith, Jr.: Genealogical Applications". Journal of Mormon History 32 (2)
• Perego, Ugo A.; Ekins, Jayne E.; Woodward, Scott R.. "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA". John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 28: 128
• Michael De Groote (July 9, 2011). "DNA solves a Joseph Smith mystery". Deseret News

The first two are well-respected, academic, peer-reviewed, independent journals on Mormon history and satisfy WP:RS#Scholarship. The third is a mainstream state newspaper, which IMO satisfies WP:RS#News organizations for this. All other editors on the page, with the exception of User:John Foxe, have accepted these as reliable sources (which is why I didn't raise the current issue at WP:RSN) and have rejected John Foxe's previous attempts to use the geneticist's religion to cast doubt on the studies. The question here is whether the wording (which has been slightly modified since the initial query here) is supported by the provided reliable sources, or whether it is original synthesis. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The current paragraph is both WP:Synthesis and WP:UNDUE. FyzixFighter has to intuit the connection between Perego and Brodie because Perego nowhere says, "I did this research to challenge Brodie." Nor is there any reliable secondary source that says that Perego's research challenges Brodie's reliability. Furthermore, Perego's research does not reflect on the quality of Brodie's work as a whole; Perego speaks only to a single minor hypothesis in Brodie's work that was of such little importance that it was not mentioned in the article's book summary section.

Unlike most other editors, I am also suspicious of Perego's work. If he were doing science rather than Mormon apologetics—and he brags about his apologetic intent—he ought to have published his scientific research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal where it might have been challenged, rather than a history journal. Furthermore, no mainstream news organization has picked up this story. Michael De Groote is a Mormon writing for the LDS-owned Deseret News, and the current paragraph goes out of its way to disguise the fact that every author mentioned above is a Mormon and works for organizations created by other LDS members. (Perego and his co-authors illustrate their apologetic intent by proving that one Orrison Smith was not a descendant of Joseph Smith—without identifying who Orrison Smith was or providing documentation that anyone ever suggested such a person was a descendant of Joseph Smith.)

Finally, there's an unstated implication in the current paragraph that Brodie made unwarranted assumptions, perhaps was even casual about the truth. Even if Perego is correct about the DNA, his research does not challenge Brodie's objectivity. There was no DNA evidence in the 1940s, and it's irrational to criticize Brodie for cautiously suggesting possible descendants that had been earlier suggested by others. Brodie did the best she could with what she had.--John Foxe (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it completely hypocritical on John Foxe part that he continually wishes to exclude the fact that Perego research showed that Brodie's hypnosis was incorrect, when he is relies on DNA to back up Brodie's claims on Thomas Jefferson. If it's WP:Synthesis and WP:UNDUE when it disproves Brodie's claims because it came before DNA, then it should be for when it proves her claims.

FyzixFighter, Trödel and myself have repeatedly given him what he asked for (ie. WP:V sources). Now he is trying another way to exclude this information only to prevent the information from being available. He only wants his POV to be shown, which is the only reason he is refusing to except anything short of complete removal of this relevant research. He even accuses any other editor of being bias in order to ignore any other editors.

While I agree that I can't "Prove" this, I e-mailed Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation in order to see if there was any scientific journal as John Foxe keeps demanding. While WP:V doese not require that it be a scientific journal, only a source, I thought it would be nice to address this "issue' that Foxe keeps bring up. I would be more then happy for forward the e-mail to John Foxe. I wrote him about John Foxe complaints and Perego himself responded. He said "Going back to the author of such criticisms, if such person was a scientist that has published in the past in peer-review journals, he/she would know of such limitations/issues. Therefore, his/her criticisms and objections are born out of biased feelings toward the LDS community, not because I did not publish my results in a scientific journal (in other words, he/she is using the scientific peer-reviewed process excuse as a cope-out to make his/her attacks toward the genuineness of my work). Additionally, such "expert" should be able to recognize that although my work on Joseph Smith DNA was not published in scientific, but humanities journals (which are also peer-reviewed), that I followed a strict scientific journal format in my publications. I have more than ten years of experience in publishing in scientific peer-review journals as witnessed by my other works in the field of epidemiology and population genetics/medicine."

Perego himself pointed out John Foxe own bias. Additionally it is important to point out the "Method" that Perego used is "peer reviewed" and accredited by three "independent peer reviewed scientific accreditation" companies. They are capable of establishing familiar relations in a court of law. A fact you conveniently ignore. If Perego were to "fake" his research, as Foxe is suggesting when he said "I am also suspicious of Perego's work" could you imagine what would happen to the court cases and Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation has been involved in?

Pereg's own statements say that he did the research in response to Brodie's claims, the information is relevant, has WP:V sources, and most definitely should be included.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have plenty of bias. That doesn't excuse Perego from refusing to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In 2009 DNA evidence was said to have solved the mystery of Everett Ruess only to have that hypothesis successfully challenged in later DNA tests.--John Foxe (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V dose not required that it be punished in a peer-reviewed scientific journals. It only requires that it have a Reliable Source. A peer-reviewed Historic journal is a Reliable Source--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if some hardy soul who's not participated in the previous discussion will agree that a historical journal is a reliable source for scientific research. Of course, that issue is only one of several objections that include WP:Synthesis, WP:UNDUE, and Mormon-only authorship.--John Foxe (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Do the fact that a Scientific peer-reviewed journal artical created by an author who works for the University of California, mean that the "Source" is no longer No original research and WP:V?

• Jane Gitschier (January 13, 2009). "Inferential Genotyping of Y Chromosomes in Latter-Day Saints Founders and Comparison to Utah Samples in the HapMap Project". The American Journal of Human Genetics (here). {{cite journal}}: External link in |issue= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Gitschier published this in a sentific peer-reviewed journal, works for the University of California, came to the same conclusion as Perego, and even references the fact that, after she reached her conclusion, she found out about Perego research and found that they reached the same conclusions in different ways. She then goes on to "source" Perego research in her final Journal submission, that was accepted by the The American Journal of Human Genetics on January 13, 2009.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As to WP:Synthesis two independent DNA researchers did independent study on this subject. WP:Synthesis say "This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.". Since this is no longer "original research" WP:Synthesis dose not apply.

As to WP:UNDUE, I don't see how this applies. This is no longer a "Minority" viewpoint. As I pointed out in the past even the Anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner have referenced this "Point of view". There have been Journals, news article, and even websites that discuss this specific research. WP:UNDUE no longer applies.

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Gitschier refers only to discovering the Smith haplotype in descendants, not to excluding non-descendants. To have duplicated Perego's research, she would have had to have excluded the putative descendants such as Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock. She doesn't.--John Foxe (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it duplicated Perego research. I said it came to the same conclusion as Perego research. Gitschier says "Of particular note, during revision of this manuscript, I was informed by Scott Woodward and Ugo Perego of SMGF that they had previously reported a haplotype, involving a subset of the markers described herein, for Joseph Smith [Jr.] in a Mormon historical journal; the haplotype they reported is identical to the consensus prediction herein.". Then She even then goes on to cite his research. Perego said, when disucssing Gitschier report, "Our methods were different. However, we obtained the same exact Y chromosome profile." Her research back his.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If two different researches, in two different ways, came to the same "conclusion" then the research is no longer "original".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I also find it odd that, here you are willing to accept a statement by Perego, when it came from FAIR, when it backs your POV, but you are unwilling to include a statement from that same conference that shows that he did the work in response to Brodie's claims, when it comes from FAIR.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The article we're discussing concerns Fawn Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith, and Gitschier refers neither to it nor to Oliver N. Buell or Mosiah L. Hancock, the putative sons of Smith claimed not to be his by Perego. Making the connection between Perego and Gitschier is WP:Synthesis on your part. Even if Perego or someone else should explicitly eliminate Buell and Hancock as Smith's sons in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, we still couldn't intuit a connection between the scientific evidence and a critique of Fawn Brodie. We'd need a reliable secondary source to make that connection, and a conference of Mormon apologists is not a reliable source except in so far as it demonstrates that Perego is a Mormon apologist.--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I have some help please?

I asked this question at Reliable sources noticeboard and was helped by two editors but also referred here: I wish to add some modern dictionary references (supported by modern academic references on etymology and usage) to Wikipedia (they concern WP:Notable usage of a term in a foreign language) and have been told that dictionary references constitute original research. Is there anyone with time to give me a helping hand in putting them into the appropriate article, if there is an appropriate article? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No one? Is there please who will hold my hand on this? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to which reference you want to include? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to include 3 modern Hebrew dictionaries, and 4 or 5 secondary sources to the use of Yeshu (name) (it's the modern secular Hebrew spelling of Jesus) along the same line as Yeshua (name) and Isa (name). Or they can go in any appropriate related article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense, but you have sources, and are looking for an article to use them in? That's kind of backwards from the normal way we do things. Can you provide a list of the sources? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is kind of backwards, and this is a bit bizarre. Basically the 3 dictionaries and related modern academic sources were bumped off one article (the article with the word in question as the title) on the basis that it wasn't a DICDEF and modern usage wasn't relevant. I'm not inclined to push water uphill on that one. I do think however that the Israeli Hebrew Yeshu (name) is as culturally notable as the Arabic Isa (name) and Yeshua (name), and has enough material to make a concise article. The question is what to do next to avoid accusations of dictionaries per se being OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, you have now forum shopped this on three different boards, AN/I, RS/N, and here. So far most respondents have responded negatively. Will you continue until you finally get an answer with which you agree? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

I was simply doing as advised. (1) I went to Admin. (2) Admin avised to RS. (3) At RS I was advised to here.

Do I have your permission to continue in discussion here? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dnepr M-72

User:Dennis Bratland changed the title of the article M-72 motorcycle to Dnepr M-72. This constitutes original research as it is unattributed. The Dnepr name was not adopted by KMZ until 1967, many years after production of the M-72 ceased. The M-72 was made by other factories besides KMZ which is noted in the article and cited references. The Russian, Polish and Czech language articles all correctly refer to the motorcle as the M-72. The Dnepr (motorcycle) article states that the Dnepr name was adopted in 1967. A comment has been made on the Dnepr M-72 discussion page and User:Dennis Bratland has been advised on several occaisions.

Timestamp to allow archival. Link: Dnepr M-72.  Sandstein  06:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Official bilingualism in the public service of Canada

The sections "Recent increase in ratio of native French-speakers", "Increased Francophone representation in management positions", and "Increased number of ‘bilingual imperative’ positions" seem to be based on an original synthesis that compares two sets of data from 2 different sources.

You should first try fixing the problem yourself in Official bilingualism in the public service of Canada or raising it on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design

There are editors at Talk:Intelligent design that insist on keeping in the article the original research that intelligent design "is a form of neo-creationism." They insist keeping this unproven assertion in the article not simply as an assertion by some, or even as a dominant, mainstream, or consensus view, but as indisputable fact--as if there is no disagreement over this by experts with relevant academic specializations. There is no source that demonstrates that this assertion is academically unchallenged or even that it is the dominant, mainstream, or consensus view among academics in relevant specializations (philosophy of science, history of science, and sociology of science).

Two sources are used to support this claim: an assertion by physical anthropologist Eugenie Scott and one by hydraulic engineer Henry M. Morris. In addition, both of these individuals have a long and involved history as activists in regards to the issues of creationism and ID. In the case of the source for Morris, they actually use a reference to the unreliable source the Institute of Creation Research. They justify this original research based on the fact that there are a number of individual sources--mostly by individuals without the necessary specializations--that make that assertion. They keep claiming, without supporting sources, that there is "no academic debate" on the matter and that such a view is the mainstream or consensus view. There is a high bar in Wikipedia to claim that there is academic consenus:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. (see here)

They are actually going beyond saying that there is academic consensus by stating this as undisputed fact.

A top expert on both creationism and ID who has the necessary credentials in the relevant specialization of history of science, Ronald Numbers, who happens to oppose ID, contends that ID is not accurately regarded as creationism. For confirmation of this, see this Associated Press piece ("University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of "The Creationists," agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, it's "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.""), as well as this source that clearly confirms that the AP article accurately represents his views ("Scientists and other proponents of evolution, tend to conflate creationism and intelligent design. "They see intelligent design as little more than gussied up creationism, despite the significant differences," Numbers says."). They have been asked numerous times to produce evidence that he actually believes otherwise, which they haven't done. Another tactic being utilized is the claim that they are not calling it a form of creationism, but only "neo-creationism." Besides the fact that neo-creationism obviously simply means a newer form of creationism, I have demonstrated that "neo-creationism" is simply a neologism, so using the term "creationism" is far more appropriate. Drrll (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Ronald L. Numbers, whom you cite approvingly above, "Of Pandas and People" was written by two creationists, and that they had "originally conceived their book as a scientific brief for creationism."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And exactly how does that factoid contradict Numbers' repeated assessment that ID is not creationism, let alone "neo-creationism"? Exactly how does that factoid demonstrate that the definitive declaration in the article that ID "is a form of neo-creationism" is not unsupported OR? As an admin, I thought that you might actually be here to take seriously the issue of OR rather than just brushing off my inquiry with an observation unrelated to the points I addressed and with a "6 of 1..." edit summary. Drrll (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One question, if Numbers is an academic, why not cite his academic work, rather than an AP piece. In regard to neo-creationism, please see [13], it seem that the term is in use and has been since the 80s, even if the use is limited. My suggestion would be to document the disagreement between the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• A question: if Numbers does not consider ID to be part of creationism, then why did he subtitle the latest edition of The Creationists "From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design" and include a chapter on ID in it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I've added several more references, including some reasonable prominent ones, for the fact that ID is neo-creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been no assertion that neo-creationism is creationism. Numbers says intelligent design is not creationism, some other sources say intelligent design is neo-creationism. I don't see any conflict between those positions. The question is whether it is regarded as a form of neo-creationism or not? Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can take that sidestep -- it's fairly clear that the majority (all?) the sources discussing neo-creationism view it as a form of creationism. However there are numerous instances of Numbers implying that he also considers ID to be creationism (e.g. calling ID and "scientific creationism" (aka creation science) "cousins" in Galileo goes to jail p216, "...intelligent design or, indeed, creationism of any kind": Darwinism comes to America p17). He disapproves of equating ID & SC/CS as the same thing, but does not appear to unambiguously consider ID not to be a form of creationism (just a different form of it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you or are you not discussing neo-creationism in the lead? If so what is the relevance of what you are saying? Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We are indeed discussing neo-creationism in the lead, and linking it to neo-creationism, which defines it as "a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community." That is why I don't think we can avoid the fact that neo-creationism is a form of creationism. But I also don't think that Numbers unambiguously " says intelligent design is not creationism". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would not be unreasonable to assume that this could be more or less the same ambiguity on both sides: 'restated creationism' ≈ 'not quite creationism' ≈ Numbers' ambiguously is/isn't creationism. That's at least one interpretation that doesn't put any of the sources in direct conflict with each other (and in Numbers' case with himself). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The newly updated references for "neo-creationism" in the ID article are still simply a list of individual sources making the claim. There still is no source that directly supports the view that this is the dominant, mainstream, or consensus view, let alone an uncontested fact as it is currently done. Such a source is required by WP:RS/AC to establish academic consensus, as I quoted above earlier here. Also, according to WP:NPOV policy:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

None of the updated references are by those with the applicable specializations to properly make such a judgment. Instead the judgment is made by physicists, a philosopher in general philosophy, a physical anthropologist (whose writing is actually represented in two of the references provided), and a hydraulic engineer. Also, at least 4 of the 6 references are by activists on the issues of creationism and ID, which raises questions about academic objectivity. Finally, the unreliable source from the ICR is still used by the editor who updated the reference list, even though that editor has himself said only a week ago that ICR is "notoriously unreliable" (see here).

The AP characterization of Numbers' view, the University of Wisconsin characterization of Numbers' view, and the direct quotation from Numbers in the U of W piece all clearly indicate that Numbers does not view ID as creationism. While Numbers' book is titled "The Creationists: from Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design", it's not at all clear that Numbers actually picked the title. His editor could have picked it, as they often do. On the other hand, the introduction to his "Darwinism Comes to America" book is titled "Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design," not "Darwinism and Creationism" and it's more likely that he picks his own chapter titles. The Numbers quote "...intelligent design or, indeed, creationism of any kind" could be saying that ID is a kind of creationism, but the "cousins" quote denotes being sufficiently distant in relationship to not be the same--if he used "siblings" then that would be different. So we have 3 clear indications of his view on the matter and one potentially contradictory indication.

As "neo-creationism" is a neologism, the following from WP:MOS applies:

Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last.

Drrll (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem also to be mixing up creationism and neo-creationism. Are you saying they are the same thing? if so what is your evidence? If not what's the point of bring it up here? Have you evidence that contradicts the references that intelligent design is a form of neo-creationism or are they not reliable sources? Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since "neo-creationism" is not a firmly established concept, but a neologism (it is virtually nonexistent in reliable news sources, comparatively unused in academic publications and general-audience books, and not easy to find in use by those with the necessary specializations to speak on the concept authoritatively), you can't determine the definition by looking in a dictionary. So you look to the word "neo-" to define it, which simply means "newer" or "new." Logically, it means a newer form of creationism, so yes, it means creationism. A prominent activist-opponent of ID, Barbara Forrest, in her book "Creationism's Trojan Horse," says the following about the relationship of creationism to what she calls "neo-creationism": "Creationists, including the newest kind--the neo-creationist "intelligent design theorists" who are the subject of this book--offer an abundance of theories." All but one of the six currently used references appear to be reliable sources, but none of them are by philosophers of science, historians of science, or sociologists of science. What makes their opinion noteworthy compared to anyone else's opinion and what makes them authoritative? I don't have a problem with saying that some academics regard ID as creationism, but I do with saying definitively that it is creationism/neo-creationism. Drrll (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What about this? I also found a handful of newspaper articles in lexis/nexis in a quick search that could be used to document the controversy over use and meaning of the term. Also, this is a political issue as much as a scientific one, and since scientists do not generally regard creationism of any flavor as science, I'm not sure we need to rely solely on scientific sources in documenting what ID or neo-creationism is. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The journal article you reference is written by the aforementioned Barbara Forrest who doesn't have the academic credentials to speak authoritatively on the issue and who is a prominent anti-ID activist, rather than just a scholar who happens to oppose ID, as is the case with Ronald Numbers. Yes, there are a small number of reliable news sources that use the term "neo-creationism" or "neocreationism." To provide some perspective on how little the terms come up in LexisNexis, I recently did a search of LN's "Major world publications" category ("news sources from around the world which are held in high esteem for their content reliability. This includes the world's major newspapers, magazines and trade publications which are relied upon for the accuracy and integrity of their reporting."). It yielded a grand total of 5 articles referencing "neo-creationism"/"creationism", including 4 opinion pieces by non-academics and a single news story--a news story that happens to improperly use "neo-creationism" when saying how Judge John Jones characterized ID in Kitzmiller (he never uses "neo-creationism"/"neocreationism" in his decision). On the other hand, "intelligent design" yielded an unspecified number over 3,000 articles, as does "creationism." It is a political issue, but so is it for many areas of academia. That doesn't mean that we cede the descriptions of the various academic disciplines over to the the political scientists. We should look to the specializations that can speak most authoritatively about movements that make scientific claims (I actually agree that we need not look solely to scientific sources). Drrll (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)c

WP:COMPLETE BOLLOCKS. Forrest's credentials are impeccable, and she is considered one of the top experts on ID. See my post below. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my post below for a response. Drrll (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The creationist site saying it is a form of neo-creationism seems pretty convincing to me and whatever about them being a pretty unreliable site for anything scientific I'd have thought they were a fairly authoritative source on this. It also seems very clear that neo-creationism is very distinct from creationism. Are you saying that neo-creationism as used by one of those sources means something distinctly different from what is in the neo-creationism article, i.e. that there are two different meanings in use? As far as I can see there are a number of books and papers using the term and quite a few websites so it seems a quite notable term to me. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Dmcq: Neo-creationism is to creationism what firetruck is to vehicle. Id is therefore both neo-creationism and creationism, by most reliable sources. It is true that Numbers uses, or at least used to use, "creationism" only for non-ID types of creationism, but this may have changed, as Hrafn pointed out, in the most recent edition of his book. While numbers nomenclature is, or was, idiosyncratic, his concepts of the two fields match up pretty much with the other reliable sources.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say you have a point if creationist leader Morris' opinion were published in a reliable source, he had academic credentials in applicable specializations, and he weren't an activist on the issue of creationism and ID. I don't think that "neo-creationism" has two different meanings. As far as what I've seen, its use in various reliable sources and in Wikipedia has been pretty much the same: used to deride ID (see the article "Neo-creo" by William Safire) and used as "the easiest way to discredit Intelligent Design" (Numbers). As far as its prominence in use, the instances of use in books and papers may appear large, but they are actually quite small comparatively (see Google Scholar, comparing search results for "neo-creationism" with the results for "creationism" or the results for "intelligent design"). As far as the websites go, I doubt many would qualify as reliable sources.

Dominus, we have 3 instances (from 2 sources) where Numbers' view is clearly shown to be that ID specifically is not creationism. We have 1 source that, depending on how the meaning of his sentence is construed, may indicate that Numbers believes that ID is a kind of creationism. That source is actually the OLDEST of the 3. Do you have any sources that verify that "this may have changed?" Drrll (talk)

Being an reliable expert on the topic does not mean being an reliable expert as Drrll personally defines it.

Let's look at those six sources that he, in his infinite wisdom, rejects as unreliable:

Barbara Forrest is a professor of philosophy, serves on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and is one of the most knowlegeable experts on ID. You have no grounds to challenge her reliablility other than your personal dislike of her political beliefs.

Karl W. Giberson is a physics professor and the director of the Forum on Faith and Science at Gordon College and the former editor of the magazine Science and Spirit. He's been teaching about science and religion since 1984, and has written several books on the topic, as well as many articles. He certainly has the standing to be considered an leadinbg expert on the topic.

Eugenie Scott has a Ph.D. in physical anthropology, is a former university professor, and has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) since 1987. She has written one of the definitive books on the topic, and certainly qualifies as one of the leading experts on ID and creationism.

E. O. Wilson is a professor at the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, and has written extensively on evolution, for which he has received two Pullitzer prizes and a Craaford Prize (equivalent of a Nobel Prize), and God knows how many other prizes, awards and medals. As a CSI fellow, he is certainly well versed in topics related to pseudoscience.

Henry Morris is the undisputed FATHER of the creation science movement, and was a central figure of the movement for several decades. He was a founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. An unquestionable expert on the history of the creationist/ID movement. While ICR is generally considered an unreliable source, it is a reliable source for the opinions of it's founder according to WP:RS

Matt Young is a senior lecturer in physics, and has written extensively on creationism/ID.[[14]]. The anthology in question, which he edited, received glowing reviews from The Quarterly Review of Biology (as a biologist myself, I can assure you that that's impressive), Science Education, and The American Biology Teacher. Enough to qualify him as knowing what he's talking about, though not of the stature as those listed above. Not to be dismisssed as an unreliable source, by any means.

All of these meet the requirements of WP:RS hands down.

Basically, all of Drrll's arguments boil down to NOTHING except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If we don't limit ourselves to specializations most qualified to determine whether ID is creationism, that is those with the training to describe movements as they relate to scientific claims, what arbitrary standard do we use? Anyone with a PhD? Anyone with a Masters? Anyone who teaches at the undergraduate level? Anyone who teaches at the graduate level? Anyone with a book about ID? Anyone published in a reliable source about ID?

I don't reject all 6 sources as unreliable--just 1. I do reject all six as not authoritative on the matter, given their lack of applicable specialization. I also suggest that it is not the wisest move when your trying to ascertain objectively whether ID is creationism to use the opinions of activists who have a vested interest in what they say.

Forrest is a professor of philosophy. In a history and political science department, teaching only undergraduate courses in general philosophy. Even though she's a prominent figure at SLU, she doesn't even teach Philosophy of Science at the undergraduate level--that's left to a colleague. She has a PhD in Philosophy, not Philosophy of Science. In response to the question "are you an expert in philosophy of science?", she responded under oath "I'm not a philosopher of science." How does all of that suggest "impeccable credentials" in relevant areas? She is "one of the most knowledgeable experts on ID" because...? As I have already pointed out to you elsewhere, I never said her political leanings disqualify her as a reliable source (she's the one that plays that game). The safe money would be on that Numbers doesn't differ much with her on his politics, given his work in academia and given that he is at an institution known for its liberalism. Rather, her activism creates questions about her scholarly objectivity. And one of the ways where her activism plays out prominently is with her activities with NCSE, an advocacy/activist group. Besides being on the board, she is a top-billed speaker for them.

Giberson may be all that, but how does that or his PhD in physics demonstrate authority on matters of philosophy of science, history of science, or sociology of science?

Scott: how does a PhD in physical anthropology make her an authority of those matters? Like Forrest, her work at the advocacy/activist NCSE creates questions about her scholarly objectivity.

E.O. Wilson: actually Scott is the author of that essay in the Harvard University Press Book "Evolution"

Morris: yes, father of creation science movement and no doubt personally very knowledgeable about the creationism movement, but I don't see how he could have been considered an academic authority on ID or even creationism. His PhD was in hydraulic engineering. Morris may be an acceptable source on information about himself or his views, but that's not how he is being used as a source: he's being used to say definitively that ID is a form of neo-creationism. Since ICR is not a reliable source, maybe it qualifies as as a self-published source. Here is the relevant policy at WP:V, which is clearly not met in its current use:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

...Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

Matt Young: having a PhD in Optics and being a senior lecturer in Physics does not make him an authority on whether ID is creationism

Even if we were to assume that all 6 sources were reliable (the Morris source clearly is not) and authoritative in applicable fields (which none of them are) and none were involved in activism on the ID issue (which is the case for at least 4 out of the 6 sources), we would still not have sufficient sourcing to demonstrate academic consensus, let alone go beyond that as is currently done in the text in suggesting that there is no academic dispute. Nor could we finagle around the clear language in WP:NPOV policy that "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Drrll (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• comment: This is pretty silly. This issue has been litigated, and the clear and resounding verdict what that ID is creationism: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. A countless number of secondary sources regarding that trial can be used to verify this, as well as the expert testimony of those at the trial. I suggest using Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial as a starting point here (please refer to the the program transcript, not the wiki article: "JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: The crushing weight of the evidence indicates that the board set out to get creationism into science classrooms, and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that." ... "the overwhelming evidence at trial," he said, "established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."). aprock (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been litigated--once, by one judge. In an academic forum? No. By someone with advanced education in philosophy of science, history of science, or sociology of science? No. Someone with a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and a Law degree. By someone with experience in such matters? No. Someone who's experience was in the practice of law, politics, and for a couple of years, as a judge. The trial did have two expert testimony witnesses with the necessary credentials to testify that ID was creationism and just one did so. Drrll (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're being silly. Litigation does not occur in an academic forum. aprock (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the academic issue of whether ID is creationism was not adjudicated by someone with academic credentials or experience in the relevant academic fields--who could apply the necessary criteria for deciding the issue. Drrll (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: two things should be clear by now. (i) That ID is neocreationism is not, and never was even potentially, a matter of original research. It had a couple of sources to start with, and now has many more. (ii) No level of sourcing is going to satisfy Drrll -- who will simply cherry-pick those statements from Numbers that appear to support denying that ID is creationism, whilst finding excuses to ignore the vast amount of evidence to the contrary -- including many statements by Numbers himself. So to be blunt, I see no sense in further flogging this WP:DEADHORSE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• That neo-creationism is identical with creationism is far from obvious to me, in fact that seems obviously false. You don't get baramins of wallabies/kangaroos with neo-creationism, you get arguments about eyes not being able to evolve but needing intelligent design. That intelligent design is a form of neo-creationism is pretty well established and I believe that was what this discussion was supposed to be about so I don't see the point in dragging in confusion. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, (i)that some contend that ID is creationism/neocreationism certainly is not OR; that ID is creationism/neocreationism certainly is OR, no matter how many individual sources you include that make that claim (WP:NOR policy: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.")--as well as in clear violation of the other two core policies of WP, WP:NPOV ("'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.'), and WP:V ("Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.").

(ii) so what is your arbitrary threshold for sourcing things authoritatively? (is it having been published in some reliable source on ID, or is it one of the other arbitrary thresholds I described earlier?) If you have a "vast amount of evidence to the contrary" on Numbers views, including "many statements by Numbers himself," produce them. You have produced one' potential bit of evidence so far, compared to 3 bits of evidence otherwise, including a direct "statement by Numbers himself", all more recent than the one you produced (which is no less "cherry-picked" than mine). "It should be clear by now" that you will use sources primarily based on how they serve your purposes, not on how reliable or authoritative they are or how they directly support the definitive declaration that ID is neocreationism. Even when confronted with evidence from policy that demonstrates that the Morris source is "notoriously unreliable" as you described ICR elsewhere, you keep it in the ID article. Even when it is pointed out that the source you claim is from Wilson is actually from Scott (can be verified by seeing the essay title at the top of p. 375 in Google Books, then going to the table of contents of the book at Harvard University Press), you keep it in the ID article unmodified. You defend the use of unreliable blogs in the Signature in the Cell article.

Just like on the Talk page of the ID article, you declare the issue a WP:DEADHORSE when unable to refute such things as clear violations of all 3 core WP policies. Drrll (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That intelligent design is a form of neo-creationism has been well supported by the citations and there's nothing I can see saying that is false. The arguments between you and Hrafn about the relationship between creationism and neo-creationism is simply smoke rather than light. Dmcq (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That some who don't have the necessary authority in relevant fields contend that ID is a form of neo-creationism is well supported by the citations. That neo-creationism is creationism is well supported by the plain meaning of the word and by the words of those who use the term, despite the glaring differences in ID and creationism as you point out. That ID is definitively creationism/neo-creationism is not supported at all by the citations, but rather violates all 3 core WP policies. Drrll (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

D^eadhorserrll:

1. That ID is Neo-Creo is not "original thought" is obvious from the fact that I have cited a number of published sources have had that "thought" before I did.
2. I have to date four pieces of evidence that Numbers may not believe that ID is not creationism: The Creationists' subtitle, its chapter 17, Galileo goes to jail p216 & Darwinism comes to America p17

Dmcq:

• I am not arguing that neo-creationism "is identical with creationism", I am stating that many experts (and the article itself) state that it is a form of creationism.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, thinking about it, given that (i) Numbers generally makes his few 'ID is not creationism' statements in context of distinguishing ID from older forms of creationism & (ii) he never actually mentions neo-creationism, it is perfectly possible that that in those contexts that he is equating "creationism" with these older forms of it -- and essentially implying, somewhat idiosyncratically, that neo-creationism is not "creationism". It is therefore itself WP:OR to claim that Numbers believes that ID is not neo-creationism (which may have been the point that Dmcq was making -- if so, then I apologise for being so dense). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The "original thought" is the view that ID is neocreationism is not in dispute among authorities, as is the done now in the article by stating definitively that ID is a form of neo-creationism: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." (WP:OR policy]]).
2. I'll grant you the Creationist subtitle if you can demonstrate that Numbers picked the title and not his editor. I'll grant you the chapter in that book if you can show where in the chapter he contends that ID is creationism. Galileo goes to jail refers to ID as a "cousin" of creationism, which is far different than saying something like ID is a "sibling" of creationism. The Darwinism comes to America reference is stronger, but hardly decisive in its language and he wrote it BEFORE my 2 references.

OK, then show the context of the quotes from the 2 sources, demonstrating that he is distinguishing ID from older forms of creationism. "essentially implying...that neo-creationism is not "creationism""--it would help if Numbers actually ever used the term "neo-creationism." It is not OR to say that Numbers believes that ID is not creationism. He doesn't ever claim that ID is not neo-creationism, but as a historian of science he confirms the view that "neo-creationism" is dubious as a concept/movement by never using the term anywhere. Further confirmed by its status as a neologism with no presence in dictionaries, virtually no presence in reliable news sources, no presence in the Encylopedia Brittanica, comparatively little presence among Google Scholar sources, and little if any presence in reliable sources by those qualified to speak authoritatively on the matter--historians of science, philosophers of science, and sociologists of science. Drrll (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• (I am an editor involved in this dispute). First of all, this is not an appropriate noticeboard at all for this dispute, as we have now in the article, sources stating without any ambiguity at all that ID is neocreationism. In the discussion on the talk page, I was able to find several completely distinct sources doing the exact same thing. There's no OR or synthesis here, except on the part of Drrll. If it were reasonable to conclude that Numbers' statements clearly indicate that ID is not creationism, which is in doubt, we have to take it that he thinks ID is not neocreationism, which is a huge leap, then on top of all that, we have to take this source and say it's enough to cast ambiguity in the face of dozens of directly contrary sources, againt WP:FRINGE, which is absurd. I was happy to talk about this with drrll directly on the talk page for ID, up until he made statements that went entirely past any sane assumptions of good faith I could conjure. This whole discussion has gone from initially a reasonable question to absolutely insane denialism. i kan reed (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

re: your edit summary: if you can show from WP policy or guidelines that I should have notified you about a post on this noticeboard, do so. Why is it that you and other editors protecting ID articles (such as Hrafn) so frequently resort to personal attacks and not assuming good faith when anyone dares to challenge? After pointing out clear policy violations of core WP policies, the response was personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, accusations of lying, and declarations that the discussion was over. After that, why wouldn't I seek some fresh eyes on the situation? I can understand that you would rather keep things at the ID article where so many editors have essentially the same viewpoint. As what's being done over at the ID article is a clear violation of WP:NOR, not to mention WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS/AC, of course it belongs here.

Yes, there are sources that state without ambiguity that ID is neocreationism. None of which actually even state that this view is the dominant/mainstream/consensus view, even though as currently written it goes beyond that in stating such a thing as undisputed fact. None of which are by authorities qualified to make such a determination (philosophers of science, historians of science, and sociologists of science). One of which is from a completely unreliable source (which doesn't matter to them). One of which misstates the author of the source, even though the editor who added it knows it's incorrect. I've already refuted your other points in the discussion above, which you apparently have not bothered to read. That I made indefensible statements is your characterization (which you first characterized as being "disingenuous," then with the statement "why are you lying?"). But of course when you made incorrect representations of Barbara Forrest and the title of a book, well, I should have only assumed that you misspoke. Readers of this noticeboard can go to Talk:Intelligent Design and see for themselves what transpired. And as they have seen here, they can see his bluster, assumptions of bad faith, accusations, and personal attacks for themselves. Drrll (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe I misspoke or lied about Dr. Forrest. As far as I can tell the only way she's "politically involved" with ID, is if you consider acting as an expert political involvement. That was your own completely unsupported allegation. The reason I assume bad faith in your particular case is because you are seeking to take a well established fact and make it look otherwise through a convoluted chain of synthesis and stretching statements, in a manner that can only be construed as a false scientific endorsement of ID. If I could see any other way to interpret you position, I would loved to assume good faith, but there is no fundemental reasonableness to the argument your making.

With regard to showing policy requiring that you inform me, there is none, I was hoping for that as a courtesy. Not everything is about rules. Also, I don't like the allegation that I "protect" ID as an article. I think you'll find in the past couple years, I've made all of 2 reverts to the article, one for a bad grammar change, and one for a disengenous merge proposal. In particular the majority of my recent edits have been first trying to come to an understanding on, then dealing with you going in circles, about this particular point. At first, I honestly thought there was something about ID or neocreationism I wasn't considering and was trying to suss out, but as time went on, it became totally clear that you were just trying to push out a legitimate fact on some false assertion of controversy, and there was no other way to interpret you arguments. The allegations of WP:DEADHORSE mentioned here don't come from nowhere. You were the only one arguing this point, and from a posiiton of very weak credibility, over and over without introducing any new points, which were rejected for multiple editors.

On the subject of me accusing you of lying, let's do that again. "None of which are by authorities qualified to make such a determination (philosophers of science[... ])". That is a falsehood that can't really be aligned with the fact that Dr. Barbara Forrest is a proffessor of philosophy of science, and was one of those people who wrote unambiguously that ID is neo-creationism in an academic publication. What you said is a lie. A clean, clear-cut, lie. I can't engage in a serious discussion, assume good faith, and not attack the editor, when you are consistently being dishonest. i kan reed (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You said about Forrest, "By a biologist without any major political history in the ID debate" She's not a biologist. She's not without any major political history in the ID debate (she serves on boards of several organizations that work to defeat ID in the political arena, such as the ACLU, Americans United, the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, and the NCSE, as well as having a supporting membership in People for the American Way; she has on multiple occasions resorted to the political tactic of personal attack on ID proponents, as well as on those who aren't ID proponents, but don't demonstrate sufficient hostility toward them, as demonstrated by the rebuke of her piece in Synthese by its editors-in-chief). I didn't, as you did, turn around and say "why are you lying?" You said, "There's a book with that title" ("Intelligent design is not creationism"). There isn't, but did I accuse you of lying then, even though in the same paragraph you had just accused me of lying?

"well established fact": sorry, but no source that demonstrates that it is a well established fact has been presented, even a source from someone without the necessary academic specializations--just individual sources in the article and Talk page that make the claim themselves, overwhelmingly by those without the necessary academic specializations.

"can only be construed as a false scientific endorsement of ID": sorry, but showing that there is academic disagreement over the issue of whether ID is a form of creationism can hardly be construed as a scientific endorsement of ID. Numbers opposes ID, so it could not be said that he provides a scientific endorsement of it (I might add that unlike another opponent of ID, Forrest, he doesn't engage politically in the fight against ID with the politically active organizations, nor does he engage in personal attacks against ID proponents. I suppose he should be on the lookout for personal attacks by Forrest for not being sufficiently hostile toward ID proponents).

"I was hoping for that as a courtesy." That may have occurred to me if you hadn't showed such blatant discourtesy toward me.

"over and over without introducing any new points": that's hardly the case, with additional points and facts over and over, as anyone can see for themselves at Talk:Intelligent design.

Yet again, you assume bad faith and engage in personal attacks by saying that I am lying regarding Forrest's status as a philosopher of science. If you had bothered to read earlier remarks above, or even check her WP article right before you made that unfounded claim, you would have seen that Forrest is definitely not a philosopher of science. Drrll (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: At the risk of bringing too many frequent editors of the ID article here, I'd like to offer my view. First, Drrll has only one poorly written AP article to support the assertion that ID is not neo-creationism. Now I don't mean to say that this source is unreliable, only that the text in question is extremely short and uninformative as to Numbers' opinion on neo-creationism. It merely states that Numbers agrees that the creationist label is inaccurate (this is not a direct quote from Numbers, but language created by the journalist). Second, we have another source which sheds further light on Numbers' opinion:

“ As [Numbers] views it, there are significant differences between scientific creationism and intelligent design. First, adherents of intelligent design scrupulously avoid biblical arguments to undermine evolutionary theory and argue instead that the subcellular complexity of life demands a knowing designer. What's more, many who subscribe to intelligent design theory have no problem accepting the great antiquity of life on Earth. ”

So, not only do we have no specific comment by Numbers as to ID's status as neo-creationism, but we have a source which heavily implies that the distinguishing factors which lead Numbers to his view that the creationist label is inaccurate are the exact same factors that distinguish creationism from neo-creationism (i.e. drop the Bible and argue ID as science). Due to the facts that (i) there is no direct statement from anyone that ID is not neo-creationism and (ii) the sources which represent Numbers' opinion on whether or not ID is neo-creationism are muddled at best (and indicative that he agrees it is neo-creationism at worst), I think we need to defer to the other reliable sources, written by prominent experts and clearly stating that ID is neo-creationism. Thank you, admins, for your time; I know it must be annoying to read through all this information, and my verbosity only exacerbates this. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Drrll has only one poorly written AP article.": actually, there are two sources, both of which I've quoted at the top of this section, and both of which quotes Numbers instead of only characterizing his views. AP has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The other source is the University of Wisconsin, his employer, so the likelihood of them misrepresenting his views is very small. Readers can judge for themselves how the sources are written and whether or not they clearly make the point that ID is not creationism. As to him not coming out and saying that ID is not neo-creationism, that's not likely to occur, since he himself (as a preeminent historian of science) indirectly confirms the notion that "neo-creationism" is of dubious value as a concept (as I point out more extensively above), given that he never uses the term, except in a footnote directly quoting an article titled "Neocreationism" by someone else (see Google Books and Google Scholar for confirmation that he never uses the term himself). In addition, where it is used by others, it's clear from the context that it is used to mean creationism, not to mention that the plain meaning of the word is "newer form of creationism" (we can't look to dictionaries to define the term, since apparently none of them do, including the most authoritative and exhaustive dictionaries). It's also clear from the sources that use it, as well as the opinion of Numbers that calling ID creationism is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design," and the opinion of William Safire that it's purpose is to deride ID.

"we have a source which heavily implies that the distinguishing factors which lead Numbers to his view that the creationist label is inaccurate are the exact same factors that distinguish creationism from neo-creationism": how can that be said when there are no objective definitions of "neo-creationism?" Maybe that's how the WP article on "neo-creationism" characterizes it. In addition, the same source you quote later on makes clear that ID is not creationism: "Scientists and other proponents of evolution, tend to conflate creationism and intelligent design. "They see intelligent design as little more than gussied up creationism, despite the significant differences." No implying required.

"we need to defer to the other reliable sources, written by prominent experts and clearly stating that ID is neo-creationism": actually, none have been provided yet that aren't written by those not in the position to authoritatively say so (see above discussion) and/or written by individuals with a vested interest in saying so (also see above). Drrll (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A high-profile international encyclopedia-writing project is not a good place for supporting an essentially US-only anti-science canard. On balance of all the evidence in reliable sources, including the indisputable history of ID, it's pretty obvious that there is no problem here. We don't need to say that it is the consensus view of scientists that the Earth rotates around the sun. See also WP:HORSEMEAT. Hans Adler 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"A high-profile international encyclopedia-writing project is not a good place for supporting an essentially US-only anti-science canard": "A high-profile international encyclopedia-writing project is not a good place for" portraying original research as undisputed fact. And accurately representing the views of those most qualified to answer such a question as whether ID is creationism is hardly "supporting" ID (unless you believe that Ronald Numbers, an opponent of ID, is supporting ID by being insufficiently hostile toward ID and its proponents by saying that ID is not creationism).

"On balance of all the evidence in reliable sources": and you can demonstrate that because you know of some individual sources (almost entirely by individuals who aren't philosophers of science, historians of science, or sociologists of science) that make that claim, rather than something like a systematic review? According to the WP core policy WP:NOR:

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented

And according to another WP core policy WP:NPOV:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

WP:DEADHORSE invocation is a sure sign that instead of refuting my points, you just prefer that I shut up and go away. Drrll (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a "sure sign" that everybody else on this endless thread lost interest a long, long, long time ago in your endless points, which have convinced absolutely nobody but yourself. Nobody cares any more about your points, so why should anybody care about refuting them? We have a fairly clear WP:CONSENSUS that there isn't a problem, so really don't care that you don't (and most probably never will) agree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nobody cares any more about your points, so why should anybody care about refuting them?": thanks for admitting that about yourself--you are probably accurately speaking for some others here. What really matters most is the "proper" outcome, not whether my points are valid, not whether the disputed text runs afoul of WP guidelines, and not whether it runs afoul of WP policies, even core policies. That we have "a fairly clear consensus" is actually not clear. Even if we were to assume that consensus has been reached here, according to WP:WHATISCONSENSUS: "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors." Drrll (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

“ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. ” — Winston Churchill

Saint Drrll of Flagellated Necrotic Equine, kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr. There is no Evil Atheist Conspiracy™ to achieve the "proper" outcome -- just a bunch of editors who you've first failed to convince, and whose interest you then failed to retain. We listened, we argued, we reached our own conclusions, but you just kept on talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking. The horse is dead. It died a long time ago. The scavengers who feasted on its corpse are getting old and grey and are telling their grandchildren tall stories about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, folks... let's calm down a bit.

Drrll, you are factually incorrect. You have only a single source supporting your assertion and, as I said, it's not a direct quote. The direct quote from Numbers is as follows: "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (Pause) No, seriously. That's it. The rest of Numbers' opinion is paraphrased by the journalist: "[Numbers] agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement."

Your supposed second source is the exact same source I used to show that Numbers doesn't say what you'd like (see the quote in my previous post). It identifies the difference between neo-creationism and creationism, which is the avoidance of Biblical literalism. This term was first coined by Philip Kitcher in "Born-Again Creationism" (1999) and described three unique aspects of neo-creationism: 1) attack evolution in the public sphere, 2) stop deferring to the Bible, and 3) mute evolutionists' most successful arguments. Eugenie Scott is the next prominent person to use the term, to my knowledge. In her article, "Creationists and the Pope's Statement", she again points to the avoidance of Biblical literalism as a distinguishing factor between neo-creationism and creationism: "Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists, [neo-creationists] are holdouts for a God that has something important to do, a God who can 'make a difference.' (Johnson 1993:117)" It is this paper Henry Morris of the ICR references when he chastises this new form of creationism for avoiding Biblical literalism: "The innumerable evidences of intelligent design in nature really do not point to theistic evolution or dissipative structures or Gaia, but if we stop our program without arriving at the true God of the Bible as the Creator of all things, then many converts to 'design' will gravitate to one of these other beliefs and never come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior."

Hopefully, this is sufficient justification for you to stop using your interpretation of Numbers's view and refer to those academics who have experience with ID (and who clearly state that ID is neo-creationism). As the FAQ page states on the ID Talk page: "Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, it becomes apparent—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism." -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your civil discourse.

Yes, in the AP story the views of Numbers are characterized by the writer of the article. But then, so is the entire quote you provide from your earlier U of W source. The presumption of accuracy for representing Numbers views should hold unless there is something that directly contradicts that Numbers actually believes this, given that the AP has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Yes, the second source I use is the same exact source that you use (I point that out in my previous post to you). Whereas your quote from that source is entirely the article's author's representation of Numbers views, my quote from that source includes both the author's representation and a direct quote from Numbers. That your excerpt describes ID is not in question. That it describes "neo-creationism" is your interpretation that it represents Numbers views that ID is neo-creationism, based on how some other sources define the nebulous term "neo-creationism," since neither the author of that source or Numbers specifically say that they are talking about "neo-creationism." Do you see my point?

The first non-Numbers source you provided I can accept as highly relevant, given that Kitcher is a philosopher of science. My initial impressions of the essay were that it was quite derisive and showed him engaging in the occasional personal attack. This was confirmed by discovering that Kitcher exclusively used the derisive neologism "neo-creo," and never "neo-creationism," reminding me of William Safire's "Neo-creo" piece devoted entirely to that word:

To counter the "sophisticated branding experts" who flummoxed establishmentarian evolutionaries with intelligent design, opponents of classroom debate over Darwin's theory have come up with a catchily derisive neologism that lumps the modern I.D. advocates with religious fundamentalists: neo-creo. The rhyming label was coined on Aug. 17, 1999, by Philip Kitcher, professor of the philosophy of science at Columbia University, in a lively and lengthy online debate in Slate magazine with the abovementioned Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley: "Enter the neo-creos," Kitcher wrote. "Scavenging the scientific literature, they take claims out of context and pretend that everything about evolution is controversial. . . . But it's all a big con."

Being a political tactic, I think that personal attacks put into question his objectivity, though I still think that it's a reliable and highly relevant source. Because of that, I think it's preferable to use sources that don't engage in personal attacks or whose authors are active in the political fight against ID. That said, I wouldn't strongly object if just one of the sources used in the ID article included personal attacks. Even we if use this source, along with other reliable and relevant sources, making the leap from simply being the view of various experts to academic consensus and then again to stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not doable, per WP:NOR and WP:RS/AC--even if we were to exclude anything from Numbers.

The Scott source, while reliable, has questionable relevance, given that Scott is actually a physical anthropologist. It also has the same problems with questions about objectivity, given her role in an advocacy/activist organization that aggressively fights ID in the political arena--she thus has a particular vested interest in what she writes.

The Morris source not only has problems with questionable relevance, given that Morris was a hydraulic engineer, and questions about objectivity, given his role in an advocacy/activist organization that aggressively fights for creationism and (not so aggressively) fights against ID, but with the fact that the source (ICR) is hardly a reliable source.

"Hopefully, this is sufficient justification for you to…refer to those academics who have experience with ID (and who clearly state that ID is neo-creationism)": the problem with that criteria for who we look to say whether ID is creationism/neo-creationism (which again is a concept of dubious value, as explained earlier, plus the fact that WP:MOS discourages use of neologisms), is that would mean essentially anyone with experience with ID (or if what you meant is those with extensive experience with ID), as long as their view is represented in reliable sources. That would mean that the views of Discovery people like Stephen Meyer would qualify for inclusion, as long as their views were represented in reliable sources (not to mention that Meyer has a PhD in philosophy and history of science, which qualifies him as relevant). Since he, among several other ID proponents, are academics "who has experience with ID," his role in an advocacy/activist organization that aggressively fights for ID would not matter.

As far as the ID FAQ goes, the FAQ there is just the opinions of a small number of editors regarding previous Talk page discussions ("These FAQ answers reflect the decisions found in the talk page archives. Please feel free to change them in light of new discussion"). It just has the appearance of incontrovertible consensus given the tone of its language. Please correct me if that's not an accurate assessment.

Sorry for having to wade through this long response and sorry for repetition of many of the points I have previously already made. Some of it was said on the Talk:Intelligent design page, and it is obvious to me that some editors here didn't bother to actually consider the merits of my arguments and sources, if they read them at all, simply rejecting them out-of-hand because they consider it unchallengeable Truth (specifically, the first respondent here and the editor who concluded I was lying about Barbara Forrest even though I had made clear here my evidence about her). Thanks again for being civil, even though you may strongly disagree with my positions. Yours is one of the few that seriously attempted to engage me on the merit of my arguments & sources.

Bicycle_performance

The Bicycle performance is pure original research. The only citations in the article are to justify numbers that are used in the calculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.80.2 (talk • contribs)

The article contains references, so we can't help you unless you tell us which part of the article you think is original research.  Sandstein  05:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Adjustment Team

The article Adjustment Team about a short story by Philip K. Dick contains a lengthy section, Adjustment Team#Copyright status and copyfraud, that is sourced only to primary sources such as copyright registry entries. Several editors, including me, have identified this section as original research and possibly soapboxing (see Talk:Adjustment Team#"Copyright Status and Copyfraud" Section...), and have removed it on these grounds of several occasions (see history). The section's author, Refrigerator Heaven (talk · contribs), has however always reinstated it. I would appreciate the opinion of others about how to proceed with this section.  Sandstein  05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Its actually quite a few Phillip K. Dick stories that have significant undue weight leveled to the copyright status. Meddler, Shell Game, The Golden Man. Its a very long list, and I think that when some of the articles have copyright status paragraphs longer than the rest of the article, something is wrong. Livewireo (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That stuff about copyright in Meddler seems to be research using primary sources. If no secondary sources say anything about the copyright then the primary sources don't have any weight, so why is that section in the article? Plus we're supposed to just report on what primary sources say in a neutral way, that section came to conclusions not explicitly said in the original sources. Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be some funny happenings about the copyright for all I know but Wikipedia is not the place for detective work and accusations of fraud without any sources saying that. If someone has a case they should try getting some reliable source to follow up, even getting some literary magazine to make the accusations would be enough. As it is I believe the sections should be either deleted or cleaned up to say just the minimum bare facts without any interpretation, personally I'd go for deletion. Wikipedia is not in the business of making the news, only summarizing afterwards. Dmcq (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear case of original research using primary sources. Wikipedia is not the right place for such detailed analysis anyway. If the analysis appeared in some citable off-wiki place, inclusion of a sentence which cites it might be appropriate. Otherwise deletion is appropriate. Zero^talk 01:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keffiyeh

Another editor and I are engaged in a dispute over the display of a cartoon depicting Che Guevara wearing a keffiyeh at Keffiyeh#Symbol_of_Palestinian_solidarity. It's my position that it's WP:SYNTH to use a cartoon in order to illustrate that the keffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian solidarity, given that Che Guevara never wore keffiyehs.

I identify a similar problem at Hosni_Mubarak#Trial, where there's a cartoon (incidentally by the same artist) showing the former Egyptian president picking his nose. I just don't see how either of these images can qualify as encyclopedic in nature or "inside the major section to which they relate."—Biosketch (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is common knowledge that this headwear is associated with the Palestinian position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although the article should cite sources for this. I agree, though, that the image is misleading, though not necessarily as OR (it is not a source), but because it is misleading, as it suggests that Che Guevara wore such headwear and was an active supporter of the Palestinian cause, which would be news to me. Surely there are photographs of real-life Palestinian supporters wearing the keffiyeh. I also don't understand what the cartoon of Mubarak is meant to illustrate.  Sandstein  06:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Traill

An article in the New Yorker for August 29, 2011, states that this article (Ruth Traill) was the result of Original Research by a group of Wikipedians at the British Library. The references given in this article do not back up the statements made in it. Can anybody find some good, reliable Sources for what is said in here? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

CKLN.fm

User:RiseupRiseup is persistently adding personal observations and original research to the article. 69.196.135.120 (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI

The inclusion of the category Propaganda organizations in the article Middle East Media Research Institute has been challenged on the grounds that it is OR. The two sources provided on the talk page to back the inclusion of the category are as follows:

• Brian Whitacker (12 August 2002), "Selective Memri", The Guardian:

  Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia.

  The article then details those two incidents
• Achcar, Gilbert (2009), The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, Macmillan, ISBN 9780805089547

  p. 182: However, MEMRI is conspicuously—even more than the two book just discussed—a function of the Arab-Israeli conflict, acting like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services. ... If such biased inventories and anthologies are of any use beyond propaganda, it is as a barmoeter of the ideological and intellectural regression currently under way in the Arab world. That undertakings of this sort no more reveal the "Arab attitude" than they do "the reality in the Arab world" does not mean that those who compile them invent the quotations they proffer. What they do is put manifestations of the regression on prominant display, while often taking them out of context; selected, assembled, and concentrated in a single stream, these exhibits project a deliberately distorted image of the Arab world's intellectual production. Nevertheless, as long as one keeps in mind that this material is being used for propaganda purposes ...

Is it OR to include MEMRI in this category? nableezy - 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the sources, no... it isn't OR. I would say, however, that it is non-neutral. One of the problems with categorization is that it often can not take into account differences of opinion. Do some sources call MEMRI "propaganda"... yes. Does everyone agree with that designation... no. I would feel a lot better about this if we placed it in a more neutral sub-category... something like "Organizations accused of distributing propaganda" (although "accused" is probably the wrong word). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that this category lists only 27 organizations, all of which seem to be either run by governments, terrorist organizations, or no longer exist, I think we need to be careful what organizations are added. Otherwise, any organization is that is accused of producin propaganda could potentially be added to this list. MEMRI's critics aren't exactly the most unbias when it comes to the Middle East (few people are). Given the pejorative nature of the word "propaganda" and the widespread use of this term as an insult or accusation, the organizations listed in this category need to be carefully considered.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

I've no opinion about this specific organization - the article says various people have called it a propaganda machine, but given the realities of the Middle East conflict what is propaganda to one side is legitimate advocacy to the other. In view of this, I recommend that the category (which carries a substantial pejorative connotation) is applied only to organizations about which contemporary discourse is essentially unanimous in describing them as a propaganda outlet. This would exclude most organizations on all sides of most contemporary conflicts.  Sandstein  05:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Most "legitimate advocacy" is propaganda as well. I think most of the objections are due to people drawing an inference from the word "propaganda" that isnt there. "Propaganda" does not imply that the advocacy is illegitimate, it only implies that the information publicized is selected with the aim of promoting a certain political cause. If there were equally reliable sources that actually deny that MEMRI is a propaganda organization then I could agree that the category shouldnt be included, but thus far no such source has been brought. nableezy - 07:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So every organization that is accused of producing Propaganda (in your words: "information publicized is selected with the aim of promoting a certain political cause") under that definition should be added? That would be one hell of a long list. And again, a few accusations from sources which are hostile towards Israel aren't very convincing, especially since they make broad accusations with little evidence. Of the thousands of videos and translations that MEMRI has produced, only about 6-7 have been accused of being mistranslated or taken out of context (you would think its critics would be able to cite a few more). MEMRI's work is used by major media organizations throughout the world. If MEMRI produces so much obvious propaganda, why do major media outlets repeatedly cite their work - after all, if its as bias as its critics say, wouldn't it be shunned? Nobody says that MEMRI is perfect or that is doesn't promote, in effect, if not intent, a political cause, but that can be said of nearly any organization. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC))

Wiki acknowledges the existence of an Arab Israeli conflict. We have an organisation, dedicated to the propagation of information, which is entirely formed by composed of and funded by people who support one side of that conflict. Yet we don't seem able to agree that they are a propaganda organisation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So any organization that is "dedicated to the propagation of information, which is entirely formed by composed of and funded by people who support one side of that conflict" belongs in that category? Would The Electronic Intifada belong in that category, then? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada has no connection to any state actor, so rather than a propaganda organization, it is an advocacy organization - similar to say, J Street or even the Jewish Defense League. MEMRI is well documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State - regardless of the internal politics of the State. Those are two different things. However, I am against the use of the word "propaganda" in wikipedia outside of the topic of Propaganda and few other related topics and in quotes that use the term (ie if the term is verified), so my solution would be to delete the category (as I would anything with the word "terrorist" or "terrorism"). Since that has no chance of happening, MEMRI could be so categorized without it really being a violation of V/OR. Neutrality is another issue, and in that sense Sandstein's point is well taken.--Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State"? That's weasel-worded nonsense. MEMRI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose headquarters are in Washington, D.C.. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Led by a Israeli reservist who worked as a professional anti-terrorist for two different Israeli administrations, as he himself says. Do I need to source noticeboards comments too? :)--Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as sources go:

• Athina Karatzogianni (2006), The Politics of Cyberconflict, Taylor & Francis, p. 172, ISBN 9780415396844, Online news organizations like the Electronic Intifada and the Israeli Support Group also represent alternative sources for the explanation of conflict, can be used for propaganda and mobilization, and reflect a political contest between Israelis and Palestinians to dominate political discourse.
• Andrew R. Wilson; Mark Lloyd Perry (2008), War, virtual war and society: the challenge to communities, Rodopi, p. 102, ISBN 9789042023475, The parties had been engaged in a fierce online propaganda war since the mid-1990s... This struggle has been far more evenly matched than the real world conflict, largely because of the vast international online support from Palestinians. In particular, a website called Electronic Intifada (EI), launched by two Palestinians and two foreign pro-Palestinian human rights activists...
• Gerald M. Steinberg (Aug 26, 2006), "Ken Roth's blood libel", The Jeusalem Post, Before coming to HRW, she published anti-Israel propaganda in pro-Palestinian platforms such as the "Electronic Intifada."

Looks about equivalent. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the first two sources I would include EI in the category as well. Being associated with a government is not relevant to whether or not an organization is a propaganda organization. nableezy - 00:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't do either, but you seem to say if one is done, both should be done? That sounds like quid-pro-quo to me. I think Sandstein's formula is more correct.--Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

With regards to Cerejota's statement that "MEMRI is well documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State - regardless of the internal politics of the State" the only evidence offered is that its founder served in the Israeli-military and as a anti-terrorist advisor to two Israeli prime ministers. This is guilt by association - you cite no hard evidence that there is some kind of "solid relationship"; military service in mandatory in Israel, so would you consider all Israelis to fall under this designation? (also, Yigal Carmon retired from the Israeli military 10 years before he founded MEMRI) Furthermore, MEMRI employs many people who are not Israelis, including several Arabs - Are they also part of this "solid relationship?" Do you have evidence that MEMRI takes orders from the Israeli government? You are free to make allegations based on such reasoning, but Wikipedia is based on facts, not conspiracy theories.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

@-Cerejota "Electronic Intifada has no connection to any state actor, so rather than a propaganda organization, it is an advocacy organization - similar to say, J Street or even the Jewish Defense League. MEMRI is well documented to have a solid relationship with the Israeli State."

• Since when? Just because an organization employs former soldiers or even politicians does not make them an accessory to a sovereign nation. And ET cannot be compared to MEMRI because ET is actually supported (partially) by public funds from donor nations. If MEMRI is the bar for propaganda organizations on Wikipedia then there are a thousand articles waiting to be added, including Fox News, The Guardian, AIPAC, Al Jazeera etc. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is so very refreshing to see such a staggering amount of original research on the No original research noticeboard. Id like to remind the participants here that the question is whether or not including the category on the basis of the sources above constitutes original research. How this developed into a discussion on whether or not EI is also a propaganda organization or what, if any, connection does MEMRI have the Israeli government is not exactly relevant to that question. Wikifan, the bar on Wikipedia is what do the sources say. nableezy - 04:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And numerous reliable sources hosting far more credible figures than Whitaker have described Fox News of being a propaganda organization. Do what the sources say, right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a second source here. And yes, do what the sources say. nableezy - 05:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A second but equally partisan source. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So just "Do what the sources say?" Interesting logic - Norman Finkelstein, who is classifed as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia, has described Israel as "a satanic state." Do you plan to add Israel to the Category:Satanism just because a "reliable" source says so? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

Let's say I'm looking for organizations that have been described by reliable sources as propaganda organizations. I use the category to see what's there. Should MEMRI be there ? Sources that can't simply be dismissed have described the organization that way including Professor Mona Baker, Director of the Centre for Translation and International Studies at the University of Manchester, who appears to treat that description seriously on page 75 Translation and conflict: a narrative account. I would expect these things to be covered in the article body but as far as categorization goes, for me it's similar to something like Category:Abstract expressionist artists. When I use that category I expect to find articts that have been described as abstract expressionist artists by a reasonable number of serious RS. I find Richard Diebenkorn. Is he really an abstract expressionist artist ? Like 'propaganda' it's not something that can be established deterministically. It's debatable. Sometimes he was, other times he wasn't, it depends who you ask etc but he has been described that way by enough serious reliable sources to merit categorization and consequently I can find him in the category and make my own mind up. Categories are functional. They're meant to help people find things. This practical aspect seems to get lost in these kind of discussions when it's the I-P topic area. I should also say that the Satanism example isn't very helpful. It's usually trivial to distinguish between literal and figurative descriptions. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Four problems with your argument:

• "Abstract expressionist artists" is not a perjorative term (as far as I know) - "Propaganda Organization" is extremely perjorative. I don't think many people or organizations would like to be called Propagandist or consider themselves as such).
• The term "Propaganda" itself is widely used as an insult and/or to describe anything that a person disagrees with or believes to be incorrectly presented. Trying to categorize organizations based on a perjorative term which is widely used as an insult and is extremely subjective isn't very encyclopedic.
• You have cited professor Mona Baker. Professor Baker fired two people from her publication solely because they were Israelis. A Professor who openly discriminates based solely on a person's nationality (in this case, Israelis) isn't exactly an non-bias source when in comes to this topic.
• A lot of people, not just Finkelstein, consider Israel to be a "satanic state" in a very literal sense. Although most people(myself included) dismiss this as an asinine castigation (i.e. $@^#&%@!), there are many people who believe this literally as well as figuratively.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC))
  • • Oh yes, that is very true - so its the opposite: many people who believe this literally as well as figuratively that Israel is heaven in earth, the promised land. That is relevant how?--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't get the obsession with Mona Baker. She is very partisan. If I recall another issue in the discussion revolved around sources that describe MEMRI as reliable (certainly outnumber sources that label it as propaganda). Do those sources trump Whitaker and Baker? Do sources need to say, explicitly, x, y and z is NOT propaganda in order to refute the claims made by other figures? Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • Really outweight? I would say that both pro and anti MEMRI sources are outweighted by those who see it as one more actor in the complex theater that is the I-P/A-I conflict - that is, partisan but quotable. Sandstein's reasoned point is lost in this partisan noisemaking here: describing the organization as "propaganda" doesn't really help much more the encyclopedic quality as describing it as "partisan" but the RS overwhelmingly describe it as partisan whereas the description as propaganda is generally a partisan description. By framing the sources, as you and others do, as being polarized on the topic, you are brushing aside the overwhelming sourcing that is not polarized. The reality is MEMRI is a propaganda organization only if viewed subjectively, but it is a partisan organization objectively. We cannot advance until that sensible formulation is accepted.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Hyperionsteel Your first two points here seem to me to be essentially the same ie that the term "Propagandist" is pejorative. I agree. Should we abolish the use of this term from Wiki because it "isn't very encyclopaedic". I personally don't think we should. The impulse to tell a story in such a way as to advantage our personal or tribal interests, has profoundly deep roots – are we to skirt round the existence of such forces, paper over difficult issues, and present a sanitised/false "encyclopaedic" depiction of the world? Your next point: " Professor Baker fired two people from her publication solely because they were Israelis". Sorry but as a sceptic I would like some good evidence and context on this. The last point seems to me to be straying from the issue a little – but my penny's worth would be that – information originating from Norman Finklestein should not be represented as fact by Wiki, but should be overtly labelled eg "According to Finklestein" (the same should be applied to Alan Dershowitz and all other partisan commentators). Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So since we're at a stalemate, and there is no other precedent for support such an inclusion, and uninvolved admins appear to be less supportive of this category - I suggest it be deleted until a stronger consensus can be achieved. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Some accepted sources state that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation. I haven't seen any reliable citations/evidence which counter the assertion that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation. I believe Wiki's readership will be ill served by dropping the label "propaganda organisation" from such organisations. I will also happily defend those who wish to label Electronic Intifada and others on similar grounds. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Wikifan. We have reasoning provided at WP:CAT. Looks like one uninvolved admin is questioning the need. It does not matter if Prunesqualler can make an argument for why they are propaganda. It is controversial which means Prunesqualler will have to spell it out in the prose instead of relying on a cat. I don;t like that that is how cats are handled but enough people in previous unrelated but similar discussions have expressed concern that cats can be viewed as being a label applied by Wikipedia in its voice instead of a simple way of filing articles for navigational purposes. Err o the side of caution and remove the cat but feel free to keep on discussing in multiple places.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono- I think that " MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Some accepted sources state that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation." does "lay it out in prose" and I cannot see much benefit to the world in removing the label "propaganda organisation" from MEMRI, when the evidence suggests that they are. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fact is uninvolved editors without a vested interest in this specific conflict question the use of the category. The sources that describe MEMRI as propagandic are just as partisan themselves. "MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict." Irrelevant. Biased and one-sided does not = propaganda. Nableezy's "if reliable sources say so" is hard to defend because such open-ended reasoning would justify virtually every known media organization of being propaganda. The Guardian, BBC, Fox News, Electronic Intifada, etc...are likely candidates for inclusion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It always seemed to me that the main effect of categories like "Propaganda organizations" is to create inclusion disputes. Looking at the current list, I think at least half of them could be the subject of debates similar to the one above. The case for inclusion of Memri seems as good and as bad as the case for inclusion of several of the other entries. I'd be happy to see the category disappear, but I know that I wouldn't get enough support for that. Zero^talk 03:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan I think a reasonable case could be made for including all of the organisations you mentioned in the category "Propaganda organisations". As I have already stated- I for one would back the inclusion of [Electronic Intifada]. Re MEMRI aside from the evidence already offered prehaps disinterested parties could ask themselves the following question. If this organisation is putting out unbiased and even handed information why is it that pro Israeli parties do not complain about MEMRI, yet pro Palestinians have near universal contempt for them (a Google search of "MEMRI propaganda" should satisfy editors on this point). Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Prune, I doubt the wikipedia community will accept news organizations to be placed in propaganda organizations. Every single newspaper, at one point or another, has been accused of promoting propaganda. And not just simple mud-slinging by partisan sources like Whitaker or Baker, I mean actual investigations, like BBC sexing up the war in Iraq or CNN pimping Bill Clinton's policies. I think it is time, for now, MEMRI be removed from the category until a real consensus can be found. It seems the article was inserted into the category without any serious discussion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan I'm not sure that Wiki has a precisely quantifiable definition of what constitutes "real consensus". On many issues in the Israel/Palestine field editors have conflicting views, so if we make full consensus a prerequisite for the inclusion of information then articles in this field would be extremely threadbare. Surly in instances like this, where we don't have consensus, we should go with what the reliable sources say. We have reliable sources which describe MEMRI as a propaganda organisation and, to the best of my knowledge, non which refute that claim. If we are to have a "Propaganda organisations" category at all (that is a separate discussion of course) then MEMRI should be included in it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We've gone over this a dozen times. Partisan sources exist with accusations that MEMRI is a "propaganda organization." But, the majority of sources - reliable that is - suggest otherwise. MEMRI is cited widely in mainstream newspapers, and has been praised as a reliable by fairly prominent figures. Baker and Whitaker are on one clear side of the I/P fence. So, yes - we go by what the RS tell us, but they don't tell us MEMRI is a propaganda organization. They tell us so and so says MEMRI is a propaganda organization. Fact is Prune, there was no consensus for the original inclusion and there is no other similar organization included in the category. MEMRI should be removed from the category until the Wikipedia community can come up with a solid understanding of what constitutes a propaganda organization. Under the proposed reasoning by several editors here, virtually every newspaper, media organization, pressure movement...and, surprise, rights groups could be included in the category. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If the Wiki community are not prepared to accept the validity of the sources provided + a significant proportion of the community can look into the definition of Propaganda, then look into who MEMRI are, and what they do, and - with complete sincerity - deny that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation, then I guess there is little more to be said here. Ie if Wiki is determined to loose credibility by not calling a spade a spade there is little I can do about it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What we have is a series of editors with an obvious vested interest in this particularly dispute. A few uninvolved editors and admins have said that the MEMRI is not conclusively a propaganda organization, at least not to the extent that it should be in the propaganda category - which it was placed in said category without any discussion. So, since you seem so sure that MEMRI is a propaganda organization, you'll have no problem achieving a solid consensus among the community. Such a precedent would have of course open the gates for all media organizations that have been accused of promoting or acting as a tool for propaganda, probably including Wikipedia itself. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan - Just as a matter of interest, would you be kind enough to list these "uninvolved editors and admins"?

Tamil Tigress

The article contains original arguments.

Looking at the article, I agree, but in future, it would help if you would be more specific about the statements you believe to be original research or synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice: source that doesn't mention CFC

Apparently I just really like posting at noticeboards! Anyway, at Catholics for Choice, we have this sentence, in a paragraph about CFC's "See Change" project, a campaign to designate the Vatican as an NGO at the United Nations:

On July 1, 2004, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that reaffirmed the Holy See's Permanent Observer status and extended it the same rights and privileges as other Observers, "in order to enable the Holy See to participate in a more constructive way in the Assembly’s activities, without intermediary."

Other sources have provided detail about the campaign and its goals.

Not only does the UN press release not mention CFC or the See Change Campaign - it doesn't mention any effort to downgrade the Vatican's UN status. There is absolutely no indication in the source that this is a response to anything, in spite of the obviously intended implication that the UN is repudiating CFC's campaign.

WP:NOR is pretty clear: "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." So is WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The UN press release is not related to the topic of this article. The combination of "Source1: CFC's campaign is trying to change the Vatican's status" + "Source2: The UN reaffirmed the Vatican's status" = "We must mention the UN resolution in CFC's article as though the UN is repudiating the campaign" is not supported by sources.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a OR problem. The fact that the assembly changed the Vatican's status is not contested, and its mention in the article does not necessarily (and falsely) imply that this change came about in reaction to the campaign. Rather, it appears logical to mention the change here as part of the coverage of the success (or lack thereof) of the campaign.  Sandstein  05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We already state (cited) that the campaign been unsuccessful; it's also common knowledge that the Vatican is an observer, not an NGO. No more information is needed to point out that the campaign has been unsuccessful, unless one is deliberately trying to falsely suggest that the UN itself repudiated the campaign. Including this reference which makes absolutely no mention of or even allusion to the campaign is a violation of WP:NOR, which states that sources must be "directly related to the topic of the article." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody else at home...? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on one point you make: I don't think that the inner workings of the UN are "common knowledge" to anyone. Brief explanatory context isn't a violation of NOR, so long as the connection is clear.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the relevant articles are already linked (and if they're not, they could be). What I'm objecting to is the insertion of an unrelated source with the aim of making it seem as though the GA voted against this campaign. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the source does not mention the topic, it is not very appropriate. The source does not give a comment about CFC "losing" or the Holy See "winning". The inclusion of the paragraph leads the reader to conclude that the general understanding of the matter is that CFC lost and the Vatican won. I would prefer to see a report saying exactly that. Binksternet (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR. A reliable source is cited. And there's no violation of WP:SYN since there's no combination of materials to reach a new conclusion. There's no implication of a causal relationship between the See Change campaign and the UN resolution. It's simply logical, relevant and informative, in a section devoted to a campaign to downgrade the Holy See's status at the UN, to state that the UN Gen Assembly in fact expanded the Holy See's status. If you're reading "winning" and "losing" or that the UN GA "voted against the campaign", then you're reading things that simply aren't there. Cloonmore (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Material that isn't related to CFC in any way...shouldn't be in the article on CFC. This is because articles are generally assumed to have topics, rather than being collections of assorted material that editors find interesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

To Catch a Predator

An editor is insisting on using the phrase "under the age of consent" which has no source. The show, To Catch a Predator, made a contract with the group Perverted-Justice to impersonate 13 to 15 year old children online in an effort to catch sexual predators. The citation for this is here: [15]. The other editor is insisting on adding in "under the age of consent," or adding in, "underage" with a pipelink to the Wiki articles on age of consent. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I proved Malke's source wrong. This source shows that decoys also pretended to be age 12. Hansen specifically says, "The PJ members are pretending to be 12- and 13-year-olds who are interested in sex and whose parents are away." The age range is 12-15, not 13-15. And as I stated in the WP:RfC, Malke is insisting that the show didn't ask for impersonations of children 'below the age of consent.' " and that it is therefore WP:OR to use the term "below the age of consent." Not only because the term is not correct to use regarding American laws against sex with children under 18...since "none of the statutes use the language," but also because "it is a pedophile's term." Malke also claims that "under the age of consent" cannot be sourced with/used in place of "underage," and that there is no citation that says the show contracted for "under the age of consent" children. Malke reasons that "under the age of consent" is not the same as saying "underage," so you can't morph "underage" into "under age of consent" because that would be WP:OR.

I stated that there is no proof that Perverted-Justice was not specifically contacted to impersonate people below the age of consent. In fact, the sources show that "below the age of consent" (the underage factor) is exactly why they were contacted. "Age of consent" is not "a pedophile term." It is a general term used to describe all minimum ages at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is often used interchangeably with "underage" (as various reliable sources can attest to). Both terms are used in reference to the show To Catch a Predator when referring to minors being unable to consent to sex. Underage, which redirects to Minor (law), covers three main things: age of majority, drinking age, and age of consent. Therefore, we are supposed to specify what is meant by "underage" when we use it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be proof of a negative. You need to have a source that says the show contracted for impersonations of children under the age of consent. There are none. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My point is you cannot say "Perverted-Justice was not specifically contacted to impersonate people below the age of consent," especially with the faulty source you provided, unless you have a source saying that. Your argument is ludicrous anyway, given that 12-15 is below the age of consent in all the operations carried out. And as I already stated, saying that "under the age of consent" does not mean "underage" in this case is as silly as saying "statutory rape" does not mean "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", and that we cannot substitute the word "statutory rape" in place of them. We are perfectly allowed to use synonyms on Wikipedia. And "under the age of consent" and "underage" are synonyms. The only difference is that "underage" is a wider term, which is why we are supposed to clarify. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a faulty source and I don't need to show anything other than what the edit says supported by the citation. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's faulty because it is not accurate for the age ranges. But my point is pretty much what LtPowers just stated at the WP:RfC, "Oh for crying out loud. We're allowed to use language that doesn't appear verbatim in sources. P-J always uses personae that are under the age of consent, and I believe 15 is under the age of consent in every jurisdiction in which TCAP operated." Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You've added a citation for the age ranges. The source I've used says this: "Dateline paid Perverted-Justice a consultant’s fee to do what it usually does, go into chat rooms, posing as 13-15 year olds home alone, interested in sex." It does not say Dateline paid them to pose as 13-15 year olds under the age of consent. You want to use that phrase so you can pipelink to the Age of consent in North America article. You can put a link to that article at the end of article. Now, I'm not going to argue with you as this board is for the admins to look things over and decide. I think there's enough for them to do that. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a source showing that 12 is included. That has been made clear. Your arguments and my arguments have also been made clear. I do not want to use the phrase "Dateline paid them to pose as 13-15 year olds under the age of consent." I want the phrase to stay as "It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be below the age of consent (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons." This is not WP:OR, for the reasons I already stated above. I showed these Google searches and these Google Books searches which clearly use the term "underage." Saying "under the age of consent" is just another way of saying "underage." The expressions are used interchangeably all the time. It's no different than statutory rape being used in place of "carnal knowledge of a minor." You claim that we can't use "age of consent" because it's not used in the statutes or in the sources I have provided (though I can also provide sources that state "age of consent"). That is like saying we can't use the term "statutory rape" because it is rarely used in the statutes. These terms are rarely used in the statutes, yes, but they are the WP:Common names for these topics, which is why these articles are designated under those titles.

I do not want to pipelink to the Age of consent in North America article. I stated, "Even if I use the word 'underage' instead, the Age of consent article will still be pipelinked, just as it is pipelinked for 'underage' in the lead of the Perverted-Justice article. It is pipelinked because it specifies what we are talking about. In this case, 'underage' is not simply about people who are under the age of majority. It's about people too young to consent to sex." From what I can see, you misunderstand WP:OR. It is time to let others weigh in now. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You want to synthesize. There's no reason to synthesize when we can use what the source actually says. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. There is no WP:SYNTH in using synonyms. Wikipedia does that all the time. By your logic, we shouldn't ever use "under the age of consent" to refer to underage teenagers. That is absurd! There is also no other article to specify what we mean by "underage" in this case, except to link to the Age of consent article. We are not talking about Age of majority (everyone under 18 in the United States). If we were, impersonating 16 to 17-year-olds would also be included in Perverted-Justice's sting operations. Perverted-Justice, however, stops the age range at 15, because there are barely any U.S. states that have an age of consent that is 15. Ages 16 and 17 are legal in more than just a few U.S. states. You ought to just stop now, like you said you were going to, and let others weigh in. You want to be right and are glossing over the obvious non-WP:OR facts. One very experienced editor already agrees with me. I suppose he's supporting "synth" as well. Not from what I can see. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I could go either way on this, but I lean towards inclusion. Using the term "underage" and piping to "under the age of consent" doesn't seem like a bad resolution at all to me. I understand the NOR concerns, but agree that this isn't really interpretation/research, it feels more like using synonyms to me.LedRush (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes good sense to me to clarify the age of consent, since this is different all over the world. The age of consent in Germany is 14 for instance, so clarifying the legal context of the age range seems sensible if you bear in mind a global readership. Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go along with 'underage,' and a pipelink. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, too, which is why I brought it up as an option (pointing out that the lead of the Perverted-Justice article does the same thing). Either way, the Age of consent article will still be linked in the lead...so I don't see why it matters whether we are hiding the term or not. Other than your feeling that "age of consent" is "a pedophile term" (despite the many non-pedophiles who use it) and pointing out that the exact wording "age of consent" is not in the sources I have provided (though I could provide some with that exact wording, and "age of consent" may very well be mentioned in some of the book sources above). Anyway, Betty is certainly right that just saying "12-15" is not enough. It doesn't tell our readers why Perverted-Justice only focused on that age range. Why not focus on 12-17, for example? Or below 12? For 12, I believe they started there because "12 and higher" generally have use of computers more so than younger children. It could also be that going below 12, which is more so the domain of prepubescents, and is generally labeled "child molestation" or an attempt at it, is typically a more serious crime than "statutory rape" or an attempt at it and is not something Perverted-Justice or Dateline NBC wanted to venture into for their televised program. But why they didn't go higher than 15 is clear: 16-17 is legal in plenty of U.S. states. What if a 19-year-old "predator" had been caught going after a 16-year-old decoy? It would look pretty silly to label him as some serious offender, wouldn't it? They did (I think) catch a 19-year-old going after a 13-year-old in one of their televised sting operations, but 13 is much different than 16. And the 19-year-old still wasn't treated as seriously as the older men in his sentencing (though I feel that he should have). But my point about all that? Well, what I stated before. This is not about age of majority. It's about age of consent. Otherwise, 16-17 would be included. Perverted-Justice is also about going after pedophiles and hebephiles or those displaying the same attraction. 16-17 falls outside of that.

Anyway, by using "underage" (backed with sources) and pipelinking "age of consent," the line of the lead would look like this: It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be underage (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No. "underage (ages 12-15). They impersonated 13 to 15 year olds. You're using the comment by Chris Hansen about "a 12 or 13 year old." But the actor impersonated a 13 year old which what was contracted for. Using the Chris Hansen's comment is not a source that says the show contracted for 12 to 15 year olds. And saying "underage (12-15), does that mean it's okay to have sex with children under 12? The lead should be specific, "The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children ages 13 to 15." You can pipelink under the "13 to 15." Malke 2010 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not about age of consent. That's your argument. The pipelink can be there but you cannot make the claim that the show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children "under the age of consent." You have no source for that. Stating "below the age of consent 12-15" implies two things: 1) does that mean children under 12 are in a special category of consent? 2) Does that mean all children 16 to 18 are fair game for predators? The laws in the U.S. are very specific. They are child protection laws. They are not laws that signal to pedophiles when they can legally rape children. You're synthesizing and your arguments make no sense. Using a pipelink is a concession. You won't stop until you get what you want. The rules are specific. If you want to use 'age of consent' then go find a real source that says that's what the show contracted for. You can't, because they didn't. It's your agenda, not the show's agenda. That's OR and you can't do it. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. They did not just impersonate "13 to 15 year olds." I already provided a source showing that not to be the case, so stop saying that it is. Using the Chris Hansen comment from a reliable source is as much of a source as the one you provided. So stop trying to game the system. I don't need a source that says "the show contracted for 12 to 15 year olds." Hansen explicitly says, "The PJ members are pretending to be 12- and 13-year-olds who are interested in sex and whose parents are away." The show has included PJ members pretending to be 12. So, again, you are wrong. Stop insisting that you are right. But I certainly will provide a different reliable source showing the correct age ranges. The lead should be specific and accurate indeed. Saying "The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children ages 13 to 15." without specifying "underage" is not. And of course saying "underage (12-15)" does not mean that it is okay to have sex with children under 12, but THE LEAD IS NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL BY saying "It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be underage (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons." All it is saying is that these subjects believed these decoys to be underage and then it specifies the age range used for that, which is not WP:OR. You have a strange way of reading things, which no one else is seeing but you. It's also fairly common sense that if the age range starts at 12, then everything under 12 is illegal.

Yes, it is my argument that this is about age of consent. Because that is a fact. I can make "the claim" that these men believed the decoys were under the age of consent all I want, because that is the truth. Do you even know what pipelinking is? See WP:PIPELINK. That means "Age of consent" will still be in the lead when I use "underage"; it will simply be hidden under the redirected term "underage." That is what you just agreed to. And your belief about what "below the age of consent (ages 12-15)" implies is pure silliness. Just more of your strange way of reading things. It does not matter, really, because the same thing is being said by using "underage" in this case. No one said there are laws to signal to pedophiles when they can legally rape children. You also continue to confuse the word pedophile. Go ahead and read over the Pedophilia article thoroughly. It's a topic I am well-versed in. There are no U.S. age of consent laws that signal to pedophiles. The ages of consent in the U.S. are 16-18. Pedophiles are not sexually interested in 16 to 18-year-olds, people who have adult bodies. As for synthesizing, you keep saying that when I'm not, and when all editors have agreed with me thus far. You are the only one making arguments that make no sense. You are the only one that won't stop until you get what you want. But the editors have spoken. I can say "below the age of consent" if I want. And I can also pipelink to it while using "underage." You say "The rules are specific"? You don't even know the rules, it seems. Saying I have an agenda? I am seriously laughing out loud right now. If you are suggesting that I am some pedophile because I am supporting the use of what you call "a pedophile term" -- the term age of consent, which is the common term to describe all minimum ages at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is often used interchangeably with "underage" (as various reliable sources can attest to) -- then you might want to check my contributions to the Pedophilia article and ask around. I have been fighting real pedophiles at that article for years, and we have banned every single one that has popped up...unless some IP spouting off. So take your agenda accusations elsewhere. By your idiotic logic, the three editors who have supported me in this discussion have an agenda as well. Bottomline? You are wrong. Face it. And if you WP:EDITWAR when I add the above agreed upon line, I will report you and link to this discussion and the WP:RfC where an editor already called you out on your ludicrosity. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, I have to agree with Flyer and the others. I have seen serious OR violations on this board, but this is not one of them, so much so that I don't see a need to sign in (but don't worry, not an administrator). "Underage" is a blanket term, and it's used to refer to "under the age of consent" in the same vein that it's used to refer to "under the age of majority" or "under the drinking age." The show is not about the latter two. It's detailing would-be offenders trying to contact girls or boys who are incapable of consenting to sexual activity with adults by law. That falls under Age of consent. Not exactly OR to say that the "potential predators" believed the decoys were under the age of consent. Whether we call them "minors" or "underage," they were believed to be incapable of consenting to sex by law. We really are talking synonyms here, and if we can't use "under the age of consent" to refer to "underage" when speaking of individuals who are, in fact, deemed too young to consent to sex, then we might as well throw out all uses of synonyms and exceedingly violate WP:COPVIO. If the decoys had pretended to be people as old as 17, then I might believe that it's about age of majority. Speaking of that correct age range, most reliable sources do say 13-15 and don't mention 12 at all. But there are sources that say the decoys also pretended to be 12 (like the one shown by Flyer some paragraphs up), and I remember a few episodes that featured 12 year olds. The Long Beach, California case included an 11 year old decoy, the youngest decoy on the show. So if we must use 13-15 because of WP:SYNTH worries, then I would say to use the word "generally" for accuracy. It should be "generally 13-15."

This discussion is also the first time I have ever heard of "age of consent" referred to as "a pedophile term." I don't doubt that they use it, but it is a general term that everyone uses. Because how else are we going to describe such situations? "Underage" just isn't as specific, unless we stress that we mean underage in the context of sexual activity. This Google source shows the generality of the term and attributes it to other similar sting operations; it even mentions To Catch a Predator, saying "...many law enforcement agencies have set up 'sting' operations online using officers or volunteers of legal age posing as those beneath the age of consent. Although this is common knowledge, thanks to the popularity of shows such as NBC's To Catch a Predator, they continue to make arrests on a regular basis." I agree to using the term "underage" and piping to the "age of consent" article. That's a fair compromise. 94.200.27.54 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with using the term 'underage' and piping to the age of consent article earlier. But the lead should make it clear by saying, "The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate underage children, usually in the 12 to 15 age range. . ." This makes it clear that a specific age range was chosen and is grammatically correct since underage modifies the children, and the range is 12 to 15. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Using "children" is POV since these people are supposed to be pubescent, which I see has been brought to the attention of the talk page before. "Minor" should typically be used in instances like this, but "underage minor" is redundant. So we'll need to think of something else. Also, the line is still grammatically correct without Perverted-Justice being mentioned, and they are already mentioned in the second paragraph. That said, I understand your point about making it clearer that the 12 to 15 year olds weren't actually 12 to 15 and that this age range was chosen. So maybe this wording will suffice... "It is devoted to impersonating underage youth (generally 12-15) and detaining adults who contact them over the Internet for sexual liaisons."

Since everyone is in agreement about using "age of consent," but under a pipelink, it is now just a matter of wording. Hope I helped. 94.200.27.54 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, your wording is essentially the same and confusing. My wording makes a concession with the age range and the pipelink and still makes it clear what was contracted for, etc. And it would be better if you identified yourself. I am going to ask an Administrator to check on this because I don't think you can edit as an IP when you have an account. Your edit suggestions are exactly like Flyer22 and therefore I don't believe you are independent editor who happened by and is making comment. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP address is from Dubai. I don't see any obvious connection between Flyer22 and that location. I would have to guess that the two are separate people. Besides, I think it is perfectly okay to use the synonyms "age of consent" and "underage", pipe linking from the one to the other. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, anyone can see that it is from Dubai. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, and yet nothing about Flyer22 suggests Dubai. Binksternet (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming I think Flyer22 and the IP are the same editor. I do not think that. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What else are we to assume? You have already accused me of being a pedophile, without even understanding the term. Don't bother denying it. And now you are accusing me of being an IP who also agrees with me. Thus far, five editors have agreed with me. And, really, I have to ask: Do you misunderstand everything about Wikipedia? You don't understand WP:OR, not fully anyway. And now you don't understand the fact that editors are allowed to edit as IPs. We don't always have to sign in. If the above editor doesn't want to sign in, that is his or her right. As long as he or she is not WP:SOCKING in a way to advance his or her position by making it appear that he or she are two different people, then it is not a violation. The IP's suggestion is exactly like mine? No. There is a clear difference between "It is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be underage (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons." and "It is devoted to impersonating underage youth (generally 12-15) and detaining adults who contact them over the Internet for sexual liaisons." Perhaps the IP's suggestion is similar to mine because the lead is similar? I used the wording that already exists in the lead. Do you never see such proposals that use the same existing wording but slightly alter them? This goes on all the time in dispute resolutions where a compromise is trying to be made. Wanting things your way and your way only is not a compromise.

IP, thank you for weighing in. I will use your proposal, and there is nothing confusing about it. And we certainly are supposed to use "minor" instead of "child" (which is first and foremost a person between birth and puberty). What myself and others have learned from editing the Pedophilia article and its related articles is that using "children" when distinguishing some offenders from pedophiles (as the lead of the To Catch a Predator article makes sure to distinguish) is the worst thing you can do. It makes it more confusing for some readers to grasp the difference when we are calling all the underage subjects "children." We use "children" when saying "prepubescent children" and we typically use "minors" when talking about pubescents and post-pubescents. We want to make a clear distinction between biological children and legal children. Malke can edit war all he or she wants. I'll just have to start a new WP:RfC or take it to some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: The matter was also settled here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)