Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*Make no mistake about it, we are dealing with an instance of OR. Is it technical. Very likely. Can this instance of OR be ignored. Perhaps, with editor agreement. But not for an instance should we assume this isn't a case of IAR, and if we ignore all rules in this instance we open the door for the same kind of scenario for viewpoints you don't agree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
*Make no mistake about it, we are dealing with an instance of OR. Is it technical. Very likely. Can this instance of OR be ignored. Perhaps, with editor agreement. But not for an instance should we assume this isn't a case of IAR, and if we ignore all rules in this instance we open the door for the same kind of scenario for viewpoints you don't agree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
*My preference is to stick strictly to the policies and not open doors for any more contention that we already have.(] (]) 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
*My preference is to stick strictly to the policies and not open doors for any more contention that we already have.(] (]) 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
:Round and round and round we go. NO, we are NOT dealing with an instance of OR. We are dealing with you, who aloneamong the involvedand uninvolved editors, cannot or will not grasp the difference.] (]) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:Round and round and round we go. NO, we are NOT dealing with an instance of OR. We are dealing with you, who contrary to the unanimous input of uninvolved editors, cannot or will not grasp the difference.] (]) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
::The two studies cover the same data - crime in Merseyside between 1988 and 1992. The study done by the Maharishi researchers concludes that their meditating reduced crime. Presenting that finding alone, when there are contradictory conclusions, gives the false impression that there is no other conclusion. That's a problem when dealing with obscure studies that have never been replicated. No independent sources discuss this study. Maybe we should avoid using studies like this to begin with. <b>] ] </b> 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The policy that governs the issue of original research is Misplaced Pages: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to WT:NOR.
Please post new topics in a new section. When a thread is closed, you can tag it with {{resolved}}.
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
I say the map is not a reliable source (original research, so to speak) for reasons given here:
Another editor says it should be included anyway because the ALA is promoting it as its own and media have reporting the ALA has done this:
The other editor, User:Atama, and I have been working cooperatively and professionally on the article so this is purely an issue of the application of Wiki policy.
The issue of whether the ALA has plagiarized the map may go toward other Wiki policies, but I do not believe it to be relevant to the question of whether the map itself is original research by a person about which we only know, maybe, his name, his place of residence, and his not being affiliated with the ALA.
I'm not emotionally invested in this, so if it's not worth including in the article that's just fine, like LAEC said this is more of a question of policy. LAEC has already given my reasons for including the reference, so I don't have much more to add except to say that I'd also like to see a third opinion or more. -- Atama頭19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Circular sources have been used, such as WP -> somewhere else -> WP with a reference of that somewhere else . That doesn't mean it's correct. Ipromise (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It isn't Original Research as Misplaced Pages defines that term... Misplaced Pages was not the "first place of publication" for the map. Also, per WP:NOR#Original images we allow user created images (so even if it did originate on wikipedia, it would be OK). Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Critics of CAIR, including six members of the U.S. House and Senate, have cited ties from the CAIR founders to Hamas. The founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former FBI analyst and Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership." Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993 that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, and the IAP. Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that “the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement ." Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations” body, “whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous." Critics also point to a July 1994 meeting identifying CAIR as one of the four U.S. organizations comprising the working organizations of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization and supporter of Hamas. At a 1994 meeting at Barry University Awad stated that he is, "in support of the Hamas movement, although CAIR has sought to discredit his comments, stating Hamas was only designated a terrorist organization in January 1995 and did not commit its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994, after Mr. Awad made the comment.
It strikes me entirely as a violation of WP:NOR to write criticism in this fashion. The sources being used in this paragraph are a mixture of press releases, court documents, senate testimony, and various other documents most of which are not reliable secondary or tertiary sources and many of which are hosted or written by groups known to be partisan regarding CAIR (like the Anti-Defamation League, which in this instance sits on the opposite side of the Israel-Palestine political fence, or the NEFA Foundation). My issue here is not with the POV nature of the sources, but rather with how they are being used. The first sentence above states that 6 members of congress and the senate have cited links between CAIR and Hamas (it should really state that they are critical of CAIR because of such links ... but that is another matter). Then after making this claim the paragraph attempts to establish such a link by piecing together various other primary documents and secondary sources. The direct assertion of someone being critical of CAIR isn't even in the paragraph at all, which is mind boggling. I'll spare you all from my opinion about what happened here, and why it has been written in this manner, but what I really want to know is if this is an OR issue. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about entry POV and general content issues
As one of the editors involved, I need to say that the real problem is not with how the paragraph is written. Yes, it can be much improved but the reason it reads this way is because there has been a concerted attempt to keep "negative" information off the page. In fact, the above editor has gone on record in the discussion page as saying he believes such criticism to be based on "conspiracy" theories and "guilt by association" so he can hardly hold himself up as an example of objectivity. Before this new material was introduced, the article read like a press release for the organization. The only critical material allowed was from the most dubious sources which appears to be a way of discrediting the criticism. If the paragraph is a seeming hodgepodge of sources, it because an attempt was made to satisfy the unending demands for different sources. The ADL is a good example. Yes, they sit on the opposite side of CAIR but aren't critics generally partisan by nature?? The point is that the government has produced evidence suggesting that CAIR is a Hamas front and a variety of actors including Congressmen, NGO's, etc have pointed to this material in their criticism. That criticism, media reporting on the criticism, and the documents used as a basis for the criticism have all been cited and still it isn't enough. So yes, it needs a re-write but the core information also needs to say or what is the point of this article? If its just going to regurgitate the organization's own materials, why bother?Sgmiller (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the issues you raise. The problem is precisely that it is not criticism which is being cited at all, but "evidence" put forth to bolster a claim ... that CAIR is tied to Hamas in some way or another. I believe this to be a violation of WP:NOR. If you want to discuss POV issues take it to WP:POVN and I will be glad to join you there.PelleSmith (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is the wrong venue but the "evidence" was only raised because the critics, unless easily discredited, were not allowed to have a voice. If this had been an honest attempt to come to terms with the organization, there would have been no need for discussion here, but we can certainly take it up on the article pageSgmiller (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In the "mixture" of documents you mentioned, you failed to note the Washington Times, a book published by Yale University Press, the Dallas Morning News, a link to the document referenced by the morning news, the New York Sun, the World Tribune, and the Texas Cable News. That sounds like enough sources of secondary criticism to me. You're right in asserting the Anti-Defamation League would be partial in their criticism of CAIR, but as this issue has already been discussed on the talk page, that doesn't mean its criticism is not notable. The Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson criticisms were left in the article, and of course they could be considered partisan as well, that's precisely why they're mentioned in the criticism section. The primary source listed after the source of the ADL criticism is merely the document in question, and does not stand alone as a citation. I think your proposal regarding the wording ("X and x are critical of CAIR, vs. "Critics of CAIR, including x and x") is merely semantics.—DMCer™22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's list the sources used in this section under the claims they are sourcing:
A primary document with the original Arabic and a translation hosted by The NEFA Foundation
A copy of the congressional record for some period of time documenting various letters and other primary sources being entered into the record -- hosted on the Federation of American Scientists website
Senate judiciary committee testimony by Mathew Epstein of Steven Emerson's "Investigative Project"
Most of these sources are primary documents, press releases and blogs (please note that I am discussing the above paragraph and many of the sources you claimed above are not even in that paragraph). But that is just part of the problem. The real problem is how you are using these sources to synthesize a defense of a criticism.PelleSmith (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you intentionally leaving out the New York Sun, the World Tribune, and the Texas Cable News? I have to question your argument when you call the CBS affiliate, KHOU (TV), host of the "supposed" Associated Press story (which if I remember correctly, was disseminated by numerous outlets), unreliable. Not to mention your omission of many of the sources in your list above. The Dallas Morning News story is acceptable, as WP:BLOGS states that blogs published by, "Well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper, ...." The post in question is essentially a news story. We're not talking about a random blog hosted on Blogger. —DMCer™23:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Rather than taking issue with the paragraph, why not re-write it so that it is not a "defense" of the criticism but still retains the core of the information. That would show me at least that this issue of "original research" is not just yet another tactic to sanitize the article because you believe the criticism to be unfounded.79.193.90.50 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Another note, once again it just seems just disingenuous to try and discredit the press releases which were use to cite examples of criticism. I am 100% positive that if CAIR had responded to a criticism with a press release, you would have no problem citing it as a source. Why on Earth would it matter if a critic has made his criticism in a press release?Sgmiller (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
See WP:SELFPUB. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as... does not involve claims about third parties."
In other words, we could use Daniel Pipes' blog on info about him trying to clear himself of some allegation, but not if he is making allegations about others ("third parties"). Similarly, we can use CAIR website, when they is providing "information about themselves", in "articles about themselves" (i.e. Council on American-Islamic relations), so long as they are not making claims (esp. negative ones) about others ("third parties").
This has nothing to do with "self-published or questionable sources" making claims. The Criticism section is reporting criticism made by U.S. Congressmen, the FBI, and NGO's regarding CAIR. Its very interesting that you use Daniel Pipes as an example because you had no problem citing him (and Emerson) when they were the only ones included in the Criticism section. Now that the Criticism is referenced to more "mainstream" sources, all of a sudden it becomes a problem. As I wrote above, the previous editor said here that he considered the criticism of CAIR to be "crank" and "xenophobic" and directed against and organization which he, on his own, deemed "law-abiding." I believe that Emerson and Pipes, being somewhat controversial, were cited previously as the sole source of the criticism in order to discredit the criticism itself. I also see no sign that the previous editors were either aware of the actual substance of the allegations against CAIR nor did they seem knowledgeable about any aspect of the subject.Sgmiller (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the piecing togethor of primary sources and secondary sources in some cases here is inappropriate. I have not looked through all of the sources, but looking at one of them showed me that it was bieng used inappropriately (I raised the concern at Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#What_is_this.3F, and the discussion is ongoing). Unless the critics (secondary source) specifically cite a primary source in a clear manner, we shouldn't be pretending that they have cited the primary source as such. The primary source can still be used if it is relevant, but can't be connected to a secondary source (e.g. "critics ave cited...").VRtalk17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the German American article that says "From Ohio to the Plains States, census maps show a heavy presence in rural areas into the 21st century. (See maps above and below.)" - I have some issues with the way the sentence was sourced:
The sentence doesn't say which maps they are.
The maps are are there are File:German1346.gif and File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - The first map has no key (check the edit history and a reader won't see it) and therefore it has no value as a source - The second map shows counties where German-Americans have a plurality, but it is problematic to say that a plurality would be a "heavy presence" - also a reader would be unable to tell which counties were classified as rural just from looking at a map. Also the sentence says "rural areas" and a reader cannot separate out counties and specific areas from the counties just by looking at a map.
I believe that the sentence needs a secondary resource that explicitly says "U.S. Census maps show heavy concentrations of German Americans in rural counties in the 21st century" - Doing this would be perfectly compliant with Misplaced Pages sourcing requirements.
First, the sentence is poor English... what it should say is: "Census maps show a heavy presence in rural areas of Ohio and the Plains States, into the 21st century." (The way it is written, the sentence means that census maps located in Ohio or the Plains States show a presence... the assumption being that if you looked at the same census maps elsewhere they would magically change and not show the presence). But to your point... I agree the statement is a bit overly broad. It would be better to either stick to specific statements and cite a specific map (or the census itself), or use a secondary source that analyzes the census.Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page discussion, it is definitely not OR to mention the G8 in the Great power article (as there are reliable sources that discuss the G8 in the context of being a meeting of great powers). Since it is appropriate to mention the G8, it is also appropriate to illustrate the article with an image of the G8.
That said, images should illustrate information discussed in the text of the article. They should not present information themselves, and should not be used as sources of information. At the moment the G8 is not actually discussed in the article, and it is confusing to have an image illustrating something that the article does not (yet) talk about. To fix this problem, I would not remove the image... I would add discussion the G8. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(We requested) transcriptions from academic passages linking G8 membership with great power status. Perhaps I have missed something, but I still cannot see any such transcriptions. G8 membership, which excludes China, does not imply great power status or vice versa. Therefore the inclusion of the image is based on OR and POV...
We do not need academic sources for anything like this. any RSs will do. But the real question of whether this is totally obvious. That's a qy of common sense. Note there are unquestionably great powers that are not members, notably China. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it synthesis to state that the activities of this institute include "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion", on the basis of the following citations:
...these citations being examples of the "public commentary", rather than any third party stating that public commentary is an activity. HrafnStalk(P) 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You can use their Web page for this. At ] point 4 states "To provide accurate information on science and religion for the international media and wider public."--LexCorp (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That's already included in the article (which is fairly heavily laden up with material sourced to the FI itself). The above is making the (very similar) point a second time, from these WP:PRIMARY sources. HrafnStalk(P) 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, it would seem it supports a statement already made in the primary source with examples drawn from secondary sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Except DGG that this thread precedes the AfD. Your claim that it is a "fork" of that AfD (whose nomination, which you likewise misrepresented as being "based on what was on the talk page", makes no mention of synthesis) is therefore a misrepresentation, and your conclusion of WP:POINT unfounded. HrafnStalk(P) 03:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: On the original query and after reading the whole citations I conclude that:
Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.
Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.
Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.
Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.
Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.
Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.
Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.
So my query is may the person's political biased agenda be somehow duly noted in this biography? - check
20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
All that says is that he is a Labour supporter. That's it. Nothing to show "political biased agenda" as claimed. Without a proper source, it doesn't go in. — The Hand That Feeds You:14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Einstein fourth theory?
I'm really new to editing on Wiki, and I'm confused so I wanted to ask someone for an opinion. I apologize if this is on the wrong noticeboard - it seemed like the best place for it.
I found this article on Lieserl_Einstein, and saw that the following paragraph at the end of the Notes section:
A new theory - called 'The Fourth Theory' - on Lieserl's fate has been put forward for the first time by British researcher Tim Symonds in late 2009. He postulates Lieserl was indeed born with a serious mental handicap and by the time she was 21 months of age Albert Einstein and Milos Maric decided she should be killed as an act of mercy ('mercy-killing'). Although in the Austro-Hungarian Empire infanticide was against the Law, it was widely supported in the case of handicapped infants, with at most a suspended sentence.
When I noticed there was nothing cited, I started some research with the intention of adding a citation. The only examples I have been able to uncover so far are book reviews written by someone named Symonds. For example, Powell's and Amazon . The reviews are all in response to Michele Zackheim's book, which is cited in Further Reading.
Should this be marked as 'citation needed' or would something like this be considered original research, speculation, or something completely different? I do not yet feel comfortable with my grasp of Wiki editing (or policy) to do much more than add citations, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks a lot. CallieLee (talk)
A review on Amazon is definitely not a reliable source. I would tag the paragraph for citation, and leave a note similar to this one on the talk page... then wait a few weeks... if no citation is given after that time, remove it. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the section. Though Einstein is no longer living, that's a serious accusation to make with no sources to back it up. Plus, it shouldn't be in the Notes section in any case. If the deletion gets contested, we'll see, but I don't see it surviving. — The Hand That Feeds You:14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem on my end. I think it was just a matter of timing in any case... I doubt anyone could have come up with a reliable source for it.
Actually, I have to wonder whether the subject is really notable enough for her own article. It seems a clear case for the application of "Notability is not inherited" to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Creator and primary contributor to that article matches the name on the blog listed in the External Links. I'm removing them as commercial links for the moment, and noting the COI. Ravensfire (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Pdeitiker appears to be quite knowledgeable about population genetics and potentially can be a very effective editor. However, there are a number of problems with his editing. Firstly, he tends to use an unnecessary amount of jargon and technical detail in his edits. He is also unnecessarily verbose and other editors have complained about this diff. In less than a month the Talk page archives have increased from 2 to 7 in much part due to verbose threads. While this started as a minor inconvenience, it is now becoming disruptive and detrimental to articles in question. For comparison here are two version of the same article
The genetics articles are indeed technical, and it may not be obvious to editors unfamiliar with the articles, that there is unnecessary verbosity and technical detail. This is probably why the problems persist as this jargon tends to intimidate other editors.
There is a consistent theme in Pdeitiker's verbose edits. In several articles the main goal is to increase the level of uncertainty about the underlying science of the article. IOW, the message is that wikipedia editors who report what is published from reliable sources are reporting bad information, and only he has is able to provide good information. Pdeitiker claims to be an "expert" who has access to some "behind the scenes" data that no one else on wikipedia has. For example he states
"I have a wide body of research and reviews literally 1000s of pages on the early african period, that you do not have access to"diff
A typical example, Pdeitiker has increased the range of age estimates for mitochondrial eve from 170,000 years ago to 270,000-70,000 years ago, somewhat based on his own calculations done here. He has started to do the same with haplogroup A as well.
In summary Pdeitiker has engaged in a pattern of original research in several articles. The original research is masked behind jargon, technical detail and verbosity. Overall it involves putting his own idiosyncratic spin on scientific information that is at odds with mainstream interpretations. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The above critique on the Jargon is true, the page needs to be reduced to a general audience, there is no doubt about that but we must start with a representation of the field of the literature, not misstatements and mis-sense of the literature as the previously 'fallen' page was. Someone dumbed down the page to such a point that it bordered on being a Fox-News op-ed piece. Jargon is not original research. Detail is not original research. Original research would be me taking my personal data indicating very high number of rare mutations in the mtDNA, reducing all the peripheral lineages about 2 to 3 fold in TMRCA (as Endicott has done, maybe somewhat more) and then restating the TMRCA based on my belief that the CHLCA occurred 7.6 million years ago. That would be original research. I haven't done that.PB66610:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The genetics articles are indeed technical, and it may not be obvious to editors unfamiliar with the articles, that there is unnecessary verbosity and technical detail. This is probably why the problems persist as this jargon tends to intimidate other editors.
There is a consistent theme in Pdeitiker's verbose edits. In several articles the main goal is to increase the level of uncertainty about the underlying science of the article. IOW, the message is that wikipedia editors who report what is published from reliable sources are reporting bad information, and only he is able to provide good information. Pdeitiker claims to be an "expert" who has access to some "behind the scenes" data that no one else on wikipedia has.
Let me make it quite clear, I have not increased the level uncertainty about underlying science, in the case of mtDNA I am containing the level of certainty. I removed the opinion piece about the MRCA being 6000 years old, another paper places the TMRCA at 504,000 years in age. I have tried to represent the range fairly as I possibly could.
Let me make it also clear that the TMRCA for Y-chromosome ranges as I have stated, I have papers stating a MRCA in the 20-30 ky range it was very common for claims of 40,000 years to be made in the 1990s, more recently they have placed the range from 40,000 to 110,000 years, and a few new papers are claiming that the range is older and larger. Simply stated we have to represent the science the way it is Muntawandi, not the way we would want it to be. After 25 years of studying MA I have very careful not to place myself in a position of stating a claim that will be shown false tomorrow, as so many editors of the Y-DNA pages have done and was a major cause of conflict on those pages. MW is the kind of editor, he has been accussed of being an Afrocentrist, he likes to represent things from a very insular point of veiw, he is not accustomed to thinking about issues the way scientist think about problems. Its a major problem with editors in the HGH project altogether. Their favorite author or someone publishes a paper with their favorite POV and all of a sudden we have a new theory section on a Y-DNA page and dirty laundry lists of population data points cluttering up pages. For this reason most y_DNA pages are unrated, WP:TLDRPB66610:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
"I have a wide body of research and reviews literally 1000s of pages on the early african period, that you do not have access to".diff
A typical example, Pdeitiker has increased the range of age estimates for mitochondrial eve from 170,000 years ago to 270,000-70,000 years ago, somewhat based on his own calculations done here. He has started to do the same with haplogroup A as well.
Muntawandi- that is called good editorial judgement, originally the article posted a TMRCA of 171,000 years. Setting with 4 papers here in front of me there are TMRCA's of 108,000 years, 192,000 year, 194,000 years 198,000 years, 171,000 year, 207,000 year, 215,000 years, and so on. The oldest TMRCA is 504,000 years, the youngest, from a breif extract is 6000 years. But I don't mind at all, if they think 108,000 to 198,000 years is better, I have no problem with that however those are only median most recent estimates these are no confidence ranges, each one of those has its own confidence range.
Here is what Endicott and Ho says "The estimated TMRCA of all human mitochondria from the interantlly calibrated analysis of the contactenated data set was 108 thoushand years (Kyr) (95% higher posterior density :82-134 kyr):in contrast the externally calibrated estimate was 162 kyr (95%HPD:122-213 kyr)." IOW using the same data set and two different methods the authors came up with a TMRCA range of 82,000-213,000 years. That is just one author. Lets check the rest of the authors? At the time I changed that I did not have Endicott and Ho, only a review that included this, so I will alter the low end of the estimate to 82,000 as per the text. The previous estimate of Ingman was 171,000 years +/-50000 years at 1 SD (68% confidence) at 2SD this is 71,000 to 271,000 years. That's what it is, I don't like it, I would prefer to exclude Ingman because is it not particularly good, but that is what the 2SD range is. "The age of the most recent commmon ancestor (MRCA) for mtDNA on the basis of the maximum distance between two humans(5.82 x 10 substitutions per site between the African Mkamba and San), is estimated to be 171,500 +- 50,000 yr bp." In standard scientific nomenclature that represents 1SD range (68.4% confidence) and confidence intervals are generally 2SD = 95.4% standard acceptable confidence range. However with TMRCA estimates the intervals are skewed upward because of the nature of the coalescent methods. None the less I presented the ratio, rounded to 10,000 years for what they presented. See Talk:Mitochondrial_Eve#Off-track for problems of previous page MW had worked on. Which confidence interval do I use:
Ingman et al used a very late CHLCA and did not correct for selection. Claims no selection exist and 5 more recent papers argue that selection exists.
Endicott et al uses archaeological anchor points but ignores two points, Liujiang and Qazeh 9, and a recent find in India.
Soares corrects for purifying selection but gives no confidence range.
Mishmar corrects for regional selection and gives a much smaller than typical confidence range.
As a consequence I chose to use Ingman et al which has the widest confidence range. This covered all of Endicott, all of Soares and all of Mishmars ranges very therefore in essence if covers all of the ranges published in the last 5 years.
My opinion, the range is between 190,000 and 270,000 years based on Whites recent research. So I am not representing my POV, I am representing uncertainty created by the literature.
These are the most recent papers, if we go back to 1990 to 2000 the TMRCA estimates grabbing popular literature and other analysis are from 6000 to 504,000 years. PB666
In summary Pdeitiker has engaged in a pattern of original research in several articles. The original research is masked behind jargon, technical detail and verbosity. Overall it involves putting his own idiosyncratic spin on scientific information that is at odds with mainstream interpretations.
Muntwandi is upset because I reverted his edit from earlier today and he is threatening to revert one of my edits on the Haplogroup A (Y-DNA page). I have posted a reply here. The Mitochondrial Eve page lost its FA and GA status last spring because of very sloppy editing and overweighted on popular science, I had made no edits to that page before it lost its status, clearly the editors of the page like MW were aware the page had issues, when I brought these issues to the editors they basically said 'fix it yourself', at the same time I began redoing the page I was pummelled by two new papers which have upset the entire feild. Endicott et al. 2009 basically argue to stop using the CHLCA as an anchor. On paper written by Tim White, basically sweeps away all younger CHLCA estimates, for external calibration mentioned above it raises all the TMRCAs by an unknown amount. The second issue that occurred at the same time is that another papers, Soares et al. 2009 that has done a rather careful correction for one type of selection. I have done another form of analysis showing that selection is far worse than Soares attributes, however, none of the data that I have personally generated has been used on the page; however my results are mirrored by Endicott and Ho, Endicott, Ho, ...Stringer (2009). This is one paper that is yet to be fully integrated into the page and another, Mishmar et al, to be added will basically fill the gaps in referencing that are left. There are literally 100s more references, even the major positions from the last 15 years would double the size of the article. One cannot represent all the positions, however unlike the previous version of the page one must at least try to represent each paper faithfully and not misrepresent their conclusions as the previous page had done.PB66610:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with with any of these calibration techniques at present, for the record White is correct about the CHLCA, Endicott is correct about the level of selection and the severity of its effects on bottlenecks, Soares is correct about the need for better rate discrimination; however neither use Whites revised CHLCA, and they both use highly different techniques to reach highly different conclusions. Soares does not go far enough to correct for selection, ignores regional selection. Mishmar ignores purifying selection. Ingman ignores selection altogether. Gonder does not describe their rate classing, or how they dealt with selection etc. Without a good choice I have therefore I have bent over backwards to represent every POV and every possible interpretation. About the only paper that I present on the mtDNA page that I strongly agree with is "Bayesian coalescent inferernces of major human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup expansions in Africa. Atkinson, Gray, and Drummond, however I have not given this paper undue weight in the article. They state that the TMRCA is 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, but was written before White altered our understanding of the Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor. Consequently this affirms, I am trying to represent the literature as a whole and various interpretations that are subject to change and not my point of view. I still have references to add to this page and some updates while scrathing down the contribution of individual pieces of literature. And to affirm what MW wrote, I have literally hundreds of accumulated papers on the topic of mtDNA over the years. Dozens on the singular topic of the mtDNA MRCA, starting from the late 1970s all the way until November of 2009. Most use the CHLCA as an anchor point, 2 of which use archaeological data points. Most point to a TMRCA of ~200,000 years but those which do not will not be excluded from the article. PB66610:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Up until I found the page looking for a reference in August I found an incredible amount of misstatements indicating to me that none of the editors of the page were aware of either the importance of the topic, or current research on the topic, some of the statements on the page were out-and-out misrepresentations (avoiding the word 'lie') of the literature. Muntawandi has constantly defending the dumbed down version as he has made a number of edits to that version. However, such scientifically inaccurate material cannot be allowed to persist, particularly given the reviewers comments in spring. I would hope that MW would work with me on improving and simplifying the article, however he seems dead set on reverting it to its 'fallen' position. MW as you may know has issues with WP see his block log. Despite this I would like to work with MW to help improve these articles, however he needs to change his stance on the previous version of the article before we can move forward on this. PB66609:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I should state, I hope MW will work within the context of the articles talk.pages, that he will learn to start making comments about specific issues, using the comments subpages to come of with list to improve articles rather than taking the all or none approach which has gotten him into trouble in the past. He has a tendency to use these Adminstrator notification boards alot, and tends to get into edit wars with folks alot. I see this as an opportunity for us to work together. I have set a goal of improving the Haplogroup A and B pages to B status by the end of the year. MtEve is a much more serious problem and will require more work, however specific critiques concerning a paragraph or section are welcome, really welcome. MW has done very little work in promoting articles as per wikipedia standards, this is a core problem with the pages that he works on. Not to single him out, but the only pages that are in the process of improvement within the HGH project are the ones I am trying to promote. Yes he adds alot of content, but frequently it is highly debatable content. In terms of the R1a page, I have simply critiqued what has been added and have made strong suggestions about how content is best presented for clarity, readability and to prevent further social/ethnic clashes (for example such as the one regarding R1a's origin currently going on the talk page). "Block has served its purpose. User must start collaborating productively as indicated.", not my words but admin words.PB66610:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
As expected a lot of detail. I suggest focusing on specific issues,
There has been alot of research and many papers which describe time of MtMRCA.
There is a wide range of MtMRCA
These is also a wide range of confidence intervals
I am not responsible for these
I must fairly reflect opinions in the field without entering my own bias
In the previous main-page MRCA dates were given as
Theoretically 3000 (not a MRCA study but a critique based on HVR sites that saturate qucikly)
6000 (same reason)
140000 (no justification)
171000 (Ingman et al)
280000 (Cann et al) (140,000 to 280,000 years)
These contradictory where thrown about the article without justification. However I justify the TMRCAs, I intercompare the TRMCAs, and I describe how these are important with regard to population structure.
The following dates were excluded.
3000-6000 years ago. The letter that published these was not a bonafida coalescence paper, they were critiquing the use of HVR 1 and 2 sites. To explain breifly, the sites vary quickly as seen in different samples of the HeLa cell line, they saturate quickly, its not that the TMRCAs are 6000 years, its that in pairwise analysis in humans it is difficult to measure a TMRCA >10,000 years because of saturation (saturation = reverse mutations and homoplasies) at these specific site . Most modern studies, including those that force the use of HVR1 and 2 exclude these sites (16182, 16183, 16194, 16519)[Ref on rate = Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi. 2002 May;93(5):85-90.Maternity testing using mitochondrial DNA analysis.Tsuji A, Ishiko A, Hirose M, Takasaki T, Ikeda N.; and PMID19500773)
140000 is not excluded but treated for what it is, the Cann estimate.
171000 is not excluded but treated for what it is, the Ingman estimate.
106000 year L0d estimate "date the most ancient mtDNA lineage L0d to 106,000 BP." was excluded because it was a misstatement. Gonder et al. MB&E 24(3):764 states clearly in the text of the article. "Our TMRCA estimate for the global mtDNA genome tree is 194.3 32.55 kya ". The L0 branch (L0d linheage / L0abfk lineage) branchpoint is 146.45 +/- 25 Ka. The unique L0d lineage is 146.45+/-25 Ka according to Gonder, 150 ka according to Soares, 152ka years according to Behar et al 2008. The L0d lineage is a fusion between the L0-node and L0d node (basal lineage) and the average depth of the L0d subclades The L0d TMRCA branch which has no bearing on the Ingman estimate or the TMRCA has a branch time of 106,000 was simply thrown onto the page without any explanation or consideration of its meaning. In fact much the the mitochondial Eve article was characterized by these types of errors.
"The results by Gonder et al. and Ingman et al. confirm the less precise result found originally by Cann et al. (1987) ," Well they got Gonder et al wrong, Ingman is obsolete. In terms of precision there are two directions of errors.
Cann errors in an old technique, RFLP, and rate variance and Archaeological detection and dating errors.
Ingman errors in rate variance (Purifying and adaptive selection) and CHLCA errors (large)
Gonder errors in Purifying and adaptive selection and CHLCA errors (moderate)
Soares errors in Adaptive selection and CHLCA errors (moderate/low).
Since we do not know the CHLCA or when exactly humans left Africa we cannot determine whose method is more precise. There is no currently agree on estimate of rate or level of selection by which we can standardize a measure of precision.
As I have asked Muntawandi, he has to start working with the published literature even if he despises that literature, this page is not going to go back to the points where facts are loosely thrown about willy-nilly in a confusing manner disrespectful of the publish literature. I recommended that MW sit down with me on the talk page and discuss individual issues and area that need to be condensed. So far he has refused to do this on either the Haplogroup A or mtEve page.PB66615:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been busy on the R1a article and more generally in WP:HGH and I definitely share Wapondaponda's concerns. There is no doubt that PB666 has a lot of original, unorthodox and interesting thoughts to share somewhere else, but we can ignore all his long explanations about those ideas here because demanding that these ideas be taken into account on Misplaced Pages articles is very clearly WP:OR. And trying to disrupt editing in order to make a point about is also. He knows this, and he clearly feels no problem in simply demanding that it is justified. Indeed it has to be said that he has some sort of enormous emotional hang up about trying to make an impact upon the relatively popular haplogroup articles, which are often being edited by people without his "25 years experience". Some diffs which make his position on this pretty clear:-
. (In this example PB666 says that I should not be calling his TALKPAGE critiques of the literature irrelevant to Wikiedpia, and as an explanation, he compares it to a case where someone sent him an article he had not read, and he change Misplaced Pages on that basis.
"Without any other facts, based on 10,000s of edits here on a wide variety of pages, I conclude that I have the better representation of reality. Therefore I am going to be disgruntled and gripe about the issue as I prepare mentally before going through 100 poorly written pages based on awful molecular anthropology to fix an issue of carelessness. If someone out there doesn't want me (self-admitted Y-DNA skeptic) doing resectioning of their precious Y-DNA pages I suggest they take the initiative."
PB666 clearly has developed something like an obsession with reforming the field from a platform from within Misplaced Pages. His edits on R1a especially the talkpage, where he now regularly posts essays of up to 20,000 bytes, are clearly disruptive by any normal definition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think as an example of the disruptive talkpage editing this is being used to justify, I should give two examples which show two types of problem, one which shows how this is becoming a classic case of disruptive editing , and one to show the peculiar aspect of publishing OR on talkpages and refusing to explain relevance .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that a lot of the arguments made above are going right over the heads of the majority of editors who frequent this page (I know they going a mile over mine). For the benefit of those of us who work in the humanities ... Would someone please summarize and explain why these edits are, or are not, Original Research... without using any techinical terminology (or at least explain the terminology to us as you present your views). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that this is precisely what the wall of words of PB666 is trying to do. They are his cloak of invisibility. There are also clearly a lot of different types of issues at once here, but concerning original research I think it is very clear: PB666 thinks that the published authors in this field are sloppy and he has his own ideas (as per the long postings) about what should be in the articles. Put aside all the details about why, because this is irrelevant. He is openly stating that by over-simplistically following Misplaced Pages neutrality and OR rules we (other editors working on these articles) are genuflecting and helping propagate myths from the notable authors in the published literature. He is not even pretending it is otherwise than this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this retort, referring to a published author who PB666 had been insisting on mis-spelling, cuts to the chase about what PB666 feels about the geneticists in this field (which is not his field), and how much the feelings are driving the edits: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for posting once more, but I am trying to help others see the problem. If you look through ALL the disputes PB666 has been in about these articles there is a very simple fact: he does not argue that other editors are misunderstanding the literature, and also does not argue that one published author is being given undue credence compared to others. He says ALL published authors in this field are wrong, and are ALL being given undue weight. The rest of his long postings are about the details of his personal fringe theories, which he wants to be the basis of what the Misplaced Pages articles are about. This is how he presents it himself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Your description of the problem is very interesting for me since I think it applies (perhaps to a lesser extent) also to DinDraithou. Both editors are editing in the same field and from similar time zones, but the timing doesn't really look like sockpuppetry. Perhaps DinDraithou has learned the behaviour from Pdeitiker (=PB666)? (Perhaps someone wants to notify DinDraithou that they have been mentioned here. If I do it I will probably be accused of vandalism.) HansAdler18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
DinDraithou is aware. See . However, while they have crossed paths their areas of expertise and their style are not the same, and efforts by PB666 to get DinDraithou to coordinate with him have not met with any notable success , even when PB666 tried to say that he agreed with him about Indoeuropeans, in a way which frankly showed that he did not even understand it , . I believe the issue was resolved. I can not comment about other articles where DinDraithou works, although I was asked to look at some of them. If I read between the lines there is a feeling he is trying to walk over what the publications say. But honestly, at least from what I have seen, DinDraithou does claim to have sources outside Misplaced Pages. His arguments seem more "typical" and debatable? PB666's source is much more openly himself and his 25 years of experience of watching the same mistakes getting made over and over .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I will try to explain simply. The first study done on mtDNA TMRCA was done in 1980, the most recent estimate was this year, from 1980 to this year there have been at least a dozen predictions. In addition to full studies there have been critiques, one group pointing out an error and based upon a source of error saying the Time to most recent common ancestor is 6000 (for example people who believe in biblical creation) another group may point to an error and say it could be 500,000 years (for example if they believe in the multiregional origin hypothesis).
Each study has different assumptions
Anchor
Internally calibrated archaeological points (these change with more archaoleogical evidence) (Cann et al. 1987)(Endicott and Ho)
external calibration (these change with genetic and paleontological evidence) (All other studies)
Rate estimates
Use HVR regions (Vigilant et al. Horai et al, several others)
Use all site (Vigilant et al.)
Use some sites
Use Coding regions
Use all coding region
Use one rate (Ingman et al. 2000)
Use different rates (Gonder et al. 2007)
Use both but exclude certain HVR sites (Soares et al 2009, ...)
---Soares has done a reasonable job excluding highest saturation sites, but other problems persist (see selection)
Dealing with selection and saturation
No correction (Ingman et al. 2000, Cann et al. 1987, Vigilant et al. 1991, Gonder et al. 2007)
Correction for purifying selection (Soares et al.2009)
Correction for adaptive selection (Mishmar et al. 2003)
---Both purifying and adaptive selection appear to be acting
Rate classification
No Exclusion - (Cann et al. 1987 , RFLP analysis)
Exclude fastest evolving sites. (Ingman et al. 2000, Gonder et al. 2007)
Separate sites by rate. Gonder et al 2007., Soares et al 2009, Mishar
---The best method for assessing rates is a matter of hot debate in the literature.
For externally calibrated CHLCA estimates
500000 years - Vigilante et al 1991, Ingman et al. 2000
600000 years - (Endicott and Ho 2008)
650000 years (combined CHLCA and sorting time) - Gonder et al. 2007, Mishmar et al. 2003)
700000 years - Soares et al. 2009
>*700000 years was determined in November by White et al that the CHLCA is older then 7 million years.
---CHLCA is currently unknown, current studies indicate previous methods to estimate CHLCA failed.
For internally calibrated exit times from India.
50000 years - Cann et al
55000 years (96%CI - Endicott and Ho 2008)
---When Modern human entered Eurasia is unknown, 3 sites indicate dates much older. Qahfez 93000 years ago, Jwalapurum 74000, and LiuJiang >68000 years ago (Source Endicott, Ho, Metspalu, and Stringer).
---Big problem!.
To simplify, there are many different methods, each author generally changed two or three variables at a time, such as method of rate assessment and CHLCA consequently the methodology is confusing.
IOW based on studies just in the last 5 years, the range of dates expressed in the literature range from 82,800 to 259,300 years when boundaries are set all all studies 95%CI. Using only Ingman et al. 2000 171500 TMRCA and +/-50000 2 SD CI = 71500 to 271500 years. Using Cann et al 1987 140,000 to 280,000 years. Muntawand appears to have a select understanding of the literature and he does not how to deal with 'issues'.
As a consequence, the TMRCA estimates and their confidence ranges vary. I am confident if you read these papers you will not find my range of 70,000 to 270,000 to a bad reflection on all of the literature, and if you do, I would be more than happy to condense this range because a smaller range reflects my POV on this issue.
If there are no other issues here I am happy to allow Andrew and Muntawandi battle out shadows in an opinion war. I should note that part of this is carry over from the ANI board so .......PB66620:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I should also point out that some of the Original mtDNA Eve page contained WP:OR, it stated that there was no population bottleneck, however up until 2 or 3 years ago that concept was never thoroughly tested. In addition, the misstatements concerning Gonder linking L0d with Ingmans TMRCA also constituted original research.
I have never tried to create a meat puppet of any editor, however Andrew_Lancaster has accussed me of this on two occasions, the above being the second occasion. I do not have sockpuppetes or meatpuppets. In addition, if you go over to the R1a page and look at the latest edits, as the folks in the ANI page implied Andrew_Lancaster has WP:OWN issues.
Please give the diffs to back up your accusations about me personally. I deny that they are true in any meaningful sense of the term. Let everyone see what you are referring to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
So much smoke! But a quick read by any native English speakers shows the following:
This is just a list to show that in the literature, there are apparently lots of variations of opinion.
Some of the articles cited are very old, which is very odd for this type of subject.
There is never any attempt by you to talk in terms of what is mainstream and what most experts in the field currently believe. (Even though in this particular subject, unlike for Y haplogroups, there is some secondary literature that can be used.)
The whole point is to say, as you have said many times: the literature contains different opinions, and so there is nothing wrong with us using our judgment select something within that range, especially given my 25 years etc etc etc. On the R1a page I have explained many times that being able to show that the primary literature still shows a lot of disagreement, should only be a reason for using wording which makes it clear that there is uncertainty. It is never a reason for going into cherry picking mode and using your personal judgment to pick some winning theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think there may be an OR problem here. All we can do is represent fairly and proportionately the main views on a subject. We can't comment on any problems that we see as to how they derived these views (although we can use such comments from reliable sources), and we can't try to create a range other than to say 'Smith says n, Rogers says X, Zondinski says Y." Anything beyond that is OR, and using a variety of sources to come up with a resolution is almost certainly synthesis. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Therefore I think the Ingman et al range should stay either as 70,000 to 270,000 years or 171,500 +/- 50,000 years not because I like it but because it covers all authors POVs on the range. I have no strong problem with either. There are tons of comments from reliable sources, enough to fill a book. There is a literature battle going on right now concerning the issue of selection all by itself.PB66620:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The range was changed to exactly Ingman's date range, and confidence interval was noted in the foot note. PB66621:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Just taking these words at face value, you are saying that you select the article with the biggest range and indicating the most uncertainty, as if it were the most mainstream, simply because it covers the most options. This is not the right approach at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A very quick response to Andrew, don't make assumptions about mtDNA based on your experience with Y chromosome.
Your actions on R1a which is an article about Y chromsomal DNA are also supposed to be under discussion. The fact that you have chosen to cite some very long random comments about articles which exist and give no real explanation about how this has anything to do with the OR accusation is absolutely typical. In the diffs I have given you have many times told me that in Misplaced Pages you can use your judgment to decide what to put in Misplaced Pages from the literature, based on what is best. The problem is that this is wrong. We are only entrusted to use our expert judgment in order to make sure our presentation is a balanced reflection of what is mainstream. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The first mtDNA TMRCA was 180 ka (brown 1980; ka = 1000 years) and the second was 150 ka to 280 ka (Cann et al 1987) the third was 166 ka to 252 ka (Vigilante et al 1991). Here are the 6 current estimates in 1000 years, 108 (82 to 134) ka, 162 (122 to 213) ka, 192 ka, 194.3 +/- 32.5 ka, 198 +/- 19 ka. All estimates overlap except Endicott and Ho's archaeologically calibrated estimate. All of these agree that there is still a considerable amount of uncertainty and I believe this is best reflected in the lead of the article. Y-chromosomal TMRCA started at 20,000 years and has creeped up from there to 40,000 and now to ~ 75,000 years, new papers suggest that it will creep even farther upward.PB66621:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no doubt that there is uncertainty in this field. No one has ever argued about this with you and if that is all you want the articles to say there would be no problem. But there is a mainstream range of best guesses, and this should be reflected accurately in Misplaced Pages articles. It should not be up to you to decide what should be mainstream.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Similar to WP:SOUP, WP:DISRUPT states "Collectively, disruptive editors harm Misplaced Pages by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity."
Mitochondrial Eve is the subject of numerous books, such as The Real Eve and The Journey of Man, both have documentaries that appeared on the Discovery Channel and National Geographic respectively. Based on this, it is clear that the subject of Mitochondrial Eve can be dealt with in a manner that is accessible to the general public. In these publications, one does not see the level of uncertainty and doubt that is presently in the article and I therefore see no need for an excessively complex article. This isn't to say that doubt and uncertainty don't exist, but it is WP:UNDUE possibly even WP:ADVOCACY, for the article about Mitochondrial Eve to be almost entirely about doubt and uncertainty. It is a really simple concept, Mitochondrial Eve is the common ancestor of all humans via matrilineal descent. The article has a lot of genomic jargon such as TCHLCA, PMRCA, HVR, RFLP, PDHA1, MX1, CRS:16181-16182, N = \frac{TMRCA}{2Tg} which I believe isn't necessary to explain the concept. Some of the Pdeitiker's complexity may have useful to wikipedia, but in appropriate articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Concerning "I think that needs tackling before OR can be reasonably discussed" please think about how this is going to work in practice. Isn't this a chicken and egg situation? There are indeed lots of different problems here: WP:TALK violations, WP:POINT making, extreme WP:OWN etc. But the length of the postings and the number of violations being done should not be allowed to become a shield against critical discussion. I am sure everyone wants this to be someone else's problem! The OR is real. It is hard to say whether it is a cause or effect (personally, looking now through old posts, I think increasingly that it was there all along driving some of the WP:SPIDERMAN behavior) and the question of whether it is cause or effect is academic now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
please think about how this is going to work in practice
I am. I'm saying that the mode of discourse is disruptive to the point of making meaningful critical discussion of the actual topic impossible because it's shrouded in a fog of obfuscation. Time to call out the mode of discourse: user conduct RFC. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Specific issue
I would like to find out from Pdeitiker, how he came up with the data from this section Mitochondrial_Eve#Estimation_of_generation_time. From the supplementary material of Soares et al. 2009, which is the source you cited, the only information about mitochondrial eve is on page 82 of the PDF. The point estimate for when she lived is 192,400 years ago with a 95% CI of 151,600-233,600 years ago. I couldn't find where Pdeitiker got the data from the table in the section. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This response was directed at Andrew_Lancasters Original Research, he presented the opinion that since they have many, many, STR that probability of a missed relationship was 'trivial'. That statement as far as I could tell was original research. I asked him to defend it with literature and he refused. As a consequence I presented the literature that supported my position that the statement was original research and that in-fact the STR based relationship indicators were not according to measures of relationships. In fact I generally agree with Andrew that some of the STR estimates in some of the trees are very good, however in some of the estimates the errors could be non-trivial. The evidence as of last year clearly indicates that certain STRs are poorly characterized, the confidence windows are clearly stated. In addition to this many Y DNA studies are poor, with samples sizes of 20 or 40, counts of 1 or 2 with huge margins of error for less frequently encounter types. I am arguing that they need to be very careful in what and how they present evidence, with past errors of greatness in Y_DNA studies. (TMRCA estimates off by 550% based on current understanding, papers dealing with multiple deletions and recursions in STRs, Poor SNP samplings all across the Y-DNA trees (as evidenced by the 300% increase in markers for R1a between 2007 and 2009). PB66619:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is more or less to the point of dealing with the E&H estimate and the 4 points of nearly equal age. The problem is that the uncertainty in estimates are often based on assumptions. All sides may be using missed assumptions according to other published sources. Ergo choosing one side over another side is a POV edit. There are many POV edits remaining on the R1a page, some are minor, and some are not so minor. But if we look at all the Y_DNA pages there are a tremendous number of POV edits, and this is the basis of edit wars that have plaqued the project. In fact it is quite clear there as been little broader WP oversight other than dealing with people who commit offenses and get blocked. Muntawandi is one of the editors who has been blocked several times. PB66619:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I warned Andrew clearly and repeatedly that throwing out these single points as facts would attract people into edit wars, as it already has done on the R1a page. Some of these numeric results are so poor in quality that meaning is very difficult to interpret. He will not deny this either, he has even mentioned that one author comes up with 0 instances and the next author covering the same group of people comes up with half a dozen instances. It is my opionion that unless one presents a fairly broad estimate of percentage range and geographic spread there will be future problems. One editor, probably of Asian descent, found fault in both the wording and the probable origin of R1a (M420). I precisely warned Andrew that failure to present a broad 'soft' percent and geographic range would attract attention and critique, and so it has. PB66619:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't judge the situation now, wait one year and see how many edit conflicts and wars result as a consequence of editing. The point is that I will not work on any more of these Eurasian Y-DNA pages, the point was to show that the way they are editing was extremely biased. That it was a gross contradiction to have a page with 4 theories section, that speculative author comments from 10 years ago that are roughly unsupported at present have as much 'airing' as the better written more comprehensive studies of last year. It is overwhelmingly obvious that there has been an acute lack of critical editing throughout the WP:HGH project, and there is a particular problem with editing the Y-DNA pages. I have been particularly harsh, but by the same token I have been trying to back out of the R1a page for the last week, you may notice that my edits on the talk page within the last 24 hours have been low, many things andrew has said I did not respond to. The harshness it trying to get Andrew to realize that he cannot throw every fact and statement into every Y-DNA article, if he does try to do this he will not only confuse readers (as previous R1a article - he was not major editor) does and be the impetus for edit wars by confused readers. What is worse, arguing on the talk page about land-mines or having Main pages polluted with insubstantial opinion.? You guys need to make that decision, because as it stands right now, that is the status within the HGH project. PB66619:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
People like the R1a page improvements, it explains the technojargon better, but my little WP:CRYSTAL is this, unless that main cleans out the remaining 'confusingly presented' data, it will attract editor after editor into edit-warring, probably with Andrew, and in the end analysis he will have to give up defense of the page(s) which will then throw the page right back to where it is. Pages need to be constructed in a timeless and defendable manner, if not the problems will not be me-here it will be all of them-here all the time. In my opinion I am trying to help these editors establish a set of baseline criteria for these articles such that there is a general feel for what represents Major, Minor POVs and the latest popularity-driven speculation.PB66619:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of intervening in these disputes, I have been trying every way possible to get broader wiki-pedia editors to come in and start talking out these problems, encouraging people to IMPROVE PAGES ALONG THE WIKIGUIDLINES. I have begged the Admins here at Misplaced Pages to spend more time surveying these pages, its not just the editors that have been banned that are the problem. It is the common editor who reads an article in the "Seattle Post" based on a 10 year old interpretation that nickles and dimes their way into dozens of articles as facts. Generally no-one editing these pages gives a hoot about MOS issues either. So this is how we got here. I don't want to be harsh, but at some point these editors need to place the encyclopedia first over doing everthing that every mans sees fit (Which BTW perfectly described the mitochrodrial Eve page in August). The problem with the WALL-OF-WORDS is that the literature, which is not being thoroughly reviewed is in fact a WALL-OF-WORDS to the majority of edits made on pages, therefore they ignore this and go for popular science versions, frequently wrong, opinionated. User:Pdeitiker|PB666]] 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Again with regard to the MtEve page, there is a raging debate in the literature about selection and its effect on calculating genetic distances in the mtDNA tree. That is the cause of uncertainty, not me. I altered the wording of the Lede to comply with Dweller, however, I think this exactly the wrong way to deal with the lede, ledes do not need to be specific, they should represent a referencable overview of articles.
Pure unadulterated garbage. Not one diff. You are talking about things that never happened. (I warned the admins, I told Andrew.) Nonsense. You change your story every day now. By the way, the word choice "reduces to a level considered trivial" compared to your choice of words which was "reduces but does not eliminate" is just a word choice, not "research". It was your way of backing out of a very silly argument:- , . You could have chosen to replace the word trivial at any time but instead your spent several days effectively arguing that this was the example of original research you had been saying I would post all along.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted so many of my edits according to you clear WP:OWN attitude, including grammar and syntax repairs that I specifically noted the problem which you, after 48 hours failed to repair, so yes, I finally did change it.PB66619:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Are you saying I argued against the word change? Which syntax errors did I re-introduce? You give no diffs but I assume you are repeating the claims I mentioned here: , . Given the proof I posted there that these edits were done by others, this seems amazingly dishonest and yet so amazingly obvious, and this happens so often to you. I have to say with all honesty that you obviously have a big problem reading anything written to you which in any way disagrees with you. You seem to grab a few key words and then develop your own idea of what the words say. You are constantly writing answers which seem to show that you did not read what you are responding to. How should people collaborate with you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It was not until I disclosed exactly the basis of the 60STR (17 most widely used) that Andrews appears to have become aware of the potential pitfall of his statements on the Main and on the talk page. I personally debated whether I should have added this before adding, but given the wide nature of problems in the Y-DNA pages it seemed prudent to make sure Andrew was clear on the nature of variable STR rate estimates.PB66620:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To make this clear to all we are not discussing content, we are discussing a particular instance of how reliable the literature is as to how it is drafted into the main page. My opinion that I have repeatedly stated and backed up with appropriate references is that the literature is often cloudy about its reliability, this should be factored into the Main pages by carefully not overstating cases, as AL and MW appear to desire, and I have been very consistent about this. Instead, I prefer that we back away from cloudy overstatements of fact. To be quite concise with regard to R1a, there were not 4 theories, the molecular clocking is open to wide debate (on this me an Andrew agree, at least in part), that the ability to link migrations to languages, cultures etc is highly dependent on good clocking, which is not apparent. That we should not draft speculation based on old clocking or bad statistics as the backbone of articles, that such things deserve mention as alternatives and nothing else. Andrew has generally been good about this, MW on the otherhand has a reputation for dropping fringe science and opinion into his edits, as a consequence has been invovled in many edit wars that have gotten him banned.PB66620:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but you made 2 very specific accusations. You implied that there was some sort of discussion or disagreement between us about the word trivial, and you said that I made reverts which re-introduced syntax and grammar errors. I take it from your answer that this was more charlatanry.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Population sizes estimates as original research
Now, back to the question of Wapondaponda. He went to the article cited, and did not find the information you put in the article. Where did you get it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Population sizes relative to Generation times and TMRCAs (see above)
Generation time
mtDNA TMRCA
110,000
137,000
178,000
219,000
274,000
357,000
20 years
2750 inds.
3425
4450
5475
6850
8925
25 years
2200
2740
3560
4380
5480
7140
TMRCA based on mutation rate estimates by Soares et al. (2009) and on TCHLCA of 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 10 and 13 Ma
The data is calculation is based on The Coalescent, TMRCA = Population size * 2 * generations time. Otherwise known as the 2N rule, it is a guide, it is not stated as fact in the text what population size is without reference. I have taken no position on these only to state that if CHLCA is X, Generation time is Y then median estimate is Z. IOW this is how they calculated population sizes. It is similar to state if Volume = Width x Height x length. While the values in the table are intermediate relative to the range stated in the text below, one has to remember that Atkinson marks the increase in African population size with L3 that has not been exhaustively reported in the literature because of poor African sampling.
Please read Atkinson, Gray and Drummond 2009. You will understand page 309 has been distilled from a WALL-OF-WORDS to something more comprehensible.
Here is the statement of research in the article: Atkinson, Grey and Drummond, 2009. Figure 2.BSps of effective population size through time for (a) subsaharan africa. Note the grey lines delimit the 96%CI (Grey lines cross at 10,000 and 1,000). These are the estimates that are used on the page, and currently the only valid estimates. I will relook at the page to see if anything on the page differs and are incosistent with these. .....After checking the page i found: "Atkinson, Gray & Drummond (2009) show that prior to 150,000 years ago the population could have been as low as 1000 effective females (~1500 total, 4500 census) with a lower population size between 150,000 to 200,000 years ago." This appears to reflect the reference exactly, that stated size of the population can be inferred by the midpoint 3160 individuals places two estimates right on this estimate or slightly above. The statement in the article is missing the upper boundary which I have inserted to be clear. Disclaimer, this sentence in the text is based upon their TMRCA estimate of "150-201 kyr ago (95%HPD)". However they base their data on Soares corrections, and therefore may need some future adjustment. The Formula and the traces in figures are drafted from the Book the Coalescent the first 3 chapters of which are online.PB66620:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to deal with critiques in the article pages, this is the first time I have heard any of this type of critique so my opinion is that this is the wrong place.
Hmm, so we are using a rate from Soares et al. 2009 and a formula from Atkinson et al. 2008 to arrive at the table. Neither Soares et al. nor Atkinson et al. have generated the table. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The formula is from the book by the author 2001-2008 Kent E. Holsinger and the simple 2N rule was defined in the mid-1930s by Fisher, it is widely accepted formula in molecular phylogenetics, and why are you not aware of it?PB66602:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three." "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived."
"It's not too hard to show, once we know the probability distribution in equation (1), that the average time to coalescence for two randomly chosen alleles is 2Ne" The equation by the way was first demonstrated by Fisher 70 years ago.
This is a simple conversion Population size = TMRCA / 2 * generation time. I should point out that this estimate is so widely agreed upon in molecular phylogenetics it is called the "2N rule" or occasionally the "1/2N rule" I am rather surprised Andrew has never heard of it.PB66601:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The table has no POV, it does not highlight or draw a conclusion. WP:OR is directed at edits that draw readers to a certain POV, there is no POV in the table. Its part of an intro/explanation describing a simple calculation process, how various Population sizes are determined, the table would be the same if I pulled Soares TMRCAs out and replaced it with random values. The calculation. In fact the section that best represents my POV basically debunks this form of 'flat population structure' for Africans, it does not mean the technique is invalid, but since the African population size is now 1 billion and since the estimated size is 5000 the flat population method of popsize estimate is challenged by magnitudinal scale differences in observed population size and predicted population size through most of human prehistory. But people need to know where the base argument is coming from, because of all the changing MRCA values in the literature, they need to know how the MRCA values change population size. The only difference is that Soares TMRCA versus CHLCA gives it more immediate meaning. It is with an introduction to commonly used population size method, that's all. If you read the sections on population bottlenecks you will find that I present both POVs the POV that argues that populations sizes did not dip, and the POV that there was a bottleneck. In neither of those cases was a value drawn from the table. However since this draws critique I will convert this to a graph that goes from 0 to whatever for 20 and 25 year generation times, would you like it log or linear scale. I have no problem with that, since you confused this with original research. These are particularly the types of critiques I have been looking for, what needs to be altered, made user friendly as to shorten the page. My opinioin is that some explanation is necessary prior to dumping people into the conflict area , which is the population structure, places and ends to the period.
I should also point out here that the X-chromosomal and Autosomal studies of Takahata and Schaffner are based on 5 my TMRCAs, whereas the new research is based on 7, even though I did not conduct original research and convert either to the commonly used standards, if I had it would have immediately excluded the no bottleneck example. Either Endicott and Ho's or any one of the recent studies of GOnder, Soares would have been excluded. If one looks at the 96%CI in Atkinson et al 2009 and compares it with the estimated size based on Takahata 11,000/5 * 6.5 or 7 or 12000/6 * 6.5 or 7 you will note that these exceed his 95% confidence limits for population size. That would be original research but instead I treated it as the dominant theory 'flat population structure' and left Atkinson, Gray and Drummond as a minor theory. This is the exactly same kind of issue as the Zhivotovsky et el. 2004 STR dating issue. You know it has big problems but one is hand bound not to disclose the issue. Note I supported you on this even though I knew it was WP:OR, I am not overstepping bounds on mtEve, not as far as you have overstepped on R1a, don't let appearances deceive this issue, population size estimates from TMRCAs are easy to calculate, determining rates of saturation is complex mathematics that should be left to professionals. That is why I did not convert Underhills TMRCAs even though I know these are incorrect.PB66602:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is what original research is , I have studies all the African mtDNA trees (which I have) and I have found an inflection point at 75000 years (which I did) that represented clear example of a bottleneck (do you see a figure or table in the Main describing this?). Since Atkinson, Gray and Drummand clearly have a paper on the issue, i simply refer to their conclusions. I have disclosed my COI on the matter, this is the single paper that 'gets it right' all the other papers are waffling around using assumptions and few hard facts.PB66600:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
and
The data from the table does not appear in publication and is based on your own calculations. You may have applied the formula correctly but WP:NOR also states:
If you are able to discover something new, Misplaced Pages is not the place to première such a discovery. Once your discovery has been presented in a reliable source, it may be referenced.
I believe this table is an unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, and it should be withdrawn. Currently non of the publications have used this specific analysis when discussing mitochondrial Eve and it remains unique to Misplaced Pages. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep it short. PB666's points are actually simple I think:
The field is actually quite complicated. Even specialists make mistakes. That's why the article now looks like an essay about problems in the field rather than a summary of what mainstream discussion says. PB666 feels there is virtually no mainstream.
The maths and assumptions in this field are so simple, that combining methods and numbers from different papers is just like adding 2 and 2. It therefore does not come under synth rules.
This is really looking like it may take an WP:RfC to sort out. We need more editors who are familiar with the subject matter to weigh in. Though the wall-of-text method of debate really needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:12:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
How do we stop that though? 2 ANI cases , have been successfully de-railed by exactly this wall of words strategy, and PB666 now hubristically cites them as evidence that he is right and everyone else is violating WP policies by disagreeing with him ("did anyone on ANI correct my interpretation? So aren't you then trying to promote your point of view regarding guidelines, running a little R1a mutiny of Misplaced Pages").
I think Wapondaponda has a point in making this an OR case. The self righteousness which is inspiring PB666 to disrespect all norms of civil behavior is clearly coming from a drive to grind his WP:AXE, i.e. his fringe criticisms of a field in genetics which is much more widely read than his field. Please consider...
Without any other facts, based on 10,000s of edits here on a wide variety of pages, I conclude that I have the better representation of reality. Therefore I am going to be disgruntled and gripe about the issue as I prepare mentally before going through 100 poorly written pages based on awful molecular anthropology to fix an issue of carelessness. If someone out there doesn't want me (self-admitted Y-DNA skeptic) doing resectioning of their precious Y-DNA pages I suggest they take the initiative.
You wanna know why the Y-DNA pages are in such bad shape, one simple reason, all the worshipers at the alter of the Y-chromosome (Male divinity) that edit these pages are so blinded by the latest saying of their favorite pundit that they never sit down to check the facts and the history.
You have to learn to be far more critical of these results. Frankly I am glad that wikipedia disallows the demonstration of Cline maps. Sharma Figure 1 and Figure 4 are so troubled by ascertainment bias I am surprised it got published. As I stated you guys really don't want someone who is so critical of Y chromosomal studies (a 20 year disaster in the making that has only recently improved), from a global molecular anthrology story
I have 25 years experience in a pattern of mis-assumptions about statistics that never seem to stop repeating itself.
I have seen my fair share of highly imaginative 'extrapolations' of origins based on the Y-chromosome. Its a shame people don't have the same interest in HLA as they have in Y-chromosome. As a consequence the spread from Africa of Y-chromosome is problematic and inconsistent with two independent sets of facts.
1. Either the molecular clock of Y is incorrect or subject to change of unknown cause.
2. Or there is a global pattern social/sexual selection that has been acting for long periods of time.
I repeat, there is nothing magical about Y-DNA that makes it immune to the same sources of variance that any other loci have. Again, I have focused on the whole of molecular anthropology, not just one little cravat niche, where cliche norms have evolved as a cover for really relaxed standards.
Speaking of "Walls of Text" see diff. I think for the purpose of this noticeboard, since we are requesting for input from the community, we should focus less on the technical detail, and more on the underlying issues:
Personal opinions outweighing reliable sources. Pdeitiker claims to have inside information about genetics that others don't have. But WP:VERIFY requires that any editor should be able to verify soures. So this "inside information" is inconsistent with wikipedia's policy on verifiability. This inside information leads Pdeitiker to make claims that have not been published.
Verbosity-clearly a problem
Too technical where he doesn't need to be.
Maybe an RFC is the way to go, but my experience is that RFCs have low response rates from the community, especially for editors or articles that are not highly visible. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I can not see anything to doubt about the OR, whatever other problems there are. PB666 states it in his own words. I fear that if this aspect of the complaint, which is so amazingly clear, can not be discussed by the community, then it is just going to keep bouncing around while PB666 starts his promised project of rewriting 100 articles to correct the myths being published by the worshipers of male divinity who pass themselves off as geneticists and get way too much publicity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is how blatant you are. After dozens of remarks (yes, I have diffs ready) you are you are yet to even name ANY original research I have ever posted anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Not one time have you named an example, in perhaps >500 talk page postings, at more than 1000 bytes a posting. You seem to have developed a habit of just saying whatever you think would sound good without caring one bit whether you can back it up or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
OK who stated that you referenced concerning the statement The resulting pattern gives a kind of "DNA signature" referred to as an STR haplotype. With enough STR markers to compare, the chances of falsely identifying relative relatedness because of coincidentally similar haplotypes becomes trivial.? Wanna see more like this?PB66619:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC) BTW, I agree with this statement, however it is currently not at this moment true, its WP:CRYSTAL and opinion.
Good example of the nonsense you produce, and I suppose I should be thankful that you deigned to give an example to back up an accusation. The sentence you mention was just a question of word choice. You do not disagree with it. You know it is true. In the end we found out that you did not like the word "trivial" and so you changed from "reduces to a level which in many cases is considered by experts in this field to be trivial" to the Martian English dialect "reduces but does not eliminate uncertainty about closeness of genetic relationship". I never had a problem with that because it means effectively the same thing. If you had ever presented this as a simple word preference question, like as if you were just an editor on Misplaced Pages and not a prophet, we would have had about 10,000 words less wasted. The amount of time spent on this trivial word has to be seen to be believed. You talked all over the place about "the collapse = k / (#STR)^0.5" and how I must not understand the literature. You cited all kinds of irrelevant things, for example especially articles about mitochondrial DNA which have nothing to do with STR haplotypes. Patent nonsense. An absolutely wanton waste of time. If this is not disruptive behavior, what is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I love those closing words which you added for emphasis. They make your point very succinctly: I agree with this statement, however it is currently not at this moment true, its WP:CRYSTAL and opinion. So you agree with something not true. I want to point out that not only do you think the sentence correct, you also never presented this as a matter where my wording differed from the published literature. I told you I can go get a source when I have a moment and IIRC you also said you could. Your disagreement is with the morons who get published, even though in this particular case you actually agree with them. See --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just in case it is not clear, when Wikipedians complain about "original research" they are not saying that the original research of published authors should be avoided.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that with large numbers of well characterized STRs just as I agree that if pigs had big enough wings they might fly. The problem is that you could not support your statment, either on the Main or the Talk. If you had supported your statement and given a fair disclosures of strengths and weaknesses of the argument, consequently you begged a response, just as you have 10 or so threads on the page right now where you are begging a response and not getting any.
I can not do anything more to correct the failings of the Y-DNA subgroup of projects than I have already done.
I have created graphs and tables that fixed the copyvio problems
I have showed you how to clean up text and make it vastly more readable
I have pointed out the large contradictions using WP:BOLD
I have advised you how not to edit as to draw in conflict.
This is done and no more. In addition I have dealt with your underhanded tricks like blanking the comments page. PB66621:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is he-said she-said stuff. I would have been happy to review your new evidence for STR confidence intervals for haplotypes up to 60STR if you would have at any point provided a reference. You provided opinion instead. Thats the problem, I asked at least once for the references to counter what I had collected and you just grand-standed. OK, thats why talk pages inflated. You also tried to pick a fight over Indo-Aryan which after 10 years on the UseNet had seen many times abused in its use, you said this was not the case. You have the example above of patent nonsense, but the reality is that most sources of variance can be conditioned based upon binomial probability, with relative variance shrinking not precisely but close to the rate described above. I repeat I thought that the material did not belong on the page, but you put me to a point whereby I did need to deal with your intransigence on the issue.PB66621:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This page clearly has become WP:TLDR, I will be working on mtEve and Haplogroup A page, any issues of original research or complaints should be place their, to that degree I will eliminate any proven instances, no problem. As for the Y-DNA pages, good luck on your adventure, wish you well, but don't call me again to intervene in any edit wars you find yourself in Andrew, because from my perspective you reach a point of objectivity but cannot go any further.PB66621:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am missing something. Mitochondrial Eve is one of the articles raised in this Noticeboard notice as a place where you are asserting OR. How do you get to just declare that you'll be keeping a hold of this turf while the "WP folken" may have some others?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: While I have answered the questions involving original research, when asked to provide a reference for his POV he chose to switch the subject. Where is the reference for the 'trivial' statement and other statements that followed on the talk page, Andrew? Hypocrit!PB66602:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You have not answered questions. You never answer questions. You write long postings which when analyzed contain nothing but hot air and completely false accounts of discussions that never happened or things which are not relevant. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is flogging a tangential horse, but I am worried about all misunderstandings with PB666 (look at how they have spun out of control) so I just comment, after reading over this several times and trying to understand what this OR accusation could refer to:-
I have said above that we had no real talk page discussion about the word trivial. You tried to discuss it as some sort of OR question at great length, but when you finally just made your edit that is when I realized it was just a wording question. In this respect it seems very odd to ask me to show a talk page discussion about my use of the word trivial. There was none. I defended the logic of the sentence, which was, as I said at the time tautological, and therefore not really one people would normally raise big issues about.
If what you mean is "show me the sourcing you did for that sentence I tagged" then this is also very odd. The accusation you are supposedly justifying here is that I inserted original research, not that I was too slow putting in a source. (You and I both know that the current article has sourcing from 2 articles, one I added and one you added. I am sure you and I could find a dozen more.) You have stated yourself that you never actually disagreed with the sentence (except the word choice trivial).
Hope this helps clarify. Thinking this and other examples through I notice how your talk page remarks often worsen communication. I remember working with you on articles where we had almost no relevant talkpage discussion and managing some fairly to improve things together. But the big posts about the Y DNA morons and male divinity have built up and made everything difficult. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Final question
Not to drop a bomb and leave, Andrew mentions Sharma et al 2009, this has a bearing on an edit war that Andrew and another editor engaged in. The question, given Sharma et al provides a respectable presentation and given that R-M420 split previously between R1a and R1*, how is it that the respectable Sharma et al and there R1*'s are not mentioned at all in the section on R-M420? Is it because the R-M420 work isn't that good or is it because you don't trust their designation of R1*. You just had an editor come and say R1a* open and shut case " The evidence to support the origin of R1a1 is overwhelming...." but with Sharma et al's R1* it is clear the case is not overwhelming, so why is that data excluded, did you not invite the critique?PB66621:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
For form's sakes:
I did not mention Sharma anywhere above, or in any recent posts anywhere. Maybe not for weeks?
I am not involved in any edit war about Sharma, and have not been discussing him at all recently. There is no critique of me excluding anything.
There was a single purpose visitor who wanted more Indian data posted in the article. We surely know what that was about? I think it may be a friend of the person who once thanked me for making an enormous table of data including all the Sharma data. Problem is that there was a near unanimous decision to move it to a separate data article. You would stun me if you would say you objected to that split.
M420 was discovered after the publication of Sharma et al. 2009. They could not test for it. You know this. Nothing wrong with that.
No-one simply sequences whole chromosomes in order to work out phylogenies, because the costs make this impossible. There is no point criticizing people for this.
Answer 1 : you quoted a statement by me that is listed above concerning Sharma et al. (2009) after which I stated that despite the weaknesses in the paper it should be mentioned in the section on R1a* otherwise we would have conflict.
Answer 3 - You have repeatedly inferred that some critic or another critice is my WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT and assuming bad faith about their intentions by linking them to me, when they are only drawing the same conclusion I drew reading the text. Repeatedly you have engaged in WP:OWN the current denial of the problem is just another example.
Answer 4 - *M420 was discovered after Sharma et al. 2009 and I do know that, no conflict, however how many instances of R1* have been found where tested that were not R-M420 positive? This is something not discussed on the page. Ergo, that is worthy of placing a 'there is possibly R1a* (R-M420) within India since R1* that was not R1b or not R-SRY1532.2 has been tested elsewhere and found to be R-M420 or these could be explained by a new R1 type.' A statement I recommended to avoid the appearance of favoring one region over another. In areas of India R1* is more common than in West Asia, therefore avoidance of this issue might be inferred as information suppression.
R1* (checked for M420 and found negative) is discussed in the article, but I do not think we have data for it. M420 has only just been announced. This is just silly. There has never been any suppression of information about this!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Answer 5 - That was not part of the question, but since you ask it, the critical weakness of the Y-studies is that within the hetero-chromatin region of Y they have only sequenced complete a handful of humans, as a consequence the molecular clocking of SNPs is greatly crippled, as you-yourself stated, we still don't know how many SNPs lie between R1 and R1a1a at the moment. Even though one author who added 2 unique mutations (Page07 and Page68) claims to have a reference sequence of a R1 that is apparently R1a1a8.
Conclusion, you did invite the critique, I saw the issue, reported the issue to you, and another editor got confused and drew the same conclusion and then made a statement. I likewise saw the problem with Andronovo culture and language linkages, many of the issues I have brought up are reported by other editors either as critiques. These types of issues on talk-pages are necessary to improve articles, just as the R1a article has improved. I encourage everyone who has critiques to critique it, I even invited critiques, but I also invite you to back off WP:OWN issue and start working with editors, if two or more editors independently find a problem, even if they do not word the problem the same way, it indicates a problem that needs to be worked on. You should never assume, imply or otherwise denigrate them as WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK as you have done, niether make fun of their background. One editor complained about More appropriate, West Asia or Middle East, I pointed out to you that some Asians are not comfortable or familiar with middle East or Near East, what you did was revert my edit including two grammatical changes, 2wice, when I went to add this critique to the comments page I found you had deleted the comments page. Clearly there are problems here that go beyond my edits on MtEve page.PB66623:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No editor complained. You never pointed anything out to me. You are still talking about discussions which never happened. No diffs and lots of words. Do you figure you can say anything you like if you make yourself as incomprehensible as possible?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, Are my statements original research or are they statements designed to steer editors away from adding information that would invite future critiques and edit wars. Some of the harshness of my words actually stems from the issue of low-quality research, even Andrew identifies this and has stated this in the Talk pages (The STR clocking 'fudge factor' for instance) Andrew has also promoted on the talk page unpublished sources of corrections (original research). However, I did not come to this page crying Andrew has done original research. Instead what I did was found a reference that supported his POV. To find one reference I read a 69 pages, 2 articles, of Klysovo found an appropriate reference and quoted the material so that he could use it in the article. The low quality research particularly from 2006 and previous, which invited the comment on the WP:HGH page.
You are saying again that I promoted unpublished research? But then what you are talking about is a case where I just had not reference and you knew there were plenty around? Do you think that this is what the Misplaced Pages original research policy is about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"In closing, I would like to remind everyone that the hierarchical haplogroup nomenclature, like the field itself, has been changing very rapidly; to illustrate this, take a look at Y haplogroup trees from 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, early 2008, and mid 2008. – Swid (talk · edits) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)"
The issue with Muntawand is different, he has been accussed of being an Afrocentrist and makes a number of POV edits, I bend over backwards to present all POVs within a Major theory, Minor theory context, I have eliminated alot of popular literature inspired POV edits from the mtDNA eve page while retaining the critiques that the populalr literature is based upon and I have presented all points of veiw as possible, while eliminating extreme points of view. There can be no doubt that MW is up to WP:GAME as this is consistent with past manipulative behaviors (i.e. sock puppetry).PB66623:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Fellow editors, the issue was brought to this noticeboard to get opinions from uninvolved editors. Unfortunately they may not be able help if we keep bombarding this noticeboard with technical language that editors in the general community may not be familiar with. We should keep the discussion about STRs, SNPS, Andronovo, 420 on the respective articles. The discussion here should be mainly about policy issues. The issue at hand, whether Pdeitiker's edits to articles and talk pages are his own analysis that his own analysis has never been published. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What this means is that the Mitochondrial Eve talk page is now being loaded up with more walls of words. This is not what article talk pages are for. Misplaced Pages is a community, with its own norms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
My edits on mtEve talk page were brief in my comments and consisted from recent quoted material from the literature. I stated the case concisely, clearly and as brief as possible.PB66614:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If the tendency towards obfuscation and verbosity persists, then ANI will the next step since a similar case was brought there before. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Pdeitiker, Thank you for a short answer, for once (you probably should have stated it this concicely from the start)... If I understand your argument, you are saying that your edits do not constitute Original Research, but are a summary of current published materials. Before we can examine whether this is or is not the case... Is this a correct statement of your view of the issue? Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick interjection here, Blueboar. The data Pdeitiker is using does not appear to be his own original research (at least in most cases), but his analysis and synthesis of it is, and while this clears him as far as WP:OR proper is concerned it unfortunately runs us up against WP:SYNTH - not to mention the various tendentious behaviours on display (the "walls of text" strategy). I am thinking about how we can best deal with this. Moreschi (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This was going to be my next question. :>) I am trying to get Pdeitiker to discuss his view of the conflict in terms of this policy, and not in terms of the topic itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Blueboar To give instances.
As currently edited by Micheal C. Price (note not accusing him) Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 228,000 - 82,000 years ago. He is using the TMRCA from Gonder and also the lower probability value from Endicott and Ho. The value from Endicott and Ho is a low end of the 95%CI (95% is a standard for confidence ranges). The value 228 Ka, I don't know where it comes) But I think the author was trying to use 194.3 +/- 32.5 ka (Which is the end of the 68.4% confidence range) (226.8 Ka to be exact). The 95% CI comparable that is comparable to the stated CI of Endicott and Ho (82 to 133 Ka) for Gonder et al.'s estimate is 129 ka to 259 Ka. The value that was on the page previously was based on Ingman et al. 2000 at 95%CI or 70 ka to 270 ka (I placed it an it was considered WP:SYNTH but 171.5 +/- 50 ka would generally be considered as a 95% Confidence range of 71,500 to 271,500 years also WP:SYNTH.
The problem is that to remain any form of consistency we are drawn into WP:SYNTH. I personally don't think we should mix confidence intervals type when comparing values (e.g. using in the same sentence a 1SD confidence endpoint and a 2SD confidence endpoint. PB66617:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
To spell this out fully:
Use the mean date (e.g. 171,500 years) of several papers. This method lacks the full range of values possible and makes dates look more certain than they actually are. Some authors have stopped using Means and only use confidence intervals (rare but notable).
Use the one SD range 171,500 and WP:SYNTH by adding SD 50,000 to arrive at 221,500, only dates which present range in this manner can be used together. (~68% confidence range)
Use the two SD (95% confidence range) of either stated in papers or using WP:SYNTH to convert these to ranges (e.g. 171,500 +/- 50000 become 71500 to 271500).
To state for the record TMRCA estimates are skewed toward higher times, and so +/- ranges are invariably bias ranges more recent relative to the actual confidence range that authors of these papers may actually calculate. TMRCA estimates are calculated based on probability which involves natural logs (See The Coalescent) and error is derived from natural log also. From the page Coalescent theoryThe standard exponential distribution has both the expected value and the standard deviation equal to 2N; therefore, although the expected time to coalescence is 2N, actual coalescence times have a wide range of variation.
Another issue, for Y-DNA there are two diametric methods of dating, one method is geneology based and works for real time and close genetic relationships. However when relationships are 64,000 years old (or older) this method is in error by a 66% reduction in estiamte time to common ancestor in most recent common ancestor estimate. This method has a correction but as used in the literature that correction is not useful for common ancestor estimates below 30,000 years. And, yet it is applied indiscriminantly (see: reference on the R1a page). Andrew used a critique concerning this in the R1a page, and although he did not have a reference I allowed this to be added (Despite the SYNTH) because it was a widely recognized problem. Fortunately, I found in a very recent (1 month old reference) to support his case. The other major method works either based on archaeological assumption single nucleotide polymorpisms or CHLCA. For Y-DNA the last method has serious problems.PB66617:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
For the specific problem we are currently discussing? Problems like these methods are scattered all over the published literature. As Soares states Genetic range estimates for the CHLCA are 4 to 8 Ma and Paleonotological estimates range from 6 to 13 Ma. I have a preference of 7.6 Ma (POV) but that accompanies a confidence interval of -1 to +3 million years. For example, Soares used an estimate of 6.5 Ma, however in November all TMRCA estimates below 7 Ma became obsolete, and even Soares pointed in his own materials and methods that some genetic methods previously ignored may need reconsideration.White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y; et al. (2009). "Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids". Science. 326 (5949): 75–86. PMID19810190. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)PB666
The other issue we have throughout many projects is the use of data points. An example is 1 R1a in 30 people sampled. Sometimes percents (either original material or converted by editors). But the problem is, if you take a look at the best papers, confidence ranges are given. Confidence ranges represent the 95% CI and is the most honest representation. Instead we get into edit-wars because one authors data point is 0/30 (no presence) and the next authors is 10/60 (16% presence) , both are possible according to the binomial probability distribution for the same rate. The fact of the matter is that there is alot of WP:SYNTH going on within the project on a point by point basis because there is simly very little choice to make the material understandable.PB66617:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem stated in the previous section, there was a name change in R1a, not a small name change, all names were shifted outward to include a new branch point. In doing this one author converted the R1* (Paragroup) from most places tested to R1a* (R-M420). But they did not survey certain areas of India, which are also R1* and maybe R1a*, this left the impression that R1a originated in the Fertile crescent (general region). We need the liberty of saying that not all R1* was converted and some R1* (which has a higher percent than the middle east) may be R1a*.
Mapping is also a problem, we are forbidden by WP:COPYVIO from introducing certain maps, the current map for File:GlobalR1a1a.pngR1a1a on R1a page may be WP:COPYVIO, I am keeping my mouth shut on the issue. The reason: map creation based on base maps for wikipedia should be strait forward, but when you start reading literature you find the authors do not disclose appropriate names for peoples (That was my critique for Sharma et al. Their figure legends were atrocious), and boundary definitions for peoples (e.g. Northern Russian) is not a defined people-geography and coordinates are almost never given. In addition maps like the R1a1a* without WP:SYNTH will tend to reflect one authors study over another, because of this they are removed from pages because they are POV. For example the data from Sharma et al. appears to be left out of this map.PB66617:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is alot of WP:SYNTH in the HGH project, I am keeping my mouth shut on most of these issues because of the necessity conversion bring forths, but it has created some atrocious pages. The mtEve will be fixed, I have committed to bring this article back, but some of these pages have problems for years, data keeps being added and no attempt to organize articles according to WP:MOS in fear of making WP:MOS edit that violates WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.PB66617:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Stop stop stop... I just thanked you for posting a short and concise comment... and here you go presenting me with a wall of jargon and text. I am not interested in the "for instance" (at least not at this point). And I definitely don't care about the specifics of the topic (I would not understand the difference between R1* and R2D2 in any case. What I do know and care about is this policy and how to interpret it.
I am trying to play devil's advocate here and keep an open mind, but the more you try to explain why you are not adding OR, the more convinced I am that you are adding OR. Finally, the fact that there may be a lot of other people adding synthesis is not an excuse to add your own. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
OK I will try distilling these problems down to short issues is difficult. Interpretation of WP:SYNTH is problematic, I removed my WP:SYNTH from the lead and it was replaced with another version of WP:SYNTH by another editor. What I describe above is working from the text of literature into a fair representation is frequently and innocently going to cross WP:SYNTH. Science articles are intended for people like myself, in terms of making the data accessible to the public or this encyclopedia requires some conversion. In terms of the CHLCA every author is currently aware of the problem, but they simply grab one CHLCA and go with it, Caveot Emptor. For almost every genetic or geneology page we face similar issues. Some people make big issues of WP:SYNTH and some do not, it is frequently friend or foe based.PB66617:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I was confused, I thought you were asking an open ended question about conflicts in policy, and I am trying to describe to you that these policy conflicts commonly exist, I am stating to you that these violations depend on where and how the wall between casual conversion and something else. With concern to WP:SYNTH If someone can point to a better way of presenting something that is WP:SYNTH or catches the WP:SYNTH, I go by the WP:SOFIXIT, which is probably what is going to happen with mtDNA eve, simply find a way to fix it.PB66618:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Pdeitiker, the thread is not about one specific controversy, it is about your overall style of editing. One of the first complaints about your verbosity came as a result of your edits to aviation related articles, and not genetics . This pattern is repeated in almost every article you edit regardless of the subject matter. This is beginning to affect your ability to collaborate with other editors. Your refusal to acknowledge this problem is troubling and it is you who stands to lose out. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Wap... if this is about PB's over all editing patterns, and not about the genetics articles in specific... then you do need to take this to ANI. This noticeboard is really for discussion of OR issues at specific articles, and not about specific editors. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That there are multiple problems is obvious. There is an attempt here to treat it as an OR problem, and that implies that OR is a cause amongst the effects. I believe any reading of the material shows this is reasonable. There is a grudge or grudges concerning this field, i.e. against the published authors and the editors who want to just repeat what is mainstream, which is clearly driving various editing and talkpage patterns which are in turn highly disruptive. Simply saying it is someone else's problem might sound reasonable if the aim were to work like a lawyer, but not if your aim is to resolve an editing issue on the encyclopedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The confusion PB666 mentions about the question, as well as the crazy examples he chooses, are interesting in themselves. The discussions further above show him implying that he believes OR can mean:
Citing peer reviewed authors who he feels are too speculative, or whose work seems questionable when you compare them to other literature which says that, etc etc.
Posting something which is obviously, but without putting in a source, even temporarily (and saying you'll get it soon). And in that case (the one where he was worried about the word "trivial") his talkpage arguments never show him accusing anyone of posting something which was different from what is in published sources. Again it shows him saying stuff like yes, of course there are morons in this field who say things like this. (diffs all above)
WP:AGF I am trying to get a fair ventilation of the problem, I am not bearing a grudge here, I am trying to represent the from a Neutral Point of View. Literally, if I were to turn and play the devil's advocate, and had one free afternoon this page would be top-loaded with incidences and you would have a section all to yourself. Andrew in 90% plus of the time I agree with the intent of what you been added. We need for them to define the line, I would think ASAP, so that we do-not cross over it for whatever reason. What constitutes a conversion and what constitutes more complex math or statistics, that was the question. In addition when there are policy conflicts, such has having a readable lead versus having some WP:SYNTH free assemblage of assorted factoids, where does policy fall?PB66620:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Certain problems on wikipedia don't fit neatly into any one category. This issue certainly has aspects of original research, but it also has other issues as well, and a case could be made for any one of the noticeboards. Should the problem persist, then ANI is definitely an option, however some form of dispute resolution should be attempted first, and this noticeboard is a good place to start. The folks at ANI prefer not to deal with messy content disputes. There was a specific issue regarding population size estimates in one of the above threads that may have been WP:SYNTH, and the table in question is no longer in the article. So some issues can be dealt with here. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
OK... lets take the issues one at a time
OK, then let's try to deal with at least some of the issues here.... but let's do so in an organized way... issue by issue... one by one. Would someone please choose an instance of potential OR that is in the article?... right now, don't explain why you think it is (or is not) OR ... right now just point us to what it is (and if you can link to a dif that would help). Those of us who are not reguarly involved in the articles can then examine it... and ask more questions. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Chuckling looking down the page, Blueboar there are WP:SYNTH issues in the mtDNA article some are mine and some are others, the article is finally getting some edits it needs in terms of alternate POVs. In terms of the R1a article, most of the SYNTH _that I know_ has been hashed out, if there is synth on the page I am not aware of it, and most of the page has been rewritten. In terms of the haplogroup A I am going through the citations right now, some things were given poor references so eventually we can cut these out. Just to clear up this issue on a fairly easy page.PB66600:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Specific question is this sentence WP:SYNTH "Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 228,000 - 82,000 years ago."Given that the sentence that supports the first date in the literature is: "Our TMRCA estimate for the global mtDNA genome tree is 194.3 +/- 32.55 kya" is this acceptable equating 194.3 + 32.55?PB66600:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Some examples. Of course OR, SYNTH and sometimes NEUTRAL can overlap a bit:
, see the organized questions peter out and eventually:
Here is the major point, Misplaced Pages genetics articles should not be a platform for the spread of speculation in other feilds of research, our task here is to explain R1a, not what the National Enquirer says. Unless the foundations for the assertions are firm it does not belong here. If the authors who made these assertions are not clear on the cultural science or they are producing handwaving arguments, we are not obligated to place these style of arguments here. We only have to produce Major theories and major minor theories. That is the extent of the obligation. The major theory on hand right now is that R1a spread from south Asia, the minor theory is that it spread from Western Asia or Central Asia (bending over backwards and allowing a minor/minor theory). That is the extent of the obligation. We are not obligated to propogate hypothesis of origins with very little genetic support and a very confused and confusing cultural association. If you want to discuss this modern age myth, it is best placed in the 'in popular culture' section. Cut the crap out of the article or I will. but then try to work out what the theory is which he is here effectively accusing of being fringe and "published in the National Enquirer". He is actually talking about genetics articles published in the mainstream. He uses the argument that "Geneticist are not authorities on cultural evolution or language-type evolution" but the bit about languages etc being cited is standard and orthodox, the idea that many Indian languages come from the direction of Europe. If you have the strength to read through you will find that he actually argues that Indian languages might descend from Hittite, which is pure fringe.
The continuation is here: . "That is the problem. If an author makes an error in speculation, and we simply carry forward that speculation with no critique, then WP becomes the source of speculation. The original author may have changed his mind or corrected the error years ago" This was in defense of a tag he put in the article claiming I had inserted OR!
Here again similar accusation of me doing OR by citing a published author:
, in the context of . See bolded repetition: "You have even recapitulated the R1a* aspect of Underhills table. To perpetuate this myth any longer is a major distraction to the page." "No more mythologys."
in the context of . What he is saying here is that his long postings on the talk page should be taken into account for what should be in Misplaced Pages, because it is just like if someone would sent you an article you did not know about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
But please do not ignore the example discussed right here, just above: Wapondaponda's question to PD about his source, and his subsequent explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Andrew: I've said this before. Last time I'll say it. The way this discussion has blown up into a mess of obfuscation is clear evidence of some flavour of disruptive editing. I strongly advise: quit trying to discuss the topic against overwhelming odds. You are dealing with an appallingly tendentious editor. Cut to the chase and open a user conduct RFC about PB666. If you don't, despite being uninvolved, I will. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
PDeitiker's edits are are tantamount to OR, seem to be directed personally against Andrew, and are flooding the R1a talk page (given they are excessive and tangential). Reasoning with him does not appear to have worked Hxseek (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Gordon, I did not open the OR case, but I am trying to take it seriously because as hxseek also sees, this is a core aspect of the thing. I am not sure, but might it not be considered forum sopping to start another kind of case at the same time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, When I asked for an example of OR, what I wanted was someone to point to an example of actual article text they thought was OR. I was not looking for links to talk page discussions. Sorry if I was not clear.
Sigh... To be honest, I think I will have to give up on attempting to help here. It is clear that the issues go far deeper than OR violations. I have noticed that on both this notice board and at the talk page discussions being linked, everyone involved seems to be talking past each other. I get the feeling that all sides in this dispute are a bit guilty of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT... so... I am going to suggest that we end the discussion here at this noticeboard. I really think you need to move to the next step in dispute resolution. I think you need an official mediator to work with you at the article talk page. Best of luck. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This specific debate can be brought to a close. There were at least two clear areas of WP:SYNTH, and at least one is mentioned in one of the above threads. Both have been withdrawn by the editor who added the material. So yes there was synth occuring. However much of the problem concerns spamming talk pages and obfuscation of facts which resulted in subtle POVs throughout the articles in question. There is general agreement on this noticeboard that obfuscation occurred and is problematic. Since PB666 is aware of the problem, no further action may be necessary at this point. If issues continue, then ANI or an RFC will be the next step, and we can cite these threads in the event that this issue is escalted further. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I am keeping notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Andrew_Lancaster/PB666 . If others concerned about this issue want to help keep that page up-to-date and complete, please do. Since this discussion started to get third parties who were willing to make very clear comments I must say there seems to have been a temporary lull in events. But for the time being I am learning from the past and not assuming this is finished.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, before you go can you address this issue.
The current lede states:
"Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 228,000 - 82,000 years ago."
Given that the sentence that supports the first date in the literature is:
"Our TMRCA estimate for the global mtDNA genome tree is 194.3 +/- 32.55 kya"
is this acceptable equating 194.3 + 32.55 to 228,000?
I did not write this, I prefer this but if it is unacceptable I can replace it with a range-end quoted in the literature that is slightly lower.
Well, assuming that these numbers come from the same source, the arithmatic is flawed ... 194.3 + 32.55 = 226.85, which would round to up 227... not 228, and 194.3 - 32.55 = 161.75 which would round to 162 (or 161 if you wanted to round down for a broader range), but the idea of adding and subtracting the more specific numbers and then rounding is fine (simple arithmatic is not considered OR). Perhaps the estimation range is based on something else? What do the sources say? Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Presumbably based on the style its a 1 standard deviation range. It appears to be an arithmatic error. OK so this is fine, gotcha.PB66623:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If the source was providing an age estimate with a 1 standard error range, years ago, it would not be correct to paraphrase this as "X is estimated to have occurred between and years ago", but at least you could wrap a probability statement around this to make it right. It is much less sensible to combine endpoints for two such ranges, and , and interpret this as "X is estimated to have occurred between and years ago". Am I right to think this is what is being done here? If so, this would be a clear case of original research, in my view. Combining statements of uncertainty is not straightforward (see e.g. meta-analysis), and goes well beyond simple arithmetic. -- Avenue (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
One comment... The sentence in question comes from the lede. We do give a bit more leway in the lede, assuming that what is briefly mentioned and summarized there is more fully explained in the main text. If the numbers in the estimate represent the highest and lowest estimates given by different sources, it would not be OR for the lede to say something along the lines of: "There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between 228,000 years ago and 82,000 years ago."... assuming you discuss these estimates (and who derived them) further in the main body of the text. In fact, doing so would help make it clear to the reader that there are differences of opinion in the scientific community. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point. The larger estimate that should go in the lead would then be the 194 kya figure, though, since that is the estimate from the study cited. Our derived range endpoint of 228 (or 227) has little meaning on its own, or attached to an estimate from a different study. -- Avenue (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave that up to those who know the math and the various studies and sources... my point was simply that, in an article or section lede, it is OK to combine estimates from different sources in one sentence, as long as: a) it is clear to the reader that this is what is being done and b) you discuss the different studies and estimates seperately later in the text. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Having now looked further into the cited source, I see that the range is in fact a 95% confidence interval. Taking one end of this range is probably not as bad. My general point still stands; calculations as simple as addition can give misleading or meaningless results, and can then constitute original research. -- Avenue (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
On the bioidentical hormone replacement therapy page, one editor in particular (Hillinpa (talk·contribs)) has continued to insert primary sources to support a point. Bioidentical hormones are molecularly identical to those produced in the body, but are dealt with as a class explicitly by an extensive number of sources. These sources converge on a point that "bioidentical hormones are promoted as better than conventional HRT" though there is considerable conflation with the practice of custom-compounding by pharmacists. Critical sources do not say "compounded bioidentical hormones are unproven and dangerous but noncompounded bioidenticals are both safer and better". Though the sources do tend to specify "compounded BHRT" are inappropriate, possibly unsafe, and definitely unproven, the point has been ventured by Hillinpa that "noncompounded bioidentical molecules are safer" - with reference to primary studies that do not use the term "bioidentical" at all. Some diffs:
- the IMS has some good things to say about progesterone (which other sources label as bioidentical but it is not identified as such in the article) but its overall point about bioidentical hormones is found on page 3 (of the PDF, 184 of the original article) "There are no medical or scientific reasons to recommend unregistered ‘bioidentical hormones’. The measurement of hormone levels in the saliva is not clinically useful. These ‘customized’ hormonal preparations have not been tested in studies
and their purity and risks are unknown." I have removed this point, and it has been replaced repeatedly , .
Use of primary sources that contradict secondary sources. Campagnoli et al do not mention the word "bioidentical" at all in their article. Nor does Fournier et al or Canonico et al, nor does the word appear in the abstract for Scarabin.
This has also occurred on the talk page - ,
There are whole articles and position statements dealing with bioidentical hormones as a class, I see no need to invoke studies of specific bioidentical hormones, particularly when there are articles that address claims made about specific hormones. I see this is pretty explicitly both original research, and the use of primary sources to debunk secondary (and more than a bit of cherry-picking). Meanwhile there are many position statements and reviews that are universal in criticizing BHRT while never saying the problems would go away if only compounding and related accretions were removed , , , , , , , , , . Though bioidenticals and compounding are clearly conflated, there is still no mainstream support for a wholesale change over to bioidentical molecules to treat the symptoms of menopause.
Anyway, I could dig up more diffs to support relevant points if required, but the sources essentially speak for themselves. WLU(t)(c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OR Venn diagram that was added to several drug articles
We have an editor here who wants to insert "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching." He argues that this is not OR and he doesn't need a source on the basis that this is a logical conclusion (although he uses more words than I have). He compares this to an earlier argument he had where he was asked for a source to prove that a in the UK losing your job doesn't mean you lose your health care. 4 editors disagree with him. I'll try to move the argument here, which is where the rest of us think it should be. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I won the argument on the health care issue because it was logically true. Your description is accurate of the original argument but I accept that the words "Christ's own teaching" are not founded on analysis (though I suspect quite strongly that what we know of Jesus's statements from the New Testament will not reveal very much about the process of creation other than perhaps that Jesus refers to God's creation and assumes that everybody accepts this, as His contemporaries would have done). I would be amenable to those words being replaced wih something else. Judaism is older than Christianity (and of course they are not the same faith because Jews do not accept many of the tenets of the Jewish faith, even though Christians accept the Old Testament and a smaller number wish it all to be taken literally. The main point however is fundamentally true. That is that those Christians who regard the creation story in Genesis as being literally true are using as the foundation for that argument a text that belongs to the earlier faith and which is primarily based on Jewish scripture and not scripture developed based on the sayings of Christ or his followers. Of course this is a truism but I think it needs to be stated explicitly. The editors at Creationism argue that I must have a WP:RS for making this kind of statement. I argue that one can call on pure logic and that it is very difficult to find a scholarly reference for something so blindingly obvious that it is never worth mentioning. Just as it was impossible to get a citation for the health care statement but an appeal to pure logic demonstrates the truth of the statement (because health care insurance in the UK is by law tied to legal residency and not employment status). Because pure logic tells us this must be true I eventually got the text into the article. I argue that this is the case here. Genesis is essentially a Jewish text and therefore belief in creation based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than it does to Christianity (if one accepts that all the unique elements that make Christian faith what it is came in to being after Jesus came to us). I have invited editors at Creationism to suggest what they might accept in place of "Christ's own teaching but they have not suggested anything. I have also asked them to envisage an argument that would counter the logic underlying the statement but nobody has done so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See: WP:No original research. While your logic may be perfect, Misplaced Pages does not allow editors to build articles based on their own logic. Instead, we build our articles on the logic found in published sources. Our job is to simply summarize what reliable sources say. So the editors who are demanding a source are correct.
There are a ton of scholarly papers and books that discuss the overlap and connections between Judeism and Christianity, and I would be surprised if there was not something that discussed the creation story in that context... but... if you want to discuss this idea in a wikipedia article, you must actually locate such a source and cite it. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hauskalainen: I am still curious by what process you "won" the argument in the health care case you keep refering to. And since you keep citing the health care example as precedent it would help your case if you could give us a link or similar. Regardless, Misplaced Pages's policies are crystal clear that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). So whether or not your argument is true or not is totally beside the point. It needs to be verifiable (ie. attributable to a source) in order to be included.
I also think you are mistaken regarding my position. I haven't said that the argument you've presented is false, merely that you've yet to attribute it to someone other than yourself. Gabbe (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Gabbe: The issue is that it is completely verifiable that access to health insurance in england does not end when one loses a job´. It just is not verifiable from a citation but by reference to logic based on other facts. So it is in this case. You seem to accept the logic but reject the conclusion solely for lack of a citation. Not every fact reported in WP has a citation. I am surprised you dispute this because you seem to accept the logic of the argument but want to reject it solely on the grounds that some other person has not made the same observation AND WRITTEN ABOUT IT IN A SCHOLARLY WAY. I am not surprised that scholars do not mention this because it is stating the blindingly obvious (just like the health care issue).--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You still haven't given us a link to this debate you supposedly "won". And if the content you wanted to add was "blindingly obvious", other editors would have supported your position, no? --NeilN03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying Hauskalainen, but that's not the definition of "verifiability" used in WP:V. If you want to change Misplaced Pages's policies so that it is OK to include information that is true (without being attributable to reliable sources) then you woulf have to suggest a change like that to WT:V or WT:NOR. As the policies stand right now, all forms of unattributable material are indamissible, even if the unattributable material is true. Gabbe (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 5 years and the argument about health care in the UK was so long ago that I nether remember the particular article or the route used to resolve the argument. What's more it is the argument that is the important thing and not the resolution route. Gabbe says that we still have to provide citations for things that are obvious and that WP policy does not get us around this. I disagree. I don't think that anyone would argue that 3456093456+34 is not 3456093490 although finding a citation for this may well be impossible. WP allows us to use logic (in the form of mathematical calculation) to verify something. The argument used at the talk page is that anyone can get a calculator to prove that, but that calculation made to prove the point may have been the first time in human history that caclulation has been made. It is not wrong because nobody has ever made that observation. Mathematics is an extension of pure logic. And so it is with this argument. Logic tells us that if Genesis was a Jewish script long before Christianity existed and certain Christians base their faith in creation on Genesis rather than anything Jesus said or His followers, Creationists are basing their faith on a Jewish text that predates the foundation of their own religion and not on the teachings of their founder. Because the argument is based on logic the only way to counteract it is to prove that the logic is wrong (as it would be if I had claimed that 3456093456+34 = 100000). --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, wikipedia doesn't use single edits as precedents bar consensus for a single page and if there is an original research problem elsewhere, it should be corrected. The sentence itself adds nothing to the page - there's no history, no analysis, the sentence is logically flawless, certainly original research, utterly removable per WP:PROVEIT and has essentially no merit. The only purpose I can see to the sentence is to essentially make the claim "The Jews are responsible for the culture wars" in a roundabout, but logically impeccable manner. It's not just a matter of original research (though it is certainly OR), it's also a matter of irrelevancy. But ultimately - the material has been challenged, it's up to you, Hauskalainen, to find a source for it. If you can't, that suggests that no-one else has found this a point to be worth discussing (therefore an undue weight issue as well as original research). WLU(t)(c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that's the point that the sentence seems to make. I have another problem - Christian creationism is the interpretation by certain Christians of some passages in an ancient text. Other Christians interpret it differently and reject Creationism. So, the next question is why do some Christians interpret these texts in such a way that they come up with Creationism. Is this really a pure logic problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) " The only purpose ... is to essentially make the claim "The Jews are responsible for the culture wars"" What????? It says no such thing! It merely is highlighting the fact that certain Christians have a different opinion how to interpret what is essentially a Jewish era rather than a Christian era text. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've think we've reached the question we really want people on this noticeboard to comment on, namely:
Is the statement "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching." either
If it isn't based on a source that makes the same connection, then it clearly falls under WP:SYNTH. In no way is this comparable to the fact that people can't lose their health insurance in the UK when they get unemployed. In case it helps to clarify the problem, how about the following alternative:
The Book of Genesis has been passed on through 2000 years of Christianity, forming one of its most important pillars; therefore it has taken on a genuinely Christian alter ego with its own traditions of interpretation, making Christian creationism a priori completely unrelated to Judaism.
I don't think that's correct, but I guess it's slightly more correct than the other sentence. Both are improper synthesis. HansAdler13:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree it is WP:SYNTH until a RS is produced. When an editor objects to unsubstantiated additions in the article then the promoter of the change must produce a RS in order for his change to stick.--LexCorp (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The idea that Creationism is anything other than Christian is not supported by the sources. Christians use the Old Testament in ways that Jews do not. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely a statement that is "likely to be challenged"... more to the point it is a statement that actually is being challenged. Thus, under WP:BURDEN, it is up to Hauskalainen and any others who wish to retain it to find a source for it. If they can not, remove it. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hans says that this is not like the health care issue but clearly it is. Sometimes there are things that need to be said for the benefit of a certain audience that is definitely true but which may never have been said before. Like certain mathematical equations they have an inner logic which can be demonstrated to be true even if that has never before been reported by a WP:RS. That was the case with the health care article. The fact that Christian scholars may have interpreted Genesis ad infinitum and for longer than Jewish scholars does not alter the fact that document they are founding their belief was a Jewish document long before it was a Christian one. And if most of the belief is based on the content of a pre Christian era document and not on the teachings of Christ regarding creation, it is a bald fact that this belief is based more on a Jewish document than the teachings of Christ. It is true in logic. It does not make any value judgement and it matters not very much about the scholarly efforts made in the meantime if the underlying fact is that certain Christian creationists prefer to take Genesis as the basis of their belief and not the teachings of Christ. There are of course Christian Creationists (such as those who prefer to argue their case on the basis of logic e.g. those argue for intelligent design who argue for irreducible complexity. These people are not covered by the statement because their arguments are based on an intellectual argument by an examination of nature and not be reference to Genesis. The clear fact is that those argue that Genesis is the foundation of their belief are doing so on the basis of Jewish text (albeit one later adopeted and accepted by Christians) rather than the teachings of Christ. The statement is not arguing (as Rick Norwood implies that Creationism is a Jewish belief and not a Christian one. But Genesis was and is a Jewish text that is part of the Torah. It existed before Christ was born. Christian creationist using Genesis as a basis for their belief are founding their belief on document that owes more to Judaism than it does to Christ's own teaching. I am arguing that the argument stands up in logic and nobody yet has been able to come up with a logical reason why it is not true. Blueboar is right in arguing that it has been challenged, but it is being challenged solely on the basis that no WP:RS has ever pointed this out. It is exactly the same as the editor who was arguing that I could not say that "losing ones job in the UK does not lead to losing one's health care insurance" because there was no WP:RS. It is logically true because the NHS effectively insures all legal residents and access to the NHS is not tied to one's employment status. There were no WP:RS to be found for the statement I made but it was possible to show that free health care access is dependent on legal residency. Therefore the statement I added was true and could stand. Neither do I believe that WP:SYNTH applies here. There is no synthesis. If people argue that Genesis is the sourve of their belief and do not source their belief to the teachings of Christ then it is axiomatic that their faith is based on a Jewish era text and not the teachings of Christ. There is no synthesis at all. Nor is WP:OR any more than saying 2344454-54 is 2344400 would be WP:OR. It does seem to me that editors are being overly sensitive about this issue. There is nothing wrong with Christians having faith in the veracity of the Old Testament. That has always been the case. We just need to recognize that that is what it is when it happens.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Sometimes there are things that need to be said for the benefit of a certain audience that is definitely true but which may never have been said before." ... the problem is that Misplaced Pages is not the right venue to publish such things... we only deal with ideas that have been discussed by others. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The article about youtube celebrities Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi is heavy on original research. Many of the claims are based on interpretation of youtube statistics, rather than on thirrd-party sources. I am deleting bad pieces, but obviously I cannot fight the fans of Ryan and Sean. Here is an example of typical OR I've just deleted:
(nowiki):
After posting a variety of videos such as solo-rants by Ryan, the duo garnered much success with a series of "how-to" guides such as ''How to be Ninja'', ''How to be Gangster''.<!-- The following reference proves that the video is private and that it garnered much success because of the 22 million+ views--><ref name="gangster">{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/user/technoairplaneman#p/f/27/khFhF64P3VQ|title=Technoairplaneman's channel|publisher=]|accessdate=30 November 2009}}</ref> and ''How to be Emo''.<!-- The following reference proves that the video is private and that it garnered much success because of the 18 million+ views--><ref name="emo">{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/user/technoairplaneman#p/f/26/pK4bLMd0avU|title=Technoairplaneman's channel|publisher=]|accessdate=30 November 2009}}</ref>
Can some cool-headed neutral parties please peak in on this article, specifically the section labeled "Academic status of the J.D." ? It appears to be OR to me but the Talk page is a complete mess and I'm not having much luck getting the article's regular editors to address the issue. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's an odd mix of sources, some of which are perfectly OK, and others of which don't qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS, (eg, Austin Peay Dean's Council Meeting Minutes? - it's a primary source, not really appropriate to use in the article) but 99 44/100% of this section of the article is pretty unremarkable and noncontroversial. Fladrif (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Maharishi Effect
The article on TM-Sidhi, a practice related to Transcendental Meditation, covers something called the "Maharishi Effect". According to this theory, when a sufficient number of people are practicing TM-Sidhi there is a positive effect on the surrounding area, leading to lower crime, less violence, increased crop production, etc. The theory has been studied extensively by the faculty of the Maharishi University of Management (MUM), who have conducted numerous studies proving the existence of the Maharishi Effect. So far as I'm aware, it has not been studied by independent researchers. Though the studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals, the Maharishi Effect may qualify as an "exceptional claim".
One study in particular asserts that the Maharishi Effect led to a major reduction in crime in Merseyside, the district that includes Liverpool. The study specifically discounts the influence of other factors, including the expansion of a drug treatment program. The Home Office of the UK published a study that attributes the crime reduction to that drug program. The discussion of this study is at Talk:TM-Sidhi program#Merseyside crime statistics. Here is a diff showing the deletion of material on the Home Office study.
If both studies examined the same set of circumstances then no, it is not original research. We present alternative viewpoints on various claims all the time in articles, especially those dealing with fringe topics. For example, in Intelligent_design#Defining_science the sources used for "or a theory to qualify as scientific" do not specifically name Intelligent Design. --NeilN02:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A significant amount of crime is related to the economic needs of drug abusers. A successful drug rehabilitation programme could be expected to have positive impact on the crime rate. However, expansion of the numbers being treated at the Liverpool Drug dependency clinic did not take place until July 1988, too late to account for the march 1988 fall in crime.
If I understand this correctly and to summarize the quote above: The fall in crime occurred in March of 1988. Expansion of numbers in the clinic, indicating that more people were coming into the clinic for treatment, thus reducing numbers on the street committing crimes, occurred after the March fall in crime. So that would mean these times do not intersect.(olive (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
The MUM study covers five years, so a four month period doesn't seem to be highly significant. However I wouldn't object to including the study's reason for dismissing the effect of the drug program. Will Bebacktalk03:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The timing of the increase in drug treatment isn't clear from either study, and difficult to pin down because it didn't involve just one clinic but a massive inter-agency front involving several clinics, the regional health authority, social agencies, police. The effort is referred to vaguely in several sources as getting underway in the "mid to late 1980s" The funding for the increased drug services was approved in 1985, and looking at the crime graphs, I would guess (this is just for background, not for the article) that the program must have been well underway by the time the MUM study commenced in 1987, because the acquisitive crimes preferred by drug users (burglary of dwellings and theft from vehicles) peaked in 1986-87 and fell steadily from 1987 on (see graph on p. 11 of the Home Office study).
But let's not get off point here; the issue that needs to be resolved at this board is whether a source that doesn't refer explicitly to the Maharishi Effect must be disallowed per OR. I am reading from the few comments here that that's not the case, but just want to make double sure before I put the source back in (incorporating Tyrenius' comment below). Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How about providing all the information, as in NPOV, so readers can make up their own minds, rather than withholding pertinent material that any reader would want to know about. We are here to inform. However, the editorialising "suggests another explanation" should be removed.Ty05:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Northing in our policies suggests we can override WP:OR to inform the reader. Could editors comment on that. Of course NPOV must be met if we have reliable verifiable source that present multiple views. But I don't see that this gives us permission to insert OR material to satisfy a perceived NPOV. NPOV relies on sources that directly reflect the topic of the article. If we open the door for OR to inform the reader , where does it stop.(olive (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
No it doesn't (as I've discussed above). Please point to the part of the NPOV policy you are using to make your claim. WP:RS are used to back up the specific statements and do not have to include the topic of the article by name. --NeilN15:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not making a claim, and I didn't open this thread. I am referring to WP:OR "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." and WP:Synthesis:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
This means that I cannot take a comment that is sourced, and then, add content that is sourced but says nothing in it in anyway about the topic of the article, and then connect the two comments so that another position is implied. In this instance the falling of the dow is in the source not connected in anyway to the topic of this article . I can't synthesize content this way any place, but especially not on an encyclopedia where even a whiff of OR is to be avoided. I cannot say, well, in order that NPOV be met, I'll go ahead and synthesize in this way .... so that in effect NPOV over rides OR. I don't have to show where NPOV says this shouldn't be done. Those who think this is acceptable had better be able to show a policy that allows Original Research and synthesis.(olive (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
Olive here has mistakenly invoked another recent example of this argument on the same talk page. In this case, a claim was made by TM spokespersons that the "Maharishi Effect was responsible for the rise in the Dow Jones index to 14,000+ followed by a prediction that that the Dow would top 17,000 within a year, as a result of this effort. An editor followed that claim by simply pointing to the Dow Jones Index to show what the Dow actually did during that year. The same editor who is arguing that using the drug study source as described above constitutes OR, made the same claim in the case of the Dow Jones; the Dow Jones index could not be used as a source because it doesn't refer directly to the Maharishi Effect, as repeated above. Woonpton (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Woonpton. You're right. Several discussion on OR going on in the last few days and I ended up posting on the wrong page. I apologize for any confusion.(olive (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
No, this is completely incorrect. WP:SYNTH does not apply as the counter-claim is taken from a single source. We can say Person X claimed yyy(source 1). However, zzz happened(source 2). Two statements, two independent sources, no WP:SYNTH. --NeilN21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree 100% with those who conclude that this is neither original research nor synthesis. What we have are two sources, each examining the causes of a reduction in crime in Merseyside, and coming to different conclusions. One source says: "Crime went down because 100 followers of the Maharishi were bouncing up and down in Skelmersdale six hours a day." (Only a complete cynic would ponder whether that was simply because it took 100 dangerous criminals off the street for most of the day, and left them too tired for criminal activity the night after.) The other source says: "Crime went down because the police implemented a crackdown on drugs and street crime." It is simply responsible editing to neutrally report what both sources say was the reason for the crime reduction; it is certainly not original research nor synthesis. It draws no conclusion that one theory or the other is right or wrong. It is a misinterpretation and misapplication ofWP:NOR and WP:SYNTH to claim that unless the second source says: "the Maharishi Effect isn't the reason crime went down" that it should not or cannot be used or presented in the article. Fladrif (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Consider these points:
We don't know if both the ME study and the gov't study examined the same circumstances. Should we want to find that out, we would be doing OR to do so. We as editors are attempting to connect the two studies. if we don't do the research we are connecting two possibly very unrelated studies, and implying inaccurate information. That's why sources must be directly related to the topic of the article. Then the connection of the information is self evident and requires no editor input and connections =OR.
This related example:
Bob says the temperature will not rise above zero on Dec 24, 2009.
The weather report for Dec 24, 2009 states the temperature rose to 20 degrees.
Juxtaposing those together IMPLYS that Bob was wrong, but the real problem is the Weather Report doesn’t mention Bob, nor are we sure they’re looking at the same things. Maybe Bob’s prediction was for his warehouse freezer unit. We need to know they’re talking about the very same things in relation to each other.
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C.
Make no mistake about it, we are dealing with an instance of OR. Is it technical. Very likely. Can this instance of OR be ignored. Perhaps, with editor agreement. But not for an instance should we assume this isn't a case of IAR, and if we ignore all rules in this instance we open the door for the same kind of scenario for viewpoints you don't agree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
My preference is to stick strictly to the policies and not open doors for any more contention that we already have.(olive (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
Round and round and round we go. NO, we are NOT dealing with an instance of OR. We are dealing with you, who contrary to the unanimous input of uninvolved editors, cannot or will not grasp the difference.Fladrif (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Epstein, Mathew (9-10-2003). ""Saudi Support for Islamic Extremism in the United States"" (PDF). Testimony of Matthew Epstein Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
years ago, it would not be correct to paraphrase this as "X is estimated to have occurred between 
and 
years ago", but at least you could wrap a probability statement around this to make it right. It is much less sensible to combine endpoints for two such ranges, 
, and interpret this as "X is estimated to have occurred between 
years ago". Am I right to think this is what is being done here? If so, this would be a clear case of original research, in my view. Combining statements of uncertainty is not straightforward (see e.g. 
