Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Graphical family tree off-site

In our no original research policy, we specify that photographs, drawings, etc are given a broad exception under the policy. Hang on let me get the exact phrasing...

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.... Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.

Long moons ago, I had added to the Lettice Knollys article here this link, which shows graphically how various people are related to Lettice. I don't think at that time, I'd really any idea how you actually upload, and I'm not really sure I do now. I would have no problem with uploading and releasing under GFDL. My question is, is that a requirement of NOR? The way it's worded now, it doesn't seem to state that you must do it that way, only that that way is a specified way. If we're saying it must be this way, perhaps the language could be tightened?Wjhonson (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a pretty silly requirement if taken literally, as the (un)original nature of a picture/drawing's ideas are obviously independent of their license. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you asking whether, if you make a graphic of a family tree, it's better to link to it vs. upload it? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I first take as a premise that it appears that a graphical family tree is appropriate to cite in an article and that is an OR exception. My question is, in order to cite it, must it be uploaded to Wikipedia and released under GFDL, or can it reside in its off-wiki location and be cited by link-only and still remain acceptable for wikiuse?Wjhonson (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me the family tree you cite is original research by somebody else and definitely copyrighted (that is, the arrangement of the lines and boxes, etc., not the info itself), so you could not upload it. A cite would be OK by me. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not by someone else. It's my own work.Wjhonson (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it sounds like what you're asking about is the difference between the "original research" policy versus the "reliable sources"/"verifiability" policies and the "external links" guidelines. There's three ways to use the family tree. The way the article is now, it's being used as an external link, and that's fine. That is often done when there's some resource on the WWW that might be helpful for our readers. The second way is to footnote it as a reference for who married who, etc, but we usually limit that to published works. The third way is if it's your own work you can upload it to Wikipedia. "Original research" only applies to content that's _in_ the Wikipedia, but drawing the chart is not "original research" if the facts of who married who are already established. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
How about you uploaded it and in the description page you provide citations so that the information in the image is verifiable. --Salix alba (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. The arrangement of previously published information via a chart or graph is nothing more than using a visual instead of a text to provide the exact same information, and it should be subject to the same requirements. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
A similar problem is maps; these can sometimes be particularly contentious. I remember one disagreement about a map of the world with colours ordered by health indices. Was the choice of colour somehow OR? (I'm serious.) Relata refero (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The choice of the colour was no more Original Research than is the choice of words in writing any given article in the first place. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
For what its worth there are a handful of images tagged as {{OR}} here. --Salix alba (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-frogman techniques

Can someone with more experience than me look at Anti-frogman techniques with their NOR hat on? I added a tag to one section to flag a particularly eggegious paragraph, but I think that quite a bit of this article looks to be systhesis and back-of-the-envelope calculations based on disparate (and unverifiable) sources and what may be in the various editors heads. I realize that there is _also_ a broad 'citation needed' problem with the article as well. But am not quite sure how to do the division between the two problems. I should note that I did find the article to be quite interesting -- so I hope it is improved without throwing too much of it out. Good NORing. N2e (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot of information in that article. I feel like going to repel boarders right now.
A lot of it seems based on one particular US military source, helpfully mentioned right up top. Relata refero (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)re
Can't help you. There are lots of citations, but maybe not in the form we are all used to. Why not go to Wikipedia:WikiProject SCUBA and ask over there? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds like original research but it's hard to know because much of it is written in the "old style" of the 'pedia when sources weren't inline cited in the articles so much. When I pulled up an archive of deadlinked cite, I found a bit more license taken with claims than should be done, I think. But it's going to be a big job sorting out, since the article is long, and the most of the claims were put there quite awhile ago. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Update: the claims in that section marked NPOV can be check out against the source identified at the top of the article. I'll tighten up the loose spots in the copy with copy edits.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
2nd update: The article I spoke of is no longer linked at the top, but now has a long list of footnotes attached to it in the reference section. I cleared N2e's tag because the section there is okay, but I don't know there aren't other instances. This is a unique case to me, with the article probably not synthesizing claims from various sources. The claims come across right away as original research probably because the one source which is used most heavily does itself include a lot of literature review, meaning that it recites a lot of claims from disparate sources that don't connect, or can't be connected. For editors here, the source demands careful study to follow which of those disparate claims it goes into, from a huge range of disparate claims and sources documented in the lit review, match up with the author's findings or conclusions.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you for helping me with my question, and especially to Professor marginalia for working to improve the specific article! I think the NORN noticeboard will be a helpful addition to the tools editors can use to ask questions and learn. N2e (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of published public records OR?

A dispute has arisen regarding my use of published/printed/widely available public records (to wit, California Birth Records and the 1920 United States Census, both of which are easily available online and in libraries) to cite a statement in the article on actor Jack Larson. The crux of the argument is whether using published/printed/available public records is considered "original research" while using published/printed/available books or articles is not. The discussion began on the Jack Larson article Discussion page, but was taken by the other party to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where it has gone on in detail, but with no input from third parties. I would like to request that other editors or administrators weigh in on this, as I am frankly puzzled at why one published source would be allowable but another would be "original research." Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the context, Monkeyzpop? Is this about a date of birth or something else? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's about a date of birth. Monkeyzpop (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the argument against having a birthdate sourced to a public record? Is there a dispute about it? Are there other sources that say otherwise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, take a look at the linked discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Apparently Larson is quoted as saying he was born in one year, while the records show he was born in another. I don't think we can say that this is OR... it seems a good example of dilligent sourced based research to me. My recommendation is that the article accept both sources... Mention both dates, and state that there is a conflict between what Larson says of himself and what appears in the public record... without any indication of which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit close to OR for comfort, but as it is harmless, it may be a good time to invoke IAR and have both dates as you suggest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I am curious as to how you see this as being close to OR. I see no difference between going to a library and gathering information from books, and going to the records office and gathering information from public records. What do you see as being the difference? Is it because they are primary? If so, I think that the normal cautions apply, but as long as we do not draw a conclusion from such sources, nor create synthetic statements based upon them... as long as we simply report what the records say, we are not in OR territory... such sources seem perfectly accpetable to me if used in that way. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While I can't read Jossi's mind, the public records are of unknown reliability unless covered by a secondary source (especially considering people can lie on census records). Unfortunately, so can a person in speech or interview, so that's not really any better. Putting the two alongside eachother could be seen as a suggestion that one is wrong, and even if we don't explicate which one it is, that would be the OR, especially as we can't prove it's information worth noting. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the California Birth Records and the U.S. Census for 1930 (the records at issue in this case) seems, in a weird sense, beside the point here. The subject, an actor, has on occasion stated that he was born in 1933. Yet he appears in the 1930 census as a two-year old and has a 1928 birth record. (Other details -- parents' names, address, siblings, etc. -- all match exactly subject's own remarks.) Therefore the only way the public records could be in error in this case is if the records suddenly contained data about this person several years before he was born. It doesn't seem remotely OR to me to conclude that if the subject truthfully described his family, residence, etc. that he cannot therefore truthfully have described his age. (Of course, an actor would _never_ fib about his age!) Finally, though, the question of the reliability of the public records is not greater than the question of the reliability of other citable references. Why should one published source be trusted (and be considered non-OR) just because an individual wrote it while another published source should not be trusted (and should be considered OR) just because the California Birth Records Dept. or the U.S. Census Bureau wrote it? Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that we can't trust either. Although, that was before I knew he was in a census record he claims to have not been alive for. I just did a search for reliable sources on his birthdays, and didn't turn up any (although plenty of private websites noticed the discrepancy). Only reliable source was the Associated Press which gives it as 1933, but then again, I'm sure they just went by what he said. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I would think that the California Birth Records Dept. and the U.S. Census Bureau are quite reliable sources. Why do you think they are not reliable? Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
They're not necessarily reliable for two reasons: 1) They only provide limited information and 2) People lie. A birth record is probably going to give you the child's name and birthdate, the mother's name and age, and the place of birth. For any of various reasons, the child's name might not exist yet, it might change, it might be the same as another child's. The mother's name is much less likely to change, but she can also lie about her age, and the people recording the information will probably just write down what she says. The place of birth can also be vague or ambiguous. And for the census records, people lie (especially about their own birthdates). And people can have the same names. And on top of all of this, neither the birth records department nor the Census bureau is going to do any detailed investigation of the validity of what information they're given. What you can be very certain of is that if a record appears in either, that someone with the name <insert name here> made <insert claims here> in a census record or alternatively, someone with the name <insert name here> had a baby on <insert date here> at <insert location here> and said she would name it <insert other name here>. I believe the margin for editorially faultless errors in using these as reliable sources is great enough to preclude such use in the general case. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I would think that noting that the US Census Bureau (or other sources) indicate that the subject was born in 1928, without actually saying that he was born in 1928 because they say so, might be acceptable. Noting the discrepancy is of value, I imagine - but saying that the subject lied about his age is far different that simply noting that a discrepancy exists, describing it, and leaving synthesis to the reader. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume that people have lied. And I certainly don't think the possibility that they might have lied is enough to declare an official government record to be an unreliable source. I do agree that their use is limited... but within that limitation (reporting what the record says), I feel it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As to Someguy1221's point: how is this different (much less, worse) than accepting citations from fan magazines or a book or a talk show interview? If someone wrote a book about Larson, researched it by compiling data from the California Birth Records and the U.S. Census, and published that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But because it hasn't gone through the "filter" of a SECOND publication, the credibility of the information is called into question. I don't get it. Monkeyzpop (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR claimed (and reverted) in Jewish lobby; IS IT OR ISNT IT?

This reference and quote [1] has been deleted by User:Jayjg on the grounds of OR, as stated in the edit summary. Tivnan is a primary source and it is a direct quote (though not continuous);the full paragraph was already on the talk page as I ref'd it with a concurrent post to the talk page here [2], where I asked for comments. The viability of Tivnan as a primary source is supported by the fact that M&W quote him as a reference.

Please help to settle this question. Problems of this type are all over the pages included in the I-P ArbCom. Your assistance is appreciated. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The cited material from Tivnan is still used, though moved. Also, commentary characterizing the passage as disputing the validity of the term was removed. The removal of the commentary is correct as a removal of original research. Providing unreferenced characterization and commentary is original research. Vassyana (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The diff shows the material was just moved, CO, not removed. I'm guessing it was moved because the first position seemed a little incongruous given the previous sentence. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(sheepishly) Thank you. May I ask an additional related question? Would the following use of the quote be considered OR?- Tivnan (1988), states, in the preface to his book, ‘The Lobby,’ ’The answers were not as obvious as either the critics or fans of the Jewish lobby would have it… Indeed, how the Jewish lobby had become primarily a pro-Israel lobby, one so aggressive, omnipresent and influential on matters relating to the Middle East that the denizens of Capital Hill refer to it simply as “the lobby,”… If it is OR, could you explain why. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In itself, it doesn't appear to be OR if the source is a good one. But OR often depends on how the material is placed, so we would really need to see the context before we could judge. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ask Jay. He probably just made a mistake with his summary. (After all, he has almost two dozen to do in thirty seconds or so.:) ) Relata refero (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

This article is currently an FA candidate. I have been accused of violating WP:OR because I have cited bible references in the belief section of this article. I feel that I am being unfairly treated by the editor who has tagged the article for Original Research violations. I have addressed this editors concerns significantly providing third party references to support all statements of Catholic belief. Some references to the Bible are included to show where these beleifs originate from. I have the Bible reference, a reference to the Catechism to show the connection to the Catholic Church source and then I have included a third party, non-Catholic Church published book that is actually a textbook summary of Catholic Belief published by Sadlier. Even after all of this, the editor who tagged the article will not remove the tag and continues to say I am violateing WP:OR. I would appreciate some guidance on this issue as I feel that this editor is not acting in good faith but is just being obstructionist. Maybe I am wrong. I would like to know what some other editors think. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Using Bible verses to declare the policy of a church looks ultimately like it needs interpretation. Why not use the catechism instead? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree. I think that pointing to the bible and saying "The bible says X, so the Catholics believe Y" would indeed be original research, even if corroborated by the Catechism. You could note that "The church also believes X", cite the catechism, and then - in the citation - show the bible verses that the catechism itself cites as a basis for that belief by including a direct quotation from the text. In other words, the ref would be something like this (using the {{cite book}} template):
Most Rev. John C. Author, editor (1976). Roman Catholic Catechism. Vatican City Press, pp. 206. “The church also holds this belief, originating from an interpretation of Luke X:YY.” 
In short, if it's the author (or the church) (!) doing the interpretation, it's ok - but by adding the reference directly to the bible, it seems as if you're drawing the connection. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree. This is a perennial problem on articles related to Christianity. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
For general articles, it wouldn't necessarily always be a taggable policy violation for longstanding generally-accepted matters that would be considered beyond dispute in the field. But featured articles involve the higher standard of exemplary verification, not just the minimal amount of verification to avoid deletion of content. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Bible's a primary source. We use secondary sources wherever possible, and particularly in FAs. Relata refero (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaonians

User Arditbido tried to change pageChaonians by using original research and his own interpretations of it.Then User:DragonflySixtyseven tried to remedy the situation that had escalated to an edit war with me and Ardibito by remaking the page but now its full of even more original research and the dozens of secondary sources are ignored with no reason and are on the talk page[3].I want the page restored to its original secondary sourced state normal state.Megistias (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the situation is well beyoned being remedied at this board. I'd suggest you open a request for comment on the article's talk page and ask Dragonfly to participate. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We have already discussed and he doesnt agree as it seems.I am going to revert the page according to no original research rules.Megistias (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I cant .Megistias (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can't revert because the page has been protected from editing, and there were no less than two administrators involved in all of this. This is why I believe RFC is the best option here. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOR in the Kai Doh Maru "Telling the tale" article

I am new to WP editing

Can I get someone's view of this? Kai Doh Maru and see the secion on "Telling the tale". Is this considered original research? It just seems to be someone's opinion put there, no citiation listed, but its been there for like 5 years, with people changing it. I just can't see that it has a valid place in this article. If its not considered original reasearch, than what? 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page... but to repeat... the article falls into two sections, a plot summary and the "telling the tale" section under question. for the plot summary, the work itself is a reliable source. I don't find it OR. The "telling the tale" section is trickier. It is essentially an analysis of the work. For that we do need independant sources, and without them it certainly comes across as OR. Since the information is not really controvercial, I would recommend that we not rush to delete right away... give people a few months to find some sources. If they are not provided by that time, we can revisit the issue of whether to delete or not. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt reply. I felt the same way, that the main plot seemed valid, but the telling the tale without sources, seems to be personal opinion more than anything else. I will give it a few months without doing anything. I did place the citation needed on the section already. Corvato (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Corvato

[edit] WP:OR claimed in Israel lobby in the United Kingdom

Someone claims that both the intro sentences and the lead off paragraph of the first section are WP:OR Even though both are good faith attempts to summarize a lengthy article, one of many on various aspects of the topic of the existence of such a lobby in the UK. suggestion on non-WP:OR way to state intro.

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying.[REF:Dennis Sewell A kosher conspiracy?, The New Statesman, January 14, 2002.][original research?]

In 2002 Dennis Sewell, in an article called "A kosher conspiracy?", alleged the existence of a "Zionist lobby" that included "pro-Israel organizations" and "pro-Israel lobbying." The article detailed pro-Israel efforts of arms trader Shlomo Zabludowicz, allegedly a funder of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) and of Conrad Black, the owner of the conservative British publications Daily Telegraph and Spectator, as well as the Jerusalem Post and his wife Barbara Amiel who they describe as "the enthusiastic Zionist columnist." They wrote "That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent, and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left." However, they concluded "The truth is that the 'Zionist lobby' does exist, but is a clueless bunch."[ref name=Sewell][original research?]

Carol Moore 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The problem is that the source that is citated for the lead (The line: The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying) does not actually use the term "Israel Lobby" - it uses "Zionist Lobby", which is a slightly different thing. Admittedly, the differences are subtle, but Pro-Israeli is not quite the same as Zionist (and Anti-Israeli is not quite the same thing as Anti-Zionist). Thus, it seems appropriate to tag that sentence as OR.
The second tag (the one that is at the end of the longer paragraph you block quote), however, is not appropriate... the paragraph accurately reflects things stated in the source. It is not OR. It may be POV to have it in the article (since it talks about the Zionist Lobby and not the Israel Lobby) but that is a different question.
So... I have left the first tag and removed the second. However, I have also removed the citation for the lead and added a citation request. You need a source that uses the term "Israel Lobby" to establish that this term is actually used by some reliable source, one which describes it as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain engaged in pro-Israel lobbying". Without such a source it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I will repeat what i said on the article talkpage two weeks ago: unless several articles are produced from reliable sources attesting to the presence of an organised, unified lobbying effort on behalf of Israel in the United Kingdom, I will take this article to AFD as OR. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I broke my arm which is slowing down my research and writing on Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. Lost temper with Jayjg today for his deleting subject sentence and paragraph with less than a month notice on WP:OR -- and despite others opinions the second paragraph is not WP:OR -- and while i'm still working on them - and refusing to cooperate to answer question to try to make it a better article. The problem remains despite copious articles referring to an Israel lobby in UK, finding an exact sentence defining it for first sentence is difficult at this point. Summarizing several articles descriptions probably could be done be an expert. It's a matter of time before some one in some RS does so - which means we'd just have to recreate the article all over again. Any help appreciated. Carol Moore 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Articles by User talk:Badenoch

A good chunk of these articles feel like original research. I must say that they are well-researched OR, but they are original nonetheless.

From New Zealand dream:

In figure 2 housing has been plotted against fertility rates for advanced countries. Countries that have an indicator value of zero have a dwelling stock made up almost entirely of small apartments (smart growth). Dwellings in New Zealand, Australia and the United States are dominated by large family houses.

Using a scatterplot (Figure 2) has the advantage that cultural effects are average out, revealing the underlying effect of housing on fertility rates. The correlation value (R 0.81) indicates that there is a strong positive correlation between family housing and fertility rates. Advanced countries that have mostly apartments are typically producing only 2/3rds of the children of countries that have mostly family housing.

Statistical analyses are the work of the author, which should qualify as OR.

  • Figure 2 is not absolutely essential, though graphs can help people to understand more clearly than words. For example, the New York times recently did an article "from the housing market to the maternity ward" [4], where they claim that “One reason there are so few children in Italy is that housing is so hard to come by,” Mr. Engelman said. “Houses are bigger in the U.S. and generally more available. That may help explain why Americans have more babies.” The Times article creates the impression that just Italy has a problem without putting it into perspective. Figure 2 shows that in reality family housing shortages are widespread throughout advanced countries. I believe that graphs can help readers understand, but of course it can be deleted if deemed necessary.Badenoch (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Housing and birthrates.PNG



From Median household income in Australia and New Zealand:

Household incomes are very sensitive to economic conditions and real incomes will normally decrease by up to 10% during a recession. The 10% loss isn't applied evenly to all households. Some households are not harmed. For most households, their cost of living rises faster than their incomes. The worst affected households may lose their income (unemployment) and drop below the poverty line.

Figure 1 shows how US incomes have changed since 1970. The periodic decreases were all caused by economic recession. The last recession was the early 2000s recession and was started with the bursting of the dot-com bubble. This recession affected most advanced economies. Fortunately Australia and New Zealand were unaffected.

Most governments normally try to minimize the damage caused by a recession, otherwise a recession could turn into a full blown depression. Governments minimize recessions by increasing money supply though:

  • Deficit spending (tax breaks and increased public spending)
  • Lowering interest rates

During the last recession many European governments ran deficits that were so large that they violated the deficit rules for Monetary Union (e.g. Italy, France, Germany). The US also protected its citizens with deficit spending and low interest rates. After the recession is over it is important to reduce the public debt [4] and normalize interest rates again.

Eventually trouble in the global economy will cause a recession in Australia and New Zealand. Fortunately the government is well positioned to deal with it. Australia and New Zealand have been reducing public debt levels for many years and now have minimal debt. This means that they can easily increase money supply through deficit spending. There is also a lot of scope to increase money supply by lowering interest rates.

Where does the 10% loss figure come from? Why will global factors inevitably cause recession in Australia and NZ? How does reducing public debt help position the governments on this problem? Who is saying this? If just the author, then OR.

  • Where does the 10% loss figure come from? From the US Census Bureau figure 1
  • Why will global factors inevitably cause recession in Australia and NZ? Australia is enjoying its 17th year of expansion but this will not last forever. The global is all linked together, we share the good times and the bad.
  • How does reducing public debt help position the governments on this problem? Countries engage in deficit spending during a recession. However if a country already has large debts it can be hazardous to increase them more. For example at the last G8 meeting the USA wanted Japan and Europe to deficit spend, but they refused because they already have high debts.Badenoch (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


From the European overview section of the Brain drain article:

European Governments have been trying to correct the brain-dearth by importing talent from developing countries, but this has not been very successful. Figures recently released by the European Commission show that 85% of unskilled migrants from developing countries went to the European Union and only 5 percent to the United States, whereas 55 percent of skilled workers went to the United States and only 5 percent to Europe.

Those opposing immigration claim that Europe's immigrants tend to be more welfare dependent than the natives. “Thus increasing immigration may not be the solution to the problem of population ageing, but instead might impose a higher fiscal burden for the receiving countries” [11]. Concerns about immigrant crime rates[12] are also fueling public support for anti-immigration political parties (Figure 1)[13].

The Commission has responded to these concerns by emphasizing the economic benefits of highly skilled immigrants. However the European commission claim that high-skilled foreign workers accounted for 0.9 percent of all workers in the European Union, compared with 9.9 percent in Australia, 7.3 percent in Canada and 3.5 percent in the United States.

“To maintain and improve economic growth in the EU., it is essential for Europe to become a magnet for the highly skilled,”. “Qualified and highly qualified migrants prefer the U.S.A., Canada and Australia”(Franco Frattini, the EU’s justice and home affairs commissioner).[15]

The overall picture is bleak. In the coming decades Europe expects to have "major economic, budgetary and social challenges" because of the ageing population [16]. They have brain drain to the immigration countries without the benefit of brain gain from the developing countries. To make matters even worse many of the unskilled immigrants that do come are a net fiscal burden [17].

I should note that this section is well-cited, but the synthesis of all these sources into a single overview of the European brain drain appears OR.

  • This single overview is provided almost entirely from the European Commission and they are qualified to give an overview. However it is noted that many Europeans do not support the European Commissions view because they against immigration.

Since I have been caught for being something of a cultural absolutist, I don't want to start up any personal disagreement with one-on-one discussion so I'm putting the issue out to a larger audience. Kelvinc (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Kelvinc. As you know from our previous encounters, I am concerned that you are too focussed on racial or cultural issues. All three of your objections seem to relate to sections showing comparisons between countries. Median household income in Australia and New Zealand was recently used by the New Zealand minister of Finance to reassure New Zealanders that New Zealand can survive a global downturn [5]. Clearly the Ministry of finance was impressed with the article even if you hated it. User:Badenoch|Badenoch]] (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
“ Equatorial Guinea is corrupt country, which helps explain why the normal people are not benefiting from the oil wealth. However this issue isn't just about corruption. A comparison between median household income and GDP per capita for advanced countries is shown in Figure 2. These countries do not have serious corruption problems and yet there is only a weak correlation (R 0.16) between the two indicators. Showing that even when comparing advanced countries, differences in economic activity do not have a predictable effect on household income.

Figure 2

Image:International Median Household Income.png

Source: IMF GDP per capita [URL removed as it interferes with the {{cquote}}: see article for URL]

 ”
    • You aggregated some data from the IMF and performed some simple statistical analysis. But these statistical analysis constitute original research: nobody published these finding before you placed them on Wikipedia. The IMF data is a primary source upon which you performed an analysis. But Wikipedia policy states that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." I am not disputing whether your findings are true, or whether they fit with my world view. I am disputing that you have any "findings" in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place for us editors to publish our findings: it is a place for us to report on others' findings. That the NZ Treasurer came to a similar conclusion as you proves my point: he has the perogative to take conclusions based on primary data, but we don't. Kelvinc (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


  • The original version of the above graph was actually created by someone else. I thought the comparison, was useful so I updated it.

Kelvinc, you originally started your process of objections because the Brain Drain article didn't fit your World view. You thought that it might delight Europhobes [6]. Since then you have widened your attack to three other articles and changed your objections to data comparisons. In the interests of resolving this dispute may I suggest that if you have a problem with the brain drain article, then why not put it to the vote with the other authors of the article? Badenoch (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic psychology and History of psychology

An interesting clash of historiographic sensibilities has emerged in describing the disciplinary lineage of contemporary Psychology, evident most clearly at Islamic psychology and History of psychology. The problem is described in detail at the Talk:Islamic psychology page, but can be summarized here briefly.

Professional historians have weighed in and criticized a number of edits for their presentist bias: describing historical events using contemporary language, thereby misrepresenting them as having the same meaning. The result, over the past year, has been reversion war and general frustration. And since the issue was raised by Chris Green at his blog [7], this has escalated. Recently, a series of tags have been placed on the two most obviously affected articles. If these could be checked, and the appropriate actions taken to ensure that such battles are reduced in the future, the community of historian-editors would appreciate it. Cheers, JTBurman (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Catholicism and Freemasonry

I think there is a huge about of WP:SYNT in this article, especially in the "by country" section. The individual claims are backed by fairly reliable sources (although a lot is based upon the old 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is somewhat outdated) but they lack a uniting source that ties them all together. In addition, some of the statements are only tangentially tied to the issue of the relationship between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry. I could use some help in explaining what the problems are to the primary editor of the article, so he/she can fix it. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Baghdad (1258)

Resolved.

For nearly a month, a single editor Geir Smith has been grafting a large amount of original research and probably fringe theory into the article Battle of Baghdad (1258). The editor has inserted a considerable volume of material connecting the the Mongol sack of the city to some barely comprehensible concept from Tibetan Buddhist cosmology. At least I think that is what he is writing about: his prose is rambling, discursive, and misspelled. This editor has produced similar work in the past which has been deleted (examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyalpo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalpo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kalachakra, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalachakra King, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Buddha Online Library). The task of removing this material would be fairly easy if not for some recent post to the talkpage (here). These comments by editor Dominique Boubouleix or Dr Boubouleix, particularly the personal attacks on Elonka, squarely connect the tendentious editing in Battle of Baghdad (1258) to an open Arbcom case in which I have submitted evidence. In short, I would appreciate help removing the nonsense to avoid accusations of partisan behavior. Thank you. Aramgar (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OR material without a doubt. I note that it has been removed (and not re-added as of this writing). We will keep an eye on it. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that Boubouleix shows up shortly after Geir Smith writes Boubouleix's article on the French Wikipedia... Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Location hypotheses of Atlantis

A user, new today and at first just using an IP address (then a copy of my name, then Italianboy101) has been adding a section on someone name Alberto or Albert Nikas which was plainly hype. I searched for the name and could only find a reference to it in a critical comment by another fairly well known Atlantis researcher, so I added the reference. The user then tacked on to that Reference added by Doug Weller, then deleted it and added a longer section with a pdf file uploaded to Wikipedia Image:ATLANTIS.pdf. Now this looks still like original research and I have told the user this on the Talk Page and also pointed out that the author seems relatively unknown. Am I right in thinking it is original research? Note that the www.superatlantis.com mentioned on the title page of the pdf doesn't actually exist. Right now the user is up in arms, says he's reported me to the moderators and that I have no right to tamper with his work. I've pointed him to Wikipedia policy statements, but I really would like to know if I'm right about the pdf. I want to be fair to him. Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The person apparently used the monicker Dougwellera. Too creepy. But I don't know who is responsible for monitoring uploads to the image file, or what the policies are in deleting an image. Can one really post an image of a document, for example? You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. At any rate, I went to Location hypotheses of Atlantis and removed the addition since it obviously is an unpublished paper referenced only by being posted on WP. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but the section 'Between Malta and Sicily' is still there. I will ask about the uploads policy.--Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Correcting a Fact (with a Quotation from a Reliable Source) Original Research?

I have a hypothetical case, for which I want to determine whether an action constitutes "original research":

Imagine a Wikipedia article on a book by Dr. X about Russian History. The article, after summarizing the book, reports on the dustjacket endorsement for the book, naming the writer of the endorsement, one Boris Rushkov, and reporting what he says. Then the Wikipedia article adds something else: the opinion of a third party (let's call him Ivan the Terrible) that Boris Rushkov is not competent to praise the book because his field is Ukrainian History, not Russian History. (The motive for this addition is not stated, and therefore it is impossible to tell whether the author of that section of the Wikipedia article is including the "warning" about Borish Rushkov innocently, as a potentially useful opinion that might help Wikipedia readers, or whether the Wikipedia editor hates Dr. X's book and wants to cast whatever doubts upon it he can, and so seized on Ivan the Terrible's remark with great glee.)

Now suppose that another Wikipedia editor discovers that Boris Rushkov's field was in fact Russian History, and therefore that he was competent to review the book. Suppose he finds an even more eminent Russian Historian (more eminent than either the endorser Rushkov or the hostile third party) declaring (in a RS) that Boris Rushkov was a qualified Russian historian. However, suppose also that the eminent Russian historian was not addressing the disgruntled third party when he made his pronouncement; his statement that Boris Rushkov was a qualified Russian Historian was made in another context (though it still represented his considered view).

In this context, if the second Wikipedia editor inserts a correction or footnote or any other kind of caveat, indicating that the third party's dismissal of Rushkov's competence is without warrant, or wrong, or should be taken with caution since its truth is uncertain, is that Wikipedia editor guilty of the sin of "original research"? And if so, why? Why does checking up on a potential error, or even accidentally stumbling upon the error, and then providing a quotation from someone who can disprove the error, constitute original research?

Further, if this action would constitute "original research" and is therefore forbidden, the consequence is that the second editor is forbidden from informing Wikipedia readers about a piece of misinformation which stands uncorrected in the article. The average reader, who is not up on Wikipedia OR rules, will simply take it that the third party critic is correct, and that Boris Rushkov is not qualified, and that his praise of Dr. X's book is unreliable, and will probably in addition wonder why Dr. X could not get a proper Russian Historian to praise the book. So the reader will in fact be prejudiced against the book for no good reason. Is the second Wikipedia editor bound by a code of silence not to inform the reader about the erroneous character of the statement quoted in the article? And if so, is that a sensible way to run an encyclopedia?Inspectre (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is present the disgruntled third-party individual's opinions as just that, opinions. When introducing the individual whose historian-ness is in dispute, you can use the respected historian's opinion of him, presuming this respected historian to be a generally reliable source, to source that he is considered a reputable historian, or whatever wording is more true to the source. This way, readers see when he is introduced that he is condiered a reputable historian, and then further down in criticism they see that someone else claims he's not. This is not really "fact correcting" since we're essentially dealing with people's opinions (unless the claims amounted to one person asserting the guy didn't have a college degree when, in fact, he did). There is another way to deal with this, however: If there is a consensus that one author's opinion/claim is objectively incorrect, irrelevant, and/or utterly insignificant, you could simply never mention him at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have to wonder if a dust jacket endorsement is RS in the first place (no matter what the qualifications of the reviewer). At best they are simply a reflection of the opinion of the reviewer. At worst they are misleading puffery (publishers often take comments out of context to use as dust jacket endorsements... in a worst case situation a review could be all but entirely negative, but include one positive comment. The publisher could ignore all the negative comments in the review, take that one positive comment out of context and put it on the dust jacket - making the potential reader think that the reviewer liked the book.) So, in this hypotentical, I would omit both "Boris Rushkov's" dust jacket endorosement and "Ivan's" comments on Rushkov. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point about dust jacket endorsements. The real case which I am concerned with is not about a Russian History book but a particular science book, which advanced a thesis violently disliked by all the Wikipedia editors working on it (as is apparent from their biting and nasty comments on the book, coupled with many ad hominem remarks against the author, which can be found on the discussion page and other pages). A section to the article covers the dustcover endorsements. If the dustcover endorsements were merely recited, so that the purpose was merely informational, there would be no problem. However, the section has been cast in such a way that it becomes a section aimed at casting doubt upon the credibility of the dustcover endorsers (and thus indirectly on the credibility of the book itself). This is evident in that third-party comments attacking the dust-cover endorsers are added to the actual dustcover endorsements themselves. Yet these third-party comments are not entirely accurate, and in some cases outright deceptive, and animated in at least one case by violent spite. In trying to point out the bias of the third-party comments, and add correcting external information from reliable sources, I was told that I was engaging in "original research", and therefore that my corrections could not be allowed. This means that the false charges against the dustcover endorsers stand unchallenged, and a typical Wikipedia reader, who knows nothing about OR rules, will think that the third-party comments, which stand unchallenged, are probably true. I maintain that the article should be about the book, not the dustjacket endorsements of the book, and that the dustjacket section should be scrapped if it is going to include unchallengeable distortions. But the other editors unanimously want to keep the dustjacket section, with the distortions, and will not allow me to insert correcting information, saying that this would be original research. The only condition under which they would allow me to insert corrective material would be this: some qualified scientist comments publically, in a reliable source, on the false third-party statements about the dustjacket. But since very few qualified scientists are likely to read either the Wikipedia article or the original sources of the third-party comments (in one case a privately-published blog), it is likely that I will never be able find a reliable source. To give you a comparison: if someone said "The sky is green", I would not be allowed to cite a reliable source (even another Wikipedia article) that says the sky is blue, because that would be "original research". Only if an authority happened to read the statement that "sky is green", and disagree with that in a reliable source, could I then contest the statement by citing that authority. So as an editor, I'm powerless to correct charges I know to be false or misleading, and that will confuse of misinform Wikipedia readers, simply because of a narrow and technical understanding of OR. I think this is silly. I think the purpose of the prohibition on OR was to prevent editors from making their own arguments about the subject of the article -- which I was never trying to do. It was not to prevent editors from excluding false or misleading accusations generated by spite, or to prevent them from alerting Wikipedia readers to countervailing facts easily available from reliable sources. I think the editors of the article in question are being sticky about the rules to protect the nasty, third-party comments against the dust-jacket endorsers, because they hate the book and want to undermine the dustjacket endorsement by any means, fair or foul. At a time like this, it seems that IAR would be appropriate -- removal of materially misleading statements, or qualifying them, would make Wikipedia better, and so OR wouldn't count. But to employ IAR I would have to have consensus of the other editors, who hate the book and will insist on their narrow reading of OR. Any suggestions?Inspectre (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We actually had this issue before at Eric Lerner. The resolution was as Blueboar outlines. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Question: OR in External Links

This came up in a discussion on the Prem Rawat talk page of whether a certain external link was acceptable. A couple of editors argued that we should not link to this website because it contained original research (regardless of other measures of reliability and verifiability).

I thought that the ban on original research referred to Wikipedia itself, not the sources we cite. In fact, it seems to me that we cite sources precisely because of the original research they provide, both scientific study and analysis. They do OR so we don't have to. No consensus was reached. Thoughts?

Also, does it make a difference whether the OR is in a reference used in the article itself, or in an external link? Or that the article is a BLP? Thank you. Msalt (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The obvious part is that one should never link to content that would violate the BLP policy. For the rest, I think the general rules on external links to avoid cover it pretty well; original research is not explicitly prohibited. But if both the website and the author are nowhere near being reliable sources, then I think common sense dictates it should probably be avoided (the list I linked to touches on that). External links to original research are fine for pointing readers to relevant information that hasn't been officially published yet; not for sidestepping policy and pointing readers to what you couldn't get published. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, very helpful. Just to clarify: when I say OR, I don't mean actual scientific research so much as the type of analysis and assembly of facts (from hopefully impeccable studies) that is not allowed on Wikipedia as, for example, WP:SYN. It makes excellent sense that whatever OR is on any source is justified only by the credentials of the author, ie the more they add, the better their credentials should be. Great point. Msalt (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Providing examples of use of a term

A number of editors on an article are searching the internet for specific uses of a term, and then using them as primary sources to advance arguments about the term. I have cited the rather clearly stated argument from WP:NEO:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

I have pointed out that the original research argument is true whether or not the term in question is a neologism. They, however, insist that if a term is used by reliable sources, and is not (in their view) a neologism, then this point no longer applies, and they can search for any number of uses of the term they wish in order to support their thesis. Comments, thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My first thought is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; unless a term (neologism or otherwise) has an established meaning, we're not free to speculate about what it might mean to some people, or how its meaning might be extended.--Leifern (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it depends on context and on the quality of the sources in question. Obviously if the source is itself discussing the use of the term, then that's generally acceptable. But if the situation is one where the editor is pointing to a reliable source's use of the term to then further an original argument, then I'd say that that sounds like synthesis. Can we get a more concrete example of what you're talking about? That might make discussing this easier. Nandesuka (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


It was a nice surprise to see that Jayjg has already started this discussion, since I was on my way here to ask this question from the other point of view. To fill in the facts a bit better, Jayjg has been deleting text from the Jewish lobby page for more than a year with the claim that the term "Jewish lobby" is a "neologism" intended solely as an antisemitic slur (e.g. HERE). He makes this claim even though other editors have found more than a hundred sources from around the world that use it to mean simply what it sounds like: "a political lobby working for the goals of its Jewish members" (in this usage akin to the "gun lobby" or the "health-care lobby").

His claim is that because it is a "neologism" (even though he has produced no source that makes the neologism claim - so this claim is a bit of OR on his part), then there are severe restrictions on the sources that can be allowed in the article - namely that it can only be described in the article as an antisemitic slur. I am one of the editors who has been trying to insert secondary sources (which he claims are primary sources). So I guess I must be one of the editors who he claims is "searching the internet" (when in fact I was most recently checking my local library).

You've asked for an example of the sources Jayjg is deleting. One of my favorites is in fact the Oxford English Dictionary (OED2). This is the paragraph he deleted:

The term "Jewish lobby" has been used to refer to the groups organized in the US and other countries to promote the special interests of their Jewish members. The Oxford English Dictionary uses it in this way to serve as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener: "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby .. backed the Jews".[1]

Not content to remove the OED2, Jayjg moves on to the London Review of Books (maybe he really really doesn't like English scholarly sources???). A more involved example is this paragraph, with a quote cited from the London Review of Books which he claims is a primary source - and he claims is "not discussing the Jewish lobby":

Stephen Walt and co-author John Mearsheimer go further, claiming that a false cry of "antisemitism" is sometimes used as a tactic to stifle criticism of Israel. They write: "No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."[2]

There are of course more, but I think this should give you a good idea of what we have been dealing with for the past year. We look forward to an opinion to help resolve this long-standing conflict. Thank you! Jgui (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, but as a general rule it's usually quite difficult to source a claim that a term is a neologism. Unfortunately, this is due to the nature of neologisms: typically very little scholarly discussion exists about the term itself, and they often lack a formal definition, let alone discussion of whether they may be neologisms. I have no opinion regarding whether this specific term is or isn't a neologism, but I thought it important to mention that we may have to rely upon our judgement in this respect.
The usage of the OED source seems dubious at best. To paraphrase heavily, it seems to be saying, "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Wikipedia editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." To my eye, that looks suspiciously like original research. In general, we should avoid discussing usage of a term in sources, and should instead rely upon sources that actually discuss the term.
In the case of usage, we're not really using a source as a source, but as raw data for our own analysis. Suppose that we were to write an article entitled "use of language in the Journal of English Literature", in which we analysed word length, mean words per sentence, etc. Even though we're citing perfectly reliable sources, this is quite evidently original research. What's the difference here? To my mind, only the degree to which we're performing the analysis.
Perhaps the most important question is: what does the source actually say about the term?
The second example seems somewhat problematic to me, but could perhaps be used in a different way. As used, the quote seems to be too long and is largely an "example" rather than a "discussion". It could possibly be used in a shorter form to support a statement like "Walt and Mearsheimer state that the term is used by the Israeli media", though I'm not in a position to judge whether that assertion is non-trivial. Jakew (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I was all set to believe that it would be impossible to find an OED definition that wasn't an appropriate use, and then you went and proved me wrong. This is a clear misuse of the OED, coupled with an appeal to its authority. The OED in this case doesn't define "Jewish lobby", but rather quotes a third party using it in the context of another definition. So saying "The OED says it, it must be true" is, in this case, disingenuous.
Stepping back for a minute, I think the presence of the term in the OED and the London Review of Books is proof of something, but not necessarily proof of what the term "Jewish lobby" means. I think that if you want to make an argument about what the terms "Jewish lobby" mean, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly defines the term, not infer the meaning from context -- which is original research. That's my personal opinon, anyway. Nandesuka (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In most reliable sources, the term that is used is "Zionist Lobby", not "Jewish Lobby". I think the distinction is both intentional and important. One term implies a political stance, the other a religious one. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. On the other side of the political specrum, not all Anti-Zionists are anti-semetic. The term "Zionist lobby" is definitely not a neologism... the term "Jewish lobby" may be. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


(outdent)

I must say I am very surprised by the reaction here. Perhaps this is because the context of the quote from the OED is not clear. In fact, the OED is defining "lobby", and is defining "special interest lobby", and by extension is defining "Jewish lobby" as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby. This is the context (which I discussed in the Talk page; perhaps more of it is needed in the article):

OED2 p. 1074 definition of "lobby" as a noun; number 3. "In the House of Commons ... chiefly serving for interviews between members and persons not belonging to the House"; c. "In extended use: a sectional interest (see INTEREST sb. 4), a business, cause, or principle supported by a group of people; the group of persons supporting such an interest." Followed by examples of its use in this way as a sectional interest; 1952 from Economist "American interests have maintained their effective lobby against the project"; 1954 ibid. "France has to face powerful colonial lobbies in parlaiment"; 1958 from The Listener "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby backed the Jews"; 1959 ibid. "They even tackled the vested privileges and subsidies of the powerful alcohol lobby"; 1971 Daily Telegraph "The anti-pollution lobby might claim that a spot of exaggeration is justified in such a cause".

You say "as a general rule it's usually quite difficult to source a claim that a term is a neologism", which I think is a fair statement. But doesn't the same argument also apply even more strongly to an adjective phrase which has its meaning exactly as stated, and which has been used in that manner for decades? The phrase consists of the adjective "Jewish" qualifying the noun "lobby", giving us "a lobby for the Jewish", which is exactly how the "Jewish lobby" is being defined in the OED, namely as a lobby for the special-interests of its Jewish members. You are asking us to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term", but that seems to me as silly as asking me to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term" "fast car". Clearly no dictionary will "explicitely" define the phrase "fast car" as "a car that is fast" since its meaning is patently obvious. But does that mean that we should be blocked from using the phrase "fast car" to mean "a car that is fast" in a WP article about "fast cars"?

Your statement that I am "inferring the meaning from context" is very strange to me. In fact I am not "inferring the meaning from context", I am citing its use from the OED to explicitely illustrate a definition of a "special interest lobby". Am I misunderstanding you somehow?

You also paraphrase me as saying "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Wikipedia editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." I hope I have shown by giving the full citation from the OED that your paraphrase is clearly inaccurate: that in fact the OED doesn't just "happen" to include the quote: they are using it for the purpose of illustrating what a special interest lobby is, and they are undeniably using it in this way and that the judgement of Wikipedia editors is in no way involved.

None of you really discusses the second quote that Jayjg has repeatedly removed with claims of WP:NOR due to WP:NEO except to say "As used, the quote seems to be too long and is largely an 'example' rather than a 'discussion'." I think you will have to agree that the length of the quote is not relevant to whether its use is original research. I would paraphrase that quote as: "There is a lobby, called the "Israel lobby" by us and the "Jewish lobby" by Israeli media, which uses as a tactic a false claim of "antisemitism" to attack anyone who criticises Israel or even mentions that there IS such a lobby". Do you disagree with my paraphrase? And can you explain how you can argue that the quote is an 'example' rather than a 'discussion' when the authors are clearly discussing the use of the term by themselves and by the Israeli media and by the Lobby they are describing? And are you arguing that this paragraph, or at least all but a short portion of it, should be blocked from WP due to a concern about WP:NOR? If so, could you explain where the original research is? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that what you are discussing is a WP:SYNT situation... linking different sources that discuss various terms for lobbying activity all under the heading of "Jewish lobby". Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, it's not a synthesis problem. There's very little synthesis or conclusion left in the article, due to previous objections dealt with long ago. The article is now built almost entirely from quotes assembled by multiple editors. Jayjg (talk · contribs) has gone well beyond objecting to synthesis, to removing multiple citations to reliable sources. Here's an example:
J.J. Goldberg, Editorial Director of the Jewish-American newspaper The Forward, writes that in the United States the "Jewish lobby" was thrust into prominence following the Nixon Administration's sharp shift of American policy towards significant military and foreign aid support for Israel following the 1973 war. Goldberg notes that the "Jewish lobby" predated the Nixon years by decades, playing a leadership role in formulating American policy on issues such as civil rights, separation of church and state, and immigration, guided by a liberalism that was a complex mixture of Jewish tradition, the experience of persecution, and self interest.[13][cite this quote][page # needed] In a speech in 2004, Goldberg stated: "The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations. The Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, Hadassah, of course, AIPAC."[14] The late Jewish scholar Arthur Hertzberg writes that following the Six-Day War, "[T]he "Jewish lobby" was no longer spoken of in whispers, and its official leaders no longer pretended that they advanced their cause only by gentle persuasion."[15][page # needed][8].
This was deleted by Jayjg (talk · contribs) in this edit, with the comment "(remove original research and unsourced material, in particular material that is not actually about the term "Jewish lobby", per multiple lengthy Talk: page comments. Also, clean up writing)".
That's not "original research". It's cited to death. Three footnotes per paragraph. Removing citations with a claim of "original research" is against policy. Jayjg also deleted other material, to generate an article which matches his point of view. Compare the consensus version [9] with Jayjg's version [10].
What we're really seeing here is a spillover from an internal dispute within the American Jewish community. On one side there's the traditional, and somewhat liberal, Jewish community, which mostly votes Democratic and has historically focused on domestic US issues, and on the other side there's AIPAC and the neocons, which is tied up with the Republicans and focuses on Israel and Middle East issues. (See Goldberg's "Jewish Power", chapter 3, "The Struggle for the Jewish Soul", for a 1990s summary of the players.) This dispute has spilled over into Wikipedia, with Jayjg (talk · contribs) as the main proponent of the AIPAC position. That's why we're in this mess.
So it's not an "original research" issue at all. We're drowning in cited quotes. It's a political problem. --John Nagle (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. I am not a "proponent of the AIPAC position", whatever that is (I have no idea, nor does John Nagle). Please use this page to discuss policy, rather than soapboxing about other editors. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hear. Hear. And politics can sabotage cooperative editing and the ability to produce a credible, NPOV encyclopedia. Plus turn people off from editing on other topics. A lot of editors can make money publishing UNsourced opinion elsewhere that would come up higher on internet searches but like the idea of an NPOV forum where we learn good skills and meet editors with similar interests. However abuse of process has and will drive people away. Esp. when it is used to smear people and destroy their lives, as the Jewish Lobby article easily can be -- and probably has been - used to do. I asked a phrase encyclopedia to include "Jewish lobby" - they demurred and wrote back "see wikipedia." Carol Moore 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Indeed, your politics have so far "sabotage[d] cooperative editing and the ability to produce a credible, NPOV encyclopedia." You openly admit you are here to promote some sort of off-Wikipedia cause, rather than attempting to build the encyclopedia. Please take your outside causes elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Jgui, I apologise: when I said "too long" I expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that it was too long compared with the portion of the quote that actually mentioned the subject of the article (which reads: "the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’"), and as a result included a lot of material that was not clearly and explicitly relevant to the subject. Jakew (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to make it clear that controversial issues, in particular, should not be defined by quotes that merely employ the term. Jgui, I think your Walt and Mearsheimer quote is a good example of what not to use. W & M only use the term "Jewish Lobby" in a passing discussion of a group of individuals/groups who lobby for a range of policies. They use variously "the Lobby", "pro-Israel groups", "AIPAC", "Israel Lobby", and finally "America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." They're casting a much wider net than a discussion of the specific tem "Jewish lobby." IronDuke 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue has come up many times in many different contexts. I would say that building up a definition of a term based on its casual use by sources is an example of original research. When I say "casual use," I mean in articles that are not about the term or the subject matter, but where the term is simply used in passing. However, if the use is more dedicated i.e. if the articles to be used as sources are about the topic (in this case the Jewish lobby), and if they are high-quality mainstream sources (not sources out to make a political point), then I would say it's not OR, even if the articles are not about the use of the term per se.
As always, where there is doubt about how to use primary sources, and if secondary sources are available, the latter are preferred. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed to return here and discover how badly I have been straw manned. Of course, contrary to Jgui's claim, I have not "been deleting text from the Jewish lobby page for more than a year with the claim that the term "Jewish lobby" is a "neologism" intended solely as an antisemitic slur (e.g. HERE)." Rather, as is obvious even from his link, I am objecting to text that is original research and don't even mention "antisemitic slurs". Quite obvious examples can be found in Jgui's latest edit, in which, for example, he inserts arguments such as "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively"[11] based solely on his own reading of primary sources. He also keeps claiming that as long as he uses citations from reliable sources, he can't be doing original research: For example, he claims That's not "original research". It's cited to death. Three footnotes per paragraph. Removing citations with a claim of "original research" is against policy. However, as WP:SYN clearly points out:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

::

I'm not sure whether jgui, Carol, and John Nagle are deliberately ignoring the WP:NOR policy, but I do know is that they are violating it, and they need to stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the quote from WP:SYN above truncated by Jayjg (talk · contribs): "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." --John Nagle (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Continuing the quote from Jgui (talk · contribs) above truncated by Jayjg (talk · contribs): "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively. For example the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community.""The Media, Stereotypes and the Jewish Lobby"" The exact words of B'nai B'rith are "As such, just as other communities and interest groups have lobbies, there is a ‘Jewish lobby’ – an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community. This Jewish lobby is a player in representative government, and its very existence confirms the ordinary place Jews have within Australian politics. The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power." The shortened version is a reasonable summary of that full quote, properly cited and linked in the article until Jayjg (talk · contribs) deleted it. This should dispose of the "original research" issue with respect to that quote. --John Nagle (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense; the Australian B'nai Brith article nowhere claims that "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively," even though it is used as a citation for that claim; that is Jgui's (and your) thesis, and one not found anywhere in the source. This indeed should "dispose of" the claim that Jgui was not doing original research with respect to that source. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in this dispute for the past couple months and have a different perspective from those expressed above. I broadly agree with the general principle Jay is purporting to apply here, though for slightly different reasons. "Jewish lobby" is obviously not a "neologism," and lacking any sources classifying it as such Jay has naturally failed to convince anyone on the page that it is one. And the criterion he's invoked to make this claim – that the term "Jewish lobby" is not in any "standard dictionaries," so it must be a neologism – obviously doesn't make any sense, because every major unabridged dictionary from the OED on down regularly includes neologisms. My reason for concurring with Jay that the article has to be limited to covering the term itself as it's discussed by secondary sources, is simply this: the phrase is controversial, and considered by many to be tendentious, so a neutral article cannot cover the activities of AIPAC, the AJC, and related groups under the rubric of the "Jewish lobby" since that rubric is contested. And if one accepts that the article has to be about the term rather than the alleged phenomenon, then Jay is obviously right that you cannot – per WP:NOR – simply cull primary-source instances of the term's use; you need secondary sources discussing that use.

Ironically, I had tried and failed elsewhere to convince Jay of the validity of the very principle he's espousing here; Jay had insisted for example that Pallywood – a term arguably more controversial than "Jewish lobby" and certainly more neologistic – could include not only any source that used the term, whether primary or secondary, but also any source that dealt with the alleged phenomenon (Palestinian media manipulation) even if it didn't use the word. And then of course there was the whole "Allegations of apartheid in X" boondoggle – a sprawling mess of OR-articles Jay was cultivating, each of which gathered together primary-source instances of this or that country's practices being likened to apartheid, in order to create a template of "sister" articles appended to the secondary-source-rich Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which Jay had tried and failed to delete. So when I first saw Jay arguing the very OR-principle (secondary sources vs. primary sources) he'd rejected or pretended not to understand elsewhere, I was at first taken aback, then mildly amused; but I soon saw what I thought was an opportunity for precedent-setting collaboration. It was in that spirit that I offered an "outside comment" to the article, expressing support for Jay's position. After all, the same principle I believe applies to articles on blog-slang terms like "Pallywood" or politically controversial analogies like "Israeli apartheid" should also apply to the contested term "Jewish lobby."

Unfortunately, precedent-setting collaboration did not occur. I made my case for a narrow circumscription of the article's mandate, and because I was making the case on solid grounds of neutrality, rather than trying to push a dubious and unsourced claim that the term is a "neologism," I very quickly and successfully enlisted the support of the very editors Jay is now clashing with. All of these editors seemed prepared to limit the article's scope to "meta"-sources – sources discussing the phrase or concept itself – its scope, legitimacy, usefulness, or lack thereof. What stymied consensus and collaboration was not this principle but rather Jay's curious application of it. Any source presenting the term in a negative light was OK with Jay; but with sources like this one that made the case for the term's usefulness and legitimacy –

“No one would read [my book]. They used to hide it behind Playboy in the subway,” said Goldberg, now the editor of the Forward, the national Jewish weekly. “We don’t talk about the Jewish lobby. We pretend it doesn’t exist. We pretend we are powerless.”

Goldberg thinks Jews should be honest about the political clout they have acquired since World War II, and in a talk Sunday night at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, he called for an open and frank discussion of the “Jewish lobby” as a positive force in the United States.

– Jay would maintain, to the general bafflement of myself and other editors, that the source was merely using the phrase, not discussing it, and that therefore in this respect Goldberg as a source was no better than Osama bin Laden.[12] In a familiar turn of events, constructive dialogue ground to a halt, and editors have since drifted back to their original camps.

I thus find myself in a peculiar position. I still think Jay is right on the matter of principle; I just wish he'd apply this principle – here and elsewhere – in a meaningful as opposed to tactical and pettifogging way. As for CarolMoore, jgui, John Nagle, et al, I'm not positive we're on the same page in terms of principle (the OED quote for example surely doesn't belong) but I'm positive they're working to improve the article, and I'm inclined to stand back and let them do so.--G-Dett (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the "me too!" comment, but, well, me too! The article Jewish lobby should only use sources that discuss, in some detail, the influence of various Jewish lobbies around the world. And of course, statements that are not supported by sources at all should be excised. I notice that the "Usage" section of that article begins,

See also: Protocols of the Elders of Zion For centuries, a key element of antisemitic thought were conspiracy theories that the Jews, as a group, were plotting to control or otherwise influence the world.

This strikes me as a prime example of original research. Is there any indication that the Protocols are generally considered relevant to discussion of Jewish lobbying, or the term "Jewish lobby?" Where are the sources to justify discussion of "a key element of antisemitic thought" in this article? Or are we to apply the most stringent, exacting standards to edits which don't support the "Jewish lobby = antisemitic evil awful slur!" POV, while letting anything through on the other side? <eleland/talkedits> 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions. I’ve been watching this page, but am new to this type of discussion and have been hesitant to engage. So therefore, I will provide a new source and asked some questions. The source is the Israel Handbook, by Dave Winter, (1999), ISBN 0658003682 . The section ‘About this book’ on Google book search says, “This guidebook to Israel contains wide-ranging practical information for all visitors from backpackers to pilgrims, backed up with historical details, culture and background information. It includes coverage of all Pilgrim sites.” That is all I know about it, except it is also referenced a few times in Wikipedia.

Page 819 of the Israel Handbook, has an apparent ‘background’ section called The ‘Jewish lobby’ in the USA. Please read it for yourselves [13]. I believe it is presented in a reasonably NPOV manner and may have sufficient information to decide on some of the previous questions. I do understand that since only this data, and nothing specific is in the article or talk page already, it may be hard for you to comment specifically, so my questions are of a general nature. Since this reference is not used yet as a source, and believe is appropriate for future inclusion, I present it here to see what happens; I am also interested to better learn how Wikipedia works in the real world.

  • Does this article discuss the Jewish lobby, or does it just ‘use’ it in passing?
  • Does this article ‘describe’ the term Jewish lobby, or say, acknowledge parts of it?
  • Is information contained in this blue-linked article of sufficient quality for use as a general (handbook-level) reference in Wiki, for inclusion in the Jewish lobby?
  • Are the included references, if used, considered OR regarding the ‘Jewish lobby?
  • In the case of Paul Findley, as used in this article, can Findlay be considered as a Primary Source regarding the Jewish lobby?
  • Following Findley’s highly documented ‘de-selection’ are his books considered to be from a reliable source, or does he become an author of OR?
  • In the case of John Snetsinger’s book, can historical or political science books on a specific historical subject related to the Jewish lobby in historical context be used within the article on the history of the Jewish lobby?
  • In the case of Edward Tivnan’s, The Lobby - Jewish political power and American foreign policy, based solely on its reference in this article and the title of his book, would it seem likely to be OR, or a RS?

I understand that some of these questions may seem very basic, but from my personal bias, I tend to find myself within the consensus on the talk page but am having difficulty understanding some editors’ denial or inferred anti-Semitic bias of an important factual topic. I respectfully submit some of these questions, in an effort to head off some future questions at the pass, so they can not be dismissed so easily. I do assume good faith, but on some topics, it becomes more difficult. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)