Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Holybeef (talk | contribs) at 02:02, 29 July 2014 (→Persistent, Disruptive OR editing on Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

SYNTH - gaaahhh!

I'm at a loss as to how you do not run up against synth issues when dealing with alternative titles. I've got conceptually equivalent laws (attaining an age where you are considered an adult under the law) that use different terminology to achieve the same end result. I have 50+ quality sources available which describe how, separately, they achieve the same or extremely similar end result. I can not find any comparisons that directly state they are equivalent though. I can find hundreds if not thousands of sources where they are transposed by lay persons or for lay persons. I can even find sources which demonstrate the change from one term to the other over a 50+ year period. In the end it's always synth. The only way I can find to connect the terms is that 195 states ratified a UN treaty who's first article requires the varying terms hold the same legal meaning. That in itself is synth though since the treaty doesn't explicitly state the equivalence, it just requires it. It's like trying to prove Plum and Beefsteak are both tomatoes, when the only connection you can make is that they both ended up in the same jar of tomato sauce. You can show their similarities in all sorts of ways, you can show that someone else accepted them as tomatoes for their sauce, but without something that says "these are both tomatoes"... gaahhh!!! Help! https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Age_of_majority#Alternate_Title_Dispute JMJimmy (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you adopt a "fundamentalist" approach virtually any edit can be categorised as synth, since all edits involve making editorial decisions, choosing what to include or exclude, deciding what scholarly consensus is about a topic, or even deciding that the "David Smith" mentioned by one author is the same one mentioned by another. It's difficult to deal with such issues in the abstract. Concrete details are more useful. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You need a source that explains the terminology, create a section about it and explain which definition the article uses. Note the article says that in Ontario one reaches the age of majority at 18. But Ontario for many years issued an Canadian Provincial Liquor Cards#Ontario|"Age of Majority Card" to 19-year olds. And individuals were considered minors, or infants, at ages up to 16, 18, 19, 21 and others under various provincial and federal laws.

Articles that list the different ages for voting in each country and similar lists avoid synthesis. But it you create an article explaining how individuals are treated as adults in different countries, then it is synthesis unless you have sources that make a global comparison. Incidentally, there are articles in reliable sources about tomatoes that list the varieties. While it is obvious to you that because they look similar and are both called tomatoes that they are types of tomatoes is synthesis. There are examples of unrelated flora and fauna having the same name because someone thought they were the same, and modern biology has proved they are not.

TFD (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

While I understand Paul Barlow's approach on synthesis, I don't agree that it applies to the WP:Synthesis policy (at least not generally); this is because I think that the WP:Synthesis policy is pretty straightforward. I do agree with The Four Deuces (TFD) on this matter. And now, even if we leave out "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority" in the Age of majority article because it is against the WP:Synthesis policy (unless it's acceptable to take JMJimmy's alternative approach and simply note in the Age of majority article that "age of maturity" is another term to indicate the age of adulthood, not that the terms are synonyms), we currently have a disambiguation page listing "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority," as noted at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Age of Majority does not relate to the attainment of specific rights, just that you are recognized as an adult under the law. In Ontario at 18 you are a major and certain rights are withheld due to justifiable reasons (usually safety/health). That's neither here nor there though... I guess my objective is to understand where common sense/logic ends and WP:NOR begins.

From my perspective this is a fairly simple logic problem A ≠ B ≠ C; (A) → X; (B) → X; (C) → X; and not A ± B → C of NOR/SYNTH. Meaning, if A, B, and C each independently result in X it doesn't matter that the properties of A/B/C aren't identical in all respects, merely that each can be shown (cited) to result in X. NOR/SYNTH on the other hand is would be A together with B results in C which makes no sense because it assumes a relationship that doesn't exist. JMJimmy (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean to be recognized as an adult under the law? Suppose that one is always considered an adult under criminal law at 16 but cannot enter into contracts until 21, and is defined in various other laws (voting, drinking, military service) as a minor until 18 or 19? TFD (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It has no fixed meaning in and of itself. It's a trigger mechanism in law. One second you're a child, the next you're an adult. Each legal system uses this for different purposes but usually it grants you rights and responsibilities and takes away some as well. By example, child protections granted by the UN treaty I spoke of are taken away (except in some disability cases). In Ontario you're granted the right to vote and given criminal liability to name a couple. That doesn't mean you get all your rights - that also varies. Ontario you don't get the right to consume alcohol until a year later. In Quebec you'd have been given that right a year before you became a legal adult. It's really quite arbitrary but it's intended as a way to delay giving rights/responsibilities to those who may not be ready to handle them with sound judgement while being equitable to all. That equality factor has been eroding as well, emancipation allows one to apply early to be granted either partial or full status as a legal adult. Conversely, in cases of disability mental capacity is used to delay the change in status. All of that is highly variable between legal systems but both have the same mechanism to trigger whatever those rights/responsibilities are. JMJimmy (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

When in Ontario one was considered an adult in criminal law at 16, under voting laws at 18, and under civil law at 21, at which age would one be considered an adult? TFD (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Section 1: Every person attains the age of majority and ceases to be a minor on attaining the age of eighteen years" is the "default", if you will, as it goes on to state: "Section 1 applies for the purpose of any rule of law in respect of which the Legislature has jurisdiction." this leaves room for the federal government, specifically the federal courts to issue an order that changes that age and what rights may or may not change along with it. They only do so in very rare cases and even rarer do they shift any of the rights/responsibilities (ie: still can't vote until 18, still has the same rights as a minor in criminal law, etc). That relation between age of majority and splitting from parents is not universal though - Botswana by example can order continued responsibility in the case of disability. In some US states that link is never severed (adults are being forced to pay their parents debts). JMJimmy (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Synth by inference - the page is in need of major cleanup as it is a hodgepodge of mis-informed edits which apply numerous rights which do not relate to the topic of the article, though may be triggered by it. ie: Ontario age of majority triggers the right to vote that doesn't mean the right to vote determines the age of majority. By example, all countries listed as age 19 or higher (except for the US) need to be double checked. All countries should have changed their age of majority/maturity to 18 or lower subject to UN child act (US has not ratified it)08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The 1971 Act also says, "In the absence of a definition or of an indication of a contrary intention, section 1 applies for the construction of the expression “adult”, “full age”, “infant”, “infancy”, “minor”, “minority” and similar expressions in...any Act of the Legislature or any regulation, rule, order or by-law made under an Act of the Legislature." Specifically the age of adulthood for criminal cases continued to be 16, while the "age of majority" for alcohol consumption was later raised to 19. (Note that while the Criminal Code is federal legislation, each province sets its own age of adulthood.) And before 1 September 1971, there was no overall Act. So the most you can say is that in Ontario, unless otherwise stated in an act, the age of majority is 18. Before the Act came into force, the age of majority depended on the specific Act. To say that the age of majority in Ontario, without qualification is 18 is original research and requires a reliable secondary source.

In practical terms, in one jurisdiction the default age of majority could 18 and allow people to vote at 18 and sign contracts at 21, while in another the default could be 21, but also allow people to vote at 18 and sign contracts at 21.

TFD (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a standard legal assignment catch-all for mistakes/omissions of definition. By example, "Same, sale, etc., to a minor" in the Liquor License Act - minor is not defined in that act, so a lawyer could simply say "what is a minor in this case" and get it thrown out and the law would be ineffective until they fixed it. By adding the catch all it is still effective for those up to the age of 17. In the example of the Accumulations Act it's used to assign elements to be triggered at the Age of Majority, ie: Maximum accumulation periods (sec1; 3,5,6) is set to when Age of Majority is triggered. It doesn't actually create an "Age of Majority of Maximum Accumulation", it's just an assignment. That way if they wanted to change the Age of Majority they only have to change it in the 1 act instead of each individual one. There is no "age of majority" for Alcohol because it's defined specifically in terms of various scenarios... ie: " No person shall knowingly sell or supply liquor to a person under nineteen years of age."... except if you're a parent in a residence/private place and it's consumed in the location given or you've done SmartServe and are 18, etc JMJimmy (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If we were to use Flyer's interpretation that the two are not synonyms, wouldn't that mean that the article is already creating synth by including countries which do not use the "age of majority"? I did an absolute insane amount of reading today just for the fun of it. There are a few concepts at play

• Puberty
• Legal Capacity (ie: maturity to understand legal proceedings)
• Cultural transition from child to adult
• Legal transition from child to adult
• Minimum Age of Criminal Liability
• Biological Maturity
• Religious Maturity

I found cases where each of these was applied in some form to both Age of Maturity and Age of Majority. example: Hong Kong attributes legal capacity as well as age to Age of Majority while defining Age of Maturity to mean a minimum age of criminal liability. Russia uses both terms to mean Majority. Others set Age of Maturity to be 25 as a biological maturity. Sheri'a separates Puberty from Maturity as adulthood then, depending on the country, interprets or defines Majority in relation to Maturity. West Africans use the cultural transitions and it varies from tribe to tribe. The "western" version is a mix of biological, capacity/maturity, and criminal liability. Many don't use either of the terms and just set an age. Some even have differences between levels of government (UK federal level maturity 21, state level it's unique to each state). The interesting thing is that "Age of Majority" originally meant a man who was capable of wearing armour which was usually around 21, over time came to mean everyone 21 and under while the Age of Maturity meant adulthood (early law based on religion similar to what Shari'a is now). Generally speaking though, the bulk of them fall into 3 camps: Those that have no term just age(s), "Western" law principles (majority), and Religious law (Christian, Jewish, Islam, etc - as maturity)

http://www.africanchildforum.org/clr/Harmonisation%20of%20Laws%20in%20Africa/other-documents-harmonisation_1_en.pdf Shows African countries and their definitions, less than 1/3rd use "majority". Not sure where that leaves the article but it was interesting. Personally I would redirect age of maturity(with disamb)/keep legal age redirect, make all 3 synonyms under the definition set out by the UN CRC which establishes a common list, no matter the regional specifics, then explain or link to specifics on the differences but that's just me. JMJimmy (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AIRPORTS#New_York-Kennedy_is_more_appropriate_than_New_York-JFK

An IP wants original research as his comment in this discussion, asking people to "ask" New York cabbies on whether JFK or Kennedy is commonly used for the airport name. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I am conducting an experiment to find out how you react to my request. I am curious to find out whether you act with compassion or with punishment. Thank you for being part of my lab experiment. 66.87.119.122 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

66.87: Is this an official experiment, or just something that you're doing on your own? Whichever it is, first-hand reports from New York cabbies can't go in any Misplaced Pages articles, as we base our articles on reliable secondary sources. Also, please note that 68.119 is allowed to blank their own talk page if they want - see WP:OWNTALK for the guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting statements and Synth.

When a person has made (potentially) conflicting statements, is it WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to mention them together? A few examples (ignore BLP concerns etc, these are just illustrative examples for the synth issue)

• I am not gay. (interview 1)
• I sleep only with men (interview 2)
• Can we say "X has said they are not gay, but in a different interview said that they sleep only with men." Or must we say "X has said they are not gay. X has said they sleep only with men"

• Robin Hood has said stealing is bad
• Robin Hood has said taking from the rich and giving to the poor is just

"Robin Hood said stealing is bad, but also said that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is just"

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Synth is a subset of OR. The second one would be correct because the individual may consider themselves as bisexual or something else. ie: One is stating how they perceive themselves (or want others to perceive them) while the other is stating their actions. Similarly the Robinhood example the act of stealing can be both bad and just simultaneously so if you connect them it implies the justness detracts from the badness which may not be the case JMJimmy (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Protective Edge#Background

The background section of Operation Protective Edge has consistently highlighted the narrative that the conflict is based on Israel attempting to marginalize the unity government in the Palestinian Territories. This assertion is not so far fetched that it could be called a conspiracy theory but it is far from being the background/reasoning/justification for the conflict in reliable sources. The background section currently gives prominence to the idea with several sources that predate the conflict:

• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• makes no mention of a link

This is a classic example of WP:SYNTH and could even be an attempt to lead the reader ("the fight is not over rockets, occupation, or tit-for-tat kidnapping but is really about Israeli oppression"). The section introduces an idea with sources that is not commonly linked in RS and then gives it weight.

I can't provide the answer as to why this fight happened-that is for the talk page where analysis from The New York Times, Reuters, and BBC can be presented. The above links do show that heavy editing, restructuring, or flat out removal are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.13.27 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 July 2014‎ (UTC)

^Who are you? No registered user ID or IP address is showing up for your complaint.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a complaint. It is a request to follow policy.

I really can't understand why this IP insists on such a wrong request because the sectio has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH. A and B, therefore C" is acceptable when a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article, whih is exactly the case here. The investigation on the political pretexts of this conflict is included here. Mhhossein (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 use of primary sources for OR

• Sources in question:

FlightAware (adsb stats)

FlightAware (tracklog)

FlightRadar (flight data)

• Article - Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, specifically in this section, 3rd paragraph, (it's been moved to a note format now)
• Content in the article relying on the above primary data sources:

However, FlightAware has no coverage over Ukraine; and all of the track reported for MH17 on the previous day's flight beyond 51°10′23″N 24°23′55″E is based on estimates. Another tracking site, Flightradar24 shows that MH17 consistently flew over separatist held areas, between Donetsk and Horlivka, in the previous 16 days.

• Talk page discussion:

Would like a fresh pair of eyes and opinions on this content. I personally think it falls under WP:OR as the sourcing is comprised of websites with data/stats and the accompanying text relying on the primary sources appear to be an original analysis/interpretation of the material by a WP editor. Are we able to say to our readers that the article content is reliable and verifiable without them having any further specialized knowledge in this area of flight data analysis.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure that these websites are what we mean when we talk about primary sources. Secondary sources can contain data and stats. However, if their data for the flights is based on an estimate, then I would question whether they are reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Would not the first sentence of the content in question be 'fixed' by simply removing the "However, ". It then becomes a statement of fact - with citations from the organisation itself to back it up. I agree that the second sentence "appears" to be WP:OR - but that depends on the interpretation of a primary source. To my mind, the primary source is the transmission by the aircraft. But this data is collected on the ground and sent to FR24 where it is edited to make it more readable by the general public. The German version of this page uses FR24 as a source and gives the aircraft's last know position as "13:21:28 Uhr UTC von der Position ♁48° 2′ 25″ N, 38° 46′ 22″ O (Höhe 33.000 Fuß, Kurs 118°) ". Obviously it could be WP:OR to point out that this is 15km past the crash site and heading away from it - fair enough. Alternatively, why not cite the NYT (which used FR24 as a source) as a counter-claim to the WSJ ? Montenegroman (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree this would be OR as written. We should not be trying to judge the accuracy/deficiencies of a flight tracking website, and instead if there are inconsistencies in data that have been addressed by reliable sources, let them explain that issue to be included; if no one talks about it, then we can't address it. (They may have priveledged data that the average public member can't see, for example or they could be making it up unethically, but either way we can't judge beyond that) --MASEM (t) 13:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any judgement required with regards to the accuracy/deficiencies of FlightAware. They are perfectly clear about it on their own website. They have no receiver coverage within this area and their flight logs show that all flights over this area are estimates. Personally, I would ignore/delete the entire WSJ comment on the grounds of poor journalism and save the bother of providing other citations to "indicate that they they might not be entirely right about this". Montenegroman (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page. A WSJ reporter concluded that previously, Flight 17 had not travelled over the war zone, but an editor says the reporter should have used a better source for flight paths which would have provided different results. That is original research. If the editor is correct, one would expect subsequent news reports to correct the error, or at least say that there are different conclusions which could be drawn. It is OR because we would have to determine how far back we would have to go in examining flight paths and know where the war zone was at different times. We would also have to determine whether other Air Malaysia flights (such as the return flights) could have travelled over the area. We also need to assess the accuracy of each of the sources used. TFD (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Rogernomics

Page

Rogernomics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit

(1985-1992 is cherry-picking the bad years of the NZ economy; from that point, NZ entered a sustained period of economic growth, which the previous version of this article failed to acknowledge.)

Rogernomics is the economic policy followed by the New Zealand Labour Party government after its election in 1984 and named after its Minister of Finance, Roger Douglas.

And IP editor changed sourced text saying "many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialized" to "did not immediately materialise." His source is a recent NZ draft report that says the NZ economy improved after 1993. But it does not say that was a result of Rogernomics and in fact the world economy began to recover in 1993 following the Early 1990s recession.

I have opened a discussion thread at Talk:Rogernomics#In the long run. So far the IP editor has not replied. I would appreciate input from other editors. (The issue overlaps OR, NPOV and RSN - but I have posted it here.)

TFD (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli/Gaza reactions image

The image above is based on the statements in Reactions_to_Operation_Protective_Edge. Each statement is individually sourced to a reliable source, but the selection of those statements is subject to normal editorial processes.

WP:OR has WP:OI which reads "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy"

Does WP:SYNTH apply to images (IE do images need to be based on a single source which contains the data to be represented in the image, or may it be combined from multiple sources).

What standards are applicable in determining which statements to use for the image (as countries may have mupltiple statements from multiple politicians/groups (IE, the president, a congressional resolution, individual politicians) or multiple statements over time?Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being naive, but how exactly does this map differ from File:WWI-re.png? Or File:World marriage-equality laws.svg? And where does the WP:OR come into play (i.e. are you suggesting that the editors somehow guessed or surmised the reactions of the various states, or went through shadowy back channels to get their information?) The sources are all at Reactions to Operation Protective Edge. Albrecht (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Those other maps are much more "binary" very little evaluation is needed. The statements at hand in our map are quite long. There are often multiple statements. someone selected which statement. Someone selected which snippet to include. Someone is interpreting those statements to be support or criticism. Beyond that, WW1 ended quite a long while ago. The status of those countries is well known. Statements are coming out on the current events by the hour, and reacting to individual events on an hourly basis. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gaijin - there is OR to interpret a nation's actions here compared to, say, what side they fell on in the World Wars. Sourcing is needed that explicitly puts a country into each category. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was made clear that this image originated as a summary of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge; thus, every discrete piece of information presented in the image is sourced in the body of that article. As Reactions is itself a sub-article of Operation Protective Edge, the image appeared there as well. Divorced from its sources, the image could certainly be perceived as WP:OR, although that could be fixed by adding sources in the image description. But anyway, surely a concern about the visibility of the sources is not the same as a concern over WP:OR, and the solution lies in clarifying the sources as opposed to scrubbing the image. Albrecht (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's telling that both responses chose to compare it to WWI alliances as opposed to the far more complex Marriage equality laws, whose legend has plenty of ambiguity—"Government/court announced intention to legalize" or "Same-sex marriage recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions" requires just as much careful scrutiny of the sources as, "Condemned A, Condemned B, or Condemned both A and B." Albrecht (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The map is based on non-deterministic non-repeatable transformations of language sampled firstly by RS and subsequently by Misplaced Pages editors. It's a cartoon version of the complexity of the real world. The four sets created by Misplaced Pages editors, 'Countries that support Israel's stance and/or condemned Hamas rocket attacks' etc, are arbitrary. There are a large variety of sets that could be created based on various pertinent features of the conflict that have featured in statements by official spokespersons (such as the blockade or human rights violations etc) and in every case the decision procedure used by editors to establish set membership will be non-deterministic and non-repeatable. This is particularly clear when considering the set 'mixed official reactions'. What is a 'mixed official reaction' ? Then there is the issue that states often make many statements and have many people authorized to speak on behalf of the state. Which statement gets sampled and categorized using an opaque decision procedure, a procedure that only exists in the mind of the editor amd will be unique to the editor, is effectively either random or susceptible to sampling bias and contamination by the editor's beliefs. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Indeed, this map is a great simplification. It looks good, but I am very dubious of its usefulness as compared to the possibility of being misleading. Btw, there is a similar map of the 2008 war: Gaza War#Reactions. Kingsindian (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question: Kingsindian, did you mean to say "...there is a similar map of the 2008 war: Gaza War (2008–09)#Reactions"? Just Gaza War#Reactions is sending me to a disambiguation page. Mercy11 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Albrect with regards to the gay marriage map, for every state on the map we have numerous, numerous sources available making the analsysis for us about what the current state of gay marriage is. Nobody is having to personally evaluate the court cases or laws (the WP:PRIMARY source for the data in the map). Also, those law and policy changes take place slowly, over a great period of time. Our map could be dramatically different from day to day, and will very likley end up a giant green blob. BTW, what is the difference between green and gold? IS the distinction something that is unambiguous and that everyone can easily agree to? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Our map could be dramatically different from day to day, and will very likley end up a giant green blob" These are certainly weaknesses inherent in the exercise, but you'll notice they have nothing to do with OR. And since the map appears on an article tagged as a current event, the reader will have been appropriately warned (for anyone who's worked on the map, it's clear the potential for chaotic change is being vastly overstated: we've often had to wait days, if not weeks, for foreign policy statements from the majority of the states depicted.) Finally, even if the majority of the states end up one colour; so what? Isn't it still a service to the reader to present this information at a glance at the top of the article, rather than having the reader slog through masses of text to get a sense of the proportion of the various reactions?

"BTW, what is the difference between green and gold? IS the distinction something that is unambiguous and that everyone can easily agree to?" This is a good point; gold was added pretty arbitrarily, without discussion, and for simplicity's sake should probably be folded into green.

These ever-shifting prongs of attack, by the way, make me suspect that the criticism directed here really has more to do with personal distaste for the exercise as opposed to a bona fide concern about OR. Albrecht (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I found the map very useful early on in this operation, and I think I know how it can still be useful. We should find or create an early version of the map, perhaps from July 8th or 9th, to show the countries that promptly issued responses to the conflict. The map could be titled: "International reactions to Operation Protective Edge (or the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) as of 8 July 2014". That map would not have the problem of countries "turning green" due to eventual overall criticism, and it wouldn't have nearly as much interpretation - at the beginning of the conflict, most countries were very strong in support of Israel or Gaza, and the equally-critical nations were quick to strongly condemn both for violence. I'd say there's hardly anything to interpret there. And then readers would still have a map to see generally what areas are more pro-Israeli or pro-Gazan, and the general number of countries supporting each side. Let's do this for the readers.--ɱ (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you can make a binary/ternary assessment without OR (whether they support one side or the other, or whether they have a response but is mixed - this type of statement will be obvious), but you can't make the 5 point distinction given on this map without engaging OR. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's actually also a ternary distinction (Condemn A; Condemn B; or Condemn A and B). Let's also, for the nth time, discuss evidence of "opaque decision procedures," "random sampling biases," etc. with concrete examples from Reactions to Operation Protective Edge:

• Brazil released a statement "vehemently condemning the Israeli bombing of Gaza as constituting a disproportionate use of force." Source: Foreign Ministry (primary) . Widely reported in the press.
• Canada – foreign minister "condemns attacks by Hamas on Israel". Source: Canadian Press  ; also available on foreign ministry website:
• Uruguay released a statement "strenuously condemnning" Israel's attacks against Gaza for the death toll of civilians. Source: Foreign Ministry (primary)
• Djibouti released a statement "firmly condemning the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip." Source: Foreign Ministry (primary)
• Spain: released a statement expressing concern for the actions of "both parties" and called on both to cease attacks on civilians. Source: Foreign Ministry (primary)
• Italy: released a statement condemning both rocket attacks and Israeli attacks on civilians. Source: Foreign Ministry (Primary)

Are we seriously suggesting it's an intolerable stretch to interpret "condemns A" as "condemns A" or "condemns B" as "condemns B"? Or that these statements were cherry-picked from masses of contradictory statements? If so, where's the evidence? Can we also explain how File:International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.png, which actually has a 5-point scale, is an acceptable creation? Albrecht (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake on being a 5pt scale, but the current 3 pt scale is still not easily qualified without engaging secondary sources. Take Spain's statement, for example. I do not read that as necessarily condemning both sides. I'm sure if I scoured US reports for example I could find similar language that says the US calls for both sides to cease hostiles and work out a solution, even though it is clear the US is pro-Israel. It is really bad to try to assemble various primary government statements to create this map, and would be better if the data all came from, say, a single political expert speaking in a secondary manner, who's expertise is being relied on to make the judgement calls which way a given country swings here. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yah I see no criticism of Hamas in Spain's statement, and if that is considered a "both" statement then certainly the entire map would be green because everyone has asked for a cease fire. Regarding the US Certainly it is very pro Israel, but in the same vein as the Spanish statemnet Obama has said he has concern for Palestinian casualties, called for a cease fire, and Kerry has sarcastically mentioned the "pinpoint operation" by Israel. Who decides? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Brazil (google translate from original) "The Brazilian government considers unacceptable escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine. We strongly condemn the disproportionate use of force by Israel in the Gaza Strip, from which large numbers of civilian casualties, including women and children resulted." - Who decides if the first sentence is or is not a criticism of both sides? Thats OR.
• Uruguy (from the exact source you linked, showing the OR involved in which snippet to quote): "Uruguay also condemns these repeated releases threatening the civilian population of the center and south of the state of Israel." - criticism of Hamas attacks, not reflected in map? OR.
• Shall we continue with every country on the map

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is really going off the rails, but to reply to your points, there was ongoing disagreement about how to represent statements which condemned the Israeli reaction as a "disproportionate use of force" to rocket attacks (whether or not these were condemned, as many stinging condemnations of Israel are prefaced by token condemnations of the rocket attacks.) The legend should be clearer about this, but no consensus has been reached when the map was taken down. In the case of Brazil and Uruguay, it's clear that a preponderance of the statements and events correspond to a souring of relations with Israel: the Israelis criticized Uruguay's statement , retorted that Brazil was a "diplomatic dwarf" , and the rhetoric only escalated from there:

• • "Brasil condena el "genocidio" provocado por la ofensiva israelí"
  • "Brasil condena "enérgicamente" la ofensiva de Israel en Gaza"
  • "Brasil condena ofensiva israeli en Gaza y llamo a consultas a su embajador"
  • "Brasil condena "uso desproporcional" de la fuerza por Israel en Gaza" , etc.

But just to be clear: these disagreements or ambiguity on how to represent material or arrange the legend does not constitute OR. OR is material "for which no reliable, published sources exist." Albrecht (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it your assertion, that for every statement WP:PRIMARY on the map, there is a WP:SECONDARY WP:RS not only repeating/reporting the primary, but telling us how to interpret it? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It falls more under WP:SYNT. We are relying on editors to interpret what the country said, and into what category or color they should be on the map. Also, please do not point to other maps, since I really want to go nuke them as well. Just because other stuff exists, no need to link I hope, is NOT a good defense here. --Malerooster (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can certainly see the idea behind this map and how it would be a useful visual aid, considering the amount of reactions being reported. But having said that, how and who is deciding where the varying international reactions get placed on the map. Is it - anyone can change a position on the map, or is it a single editor, or is it consensus? I don't want to nitpick through all the reactions and compare them against accuracy to the map, but for example with Zimbabwe, it is listed on the map as a "country that condemned and/or expressed concern about Israel's actions". And while it is true that they did express concern, they also made this statement - according to the article: They also highlighted the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and also reiterated their support for a two-state solution. I would suggest this statement would qualify them for the "Countries with mixed official reactions". Not only did they condemn/express concern over Israel's action, but they also stated that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination. To me, that is a mixed official reaction. It's quite possible and reasonable to believe that there may be other editors who don't agree with that assessment, so the question remains - who gets to decide. I don't see how you can get around OR and SYNTH when you are asking editor's to take a look at a map with a pre-determined set of criteria and then ask them to correlate a reaction to that pre-determined set of criteria. You're basically asking the editor to analyze/interpret the statement in order to decide where it best fits based on their opinion of the criteria supplied. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to nitpick one detail within otherwise valid points (I agree that sorting reactions into categories can be a challenge), but "reiterat(ing) their support for a two-state solution" actually places Zimbabwe further on the side of the Palestinian position, as a viable two-state solution requires a return to the 1967 borders and a dismantling of the settlements, which Israel steadfastly refuses to do. It's certainly not a "mixed" reaction. Albrecht (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that quite clearly illustrates my salient point. The requirement of editor's to take it upon themselves to analyze/interpret the statement in order to decide where it best fits. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose (what I might call) the "illusion" of OR arises from the psychological impression the map makes that Uruguay's reaction is somehow "the same" as Zimbabwe's, when in fact they may differ in many nuances. The map could certainly benefit from a disclaimer stating that it presents only one aspect a state's reaction, and urging readers to consult the article text below for the details. Let's not forget, again, that the original purpose was to provide a summary of information found directly below. Albrecht (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is OR to group nations into categories. It could be acceptable however, if a source is used that does group nations according to the degree of support for or opposition to Israel's actions. TFD (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we've registered our fundamental disagreement. OR is presenting material that is not derived from published, reliable sources, while SYNTH is using published sources to advance conclusions not found in those sources. The map, admitting its other weaknesses, does neither: it attempts to summarize, or serve as a guide for, a long and busy article using a visual aid. The categories of the map, while potentially open to debate, are not "additional content," but simply editorial decisions—and the debates surrounding them are debates about how best to display or present the article content, not about the content itself. In short, these are purely formal decisions, decisions inherent in the very project of constructing an encyclopedia.

The attitude taken by some of our colleagues in this discussion are strictly analogous to the idea that we should reject the periodizing headings in Syrian Civil War as OR or SYNTH because they cannot be 'traced' to any single document! (i.e. who are we to label November 2012 as "Rebel offensives" or March 2014 as "Fighting between ISIS and other rebel groups"? Why not other labels?) The same can be said, mind you, of File:World marriage-equality laws.svg itself: the information contained therein is surely sourced, but the decision to compare and contrast states according to those specific categories surely comes from the editor's own initiative, not any single source.

At some point, out of sheer practicality, on is forced to intervene and organize information according to our best lights. Albrecht (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Albrecht, No. sheer practicality NEVER trumps policy, thank goodness. --Malerooster (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My dear Malerooster, don't force me to point out that you're begging the question, as the very issue of whether it violates policy is what's under contention! ;) Albrecht (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your chart is saying that Canada and the U.S. took similar positions to each other, while Brazil and Saudi Arabia took similar position to each other that differed from the U.S./Canada position. You drew that conclusion by comparing the statements made by every national government in the world. It could be that your analysis was correct, but it is still original research.

If you this information needs to be organized, then an external source will do that and we can present the map provided it is sourced to the article that organized it.

TFD (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite (or at least, not in my estimation). The legend (I reject the possessive "your," as the file and its legend were the work of other editors) is saying that the U.S. took a position that can be (briefly) described as "supporting Israel's stance and/or condemning Hamas rocket attacks," that Canada took a position that can be (briefly) described as "supporting Israel's stance and/or condemning Hamas rocket attacks," and that neither country made statements consistent with the other colours. Drawing a SYNTH or OR conclusion would be to add something like, "Canada and the U.S.'s response to the Middle Eastern crisis suggests broad foreign policy cooperation."

I agree that the phrase "supporting Israel's stance" may be problematic; it involves a level of interpretation beyond merely Condemned X or Condemned Y and might require an additional, secondary source (describing the country as "supporting" Israel's stance) unless more precise language can be found. What I disagree with is the notion that very act of selecting the categories constitutes OR: again, organizing or displaying information one way and not another (there are, after all, many other possible categories, although these strike me as among the most immediately useful) is an editorial decision, not not a factual claim or conclusion. Albrecht (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the map is a very clear case of SYNTH. Zero 23:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Which conclusion does the map reach or imply that is not explicitly stated by the underlying sources? Albrecht (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 and others provided examples above. Reading the whole discussion on this page, it seems to me the consensus opinion is strongly against you. Zero 04:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Examples of additional conclusions reached or implied by the map? Why not copy them here, then, instead of talking about consensus? I haven't seen a convincing demonstration that the map in itself reaches conclusions not found in the underlying article content (apart from some of the problematic wording I noted above; is that all you're referring to?), or that choosing how to organize information into a visual aid constitutes OR. But maybe you read the discussion a little more thoroughly than I did. Albrecht (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I support Zero's position. IMO, the map to include (if one was available) would had been a map that had been published by a RS source and upload it (permissions permitting, of course, if not via FUR). That way the argument cannot be made that a Misplaced Pages editor is cherry-picking other government sources in order to draw conclusions as to which side a given country condems, etc. We needed to stay away from that vulnerability. Another complication on top of that one is that, even if a given country had clearly articulated its position, the editor would still run into the problem of fitting such articulated position into the more rigurous and less flexible group of five categories created by teh map's author, since every country would chose to articulate its position using their own style of words. BTW, even if one -single- country was off in the map (due to -but not necessarily- a violation of SYNT or OR), such single case would invalidate the entire map. I find it fascinating how often editors will disagree over OR and SYNT when the best policy is "not to go there", but editors consistently want to "add value" to what other sources have published. Mercy11 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree with many of your concerns, but again, I suspect we're mixing and matching various policies in a pretty cavalier manner: the original purpose of the map was to provide a summary of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge as part of that article's introduction, i.e. not to deliver some ideal Platonic Truth independent of the article in question. Thus, I think we're confusing two things: if cherry-picking of sources, POV, or whatever occurred, the problem lies within the body of the article, not within the map itself (the map relies on the article for its actual content). I also don't follow the assertion that "one country being left out would invalidate the entire map," any more than one country being left out of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge would invalidate the entire article (it would be an omission, an inaccuracy, whatever; but no worse than any other). Albrecht (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Just to be clear to the other participants: We can relax a little, as I'm not particularly suggesting that this particular file or legend needs to be reinstated in its current form; only that something like it is achievable and wouldn't necessarily be OR or SYNTH if precise enough language/categories can be found.) Albrecht (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The net problem here is that it is OR in taking a nation's statement on a conflict (and lets assume you can nail it down to the official statement from that nation) and making a judgement call on which side it sits. There will be some statements that will be 100% clear - "We condemn side X and support side Y" is pretty much obvious, but the statements that have been linked above include several that can be taken either way. This is the OR at issue here. A scholar or political expert may be able to say "Oh, that means they are X" and if we had that type of sourcing, that would be okay, but we as editors can't make that. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What I'm getting from you is that the problem lies not so much in the nature of the map itself, but in the "gap" between the primary sources and the descriptions in the legend?

So, if I'm following you: even if such a classification were to take place in the article text, it would still qualify as OR in your opinion? E.g. If you were to write, in the introductory paragraph, "Israel's stance was supported by: Canada, the United States, Colombia..." (with appropriate citations) — that would still be OR? This may be a legitimate position and the correct application of policy, but it would seem to call into question large chunks of the encyclopedia, correct?

Suppose the blue category used a phrase that matched, verbatim, the statements of the countries concerned (i.e. OPE falls under Israel's "legitimate right to self-defense," or whatever): would that eliminate OR by eliminating the interpretive gesture on the part of the editor?

Or suppose, conversely, that the categories stayed as they were, but that each state were backed up by a secondary source describing their position: would that eliminate OR? Albrecht (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Even saying something like "Israel's stance was supported by: Canada, the United States, Colombia..." is OR because you are grouping countries together and implying that their positions were similar. You need a source that makes the connection. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source that reflects the observations made in secondary sources. If secondary sources conclude Canada etc. took the same stance then we say that. If they do not then we do not. What justification do we have to make an observation that no secondary source makes?

The map divides reactions into five categories. Another observer may divide them into four or six. It is a matter that requires analysis and judgment, i.e., original research

TFD (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I feel your answer approaches what another editor, above, labelled the "fundamentalist approach." We are not saying that Canada, et al "took the same stance"—their positions may well differ in other respects—only that they (individually) "supported Israel" (assuming, of course, we have valid secondary sources attesting this).

That this map is only one of several possible maps doesn't somehow disqualify the underlying information as invented or illegitimate: there may well be multiple visual aids serving to interpret the long list of reactions. The map is only OR if it advances conclusions not found in the sources.

Your position simply contradicts everyday practice, as well as vast portions of the existing Misplaced Pages. For example, someone putting together a List of countries where French is an official language is not engaging in OR by "grouping countries together and implying similarities"—all that is required are sources proving French official language status for the individual countries. Albrecht (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question. - From what I can see, the map in question exists in Misplaced Pages Commons, but this discussion is occuring at English Misplaced Pages. Shouldn't this discussion be taking place at Commons? Mercy11 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think no, because it is the use of the map and not its mere existence that is under scrutiny. Zero 21:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Persistent, Disruptive OR editing on Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton

A user, Holybeef has been persistently pushing some WP:OR about research priorities on Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton. He is possible a different person from the fluctuating IP editor who is doing the exact same thing on Laura Mersini-Houghton. These articles don't seem to have a lot of eyes on them. Myself and several other editors have tried explaining to them many times why what they are doing is original research, and they don't seem to be getting it. If some of you folks could pop in and check on it and help establish a consensus, it'd be much appreciated. 0x0077BE 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's you and your Masonic bros who invade pages like grasshoppers to massacre those pages beyond belief and totally against the rules (ironically: while excessively quoting rules but only general ones, never bullet-by-bullet.) So knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who at any cost try to portray Guth as originator of inflation though its clear he stole it, Marsini as notable despite many editors pointing out she's not, being just an average researcher, and so on. In doing so, you disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, report me falsely to admins, etc. Holybeef (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Future Films?

I was reviewing new articles when I found one describing a future film - one that would be coming out soon. Isn't this considered speculation or advertising? I know that the intentions of the new editor who created this article are good - she left a friendly note asking for more time to expand the article. Imagine my surprise to find that this is also a huge category. Can someone clue me in on policy regarding 'future films'? bpage (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution