Ok, this question is really complicated and is probably going to be really controversial..BUUUT! What if a source has an image that explicitly states information in a caption, or note within an image, that is not stated within the article that the image is inculded in. Is information in the caption original research, usable, or completely useless? An Example: If an image caption in a source article says " A Jones hotdog with cucumbers tomatoes and basil." But the source text itself only mentions that the Jones hotdog only comes with tomatoes and basil, and the only mention of a jones hotdog having cucumbers is in the image. --Holamitch (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Holamitch — hope you don't mind, I moved this thread to the bottom of the page, where new threads usually go, so that other readers of the noticeboard will be able to spot it. As for your question, the use of a caption in an article is perfectly legitimate and should be uncontroversial. This specific example is slightly fuzzy, but in general a caption in an article is a legitimate source for information. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool, and no, I don't mind you moving the thread, it's totally fine. One other question, I was reading one of your posts otward the top of the page and you said "That would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR." and I just wanted to know when such an exception is applicable and when it isn't. --Holamitch (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, an image should clearly reflect something that is stated in the article. And a caption should be a simple discription of what is in the image. If a caption goes beyond that, it can be considered OR. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask Why it should be considered OR if it's in the article? No offense, I'm just wondering. --Holamitch (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I'm thinking there might be a misunderstanding, and that Blueboar might be talking about a caption on Wikipedia that goes beyond describing the image. If I understand correctly, we're talking about a caption in the source article being used as a source of information, which would not be OR. As to your question, Mitch, that statement is broadly applicable. Primary sources are acceptable for use as long as the Wikipedia content based on them is — uncontroversially, plainly, and to any educated person with common sense — a clear description of their contents, rather than, say, an original interpretation of their contents. So any time you're dealing with a primary source, and you follow that guideline, you're safe. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, awesome, thanks for the help. And yes, I think Blueboar might be a bit confused, ( no offense to blueboar, I use the word confuse for lack of a better word). --Holamitch (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Glad to help. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute going on regarding the article on Wisconsin. As explained on the Wisconsin talk page, an anonymous editor repeatedly adds material that other editors find to be original research. This has resulted in an edit war. Could others please provide their disinterested thoughts? Thanks.

Text in question:

"State statutes do not specify the manner for actually counting ballots." In Wisconsin, pencils are used to mark the election ballots, and the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied. However, in select communities, some voters may still be allowed to use a proper marker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.144.55 (talk) 00:14, 2 September, 2008 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the relevant talk page and the Wisconsin Board of Elections documents linked to by the editor arguing for the inclusion of this text. I agree with those on the talk page who say his/her assertions constitute an original interpretation of the Election Day Manual. In essence, he/she has taken the footnote on page 47 and interpreted it in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the document. He mentions the apparently contradictory text on page 51, but argues that the note on 47 renders it misleading, because the text on 51 may say that "counting" is open to the public, but the note on 47 defines "counting" in a counterintuitive way (essentially as a period of reporting after the actual tabulation is already complete). However, what he's missing or ignoring is that:

• The note on 47 applies exclusively to absentee ballots.
• There is text on page 45 which makes it exceedingly clear that the note on 47 is just worded badly, and that the actual counting process is fully open to the public, with no intervening "tabulation" period.

So, this is an interpretation inconsistent with the source material. Moreover, as election manuals are a primary source on this subject, they must be represented descriptively and in a way which is evident to any educated reader — and frankly, this manual is sufficiently arcane that it is troublesome for use as a primary source, especially in regard to any claim which is based on a semantic conflict, as this one is. So, even if the claim were correct, it would border on OR and might require secondary sourcing...but as far as I can tell the claim is also simply incorrect.

As to the matter of pencils and markers, there is even less in there to support that. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Chiropractic #Evidence basis have a significant synthesis problem?

In the opinion of the section's critics, the section is a WP:SYN violation when it presents specific research on spinal manipulation (SM) as evidence of effectiveness of chiropractic care as opposed to the whole range of treatments performed by chiropractors (not just SM), because the reader may confuse the assertions about spinal manipulation specifically as being assertions about chiropractic treatment in general.

In the opinion of the section's proponents, the section clearly distinguishes SM research from other research, every claim in the section is directly supported by a reliable source, standard practice in evidence-based chiropractic relies on SM research, and excluding highly-relevant mainstream research would raise serious WP:WEIGHT problems.

See also Syn tag, SYN and implicit conclusions, and Proposed wording for NOR/N. Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Levine2112 edited the above comment; I am taking the liberty of restoring my comment as written, and moving Levine2112's easily separable additions to the following paragraph. He is of course welcome to make further changes and additions to his comments. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

In the opinion of the section's critics, the section is a WP:SYN violation when it presents specific research about non-chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) as evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic care. The proponents justify such a presentation by citing that other researchers have synthesized similar presentations about chiropractic from non-chiropractic SM research, thus we should be able to do the same sort of synthesis here at Wikipedia. Even though the non-chiropractic SM research makes no conclusions whatsoever about chiropractic specifically, the proponents still want to use such research to make conclusions about chiropractic in the Wikipedia article. Their justification is that such synthesis is "standard practice" (even though this is actually a matter of contention in the chiropractic research world and not standard practice at all). Levine2112 ^discuss 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could boil this down to a simpler question so that one could more quickly respond.Calamitybrook (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! Let me try. The question is whether it's original research for Chiropractic #Effectiveness to summarize and cite scientific studies on the effectiveness of treatments used by chiropractors, even when those studies focus on the treatments, not on chiropractic. An example study is Bronfort et al. 2008, PMID 18164469. (Is that short enough?) Eubulides (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a misleading summary as it misses the point. Let's just clarify here and expand- rather than shorten - so we can explain the whole story for clarity. Spinal manipulation (SM) is a treatment used by many kinds of practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists, etc.) Chiropractors employ a specialized form of spinal manipulations with specialized techniques which differ from other practitioners. Despite the difference in techniques, some researchers have applied the findings from studies of spinal manipulation as performed by non-chiropractors (non-chiropractic SM) to the efficacy of chiropractic SM. Those few studies are not being questioned here.

What is being questioned is the use of other studies of non-chiropractic SM which in themselves make no conclusions about the efficacy of chiropractic manipulation specifically nor are there any researchers out there applying the findings from these non-chiropractic SM studies to the efficacy of chiropractic SM. Though these studies are about spinal manipulation, they are not making any conclusions whatsoever about chiropractic spinal manipulation specifically. However, currently we are using these non-chiropractic SM studies to draw our own conclusions about chiropractic SM at Chiropractic #Effectiveness. Herein lies the WP:SYN violation.

What's more, there is much debate in the scientific community about whether it is okay to apply non-chiropractic SM studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic SM. In some cases, chiropractic researchers came under heavy fire from the scientific community after they used positive efficacy studies of non-chiropractic SM to declare that "chiropractic works". In these cases, the scientific community actually said that it is not all right to apply non-chiropractic SM studies to make conclusions about chiropractic SM specifically.

So to distill it down to one simple question: If one study applies general SM research to make conclusions about chiropractic SM, does that give us at Wikipedia license to draw the same conclusions about chiropractic SM from other non-chiropractic SM studies? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Okay, I may understand it a little better. I don't think Eubulide's summary was misleading, but perhaps a little unclear. Thanks Levine, for revising your initial inquiry. Taking the latest version of the question again at face value, one simple test might be whether anybody in the real (non-Wikipedia) world is actually using these various other studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic therapy. You might seem to be implying above that the answer is that yes, somebody is (who and for what purpose?), because otherwise, perhaps there wouldn't be a "debate." If the answer is no, defending the disputed material as non-SYN becomes slightly more complicated, but I'd still be inclined to do so, given the "one study" to which you refer.

A cursory reading of the article (all you can reasonably expect from a reader) doesn't make the issues you've described sufficiently clear. Perhaps it would be useful to precede the material in question with a very brief summary of the research and an equally brief statement of what you've described as the "debate" about its interpretation. (By the way, I'm not certain that the level of detail now included is necessary, but maybe I am just insufficiently curious.)

Also, when you say "chiropractic researchers," and "scientific community," are any of these people chiropractors? Also, what about the editors? Optimally, chiropractors would not be involved in this article, due to conflicts of interest. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some non-chiropractic SM studies which some researchers have applied as evidence (for or against) chiropractic SM efficacy. There are many other non-chiropractic SM studies which no researcher has applied as evidence (for or against) chiropractic SM efficacy. It is this latter group of non-chiropractic SM studies with which this post is concerned. Though no researchers have applied these non-chiropractic studies to chiropractic, some editors are attempting to make such an application based on the rationale: "Some researchers have made the same application with some studies, so why can't we make the same application with some other studies?"

To answer your questions from above: "Chiropractic researchers" in this case could be chiropractors researching chiropractic, non-chiropractors researching chiropractic, or the chiropractic community in general. "Scientific community" refers to the vague body of all scientific-minded researchers. Some of our editors are chiropractors, some are outspoken chiropractic skeptics, some are chiropractic proponents, and some are neutral editors. As for myself, I am not a chiropractor. I am not a doctor or health practitioner of any kind. I see no COI issue with chiropractors editing the chiropractic article, nor do I see any issue with chiropractic skeptics editing the article. That is, provided that the individual editor can put their biases and POV in check when it comes time to edit the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• one simple test might be whether anybody in the real (non-Wikipedia) world is actually using these various other studies to draw conclusions about chiropractic therapy There's little question that these studies are used in that reason. The example source I cited (Bronfort et al. 2008, PMID 18164469) is too recent to be cited by other sources, but it's quite clear who its authors and audience are. It is a review of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain. It has five authors, all chiropractors, and it says "The vast majority of SMT (previously estimated at 94%) in North America is provided by Doctors of Chiropractic (DCs)". The older sources being cited along the same lines (e.g., Assendelft et al. 2004, PMID 14973958) are explicitly cited in later chiropractic guidelines such as this 2007 guideline. Eubulides (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the issue here is not only whether chiropractors use 94% of spinal manipulation (SMT), but that SMT is not "the only thing" that chiropractors do. When editors cite conclusions from research on SMT, the reader thinks we are talking about "chiropractic care" - which obviously includes other things as well. It would be like writing about all the research around Vioxx in the Medicine article. While a mention of the research on spinal manipulation is appropriate on Chiropractic, the details and nitty gritty need to go in the Spinal manipulation article where it can be discussed NPOV. To try and word research on SMT as if it is talking about chiropractic and putting it under a heading about chiropractic is misleading the reader to conclude that the results of the research on SMT can be equated with chiropractic as a profession and we suggest is really a synthesis error. BTW, I am a chiropractor, so do consider that in your thinking. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The analogy with Vioxx is flawed. Spinal manipulation (SM) is identified with chiropractic; the overwhelming majority of chiropractic patients are treated with SM. This close relationship does not exist with Vioxx and mainstream medicine.
• The text in Chiropractic clearly states when it is discussing SM, and distinguishes it from other treatments used by chiropractors, which are also discussed briefly.
• This noticeboard is about original research, not about which articles text should go into; if the text in question were original research in Chiropractic, it would equally be original research in Spinal manipulation.

Eubulides (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Same name

My 2c is that wikipedians do not have the authority or expertise to make the judgement that a paper studying a technique with the same name as a chiropractic technique is actually studying the chiropractic technique, unless the paper explicitly states it. Another reliable source would be required to make the connection. As an analogy, two papers on Induction for example, are not necessarily related - you could be talking about mathematical induction or inductive reasoning. --Surturz (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case differs from your 2c, for two reasons. First, chiropractors prefer to call the technique "chiropractic adjustment" or "spinal adjustment"; "spinal manipulation" is the mainstream name for the treatment technique. Second, we have reliable sources saying that the various names are aliases, and that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation, even if the latter research includes some data from non-chiropractic sources. Sorry, I don't follow the analogy; it seems to be saying that one can't rely on the words used by reliable sources, which is surely not what was intended. Taken to an extreme, the analogy would mean that one could not trust a paper on mathematical induction as a source for Mathematical induction, since the paper's "mathematical induction" might be something other than the "mathematical induction" of Mathematical induction. Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

* I think you misread my post. My analogy is that if a paper talked about "Induction", wikipedians would not be able to use it in either the Mathematical induction or Inductive reasoning articles, unless another RS could be found linking it to one or the other. I don't know about the international experience, but in my country a chiropractor would never use a 'spinal manipulation' because 'manipulation' is a chiropractor-jargon word meaning 'non-chiropractic technique'. I cannot see how a wikipedian can draw the conclusion that the study of a technique, that is not explicitly stated to be a chiropractic technique, somehow relates to chiropractic. I am sure there are a wealth of studies of actual chiropractic techniques that can be cited, no need to draw a long bow. --Surturz (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• No such confusion exists in the sources in question. They use "spinal manipulation" to refer to the techniques that many chiropractors prefer to call "spinal adjustment". We have reliable sources saying the two terms are synonymous in this context. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Eubulides says that "we have reliable sources saying that... it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation, even if the latter research includes some data from non-chiropractic sources". Neglecting the fact that we also have reliable sources saying just the opposite, while it may be valid for researchers to draw such conclusions, when editors do so here at Wikipedia, it is a clear OR violation. And that you are basing your rationale to draw such a conclusion by pointing out that some researchers do it (so why can't we do the same?) is what makes this a SYN violation. You are taking (A) non-chiropractic research and taking (B) some researchers' opinions about how it was okay for them to apply other non-chiropractic research to chiropractic, then combining A and B together to make (C) an original statement about chiropractic. Again, there would be no issue with you using (in context) a specific piece of non-chiropractic research at Chiropractic when there is a reliable source applying that specific piece of non-chiropractic research to chiropractic. However, to do the same when there is no reliable source making such an application is problematic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Every claim in Chiropractic #Evidence basis is directly supported by on-point citations; no one is disputing this. Surturz's comment "Another reliable source would be required to make the connection" directly disagrees with your analysis; not that this is relevant, since the kind of (A)-(B)-(C) statement you're talking about does not appear in the section in question. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Either you don't understand my analysis or you don't understand Surturz's comment, because it seems he/she completely agrees with me. You are joining A and B to make point C. This is a SYN. When Surturz says "Another reliable source would be required to make the connection", he/she means that you would need a source which directly connects A and B (and thus makes the conclusion C itself), rather than you doing the connecting of A and B and making the conclusion C yourself.

Essentially, you are trying to use non-chiropractic source A to make a conclusion C about chiropractic. And you are using source B - which though is not directly about the research in source A - does tell the story how the researchers used some other non-chiropractic research to make some other chiropractic conclusion. You are just trying to follow their lead by doing the same with other non-chiropractic research. However, in doing so, you are violating OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with that analysis of my comments. Furthermore, this noticeboard is about articles, not about comments in talk pages. Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not have the (A)-(B)-(C) pattern that you describe. Again, every claim in Chiropractic #Evidence basis is directly supported by on-point citations; no one is disputing this. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's clear things up. Do you agree that Chiropractic #Evidence basis contains material derived from and sourced to references which - on their own - state nothing specifically about chiropractic? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some references state something specifically about chiropractic; others state something specifically about spinal manipulation, chiropractic's primary treatment modality; others state something specifically about treatment guidelines for low back pain, the problem that most people go to a chiropractor to see for; others state something specifically about other topics highly relevant to chiropractic.
• This thread is repeating a long discussion that's already been held in Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #Syn tag, Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #SYN and implicit conclusions, and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25 #Proposed wording for NOR/N. As far as I can tell, no new points have been raised in this thread. I see little point in repeating it here; this section is already too long. I suggest re-raising the issue, if there's interest, in Talk:Chiropractic.

Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, so it does sound like you agree that Chiropractic #Evidence basis contains material derived from and sourced to references which - on their own - state nothing specifically about chiropractic. As you point out, some of these non-chiropractic studies are actually studying spinal manipulation as performed by non-chiropractors (osteopaths, physical therapists, etc.) My next clarifying question: Do you agree that there is disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" for chiropractors and others to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not point that out. All the studies in question rely on chiropractic data. Some also included data derived from non-chiropractors but this data is in the minority, as the vast majority of spinal manipulation is performed by chiropractors. I see no evidence of any disagreement in the scientific community about this standard research practice. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that all the studies in question rely on chiropractic data and I have shown you several accounts where that is false. Further, regardless if the studies used chiropractic data mixed with non-chiropractic, if in their conclusion they don't say anything specific about chiropractic, we shouldn't be using it at article Chiropractic, but rather at article Spinal manipulation. I am astounded that after months of me showing you quite the opposite, you still are claiming that there is " no evidence of any disagreement in the scientific community" about confounding non-chiropractic research with chiropractic effectiveness. For instance, there was a RAND study on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation which came out quite favorable for spinal manipulation. When chiropractors jumped on that research to proclaim things such as "Chiropractic works!", the chiropractors were in turn jumped on by the researchers who said that these studies were not about chiropractic specifically, but rather spinal manipulation in general and that chiropractors were in effect misusing these studies. RAND spokesperson Dr. Paul Shekelle, released this statement:

::::::::::::: "...we have become aware of numerous instances where our results have been seriously misrepresented by chiropractors writing for their local paper or writing letters to the editor... RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic... Comparative efficacy of chiropractic and other treatments was not explicitly dealt with."

I showed you this and other evidence many times so I honestly don't think that you should claim that you haven't seen such evidence. Please acknowledge (either publicly or privately) that this evidence exists and that confounding general spinal manipulation studies with chiropractic effectiveness is not standard research practice at all. It is frowned upon by many. And for us to continue such a practice here ourselves - doing the confounding ourselves in an article - is a clearcut case of original research regardless. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which study cited in Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not rely on chiropractic data? This is a new claim that I don't recall seeing before. (The rest of this discussion is merely rehashing old arguments.)
• None of the studies are summarized inaccurately or misleadingly in Chiropractic. If a study is about spinal manipulation, it is clearly summarized that way, and only the conclusions drawn by that study are summarized.
• Shekelle's 1993 letter warns about confusing SM and chiropractic. No such confusion exists in Chiropractic #Evidence basis. The two notions are clearly distinguished, and evidence about the one is not presented as if it were evidence about the other.
• More recent studies make a regular practice of combining chiropractic and non-chiropractic data to study SM. They are careful to not confuse chiropractic with SM, just as Shekelle warned against. Leading mainstream chiropractic researchers have said that this current common practice is normal and acceptable. We should not exclude mainstream chiropractic research on the fringe grounds that it is tainted by non-chiropractic data; that would be substituting our own judgment for that of the mainstream experts.

Eubulides (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For months now, I have pointed out several studies which either make no mention of chiropractic in any meaningful way in terms of the research conclusions and/or do not rely on any chiropractic data. Even if we explain that these studies are about spinal manipulation and not about chiropractic, it still doesn't justify including it at an article entitled Chiropractic. It misleads the reader. (Could we include research about astronomy if we make it clear that it isn't about chiropractic?) And the only way you are justifying the relevance of this non-chiropractic research is by original research. Move these pieces to Spinal manipulation where they are more appropriate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If some editor wrote about research about astronomy in Chiropractic, it would soon be removed as irrelevant, just as any vandalism would be removed. That would not be a WP:OR issue, and this is not a WP:OR issue either. Eubulides (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If those editors supporting the inclusion of astronomy research at Chiropractic were basing their rationale on the fact that some researched have applied other astronomy research to Chiropractic (so why can't we as editors apply other astronomy research?) then that would be OR. And that is exactly what is happening here. Now I am a person of the world and I recognize that spinal manipulation is more relevant to chiropractic than astronomy is. But that doesn't mean that spinal manipulation is the same as chiropractic. Hence the two distinct articles chiropractic and spinal manipulation. But because they are somewhat related is why confounding spinal manipulation with chiropractic is more dangerous than confounding astronomy with chiropractic. It is harder for the reader to know the difference. I mean really read the section in question. It is very confusing. The way it is written, it feels as though it has nothing to do with chiropractic and only to do with spinal manipulation. That's why this info is more apropos at the spinal manipulation article. And remember, chiropractors perform a specialized version of spinal manipulation, distinct in technique, diagnosis and philosophy than spinal manipulation performed by osteopaths, PTs and even MDs. That why their specialized techniques are referred to as spinal adjustment. That's why scientific researchers (chiropractors and non-chiropractors alike) dispute using spinal manipulation research to say anything specific about chiropractic spinal manipulation. Note that even at Wikipedia, we have distinct article for the general spinal manipulation and the specific chiropractic spinal adjustment. Clearly, a Wikipedian who applies non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research to a section about the evidence basis of chiropractic specifically has violated the basic principle of OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the section is confusing, then it would be helpful to point out the confusing wording; confusion can be addressed by clearer writing. But that is a style issue, not an original-research issue, and it does not belong in this noticeboeard. As for "a Wikipedian who applies non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research to a section about the evidence basis of chiropractic", this noticeboard is supposed to be about what's in Chiropractic #Evidence basis, not about Wikipedians; and every claim in that section is supported directly by a reliable source. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty misleading way to put it when you write: "Do you agree that there is disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" for chiropractors and others to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation?" Something similar happened, but fundamentally different. Spinal manipulation was studied, and when the results were favorable, chiropractors immediately trumpeted the results as vindication for the profession of chiropractic, NOT of "the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation", as you put it. That incensed the researchers so much that they had to write in a chiropractic source and scold the profession for doing that. They made it clear that their study was only about spinal manipulation (which included 94 or so percent chiropractic manipulation), not about the profession and all of its other methods, odd ideas, and unscientific practices, etc.. They weren't about to legitimize the profession with all its baggage, and they made that clear.

As to the use of spinal manipulation research that happens to include some few other professional practitioners, the studies are nearly always of 94 or so percent chiropractic manipulation plus a smidgin of others, IOW its conclusions still say more about chiropractic manipulation than anything else.

Now if a study specifically uses manipulation exclusively performed by non-DCs like PTs (such as a famous Dutch study), then specifically that study should be disallowed. Otherwise, by far most studies are about chiropractic manipulation with a near homeopathic dose of others, not enough to alter anything.

As far as safety studies go, the most notable and best study of this type ever done specifically revealed that chiropractors are implicated in far more injuries and deaths than other professions: "Manipulation of the Cervical Spine: Risks and Benefits", by Richard P Di Fabio, Phys Ther, Vol. 79, No. 1, January 1999, pp. 50-65. It was a very thorough analysis, and none since has topped it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think your last paragraph adds much to this particular conversation (and is a can of worms I don't we should open here), I do note that you agree that non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research should not be used at Chiropractic and that there is in fact disagreement in the scientific community about if it is "okay" to use the results of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research in order to make some conclusion about the efficacy/safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation (semantic debate aside :-). Therefore, would I be correct to assume that you agree that to use non-chiropractic research (performed by non-chiros and makes no specific conclusion about chiropractic) in the Chiropractic article violates OR? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Please don't put words into my mouth ("I do note that you agree..."). That's a QG trick. Only research (it matters little who performed it) that explicitly mentions that none or only a small minority of the performers of the spinal manipulation were chiropractors (such studies exist), should be excluded. The Dutch study is one. On a case by case basis I'd need to see the research to be absolutely certain, since we are speaking hypothetically here. Exceptions to my reasoning might occur if I see a definite case that deserves making an exception. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Only trying to make sure we are on the same page. I just did a poor job explaining it, it would seem. Because what I was trying to say that you agree about is that research about spinal manipulation not performed by chiropractors (such as the Dutch one) should not be used at Chiropractic. This is what you explain just above, yes? If so, I am in agreement with you. I think I had a dangling participle or something further above, so I understand the misunderstanding and I apologize to you for it. So, would you say that the use of such non-chiropractic research (like the Dutch one) at Chiropractic would constitute OR, or would you disallow it based on some other policy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problemo

[outdent]

No problemo. I too have difficulty making myself clear at times, especially when dealing with these complex matters. Here are a few thoughts:

1. If you can find a single study or more about SM (which we have cited) that specifically mentions that none of the participants were chiropractors, it should be disallowed from edits regarding SM at the chiropractic article, but could still be used at the general SM article. So far such a disallowance wouldn't change any conclusions we have written, if I recall correctly. Until now (quite a few months, or is it more than a year now?) you have been trying to disallow all SM research that was not conducted by chiropractors and/or SM research that included others than chiropractors, ostensibly because of concerns about how such allowances could affect the "concerns about safety" discussions we have had. Have you changed your position?
2. Above you write about "...confounding general spinal manipulation studies with chiropractic effectiveness..." and you cite Paul Shekelle, who scolded chiropractors for doing that. Here you are attempting to use that reasoning when you scold us for doing the opposite, when that hopefully is not the case. Of course "chiropractic effectiveness" is so vague a term that no one on earth should touch the subject with a ten foot pole. Only specific methods can accurately be studied in that manner. (The success of the general chiropractic encounter is another matter, and it should not be used as evidence of the effectiveness of specific chiropractic techniques or specific claims, as it often is. Some chiropractors still haven't learned from Shekelle and try to argue both ways.)
3. Speaking about the "can of worms" you mention above, any research that reveals facts about chiropractic effectiveness or safety issues is potentially fair game. The di Fabio mega metaanalysis above certainly does that, and so far we aren't using it. We should do so.

-- Fyslee / talk 07:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides states "Second, we have reliable sources saying that the various names are aliases, and that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation". Where is this reliable source that says it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation? I have seen a reliable source state that it was valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from CERTAIN STUDIES on spinal manipulation, but never such a blanket statement. This seems to be a BLATANT misrepresentation of the truth. - DigitalC (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly legitimate to ask for a source, but there's no need for such strong words. AGF. Now your words lead me to think of something (which will bring us back to what you state about Eubulides' words). It has often been claimed by chiropractors (and certain editors here) that a spinal adjustment is much more "specific" than a spinal manipulation, but where is the evidence for that claim? Of course the intent is different, in that it is claimed that the adjustment is "specifically" directed at the correction of vertebral subluxations. (IOW what mainstream scientists and skeptics would call manipulating an illusion.) Well, that's the intent, but what about any proven "physical" differences in the specific performance of the techniques? They would normally affect the same structures. (Let's not get bogged down in the obvious differences between widely different adjustment and SM techniques. Adjustment techniques exist which don't even touch the body, yet claim to effect changes in it.)

When directed at the same structure in a specific and identically well-performed manner, is there really any "physical" difference that the body will "notice"? Where is the proof for any "physical" difference, besides what the chiropractor or mainstream performer (and their respective patients) believes? I strongly suspect that only straight chiropractors will maintain that there is a physical difference, hence Eubulides' statement of an equatability between research results, if I am not mistaken. If there is no physical difference in performance and results, and most research deals with that, then the results should normally be comparable and interchangeable, IOW it would be "valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation." An exception is JVSR research, which deals with proposed philosophical and metaphysical differences that are purported to make an (unproven) physical difference. It's a journal that claims to perform "scientific research" on what amounts to an illusion... Well, what is the "physical" difference? -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Meeker & Haldeman (2002) wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine 137 (8), p. 702, "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point. Chiropractors use all forms of manipulation. In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it." The course of mainstream research since then has followed this principle, without dissent by any reliable source that I know of. Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what I thought. I'll make some emphasis here. "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point...". The statement that research on spinal manipulation is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it does not state that it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation. Again, where is this source that states that it is valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation"? - DigitalC (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Meeker & Haldeman are among the most senior and respected DC researchers; it's not our place to second-guess their expert opinion (unless, of course, we have found just-as-reliable sources who disagree; but such is not the case here).
• The emphasis on the phrase "we described" is misplaced; Meeker & Haldeman's argument is about the principle in general, and although they mention their study their point is not limited to their study. Obviously if research is equally of value regardless of the practitioner, then there's no scientific reason to ignore or discount research simply because of the types of practitioner studied. This point is not controversial among reliable sources these days.
• The question about "draw conclusions about spinal adjustment" is irrelevant here, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not draw conclusions about spinal adjustment. It doesn't even mention spinal adjustment.

Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was a scientific reason to ignore research because of the type of practitioner. However, there is no reason for Chiropractic to cite research that does not mention Chiropractic. Again, where is the source that YOU stated says "that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation". It isn't irrelevant here, because it was a misrepresentation of the facts about the dispute which is being discussed at this noticeboard. - DigitalC (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• If there's no scientific reason to ignore such research, then why ignore it? Certainly spinal manipulation is highly relevant to chiropractic; it's chiropractic's core treatment.
• The dispute seems to be over research that incorporates data from non-chiropractic practitioners along with data from chiropractic practitioners; this is not the same thing as "research that does not mention Chiropractic".
• I don't see misrepresentation of the facts either in Chiropractic or here.
• Certainly reliable sources say that "spinal adjustment" and "spinal manipulation" are two names for what is essentially the same thing. For example, Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498) say, 'The core clinical action that all chiropractors agree upon is spinal manipulation. Chiropractors much prefer the term spinal “adjustment,” reflecting their belief in the therapeutic and health-enhancing effect of correcting spinal joint abnormalities.' This is a difference in terminology, not in substance.

Eubulides (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The reason to ignore such research is the exact reason we are here at WP:NORN. It is original research/a SYN violation to mention general spinal manipulation research under the heading "Chiropractic effectiveness". It is implying a conclusion that this research is related to chiropractic effectiveness, which we DO NOT HAVE A SOURCE FOR.
• If the source specifically mentions chiropractic, I don't know how there can be dispute.
• The misrepresentation of the facts here is clear. You stated that we have sources that say ""that it's valid to draw conclusions about spinal adjustment from research about spinal manipulation"", when no such sources have been presented. I have repeatedly asked for such a source, with none being presented. Is this a case of WP:IDHT? Please either present such a source, or strike your comments above.

DigitalC (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I've quoted a reliable source saying spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation are different terms for the same thing. It is certainly valid to draw conclusions about X from research about X; it happens all the time. There is no misrepresentation, either here or in Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I've quoted sources that say just the opposite. Clearly there is no agreement about this in the scientific community, therefore us drawing conclusions on our own here about chiropractic spinal adjustments from research about non-chiropractic spinal manipulations is OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what quotes you're talking about. I just now checked the comments in this section, and found no quote in any of your comments that contain the phrase "spinal adjustment". There is a consensus in the mainstream scientific and mainstream chiropractic communities that spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation are two names for the same thing. Again, please see Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498), which I quoted above. And again, the question about "drawing conclusions on our own here about chiropractic spinal adjustments" is irrelevant here, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis does not draw any conclusions about, or even mention, "chiropractic spinal adjustment", "spinal adjustment", or "chiropractic adjustment". Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See the quote from RAND above which makes it clear that those researchers believe there is a difference between spinal manipulation and chiropractic. There is no scientific consensus as you claim. So yes, by presenting research conclusions about non-chiropractic spinal adjustments in the "Evidence basis" section of the "Chiropractic" article, you are drawing your own conclusions about chiropractic; and thus the OR violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue by creating a distracting straw man when you state "believe there is a difference between spinal manipulation and chiropractic". We're talking about the difference between "spinal manipulation" and "chiropractic adjustments", not chiropracic itself. You keep switching back and forth when it suits your whim. Please stick to one issue. -- Fyslee / talk 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The RAND quote distinguishes chiropractic from spinal manipulation, but that's a quite different thing. Chiropractic includes many treatment forms, not just spinal manipulation (or if you prefer, "spinal adjustment"). Even if the RAND quote did dispute the mainstream consensus that spinal manipulation and spinal adjustment are two names for the same thing (which it doesn't), that would not affect Chiropractic #Evidence basis, a section that never uses the words "spinal adjustment". Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're dancing around the obvious here. RAND made the distinction, Terrett made the distinction in JMPT's "Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury" and DiFabio notes the difference. It's more than semantics, it's more than philosophical. There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors. But you have found one source which says it was okay for them to confound the two in the particular studies that they looked at and then you claim there must be scientific consensus and therefore we can violate OR by do the same confound with completely different studies. A merely presenting the non-chiropractic studies in the chiropractic article creates the original research violation, no matter if you are careful to call it "manipulation" and not "adjustment". They are not the same thing. However, you are presenting the non-chiropractic manipulation studies as though they were directly relevant to chiropractic. Consider this, in closing, if there isn't a difference between Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment, then why have we had the to two distinct articles here at Wikipedia for so long? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are still confusing the issue. You keep switching back and forth when it suits your whim. Please stick to one issue. RAND wasn't making a comparison between spinal manipulation and chiropractic adjustments.

When you write: "There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors.", you seem to be ignoring my comments above about a physical difference for comparable techniques. You claim there is a mechanical (IOW physical) difference, when the only proven difference is one of belief, philosophy, and intent. When the same technique that is called "spinal manipulation" by non-DCs, and "spinal adjustment" by DCs are compared, just what is the mechanical/physical difference? We are of course talking about HVLA manips/adjustments directed at the same structure in a specific and identically well-performed manner. Is there really any "physical" difference that the body will "notice"? Is there a proven physical difference? I think not. Please provide a RS that proves there is. The WCA, ICA, and F.A.C.E. will of course confirm that there is a difference in intent, and maybe even claim there is a mechanical difference, but where is their proof? -- Fyslee / talk 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This comment mentions two older sources not previously discussed here. The first (Terrett 1995, PMID 7636409) is like the RAND quote: it says that "the words chiropractic and chiropractor commonly appear in the literature to describe SMT, or practitioner of SMT", which is not the dispute here. The dispute here is about "spinal adjustment" versus "spinal manipulation". The second source, Di Fabio 1999 (PMID 9920191) agrees with the mainstream consensus: it analyzes the same data with non-chiropractors both included and excluded, and shows that only a slight difference between the two results and that the overall pattern is the same (see Figure 2, page 54). I expect that Di Fabio's results helped to contribute to the modern mainstream consensus that there's no significant difference between "spinal manipulation" and "spinal adjustment" as far as the evidence basis goes. The presence of a POV fork in Wikipedia, which is what Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment are, is not a reliable source for this discussion; Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. Eubulides (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, you are quite correct. There is no true physical difference. I want to mention a couple points about the two articles comprising the POVFORK. I believe they have a legitimate basis for their existence, since there truly is a significant difference in POV, as well as other important differences. The Spinal adjustment article can go into detail about the philosophical, metaphysical, spiritual, and intent differences, all of which have no relevance to scientific spinal manipulation. Adjustments include many widely varied techniques, many of which have no similarity to HVLA spinal manipulation, some of which don't even use enough force to affect a vertebra or the spinal nerves, or even to touch the body. Adjustments include anything which a chiropractor claims will remove vertebral subluxations, and studying these claims often brings us into the vast and sometimes uncharted territory known as woo woo land, which many scientifically oriented chiropractors abhor and criticize, but which nevertheless are things their colleagues believe and practice, because they inhabit or frequent that land. The "adjustment" article can deal with those issues. If the two articles were to be merged, they would need their own separate sections. BTW, I notice that the Spinal adjustment article needs some serious cleaning up. There are improperly formatted refs and use of simple numbers as refs, as well as cites of studies that include spinal manipulation. -- Fyslee / talk 04:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis continues to be flawed and you have yet to support your claim that there is "scientific consensus" that there is a 1:1 comparison between chiropractic spinal adjustments and non-chiropractic spinal manipulation. Just because you repeat that there is a "scientific consensus" over and over and over again, does not make it so. Thus far, you have found one source which says it is okay for those researchers to confound specific non-chiropractic research with a chiropractic conclusion. I see no consensus, only continued original research on your part. Here are a few other sources: This one discusses the practical differences between chiropractors, osteopaths and PTSs [1]. This one discussed the efficacy difference between chiropractic and physical therapy [2]. Remember the obvious here, chiropractors use a whole range of specialized techniques, diagnosis, and instruments to adjust the spine which non-chiropractic spinal manipulators do not employ. How can there be a 1:1 comparison? Finally, if you think Spinal adjustment is a POVFork of Spinal manipulation then you should nominate for deletion. However, in terms of Wikipedia consensus, there is currently a recognized difference between spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation which warrants the need for two distinct articles. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, there is a 1:1 comparison between the two terms as used in most research. Terminology is the point. Any claimed physical differences are not the point. (You haven't yet provided proof of such a physical difference, but given time ((since I have just asked for it above)) I hope you will enlighten us.) The terminology is used interchangeably by chiropractic and non-chiropractic researchers for HVLA manips/adjustments, regardless of the performer, or what the performer calls them. That's the point.

Exceptions to the general rule will be found in ultra-straight literature. That's the only place where there is any consistency, since they make it a point of pride to identify themselves by the "purity" of their adherance to doctrine. They are known as "principled" chiropractors. If your belief and point is about "who" performs it, then you will likely concede that a "manipulation", if performed by a chiropractor, is an "adjustment". In that case, di Fabio and others have proven that "adjustments" can and do injure and kill people. -- Fyslee / talk 04:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have provided so many examples of how there is no consensus that there is a 1:1 comparison now, that it is disheartening that you are choosing to ignore these. How about two more? The first comes from your beloved Ernst who points out the inherent weakness of using non-chiropractic RCTs to conclude anything about chiropractic spinal adjustments. [3] The second comes from the renowned Manga report which stated that there is evidence that "spinal manipulations are less safe and less effective when performed by non-chiropractic professionals".[4] If there is a 1:1 comparison, why are they less safe and less effective when performed by non-chirorpactors... such as PTs? The point here is not whether I'm right and You're wrong, or vice-versa. At this point in history, there is no definitive answer and thus there certainly is no consensus about there being a 1:1 relationship between chiropractic spinal adjustments and non-chiropractic spinal manipulation in terms of efficacy. Some researchers say there is, some say there is not. We just don't know definitively for sure at this point. And since we at Wikipedia cannot take sides, we therefore cannot take non-chiropractic spinal manipulation RCTs and use their data to draw our own conclusions about chiropractic. Doing so is a textbook violation of WP:OR. We can, however, use non-chiropractic studies which researchers have specifically applied to make some statement about chiropractic, provided that we put it in context for our readers. (P.S. I agree with you that the Spinal adjustment article is in need of some serious clean-up, though I am trepidatious about moving in there at this point, if you can understand.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology is the point here, not efficacy or safety. Save that for another day.

I did ask for sources that prove a physical difference, ergo an anatomical and physiological difference, or as you worded it, a "mechanical" difference. I'd like to see an anatomical analysis of such differences. Would the body know the difference? Is there any way to measure the difference? -- Fyslee / talk 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious. If efficacy and safety differs, there must be a physical difference. Unless you want to attribute the different effect on the human body to the intention of the practitioner. :-) Not a very scientific way of thinking though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not so obvious, without engaging in OR. If we actually had some blinded studies that directly compared (in the same study) physical differences, we'd be a bit closer, but it still wouldn't be good enough since it would measure outcomes, not solely any physical differences. Actual studies which examine the anatomical and biomechanical factors involved, showing actual measurable differences in the performance, not the outcomes, is what's needed here. Different people doing studies in different ways will come up with different outcome results, and they have, not all of which are as favorable as the one you have cherry picked. And yes, the well-known "chiropractic encounter", often involving the use of what they call "scripts" (which among experienced practice builders amounts to mental manipulation), will indeed affect the perceived outcomes, independently of the actual technique, or rather as an added factor that affects those perceptions. I have asked for sources that prove a physical/mechanical difference, and I'd like to see them without any OR. You claim there is a mechanical difference, and I'd like to see the sources you are using to make such a claim without any backward-pointing inferences. I'm sure that straight chiropractic sources make such claims, and I wouldn't mind seeing them as well. -- Fyslee / talk 13:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think that the outcome being different means that the manipulation itself must have been different. I'm surprised you don't agree, being - like me - a scientific skeptic. Anyhow, the one making the claim is the one who stated that there is always a direct 1:1 comparison between chiropractic adjustments and non-chiropractic manipulation in terms of research. Yet, he has provided just one source in which the chiropractic researchers said it was okay for those researchers to use the results of just a couple of specific non-chiropractic studies in order for them to draw a conclusion about chiropractic. Despite only having this one source, this proponent has declared that there is a scientific consensus to confound chiropractic and non-chiropractic research in this manner. On the other hand, I have provided several sources now which discuss the differences in chiropractic and non-chiropractic manipulation and why we should not confound research about the two. Clearly, there is no consensus. Thus, if we confound in the article, we would be (and are) engaging in OR. As for Fyslee's claim that I am engaging in OR by claiming that non-chiropractic and chiropractic are not comparable - well, you are right - but only just as right as me stating that Eubulides is engaging in OR by claiming that non-chiropractic and chiropractic are directly comparable. The point is: we don't know for sure because there is no consensus out there, and in fact, there is much disagreement. Thus, we can't choose a side without engaging in OR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting the sources I asked for to back up Levine2112's claim that there is a "mechanical" difference:

• "There is a mechanical difference between the spinal adjustment techniques which chiropractors employ and the spinal manipulations employed by non-chiropractors." - Levine2112

So much for asking for evidence to back up such an unusual claim. Even straight chiropractic sources should be available to back up that one! I wonder what Marcello Truzzi would say about this failure to back up a claim? I give up. Let's move on. -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are abundant sources which I have provided now. Still no sources stating that there is no physical difference. So the failure to back up the claim is all yours, I am afraid. Pity really. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

??? Don't reverse the burden of proof. The burden is on you, not me. Your statement is a combination of straw man and red herring logical fallacy. I have not asked for a source "stating that there is no physical difference", but a source stating that there is a physical difference in an anatomical and biomechanical sense as regards the performance of the manipulation/adjustment. Your refusal to provide even one source is beginning to make me wonder about my memory. I'm pretty sure I've read straight chiropractic sources that make such claims, but if you can't or won't find them, then we're left with nothing to back up your claim at all, not even a poor source. Hmmm .... maybe the only place I've heard such a claim was from you. Are we really on a wild goose chase, searching for a non-existent source to back up your personal belief? -- Fyslee / talk 06:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing this thread in the next section. Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vickers & Zollman etc.

Levine2112 now brings up more sources, but these new sources support the mainstream position, not the fringe position that there is an important distinction between spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation from the point of view of the evidence basis.

• Vickers and Zollman 1999 (PMID 10541511) use, in their evidence basis section for chiropractic and osteopathy, the same sort of systematic reviews that Chiropractic is using now. For example, they cite Koes, Assendelft et al. 1996 (PMID 9112710). Chiropractic cites an updated version of that review, namely Assendelft et al. 2004 (PMID 14973958).
• Skargren et al. 1998 (PMID 9762745) studied chiropractic care versus physiotherapy, not chiropractic spinal manipulation versus physiotherapeutic spinal manipulation, so their comparison is not directly relevant to our dispute about SM versus SA. That being said, their main conclusion was that the two types of care showed "equal health improvement and total cost between the two groups 12 months after initial treatment". There were some relatively minor differences in some subgroups, but overall this study has helped to lead to the modern mainstream consensus that the difference between the two types of practitioners is not important when studying the evidence basis for spinal manipulation. and that is how Skargren et al. is cited in many later reviews (e.g., Assendelft et al. 2003, PMID 12779297).
• Ernst 2003 (PMID 12782542) does say that recent (as of 2003) assessment of the data indicate some benefit for spinal manipulation for back pain (which is what Chiropractic #Evidence basis says now), but that if we limit ourselves to older studies, back when the "spinal manipulation" versus "spinal adjustment" issue was still a live one, then 'The only systematic review of exclusively chiropractic spinal manipulation concluded that "the available RCTs provided no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic for acute or chronic low back pain".' Here Ernst is referring to Assendelft et al. 1996 (PMID 8902660), which I suspect is the latest systematic review available under the old assumption that the distinction between chiropractic and non-chiropractic spinal manipulation was an important one.
• It would be interesting to see what ancient source the Manga report (1993) is citing when it says "There is also some evidence in the literature to suggest that spinal manipulations are less safe and less effective when performed by non-chiropractic professionals." Certainly more-recent and presumably higher-quality studies, such as Skargren et al., have failed to confirm any such broad conclusion.
• Given these old citations, I am willing to concede that there was some concern about chiropractic versus non-chiropractic data among reliable sources until the mid 1990s. However, the results by di Fabio and others appear to have allayed that concern. The modern mainstream consensus, as expressed Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498), is that any differences between "spinal manipulation" and "spinal adjustment" are not significant from an evidence basis viewpoint.
• Levine writes that Fyslee stated "there is always a direct 1:1 comparison between chiropractic adjustments and non-chiropractic manipulation in terms of research". Fyslee didn't write that; he added qualifiers. I have also added qualifiers; the point is that there's no important difference between the two, as far as evidence basis goes.
• The "just one source" I have provided, namely Meeker & Haldeman 2002 (PMID 11827498), was written by two of the most-respected DC researchers today, and we know of no reliable source that has seriously disputed their claim. And it's not just this source: modern reviews and guidelines, written by mainstream chiropractors, also employ this assumption. Just one example: the 2007 CCGPP literature synthesis of chiropractic management of low back pain, a document written by and for chiropractors, cites sources derived from non-chiropractic data. For example, it cites Aure et al. 2003 (PMID 12642755) to support manual therapy for low back pain, even though Aure et al. specifically disallowed chiropractic manipulation! Surely you remember that example? We discussed it in Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 24 #Syn tag, a discussion that we are mostly just repeating here, albeit with the added entertainment of dusting off obsolescent 1990s sources.
• In short, these old citations underscore the fact that any serious doubt about this issue was resolved a decade or more among reliable sources; Chiropractic should reflect the current mainstream consensus.

Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Vickers & Zollman are not bound by the same policies Wikipedia editors are, such as WP:OR & WP:SYN. What they do has no relevance here.
• The source that you have provided (Meeker & Haldeman 2002), does NOT make a blanket statement that it is valid to use research on spinal manipulation that does not discuss chiropractors, when discussing chiropractic spinal manipulation. Again, modern researchers are not bound by WP:OR, in fact they are supposed to be performing original research—Wikipedia editors are not.
• Chiropractic needs to use verifiable sources that state this concensus. None have been presented. It is again original research to state that this concensus exists, without having a source to back that up.

DigitalC (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I mentioned Vickers & Zollman only because Levine2112 brought it up. I expect Levine2112 thought it was relevant.
• I have provided sources other than Meeker & Haldeman. The sources I have provided are recent and establish the modern consensus. Chiropractic should not be edited according to the standards of 1993, back when there were still serious questions about this issue among reliable sources.
• No evidence has been presented here that Chiropractic #Evidence basis uses "research on spinal manipulation that does not discuss chiropractors, when discussing chiropractic spinal manipulation". It would be difficult to present such evidence, as Chiropractic #Evidence basis never mentions the phrase "chiropractic spinal manipulation". It consistently uses the phrase "spinal manipulation" to describe spinal manipulation.
• Again, Meeker & Haldeman are a reliable source on this point, and we know of no reliable source disputing their basic point, which is that spinal manipulation and spinal adjustment are two names for what is the same thing, as far as the evidence basis goes.

Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That just about says it all. I think it is time to weed out all of the OR from this section in the article and see if it is a version which we can all live with. Agreed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Far from it. There is no shadow of a consensus, only plenty of stonewalling, albeit no doubt in good faith. Even good faith discussions can constitute a considerable disruption to editing the chiropractic article. -- Fyslee / talk 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the stonewalling is from the tiny minority of editors who refuse to recognize their WP:OR violation. It's time to end this by removing the violating text. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There never was any OR violation and it is time for the SYN tag to be removed. Every sentence is well sourced and accurate. QuackGuru 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with QuackGuru that the SYN tag should be removed. All that's happened here is that the same dispute is being reaired, with the same editors. Calamitybrook, the one uninvolved editor who weighed in, said that the WP:SYN objection "is far too narrow to be reasonable, and even taken at its face value, is invalid." Coppertwig, a relatively-neutral editor, also thought the SYN tag should go. It's time to move on. Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's time to remove the tag and move on. (and please, QuackGuru, don't do it yourself...) -- Fyslee / talk 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation by Eubulides when he states "Calamitybrook, the one uninvolved editor who weighed in". Surturz could hardly be called an involved editor when he "weighed in" here. He had no prior involvement in the dispute, and had only 3 edits recently to Talk:Chiropractic#Vaccination section must go. - DigitalC (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Levine2112 recruited Surturz to this page after Surturz had jumped in at Chiropractic by tagging Chiropractic#Vaccination with {{POV-section}}, and had made several comments on Talk:Chiropractic strongly criticizing the section on WP:POV grounds.[5][6][7] This hardly counts as an "uninvolved editor".
• I was hoping that Levine2112 would mention this recruitment, but I see now that he has made further comments in this thread without discussing it.
• In the light of all this, it is not "misrepresentation" to describe Calamitybrook as the only uninvolved editor.
• Surturz's initial focus on POV concerns strongly suggests that the underlying dispute here is a POV dispute, not a SYN dispute.

Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because I asked a new participant at Chiropractic for his/her input here does not make them involved. Calamitybrook has also commented a lot at Chiropractic. Is he/she no longer uninvolved? This is a pretty weak attempt to distract us from the fact that more editors feel that there is a SYN violation than not, Eubulides. I thought better of you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Calamitybrook started involvement with this topic here, on this page, as part of an effort to comment on this page on OR issues in various unrelated topics (for example, gay SF [8]). Calamitybrook's single comment at Talk:Chiropractic came only later,[9] to clarify Calamitybrook's earlier comments here (basically, to report a change-of-mind to the opinion that Chiropractic was not too long after all). This single comment, made in order to prevent a false impression left on the OR talk page, is not commenting "a lot at Chiropractic". It is entirely the sign of an outside editor notifying us of a change of mind after an earlier review.
• In contrast, Surturz came to this page already having exhibited strong opinions on the subject elsewhere. Surturz was recruited by you to come here, a recruitment that you did not report here.
• Most of the editors at Talk:Chiropractic are not involved in this discussion. Almost all of this discussion is simply a repeat of what already occurred at Talk:Chiropractic. The only uninvolved editor who has commented, has said that there are no OR problems here.

Eubulides (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely. Calamitybrook came here with a lot of strong opinions on the subject. Look at his/her other comments here. Again, the majority of editors feel there is an OR violation. If you don't feel satisfied with this outcome, we should move along on the WP:DR ladder. Let me know which rung you'd like to try now. An official RfC might be in order. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I know of no comments on the subject made by Calamitybrook before visiting here. Calamitybrook's first comment indicates a lack of familiarity with the topic, suggesting that no strong opinions were brought to the table. I see no evidence that "the majority of editors" feel there is an OR violation. That does not appear to be true at Talk:Chiropractic. A minority of editors there has posted at length here. Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Calamity's subsequent comments here and at Chiropractic reveal strong personal feeling about the topic. Sorry, not neutral, though like Surturz and TheDoctorIsIn, uninvolved in this particular dispute previously. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

TheDoctorIsIn has vandalsized the chiropractic article and Levine2112 asked Surturz to comment here. QuackGuru 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't make either editor "involved". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on this lack of understanding by Levine2112 I motion to close this debate and archive it. QuackGuru 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on QuackGuru's inability to assume good faith, I recommend that he doesn't participate in this discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You comment is not assuming good faith, and this discussion should now be over. QuackGuru 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaming system / straw man

Agree with Levine2121. . . there is a SYNthesize violation. . . unless source state that they are talking about chiropractic then they should not be used at chiropractic article. . . 3 editors are gaming system trying to avoid this rule. . . while the bulk of editors disagree with them.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic editors (who's "gaming the system"?!) have created this straw man diversion to help whitewash the article of legitimate information they find uncomfortable. Mainstream editors see no problem with using reliable sources. As stated above, there is no shadow of a consensus, only plenty of stonewalling, albeit no doubt in good faith. Even good faith discussions can constitute a considerable disruption to editing the chiropractic article. -- Fyslee / talk 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, you yourself have stated that the material does not belong in this article, but belongs in the article devoted to that topic. That is why I see it as an OR violation. An editor is making the OR violation by including research on "topic X", (which doesn't mention Chiropractic) in a section of Effectiveness of Chiropractic, when there is an article devoted to "topic X". There is a SYN violation because it is implying a conclusion that it is related to Effectiveness of Chiropractic, when the source does not state that it is. Spinal manipulation research that does not mention Chiropractic should be covered at Spinal manipulation. Ultrasound research that doesn't mention Chiropractic likewise should be covered at Ultrasound. Dry needling research that does not mention Chiropractic should be covered at Dry needling. Wikipedia editors need to follow the sources, and in this case they aren't. - DigitalC (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I follow you part of the way. We are agreed that all the specifics about each technique should go in their own articles, but that's not the only issue in this discussion, and I haven't addressed that here. So far my POV on where the information should go hasn't been convincing enough. So I say yes and no to your comment, but that's a different topic, and we need to avoid getting sidetracked, or we need to split this topic so as to avoid confusion. -- Fyslee / talk 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can stay focused best by simply sticking to the question: Does Chiropractic #Evidence basis have an Original Research problem? (And if so, what are they and how an we fix them?) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee that which article this text should go into is independent of whether the text itself exhibits WP:OR. The above discussion does not establish that we have an WP:OR problem in Chiropractic #Evidence basis. Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion does establish that the majority of editors believe that we have an OR problem. I am confused by inaccurate summary, Eubulides. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, most of the editors at Talk:Chiropractic are not involved in this discussion, almost all of this discussion is simply a repeat of what already occurred at Talk:Chiropractic, and the only uninvolved editor who has commented here, has said that there are no OR problems here. Eubulides (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect summary again. The majority of editors feel there is an OR violation. If you are displeased with that, then perhaps we should try the next rung on the WP:DR ladder. How about an official RfC? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I see no evidence that "the majority of editors" feel there is an OR violation. That does not appear to be true at Talk:Chiropractic. And the only uninvolved editor here has said there is no OR violation. I don't see why an RfC is needed. Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote, but if you're looking for a straw poll, it's roughly 6 editors saying there is an OR problem to 3 editors saying there is none. There have been at least three uninvolved editors to comment here, and 2 of them say there is an OR problem. Shall we move on with WP:DR. Perhaps an RfC? You tell me what you think we should do next. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That count doesn't sound right: my impression is that the consensus on Talk:Chiropractic is that the material is sound. Almost all the commentary on this page has been by editors previously involved on Talk:Chiropractic; the only exception is Calamitybrook, who agrees that there is no WP:SYN problem here. No further action is required, as far as I can see. Eubulides (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's flawed reasoning. And it sounds as though you are running away from a legitimate dispute. I am asking you how you would like to proceed in terms of WP:DR. I think an RfC would be a good step forward, but I am open to hearing your other suggestions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see flaws in the reasoning. My suggestion, as I've said, is to let the matter drop. If you disagree, you are of course free to ask for an RfC. Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you refuse to see flaws in your reasoning. But I do see them. Hence the dispute. I will proceed on an RfC. Since you refuse to further our dispute resolution, I kindly request that you don't interfere. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There already was a RFC to add the updated information. QuackGuru 18:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But was there an RfC regarding the possible OR issue? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what this noticeboard is used for. FYI, Levine2112 agreed with Dematt. QuackGuru 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean here. This board is used to get outside opinions. So far we have gotten three; 2 of which support that there is an OR problem. But I digress, let's move onto an RfC for this matter as we aren't really saying anything new here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 previously agreed with Dematt against having a RFC. The one outside opinion on this board is that there is no OR. I do not see three outside opinions. There was only one. QuackGuru 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's time for an RfC now perhaps. As for the amount of outside opinions, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was previously a RFC on adding this specific information and you disagreed with having the RFC and the outside opinion at this noticeboard believes there is no OR. QuackGuru 19:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So sorry. I'm afraid we'll still have to agree to disagree with your interpretation of the matters at hand. I'll begin to craft the RfC now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have provided evidence for the correct view of this situation. It is time for you to move on. QuackGuru 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to be open to the possibility that your position may be wrong here. I think that is good advice in general for you. Consider the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence I am wrong. I have provided links and evidence. For example, Levine2112 previously disagreed with having the RFC. QuackGuru 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have at least attempted to provide such evidence (thought I am not arrogant enough to claim that my evidence undeniably proves you wrong). However, it appears that you are unwilling to even recognize that I have attempted to provide such evidence. Therefore, we are only left to agree to disagree. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has attempted but not provided any evidence such as differences or links. QuackGuru 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have provided research with detail explanation and quotations from Wikipedia policy all of which I believe support my position. If you want to carry on childishly like this, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion with you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is this compelling research with detailed explanation? Nowhere! QuackGuru 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for the convincing research and evidence. QuackGuru 00:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I and others are waiting for the same from you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has a lot of research that is highly referenced, accurate, and NPOV. QuackGuru 04:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And now new contributor at Chiropractic MacGruder agrees that there is a SYN problem (that if the researchers don't say chiropractic specifically, we shouldn't present it at article Chiropractic). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see #SYN and DeVocht below. Eubulides (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

SYN and DeVocht

(outdent) Macgruder is indeed new to Talk:Chiropractic, and has mentioned WP:SYN, but he is not saying "that if the researchers don't say chiropractic specifically, we shouldn't present it at article Chiropractic". His SYN-based complaint is that we should cite DeVocht 2006 (PMID 16523145) to support the claim "many other medical procedures also lack rigorous proof of effectiveness". But this paper, entitled "History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint", is clearly all about chiropractic, and it clearly makes the point in question. It's not clear what Macgruder's argument is (later discussion of the issue seems to have veered off into WP:WEIGHT and the Simon-says style, neither of which are WP:SYN), but any argument about DeVocht that is based on SYN must be quite a different argument than the one discussed here.

Perhaps we should ask Macgruder to comment here, to see what his position is on this particular thread. Eubulides (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should have MacGruder comment here. Please note though that MacGruder has stated at Talk:Chiropractic: ...the issue with whether it's chiropractic or SM. It's not for us to decide. We report the paper and its conclusions. I can absolutely agree that if the paper doesn't even mention chiropractic then we don't report it, but if for example the paper mentions both it is not up to us to decide. I added the bold for emphasis. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We are now dealing with roughly 7 editors agreeing that this is an OR violation to 3 saying there is not. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Macgruder has repeatedly proposed basing Chiropractic more heavily on Ernst & Canter 2006 (PMID 16574972), which goes directly against the contention in this section that citing sources like Ernst & Canter constitutes an OR violation. If Macgruder's comments have resulted in your adding 1 to your "agreeing that this is an OR violation" count, this suggests that the count is not that reliable. Eubulides (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask MacGruder to comments here and what he/she meant by I can absolutely agree that if the paper doesn't even mention chiropractic then we don't report it. To me, that really seems to support my position here; not yours. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This controversial comment is original research not supported by any differences. QuackGuru 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion until evidence is presented. QuackGuru 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can count, you can judge the "evidence" for yourself. That you think it is "controversial" is truly just your opinion. That the only ones agreeing with Eubulides' position here is an editor with under 500 main space edits and yourself only weakens his position. Eubulides would be better off standing alone - but that's just my opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two or three sentences

Why not just put in two or three sentences into the article that simply and explicitly outline this issue, and leave it at that? Are there sources that raise the issue you're fighting over? What do the sources say, if anything, about applying non-chiro SM research to chiro SM? What about insurance companies? Part of the problem it seems to me is, (generally, and not necessarily in this article) the vested interest that chiros have in their business.Calamitybrook (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Most research has focused on spinal manipulation (SM) in general,[79] rather than solely on chiropractic SM.[12]

The article does explain about the research. There was more information that could of been added but a few editors wanted to leave out the extra details. QuackGuru 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru's comment essentially duplicates what I was going to write. QuackGuru's quote (from Chiropractic #Effectiveness) cites Meeker & Haldeman 2002, which says "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point. Chiropractors use all forms of manipulation. In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it." As I understand it, the editors who think there is a SYN violation argue that putting in text to that effect would itself constitude a SYN violation. However, I agree that this point can be elaborated on, and if appears there may be working consensus on this, I can propose some wording on Talk:Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Meeker & Haldeman stuff sounds very reasonable and relevant. Do insurance companies agree? Is there more stuff like that, on either side of the issue? Just include whatever you've got, let the reader sort it out, and it seems to me then, there'd no longer be an issue. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know insurance companies have not weighed in on this issue. All recent and reliable evidence assessments that we are aware of follow the advice of Meeker & Haldeman; these include assessments by mainstream medical organization such as the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society (see Chou et al. 2007, PMID 17909210), mainstream chiropractic+medical organizations such as the Task Force on Neck Pain (see Hurwitz et al. 2008, PMID 18204386), and mainstream chiropractic organizations such as the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (see Meeker et al. 2007 (PDF)). I will see if I can draft some proposed text along these lines, at Talk:Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CalamityBrook asked "What do the sources say, if anything, about applying non-chiro SM research to chiro SM?". In general, they don't say anything. If they made a blanket statement (which they don't, and which Meeker & Haldeman is NOT) supporting such an application, then it would not be a SYN violation. I agree with Eubulides that evidence assessments do apply non-chiro SM research to chiro SM - however they are NOT bound by WP:SYN like we are. In fact, there is no point in publishing their work if there isn't some form of OR. - DigitalC (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CAM and DeVocht

I agree that there has been confabulation with respect to spinal manipulation studies as a means of either attacking or supporting chiropractic therapy. What is most troubling to me is how loosely some editing Chiropractic are with the rules with a lot of circular logic occuring. Specifically drawing conclusions of papers that do not mention Chiropractic (for example citing CAM) and extrapolating it and applying its conclusions to chiropractic. Also, there has been egregious misuse of reliable sources in the sense of taking a passage out of context and implying that the either the a) main topic of the paper or b) the conclusions of the paper. This is also occuring in the LEAD as well. For example, DeVocht ("History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint". Clin Orthop Relat Res 444: 243–9) is cited to support this sentence (Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment) when the source is essentially an opinion piece on chiropractic theories and not at all a review of the efficacy of 'chiropractic'. This type of editing is academically frowned upon and given that the article is being edited per WP:MEDRS it has a standard of inclusion and referencing than non-medical articles. I had asked for a reply to my query, but it has not been addressed so perhaps this is a more appropriate venue. Soyuz113 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know of any use in Chiropractic #Evidence basis of a CAM-only source that does not mention chiropractic; could you be specific about that?
• The only specific instance you cite, DeVocht 2005 (PMID 16523145) is not an "opinion piece on chiropractic theories". As its title says, it's about chiropractic methods as well as about theory. And it devotes considerably more space to evidence-basis issues ("methods") than to theory, with sections titled "Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction", "Safety", "Independent Studies of Chiropractic", and "Basic and Clinical Research" for the evidence basis, but only one section "Theory" about theory. The author, James W. DeVocht, is an associate professor at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic at Palmer College of Chiropractic, and his research centers on biomechanics; his piece is a reliable source for the claim "Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment". This claim, which is an important one to make, is not controversial among reliable sources; if you'd prefer citing a different source to citing DeVocht, please suggest one.

Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Improbable claims in brochures

You're probably right. It used to be that chiropractors wrecked havoc on their own credibility with various consumer brochures that made many improbable claims. I hear they've cleaned up their act in more recent years. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:38, August 5, 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that chiropractors make unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures; see Grod et al. 2001 (PMID 11677551). I'm unaware of reliable sources saying they've cleaned up their act recently. Eubulides (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think the basic objection (as I understand it) is far too narrow to be reasonable, and even taken at its face value, is invalid. The cited material is relevant and useful. But I think the article could benefit from a general revision, shortening it with an eye towarad the general reader.Calamitybrook (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A user is claiming that there is OR in the article Republicanism in Australia, which is a claim disputed by myself. As the debate has been going on for some weeks, without a seeming end in sight, could someone take a gander at the article and weigh in with their opinion? Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the article, the section, the article history, the talk page, the quoted sections of the sources, and a few other relevant articles, particularly the one on the SoW. Like you, I remain somewhat mystified by the nature of the continuing complaint. I would make these remarks:

• The brief comment which has since been removed — "at Australia's request" — is the only thing I found which could be labeled as OR. For one thing, it took a term of art ("request and consent") from the original source and re-applied it in a vernacular context, creating a somewhat misleading impression. For another, it verged on synthesis, taking the SoW and applying it interpretively to other legislation. Lastly, it was highly unclear whether the SoW's "request and consent" applied at all to the body of law in question. However, you and Gazzster reasonably agreed between you that the statement was insufficiently supported and needed to go. With that removed, the remaining information is not OR.
• As a general point, the information would best be placed elsewhere in the article, and should be more fully integrated. I understand that it naturally complements the Brennan quote with other views of the direct importance of the UK Parliament to Australia's head-of-state question, but it doesn't really fit into a section called "Representing Australia" under the larger heading of "Arguments for change". It seems that a full, contextualized section on the legal dimensions of the debate might be necessary, and this would find its natural home there. I believe there might be less conflict with Dlatimer if this material were not juxtaposed with the Brennan quote, giving the appearance almost of a counterpoint. I understand, however, that it will be difficult to reorganize the article with his continued insistence that the material cannot be included at all.
• The statement on the requirements for changing succession laws (the UK cannot change the succession laws without the consent of the other Commonwealth realms) is not OR. As you argue, it is a correct and simple descriptive use of a primary source. Dlatimer seems concerned with the fact that there is no identical text in Australia's version of the SoW, but I don't see how it matters. As long as the UK has such a provision of the act in effect, there is plainly no necessity for the Australians to have a reciprocal provision.
• I'm not sure I understand the importance of the Australia Act here. Is it establishing anything not established by the SoW material? It seems only to rebut the statement of Brennan. Not clear on this.

Anyway, that's as much as I can figure out from this somewhat arcane dispute! Drop me a line if you need help mediating this on the talk page. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that; I concur with your analysis. I believe much of the article could do with work (copyediting, divisions, etc.), but, as you say, as long as this strange dispute is holding things up, nothing will get done. If you don't mind, I'll transfer your observations to Talk:Republicanism in Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could someone have a look at this article please?

Essentially, it's a list of instances where you have four countries, each of which has a border with each of the other three. The sources listed are the CIA World Factbook and a list of three-letter country codes. There are no references per se, but quite a lot of footnotes.

My concern with the article is that the CIA World Factbook does not appear to contain such a list. IMO the information given on the article is not sufficiently obvious from a map (or a list of land-border lengths) that we can consider it not to be OR. Indeed, I managed to find three such sets that the original author left off and I'm not sure there aren't more. OTOH, I feel that this is the sort of thing where we should be able to find a definitive list - I just haven't found one.

I have been discussing this on the talk page, and the person I'm discussing with rather feels that such a list is not needed. He feels that these cases are obvious enough from looking at a map, or a list of border lengths, that the article is not OR.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Pfainuk talk 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the talk page, it seems that you, I and Amorim Parga would all like to keep and improve this interesting article, so that's a start. My view is as follows:

• The basic practice of compiling a list of four-country border sets is acceptable even without secondary sourcing, because the individual examples are easily and indisputably verifiable by an educated non-expert editor on the basis of a primary source.
• The potential for missing examples does not on its own render the practice original research. That is, although a reader could not easily verify that the list is 100% complete, individual examples can all be easily verified.
• The diagrams are acceptable per OR image policy.
• What really needs secondary sourcing here is the terminology. For all I know, terms like "four-country border sets" and "triclave" and so on are in common usage. But until this is established through secondary sourcing, we should change some of the terms around to avoid problems with neologisms and original synthesis.

I will be happy to help improve this article; feel free to leave a message on my talk. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not indenting my comment because sometimes they get just too indented) As Pfainuk has commented, I don't feel as needed an instance of this list published somewhere else. Mr. IP has stated some reasons for this. Another one is that this list, because of the huge amount of data which needs to be checked (all of the border pairs in the world) and the fact that this data is constantly changing (e.g. a set disappeared with the recent Montenegrin independence), because of this updating the list in question works pretty well in a collaborative, online work environment... like Wikipedia :) I'm gonna post some comments on the talk page, too. Amorim Parga (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could people comment here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the NOR argument is, we have sources about acid attacks in countries X, Y, and Z, which happen to be in South Asia, but it is a SYNTH to extrapolate that to say it is a South Asian problem. Maybe so, but there are reliable souces that specificially address it being a recent problem in Bangladesh. I remember viewing a tragic report on one of the TV newsmagazines about it, it was 20/20 or Dateline or 60 Minutes, maybe 5-8 years ago. However, the prevalence in that part of the world could simply be a result of sulfuric acid being readily accessible. On the other hand, many years ago these acid attacks were a problem in the Western world, and I've read books set in the Victorian era that had a "vitrioleuse" character, which is exactly what it sounds like. Googling that term should yield enough material to globalize the article. The article needs to be globalized; splitting it would simply result in a POV trap. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is on the right track - but it points to at least one major problem: the article provides primary source information from many countries to claim that there is an international problem, but no secondary source actually discusses it, the only secondary source discusses one country, so there is at least some SYNTH issues. We need a wider variety of esitors to look at this and comment, people who are not invested in the article, but who are committed to WP policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The "south Asia" remark is sourced to "Loss of face: violence against women in South Asia", which does seem to support the main claim about South Asia. There is apparent instance of OR, however, when talking about attacks elsewhere: "While less common than in South Asia". I fact-tagged this and will comment on the talk page. Eubulides (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Its likely that many secondary sources are out there that discuss it as a regional issue. I'd suggest starting off with the BBC, which has a decent understanding of the region, and whose reports are easily accessible online. Referring to the region as "South Asia" is not a SYNTH but simply the most accurate way to summarize the issue. We have it being a particular problem in Bangladesh, some reports of it in India and Pakistan, all countries traditionally considered part of "South Asia", and a few reports of it happening in Iran and Cambodia, which are "exceptions that prove the rule", on the cusp of what's considered South Asia.
• The While less common than in South Asia clause should be replaced with Acid throwing is not unknown in other regions of the world. This phrasing keeps the perspective but doesn't imply anything beyond what the cited sources say. That section should also cover 19th-century Europe.
• Finally, while I don't think such a serious article should have a trivia section, if we are to have one it could include the Sopranos episode D-Girl, where one character recounts a rumored acid-throwing incident from the past, and may be a useful juxtaposition to the factual 1950s incident in NYC discussed earlier on the page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Anon IP keeps adding information[10] which just goes to a flight page which I see as WP:OR since it's not a press release and just because there is more flights that you can chose from doesn't make it reliable since there is no press releases about the changes of flights. Bidgee (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This was posted in the AN page but I've moved it here. Bidgee (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, OR policy does allow for the descriptive use of primary sources in the event that a non-specialist reader can easily verify that the Wikipedia text has correctly described the contents of the primary source. So, we could do without press releases if we could link to flight information tables which clearly showed an increase to double-daily service starting in October (as I believe is the issue here). However, the link provided by the anon does not provide clear primary-source information, but rather makes you search it out yourself. I went through myself to check the information, and while it does appear to be true, there's no good way to link to the results. Since it does not appear possible to supply an easy link to primary information (in this case, flight info tables) clearly confirming the added Wikipedia content, I would say that, yup, the added content runs afoul of OR policy. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Are you seriously arguing that statements that are verifiable and true, and that you yourself have verified to be so, should still be deleted because some hypothetical reader might not be able to verify it? I think the principle should be interpreted as, if you are a non-specialist yourself, and you have been able to verify it, then the source is good. lk (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

At Persian Revolt we have an editor saying "According to the account of the struggle6 which is most circumstantial and on the whole most probable" (do take a look at the article if you want to see something which I don't think should exist on WP". On another article, Battle of Opis, we've got editors trying to decide which is the best translation also (both articles related perhaps by nationalism). That particular argument was stopped by an Admin protecting the 'wrong version' after editors 4 times removed all sourced text, it's now an illiterate stub. Anyway, it would be nice if someone uninvolved could explain to at least the Persian Revolt editor that what he's doing is wrong. I've tried many times. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that much of the current text of this article appears to be a straight copy from the following book: [11], which raises copyright concerns. The book is, as far as I can tell, a facsimile edition of a 19th-century work (with a 2002 copyright asserted). Given the age of the original work, there may be some wiggle room, but basically, it's not how this encyclopedia should be written. Jayen466 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Yamashita's gold article, an editor makes dubious claims that several court documents lend credence to their opinion of events. The wording is twisted and skewed, at best, to advance the editor’s point of view. There are no independent third-party sources that support these opinions.

The article is a mish-mash of legal piffle, and the talk-page is a battlefield of redundancy

Yamashita's_gold#Related_legal_action

I guess my question is this an OR issue, or POV issue? Jim (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

JimBob, I would say that the use of a primary source here is legitimate, as the paragraph appears (based only on skimming) to be an accurate summary of the court case whose text is used as a source — so I wouldn't really say it's OR, with the exception of this statement: Thus, there has been a judicial finding based upon substantial evidence that at least some portion of Yamashita's gold was found.. That statement should ideally be backed by secondary sourcing.

However, yeah, there's definitely a POV issue and general issues with the balance of the article and the integration of the information. This section does little to inform the reader about the larger subject of Yamashita's gold, and opens many questions that it does not answer. More than anything, there are context issues with this section, I think. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

___________

The statement: Thus, there has been a judicial finding based upon substantial evidence that at least some portion of Yamashita's gold was found has been removed and replaced with a quote directly from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The section in dispute concerns a lawsuit. The best source as to what transpired in the lawsuit are the official statements of the Court -- the official history of the lawsuit. The statements of the Court are clear (to anyone who can read) and are consistent with the contemporaneous news reports (which are also reliable sources). JimBob has some vested interest in the theory that Yamashita's Gold is an urban legend and resists any material that debunks his pet theory. The sources are irrefutable that Roxas prevailed on his claim against Marcos for converting the treasure.

No discussion of Yamashita's treasure would be complete without a discussion of Roxas' claim that he found the treasure and had it stolen by Marcos. The article would be misleading in its attempt to relegate Yamashita's treasure to an urban myth when some of the highest courts in our country have already recognized the legitimacy of Roxas' claim.

67.120.59.46 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, currently proposed for deletion, seems to have a list of events retroactively declared "cyberformances" with no citations to support this view. The whole article smells pretty OR. VG ☎ 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana that it's a tricky area. However, I wanted to clarify the particular case of Chiropractic. There is no dispute among reliable sources that the profession (chiropractic) and the treatment (spinal manipulation) are distinct topics. The dispute here is not whether the two topics should be distinguished (we all agree that they should be, and Chiropractic #Evidence basis carefully distinguishes them); the dispute is whether spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic, or (to use the current formulation in WP:NOR, which is mutating as we speak—talk about a confusing situation!) whether it's OK to cite a source on spinal manipulation that "refers directly" to chiropractic, and which "directly supports the information as it is presented", even if the source's reference to chiropractic is not in the source's title or abstract or conclusion.

To take a different example, Alzheimer's disease, a featured article, cites multiple sources that are not primarily about Alzheimer's, which hardly mention Alzheimer's, or which don't mention Alzheimer's at all. For example, it cites Thompson et al. 2007 (PMID 17662119), which is about dementia in general, not about Alzheimer's in particular; that article barely mentions Alzheimer's in passing. I would be quite skeptical of any claim that it's WP:OR for Alzheimer's disease to cite Thompson et al.; but if it is, there are lots more citations like that in Alzheimer's disease, and lots more like that in many featured articles. It's hard for me to believe that WP:OR is really intended to ban citations like these. Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically we have an article about pies. In that article, in a section about the tastiness of pies, you want to include information about the tastiness of tacos. The taco information comes from a source which does not mention pies in its conclusions about the tastiness of tacos. Are you asking if it is okay to include the taco information in the pie article if you promise to clearly distinguish the taco information from the pie information? I think it becomes a question of relevance and confusion - which in turn can create an OR/SYN issue. By merely presenting the taco information in the pie tastiness subsection, you are leading the reader to believe that the taco information is somehow directly related to the pie information. Sure, it's easy for the reader to keep the two items straight in their head - taco and pies? very different - but it can lead to some confusion, which is why the taco information should be kept in the taco article and the pie information should be kept in the pie article.

Okay, now let's change tacos to cobblers. Cobblers are much more similar to pie than tacos. Some might even classify cobblers as a type of pie. Of course there are others that feel that cobblers and pies, although somewhat related, are two distinct things. So let's say that there is general disagreement in the mainstream scientific community about whether or not cobblers are related to pies. Thus there would be disagreement about whether or not all pie tastiness studies are related to cobbler tastiness. So the question becomes: Is it okay to discuss pie tastiness studies (which make no conclusions about cobblers) in the cobbler article? What if we keep it very clear when we are talking about pie research and when we are talking about cobbler research? Would it be okay then? My answer is no. It still violates OR and now it is even more confusing for the reader than with the pie/taco scenario. Because there is mainstream disagreement about whether or not pie research and cobbler research are directly related, the presentation of pie research at the cobbler article would seem to be taking sides in the great pie vs. cobbler debate. Thus, we would be using the pie research which makes no mention of cobbler tastiness or the pie vs. cobbler debate to further push one side of the debate. This is using a source in a way not intended by the author and thus it is a violation of OR.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific question in this section is about Alzheimer's disease, not about pies. Is it WP:OR for that article to cite a source about dementia? Eubulides (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes, although there may be an off-case where it is appropriate. The real problem comes when you cite dementia papers misleadingly, as if the sources themselves are relating dementia to Alzheimer's. This is certaintly synth. This often happens when you string two sentences together, one related to the subject, the other not. For instance, if you said that "Alzheimer's has no known or agreed upon cause, although certain genetic factors will lead to early-onset Alzheimer's. However, dementia can be caused by syphilis and nutritional deficienes..." – you're misleading the reader into thinking that Alzheimer's can be caused by syphilis. This is exactly analogous to the situation with Austrian business cycle. The reader is mislead into thinking that these sources are refuting Austrian theory, when really these sources don't say anything about the Austrian business cycle, and are thus not engaging its arguments. The synthesizer is using them to engage the argument of the Austrian business cycle -- original research. And the fact that the mainstream critiques of the theory have not brought up this point raises questions about its legitimacy. II | (t - c) 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's talk about this specific case, not about some hypothetical case about pies or syphilis. Let me make this even more specific. Here is a sentence in Alzheimer's #Caregiving burden that cites the source in question (Thompson et al. 2007, PMID 17662119, a source that is about dementia not Alzheimer's):

Cognitive behavioural therapy and the teaching of coping strategies either individually or in group have demonstrated their efficacy in improving caregivers' psychological health.

Note that this claim is not about Alzheimer's either: it is about caregiver burden. So there is no misleading-the-reader here along the lines that you describe. Let us stipulate that the cited source directly supports this claim. Is it WP:OR for this claim to cite this source in Alzheimer's? (I should warn you that if this is OR, then there's a lot of OR in Alzheimer's.) Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of this subject from research undertaken when some of my older family members were stricken with Alzheimer's. It is my understanding that Alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia, that studies of dementia not specifically targeting other forms or addressing other root causes are heavily dependent on Alzheimer's data and considered (by reliable sources and professionals) as directly applicable to the consideration of Alzheimer's. If someone with a medical background and/or familiar with medical literature could confirm or deny that understanding, it would be appreciated. Operating on that understanding, it would seem that citing studies of dementia not specifically targeting other forms or addressing other root causes of dementia would be appropriate to cite in relation to Alzheimer's. Vassyana (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely that a professional expert in Alzheimer's will wander by here and confirm your understanding. That being said, your understanding is right on target. See, for example, Cotter 2007 (PMID 18095782) and Linday & Anderson 2004 (PMID 15345083). I picked these two only because they're freely readable and popped up early in my Pubmed search; there must be thousands of other medical-journal papers like these two. Eubulides (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't insert our own opinions about how applicable general dementia research is to Alzheimer's, or vice versa (Alzheimer's to dementia). Find published (or even nonpublished) professional opinions on that issue and put that in the article, but even then you shouldn't be citing general dementia studies in the Alzheimer's article. Both of the abstracts that Eubulides mentioned directly mention Alzheimer's in the first sentence. In any case, citing a general caregiver study in a caregiver section of the Alzheimer's article is pretty noncontentious, and I don't have a problem with it. There's a big difference between that and the contentious synthesized criticism we were discussing above. 08:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited source's abstract does not "directly mention Alzheimer's in the first sentence": it does not mention Alzheimer's at all (see Thompson et al. 2007 (PMID 17662119). And the claim in question does not "insert our own opinions"; the claim is directly supported by the cited source. I agree that the citation in question is noncontentious, but the point is that this citation violates the above misreading of WP:NOR, and is evidence that it indeed is a misreading. Eubulides (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

When I said both, did you maybe think that I was talking about the two articles you just mentioned from Cotter 2007 and Linday & Anderson? Yes, Thompson does not mention Alzheimer's in the abstract (although he probably does in the paper), but as I said, that is noncontentious statement. I'm willing to allow something noncontentious and fairly standard; caregiving for demented people is pretty standard. If someone challenged it out of their opinion that caregiving Alzheimer's patients is unique, then I would say it should be removed. II | (t - c) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone knowledgeable in Japanese culture have a look a this article? To me it seems choke-full of unsourced claims bordering OR. VG ☎ 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added some sourcing, I need to work on this article some more. For such an important concept, it's remarkably light on detail. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If a song samples another song, the sampled song is usually credited in the album's sleeve notes. But let's say an album which samples other songs doesn't credit the sampled tracks in the sleeve notes. For example, let's say the samples listed at Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)#Track listing isn't credited in the sleeve notes. Would it be OR to use the song itself as a reference for what song was sampled? Spellcast (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say, stay away from it. One reason is, suppose you think song A sounds like it's sampling song B. But song B is really a remake of an older or less famous song C, and A is really sampling from C. Remember that not all sampling is obvious; it can range from a record that gets rapped along with, to a half-second snippet that is played like an instrument. Another reason is some people consider "sampling" to be pejorative, and you'd be running into BLP issues in an article about a musician. I'd say, see if you can get something published somewhere that says who sampled who. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of the Bump mapping (sixth generation consoles) article looks like original research (quite apart fromthe turgid writing). It's possible that maybe I don't get it -- but is there someone who can take a look and advise about what should be done with the article? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

first step is to look for additional sources. DGG (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget that. That article is full of nonsense. I took a grad class in 3D graphics. Moving to AfD. More kids will hate me. VasileGaburici (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was merely against traditionalist's pride based views, there were enough resources to say that the most important view changing facts were accurate. If you did not agree, then you don't believe your own eyes, deeper analysis or think the stupid lies about hardware, coming from bull crap hardwired only traditionalists. They are not fact, their coding is the equivelant to an art program with effect buttens. Ps2's GL is from scratch and therefore unlimited in design respectfull to it's ops in the realm of GFX, other traditionalists want to beleive it is emulation, yet they don't even emulate a coding architecture. Merely they do the math from scratch and once again...yep, effect butten style coding is all the other is. PERIOD.

VasileGaburici...though you went to a class, did it try to tell you the truth on height mapping (how you merely need to deepen the contrast for a similar look, yet costs less ops then normal mapping), or how hardwiring is full of nasty redundant repetition and waists the consumers money when buying all these under used, unoptimized Graphics cards. No, as they are not to the level of programming and design. Sorry, but your classes are filled with limited knowledge. Your class is merely telling you how to code it or other, IT IS NOT THE SAME SUBJECT OF WHAT THEY ARE. Remeber that like that class, many tuts on the web are not done in a manner of basic fact of what really is going on, usually they merely tell you what it does by looks, telling how they make them 3d-ish and what not. Zoom in, and you'll see that even normal mapping, under low class lighting, still exists and YES WORKS WITH BLOCKY SHADING (HitMan:BM). Phong is beleived to be something it's not, sorry everyone, other resources reveal that it uses a texture map and is only for interpolation of blockyness. ALL HARDWARE ELETIST ARE IMMATURE PROGRAMMING FRAUDS AND ARE A NATURAL FANBOY. They all deserve to be bannished from this realm of computer arts forever for their years of limited facts missleading people into thinking the effects are that great.--BobtheVila (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, does a PC need much much more requirments due to it's multitasking architecture? Boy, cause xbox has any extra texture or RAM compression that it uses (sniker). The answer is yes, yes it does. The PC software cannot be trusted as a fair comparison with hardware.--BobtheVila (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A user claims that it is not a "claim" but scientific fact that children need to be reared by a mother and a father; this user also adds citations to articles that make these claims in general, with no specific reference to same-sex marriage in order to illustrate the argument against same sex marriage. I think this raises clear NOR and NPOV concerns. Edit dif and talk page and talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem with WP:RELEVANCE if not NOR. I'm generally in favor of a permissive "directly related" rule, but this is a case where the disputed citations don't have anything to do with the article. There's lots of articles about the benefits of both parents raising the children, but most of those were constrasting it with single motherhood by divorce or illegitimacy, and gay marriage wasn't even on their radar. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above and also that the article needs a more rigorous approach to sourcing. At the moment it is essayish and seems to be trying to cover every possible argument for or against. Count the number of "some opponents argue..." in there. There are a few academic books and papers cited and more could probably be drawn from them. Op-eds in the major press are a reasonable source for the range of opinions on the matter. But no web-only advocacy sites unless the authors are well known in their own right. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty blatant POV pushing. The new sources he added to "directly relate" are all hyper-religious websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Someguy1221 has commented on the article talk page. I ask Squidfryerchef and Itsmejudith to do the same - you both make constructive points. But this is an ongoing issue (see the discussion dated today, in three or four different sections on the talk page) and I think we need more people to participate in the discussion. I've expressed my own views on the talk page but the discussion needs other views - please. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that maybe I goofed up here: a couple of years ago, I posted some arguments in Dispensationalist Theology, under the section entitled "Biblical arguments in favor of dispensationalism". I had pulled this from an early version of a paper I had written; I had submitted a later version for publication in a book. This book is about to be published, and since it will be copyrighted, I think I need to remove my posting. Do I need to get permission for this? Brwebb (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to address both prongs of the question, copyright and OR. Since the text is original research, you may remove it at any time, though it will be best to leave an explanation on the talk page, as this sounds like a large chunk of text. Once the book has been published, you may want to think about re-adding a summarized version of the material, just to enrich the page, as it will no longer be OR at that point. Alternately, you could leave the current version in place, for reasons explained below.

As to copyright, I can't give you any 100% solid answers, but I believe the policy as stated here is that the original version as submitted to Wikipedia would remain under the GFDL copyleft license even after removal, as it was originally promulgated under that license. You continue to hold the right to republish and relicense the material, but the GFDL license on the original version cannot be retracted. Employing a traditional copyright for the new version of the material is non-problematic, per the GFDL.

As for having to remove it, you don't have to if you don't want to — while the new version will be traditionally copyrighted, the old version is perpetually under GFDL and thus not a copyvio. Since it is unpublished original research, it does go against policy...but it's about to be published, so it's borderline and will soon be acceptable under the "Citing oneself" clause of OR policy. Do you want the text removed, or are you just worried that it has to be?

If any of this needs clarification, or you find any of it acceptable, I suggest an e-mail to the OTRS system. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 06:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article has kept changing but the OR has largely remained the same. Its this - there purportedly is a "anti-Bihari sentiment" going round in India. Never mind the fact that Biharis enjoy the same rights under the Indian constitution as everyone else and weild political power far in excess of several other states combined. I looked, but I couldnt find one citation in the whole article that made the assertion but the "causes" for the said sentiment can be found synthesised here anyway.

Now since they just proved that there is such a sentiment, if we would only be so kind as to help them right wrongs (even if only imaginary) and fight injustice on Wikipedia - even if it flew in the face of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:POV and such other perfectly negotiable policies. Sarvagnya 19:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still not sure if the title is appropriate though I decided to give up fighting for a change after persistent resistance from the initial author of the article. However, there are plenty of reliable references in the article which details violence and descrimination against Biharis.

The article is not about whether Biharis have equal or more rights under Indian constitution. However, I admit that this is an important assertion which needs to be made in the article. It would be also appropriate to add "that Biharis wield political power far in excess of several other states combined" as mentioned by User Sarvagnya with citations from reliable sources.Docku^Hi 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We are trying (since very recently) to improve articles related to Bihar on wikipedia and also to write new articles to cover all aspects related to Bihar. Our key concern is correctness of informations and also protection of correct informations. Discrimination faced by Biharis in India is an issue and the sole purpose of the article is to provide information related to it. I disagree that it's an original research. There are many news articles , papers and books to support it. It might be appropriate to place an under construction tag for some time. Manoj nav (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The term 'Anti-Bihari sentiments' might appear synthesised from the sources which discuss about violence and discrimination faced by Biharis in India. Discrimination/Racism is a better term to describe what Biharis faces, instead of exploring and making conclusion about the sentiments, which drive these violences. Keeping this in mind, it would be appropriate to title the article - 'Discrimination faced by Biharis in India' or something similar. Manoj nav (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have disagreed with the current title in the past here. Manoj nav (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the references support descrimination as well. They support violence for sure. Docku^Hi 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here talks about references which supports racism and descrimination. Manoj nav (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering it more carefully and sharing the similar sentiments of User:Sarvagnya, I have questions to Manoj. Well, I agree that section Causes are referenced and independently verifiable and the same is true with violence against the migrants in various parts of India. The issue is not a question of verifiability. I have no problem with that.

However, what is really missing is reliable sources which discuss the link between the violence and the causes. Without such reliable sources, claiming that violence against the migrants was caused by the causes listed (historical, social, cultural and economical) is original research. I hope I conveyed the message well to you. DockuHi 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Causes with Violence

Hi Docku

I dont know if you read all the references, but pls read

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/showcolumns.aspx?id=COLEN20080042337 > Looks at causes of the violence (cultural, economic).

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Raj_to_India_Inc_80_jobs_for_Marathis/articleshow/2939094.cms > Links economic causes with the violence in Maharashtra

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=35469&d=23&m=11&y=2003&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion > M J Akbar links history, cultural with the violence

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=7737db7e-a9b5-4d88-802f-3afaff0985d4&&Headline=The+EMBhaiyya+%2fEMEffect&strParent=strParentID

"All this contributes to the lack of regard for UP and Bihar in many parts of India. In Bangalore, a few years ago, a successful software executive told me that he had compiled a growth rate for south India and that it exceeded China's. "It is UP and Bihar that let us down," he said. Such sentiments are common. The face of India that we show to the world — hi-tech, Bollywood-glitzy and super-educated — has nothing to do with UP and Bihar. For many Indians, the two states have become an embarrassment." links growth rates to resenment and prejudice

Current situation and comparison with Racism "The roots of Raj Thackeray's attack on the Bhaiyyas lie in India's economic transformation. Through a combination of poor planning and worse politics, Bihar and UP have been left out of the economic revolution. When people from those states travel outside to find work, those who have benefited from the recent prosperity treat them with the kind of snobbery and disdain with which the British treated Indians when we went to England to find employment in the 1950s. Then, we were seen as losers from a place that would never manage to prosper.But, of course, Indians ignored the racism and rose to the top of the economic pyramid. And eventually, India shed its old image and went from being perceived as an underdeveloped wasteland to becoming an emerging superpower. It may be too optimistic to hope that something similar will happen to UP and Bihar. But we need to recognise that the disdain with which we treat the two states is both unfair and unnecessary. And the rulers of UP and Bihar need also to realise that there "

---

Adding a line to differnetiate with previous unsigned statements.--Deepak D'Souza 09:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been opposed to this article from its nomiation for deletion. The recurring problems , arguments and renamings all stem from one single point. It is original research. Period. None of the sources mentioned ever said that Biharis face racism. Instead most references are articles that mention that Biharis have been attacked here and there or that xyz has made an adverse or threatening comment against Biharis.

As pointed by Sarvagnya, this article is largely WP:SYNTH. Take the above paragraph. The article(written by a reputed journalist) taken as a source compares the situation faced by Bihari migrants to that of Indians in the UK decades ago. The writer of the above message claims that 1)Indians faced racism from Whites. 2)the author of the article has compared the situation with Bihari migrants today. Hence by associativity, what Biharis face today is also "racism". This is pure synthesis.

Biharis belong to the same race as 75% of Indians. The people who allegedly "discriminate against them racially" also largely belong to the same race. So how can it be racism?

The article has become a soapbox where a disgruntled Biharis are venting their frustrations against the "rest of India".

Biharis arent the only ones who have seen discrimination on geographic grounds. Every ethnic group that has migrated somewhere has had to face this. Never mind that Biharis too indulge in the very same actions that they complain of. Recently Laloo Yadav made a comment against Kannadigas. Of course like every good politician he denied it. What about the attack and molestation of athletes from the North east that took place in Bihar 4-5 years back? Should I list some of the slurs and jibes commonly used by people from the Hindi belt against others? Will I be justified in making an article titled "Racism by Biharis against non-Biharis" in the same tone as this article? --Deepak D'Souza 09:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Diagrams:

• Image:Subprime_diagram.png
• Image:Financial_Leverage_Profit_Engine.png

The first has been criticized and proposed to be deleted at least twice here and here. The other is new and has just been criticized to be deleted, thus I decided it was time to bring this here.

The author of both images keeps defending it as editors' consensus and reverting deletions. Here it was opined this could only be done through page deletion, but that seems a bit extreme. Any comment, advice on what to do?? Carol Moore 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Are there any facts in the diagram that are neither "general knowledge" nor backed up by cited text in the article? The editors' choices on how to organize the table aren't what I would call original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There actually citations on the images pages Image:Subprime_diagram.png. VG ☎ 03:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that Image:Subprime_diagram.png is not really informative. So, I can't even venture a guess if there's anything ORish in there or not... In case I'm just dense, I've asked for help at WP:Economics. The Image:Financial_Leverage_Profit_Engine.png makes enough common-sense that it's probably not OR, but there's a problem with the large amount of caption text that's part of the image: it's not editable, so it's a form of WP:OWN, against the spirit of the wiki. Also, making the caption editable would allow citations to be added. VG ☎ 03:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think both diagrams represent OR. Image:Financial Leverage Profit Engine.png doesn't concern me much from an OR perspective, but has a bigger problem in that the text in it should be in an article, not in the image itself.

Image:Subprime diagram.png, however, looks much more like original research. (It also suffers from a serious lack of clarity, but that's a separate issue.) And yes, there are references - but so what? An essay with OR also has citations. It is very difficult to work out how those sources have been translated into the diagram; only the Wall Street Journal article relates in any vague way to the diagram's intent; the others quite simply do not present facts as the diagram does - they are timelines of events, whereas the diagram is not. The diagram, while intriguing, is plain-out original research. El T (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We have customarily permitted OR in diagrams, as long as the diagrams accurately reflect the facts presented in the article. That has to be decided by consensus of editors on an article-by-article and diagram-by-diagram basis. These particular diagrams may have problems - they may be unclear, or include too much text that should be in the article instead. But original research, per se, is not an issue with images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have there is such a "custom." I think we'd need to see it in WP:policy and guidelines.

There is a big WP:OWN problem with the whole article that these WP:OR diagrams just exacerbate, as if freezing the current POV structure of the article in place. The talk page (and archives) show a number of people have complained about these issues, but none have been committed enough to stick it through debating with the dominant editor.

Right now I'm working on minor issues like this, plus a couple shorter related articles which need to be wikified which will be good back up for changes I will argue are needed to make the article more accurate and less WP:POV. In the meantime making sure WP:OR diagrams are not allowed to stand permits more flexibility for other editors who might be lead to believe their changes are not acceptable because they don't fit in with the diagram. Carol Moore 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I think both are original work. The second image is not need since Image:Borrowing Under a Securitization Structure.gif provides a NPOV public domain image of the cash flow and relationships of mortgage lending. There is no need for OR image to show that. Halgin (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Carol: essentially every self-made diagram and every self-taken photograph is original research; the fact is that we permit these diagrams and images on thousands of articles. If the diagrams you're worried about have problems, are inaccurate, are confusing, etc. then that's a reasonable argument to make on the talk page. But the mere fact that the diagram was not copied from another source is not a problem. Your post above seems to be mentioning lots of issues - WP:OWN, WP:NPOV,etc. I am just speaking to one issue, which is that we do permit original diagrams, so the mere fact that a diagram has not been published elsewhere is not a problem. If the diagram is actually flawed, that's a different matter, but it isn't an OR issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote the policy: "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy" (emphasis in original). The diagram in question does propose unpublished ideas or arguments, as it is seeking to surmise related events in a new, novel way that is not supported by the cited references. Of course, if anyone can explain how to get from the references to the diagram without original research/postulation, then I'm very happy to retract - but of now, I just don't see it. El T (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this argument is continuing, but it'd be terrible to take out these diagrams. Looking at Image:Financial_Leverage_Profit_Engine.png explained the current mess quickly and well. It doesn't have opinions or theories - it's just an explanation of the system. Rip this out, and the article suffers. --JaGa^talk 05:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To come back to this, noticing that Image:Financial_Leverage_Profit_Engine.png is back after being deleted. I see different views above on policy, but no actual links to policy, so I'm still confused. Is there a clear policy somewhere? I'm recommending Wikipedia:Image_use_policy put one in under user-created images. Carol Moore 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I've tagged this article, currently at AfD, as original research because most of the text beyond the definition seems original research to me. Even if it cites sources, it does so to push a point beyond the intent of the sources (based on their titles). Someone more knowledgeable should take a look. VG ☎ 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Are references to research that contradict the claims made by a fringe theory Synthesis if the research papers did not explicitly seek to disprove the fringe theory?

Hypothetical: Group F Theory claims that "eating fat reduces heart attacks". Is inserting research from mainstream sources that eating fat increases heart attacks synthesis, since the research does not "refer directly to the topic of the article", that is Group F Theory?

I bring this up because on the page Austrian Business Cycle Theory, a theory that claims that business cycles are caused by central banks' manipulation of the money supply, I have inserted material about how mainstream economists have found that central banks' manipulation of the money supply have reduced the severity of business cycles. I am being reverted by someone who claims that this is WP:OR since the papers do not directly address Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

I argue that since the article Austrian Business Cycle Theory is about Business Cycles, the mainstream research on business cycles is obviously relevant. He argues that insertion of any material is Synthesis if the research papers do not explicitly seek to disprove the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

lk (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. WP:SYNTHESIS is somewhat contentious, but it is one that many of us had to swallow despite its sometimes absurd conclusions. You might make a case that we should ignore the rule in this case, since there are certainly a lot more questionable things around, but I don't think you'll get consensus. I'm sure that a mainstream economist has made this point -- we just need to find it. II | (t - c) 04:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In my recent RfA I had a question dealing with something similar. I suggested that just as we have NPOV tags, etc., we have a tag saying "'This article provides no scientific evidence for the existence of X'" or something similar. This seems one way to cope with situations where the main experts in the field have ignored a fringe argument. Doug Weller (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

lk's argument is correct in theory: It's not a WP:SYN violation unless "the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article" (that's a quote from WP:SYN). If the core of a fringe theory directly contradicts mainstream economics, that's directly relevant. However, this particular case of inserted material does contain SYN violations of a different sort. First, it says "many economists believe" but it merely cites 3 economists. You need to cite a source saying "many economists believe"; it is SYN to just cite 3 economists and conclude this means "many" (of course, you shouldn't fix this by citing 4, or 40 economists; either reword or find a source to support the claim). Second, and more important, the edit says "The Austrian school's theory claims that business cycles are caused by central banks' manipulation of the money supply. However," but I expect that the cited sources do not support this claim (they do not support the "However", since they don't contrast the Austrian school's theory to mainstream theory; nor do they support any claim about the Austrian school). Eubulides (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That Austrian theory claims that "business cycles are caused by central banks" isn't disputed and can easily be cited. So, if I get rid of the "many economists believe", would that make it ok? I can't believe that the mere word "however" is WP:SYN, I cite for that Wikipedia:UCS ;) lk (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't quite parse that. But yes, getting rid of "many economists believe" would fix one of the specific problems I noted. I suspect the containing sentence would have to be reworded though. Eubulides (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting opinion of those economists as a criticism of the Austrian school. If such criticism is notable then it is published in reliable sources. If it is not then you should not introduce it because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It is not our job to synthesize published material to advance a position. -- Vision Thing -- 21:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. If you are citing the material to criticise the Austrian school, yes. But if you have a section noting a point in the ABCT and what follows it is a point in research that counters that statement, it isn't synthesis to include it. Let's not get crazy here. If I have a person who thinks AIDS is caused by magic and in the next sentence in the article I cite some mainstream result (like, AIDS is caused by the HIV virus), it isn't synthesis just because the researcher didn't mention the crackpot by name. If, on the other hand, you were using the research about business cycles to claim that "researcher A criticized the Austrian School", that would be synthesis. To insist that synthesis somewhow excludes a comparison of claims between fringe (but notable) theories and mainstream theories is untenable. Most scholarship isn't polemical, so you are not likely to find a peer review paper that says "Researcher X doesn't know what he is talking about." You are much more likely to find a paper that says "I can find no support for theory Y" without the comment that theory Y was introduced by researcher X. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus here that if Scientist A does research that shows a result contradictory to Claim B of Group C. It is not WP:SYN to include it and state that Scientist A has found evidence against Claim B. However, it is WP:SYN to claim that Scientist A believes that Group C is wrong. lk (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is not per se WP:SYN to include it. You note one way in which including it could become part of a WP:SYN case, though. Another way would be if Claim B is only peripheral to Group C; in that case, Scientist A's results are not "directly related" to Group C (please look for "directly related" in WP:OR). Clearly there are some judgment calls here. Eubulides (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, to clarify, it is not WP:SYN to include research that contradicts a claim made by a group. However, it could be WP:SYN if the research is used in inappropriate ways. e.g. a) to claim that Scientist A criticizes Group C, or believes Group C is wrong, or b) to refute Group B over a minor trivial claim, or c) to claim that many scientists believe this refutation without a direct quote as such, etc.... lk (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is WP:SYN to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure you're ever going to find a nice, simple, boilerplate answer to this question. Since this is an article about the theory itself (rather than about the economy in a broader sense) then you can surely add in cites that speak to refute or contradict this particular theory, and you should certainly have references to competing theories, but you have to be careful not to construct or impute disputes that don't occur in the field itself. if you're going to include contrasting theories, I'd set up a separate section specifically for 'other views' so that readers can see that the theories co-exist in the discipline without specifying a particular relationship. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's a violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. We don't give editors a pass on WP:SYN simply because they want to debunk some fringe theory or another. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which makes Wikipedia prime venue for groups of fringe theorists. They cite their own work from obscure publications, and good luck finding anyone directly refuting their claims; people have other things to do than refuting every fringe theory. Try to argue for changing WP:SYN and check the contributions of those opposing any changes or exceptions to the rule. 'Nuff said. VG ☎ 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

An article's topic is not the same thing as the broader topic to which it may belong. Wikipedia is not the place for a pet debunking project. Stick to sources that discuss the article topic, which is not broader economics. Additionally, the argument that there's some pressing need to cite such sources because of a lack of rebutting sources doesn't even apply in this case. There are clearly easily available reliable sources that rebut the theory and they're even included in the article.[12][13] Vassyana (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it should be Wikipedia policy to exclude from articles all references to research unless the source specifically refers to the particular claim by that particular group? So a page about a group that claims that "AIDS is caused by cat allergies" must not include any information about AIDS except that provided by people directly refuting that particular claim? IMO, this is not current policy. Statements are usually considered properly cited if the source directly supports the statement made.

As far as I can tell, our standard appears to be that its not OR to include research that is directly related to a topic being addressed in the article, and a statement is properly sourced if the source directly supports the statement made. In my opinion, what you are suggesting is self-censorship that goes beyond what we currently do. lk (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with lk here: if a direct claim is made, reliable sources refuting the evidence that claim relies upon cannot be considered OR or SYN.--Gregalton (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it original research to debunk claims in a fashion not done by reliable sources, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to do so. NPOV says that we must present a topic as it is presented in the body of reliable sources. Constructing our own rebuttals based on the premises of a topic is most certainly not in accord with that. It is also contrary to what Wikipedia is not. Three policies, not just one, are contrary to the approach that you are both putting forward here. Vassyana (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that what I propose merely acknowledges the current practice of including sources that are directly related to an issue that appears in an article, even if the source does not directly refer to the particular person(s) or group(s) that the article is about. I think we all know this, but here are some examples to back up my statement:

In the page about Margaret Thatcher, the observation that during the early Thatcher years "(VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation", is sourced to a report about VAT that doesn't specifically make the connection between Margaret Thatcher and inflation. Or, in the article about the 9/11 attacks, reference is made to "bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States", sourced to reports before the 9/11 attacks. Obviously this statement is relevant, even though the reports were not directly referring to the 9/11 attacks. Or, in the article about Global warming denialists, note is made of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil as the first climate-change lawsuit with a discretely identifiable victim, sourced to an article about the lawsuit that does not directly address the topic of Global warming denial. lk (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Thatcher example is blatantly original research, as the source not only fails to mention Thatcher but also fails to mention the 15% figure or the United Kingdom. The 9/11 article uses a source that specifically makes reference to 9/11 investigations, which is obviously fine. The global warming denial article speaks about a lawsuit (and uses sources that) explicitly refer to the denial of man-made global warming. As a clear example, the New York Times (an obviously reliable source) relates that the filed lawsuit says that the corporate campaign "to mislead the public about the science of global warming" contributed "to the public nuisance of global warming by convincing the public at large and the victims of global warming that the process is not man-made when in fact it is."

Your first example was a clear case of original research and the other two use sources that explicitly refer to the article subject. Vassyana (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that the Thatcher reference is OR is inline with your beliefs. It does not however disprove my contention that this type of citation is currently common throughout wikipedia. Obviously the 9/11 article reference doesn't fit. However, it should be easy to come up with more examples. lk (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Thatcher reference did not support any of the statement being made. It did not support the claim that Thatcher preferred indirect over direct taxes. It did not support the statement that the VAT was raised sharply to 15%. It did not support the statement that there was an accompanying short-term spike in inflation. That's all of the claims made in the statement and the source did not support a single one. That's clearly original research, if not a blatantly false reference. Regardless, I'm sure better examples exist, but that just means there are articles that need to brought in-line with the principles and policies of Wikipedia, not that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia need to be changed. The position you are putting forward contradicts three of our policies, as I note above, and would require drastic sweeping changes to multiple policies and guidelines. Vassyana (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the sources quoted at the end of the lede of Austrian Business Cycle Theory, it appears there are reliable sources that criticise the theory and state that it is not widely supported. Criticisms or rebuttals of the theory should be based on such sources, rather than on editors' OR.
• Basically, any significant-minority theory will have attracted comment and criticism from the majority that should be reflected in our article. If it has not, it is a fringe theory that may be without encyclopedic relevance whatsoever, unless it is notable enough to have attracted published attention from scientists working in other fields, e.g. sociologists, psychologists etc.
• None of this requires any change to WP:SYN, which should be scrupulously adhered to. Jayen466 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the soulution to this would be something along the lines of: "The Austrian Theory claims that business cycles are caused by central banks' manipulation of the money supply. This is the opposite of mainstream economic theory, which states that manipulation of the money supply by central banks reduces business cycles." (with proper citations for both statements of course). Don't attempt to "disprove" or "debunk" one theory or the other... simply state what each side of the debate says. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly my position. However, unless I misunderstand them, Vassyana and Jayen seem to be arguing that it is WP:SYN to include any source that does not directly refer to the narrowly defined topic (ie. defined by the title) of the article. So, an article about the Wild cats of Asia should reject as sources articles about wild cats that don't refer specifically to Asian wild cats. lk (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's essentially correct. To use your hypothetical example, it's fine to cite those portions of such an article that expressly address wild cats native to Asia in the article on "Asian wild cats", but not those that discuss "Wild cats" in general. Such portions can be used as sources in the article on "Wild cats". Jayen466 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you understand my position correctly. There is absolutely no need to circumvent Wikipedia principles or create a loophole to fully address the topic, including the kinds of facts you would like to include. All it takes is a minimal effort to find plentiful sources. I will provide a couple of examples:

The Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy (ISBN 9780415243506), on page 53 under "Austrian School", relates the the principal distinctions between mainstream economics and Austrian economics can be boiled down to the Austrian school of thought rejecting the applicability of the scientific method, statistics and group models to economics.

Business Cycles and Depressions (ISBN 9780824009441, published by Taylor & Francis), on page 26 under "Austrian Theory of Business Cycles", tells us that the differences between Austrian and mainstream economists is because of differences in focus. According to this source, the Austrians focus on intertemporal distortions of capital structure, while mainstream economists concern themselves with downward spirals in general economic activity. It further clarifies that mainstream macroeconomists consider structural problems to be a separate concern from the problems of demand deficiency and general economic contraction. It also clearly states that Austrian economists consider the mainstream policies of economic stimulation to be the root cause of the distortions that are the focus of their theory.

Both sources were found with a "lazy" search in a short period of time. To be sure that further sources are available, I checked a few archival and library resources finding numerous other reliable sources that contrast Austrian and mainstream economics are easily available. Someone more familiar with the topic with access to textbooks and further literature should have no problem at all finding a plethora of high quality references. No original research is necessary. All that's needed is a minuscule amount of effort to find a few reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In practice, Wikipedia does not exclude sources that do not directly refer to the topic of the article narrowly defined. I know from personal experience that in Tulip Mania, the statement, "vivid colors, lines, and flames on the petals as a result of being infected with a tulip-specific virus known as the 'Tulip Breaking potyvirus', a type of mosaic virus." is referenced with a scientific paper on Tulip Breaking mosaic viruses, not an article about Tulip mania. Additionally, a quick look through Featured Articles, brought up these examples:

• In the page about the game 1080° Snowboarding, the statement "Kenta Nagata, who also composed soundtracks for Mario Kart 64 and other Nintendo games." is sourced with a webpage about Mario Kart 64, which does not mention 1080° Snowboarding.

• In 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens the statement "over a billion U.S. dollars in damage had occurred ($2.74 billion in 2007 dollars)" is referenced with a paper called "What is a dollar worth?" from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

• In 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident the statement "These incidents include the killing of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan by USAF F-16s in the Tarnak Farm incident in 2002 and the killing of a British soldier by USAF A-10s in the 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident in 2003." is sourced with an article that does not mention the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown.

• In the article on Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, the statement "The Senate declined to vote to override his veto." is sourced to an article that does not mention the King by name or otherwise.

• In the article about Aikido, the explanation of the Chinese character used to write the word 'ki', "The original kanji for ki was 氣 (shown right), and is a symbolic representation of a lid covering a pot full of rice; the "nourishing vapors" contained within are ki." is sourced to an article about the Chinese philosophical concept of 'qi', the article does not mention Aikido.

• In Ann Arbor, Michigan, the statement "Snowfall, which normally occurs from November to April, ranges from 1 to 10 inches (3 to 25 cm) per month." is sourced with the article Season Weather Averages for Willow Run (KYIP). Willow run is near Detroit Air port, Ann Arbor is not mentioned.

• In Apollo 8, the statement "Jim Lovell's spacesuit can be found at NASA's Glenn Research Center." is sourced with an article that does not mention the Apollo 8 mission.

• In Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia the statement "in the 2004 general election, the DAP ran on a platform of defending the social contract in the context of an Islamic theocracy, which they alleged was forbidden by the Constitution, but was endorsed by Mahathir, Lim Keng Yaik and by PAS, the second-largest Malay-based political party in the country." is sourced with an article that does not mention Article 153 of the Constitution.

Since they have gone through extensive review, these articles are prima facie free of synthesis. I believe that what we as editors do is ask, 'Is that statement directly related to the topic of the article?' And then, 'Does the source directly support the statement made?' If the answer is yes to both questions, then in general editors will hold that the statement and source are valid, and that no WP:SYN has occurred.

So, to sum up, I propose that the stricture directly related should apply strongly to statements sourced, but apply only weakly to the sources themselves. Similar to the policy on WP:NPV. Statements in an article must be made in an WP:NPV manner, but sources themselves do not have to be WP:NPV, as long as they are not so biased that they become unreliable. lk (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a small but very active group on WP:NOR who keeps pushing the idea that any source used in the article must literally contain the string "Asian Wild Cats", and there are many FA-status articles that don't strictly abide by this. While I feel that it is a useful heurustic to weed out things that are off-topic, the rule if taken without allowances for synonyms, merged articles, background information, etc would (and does) lead to endless WP:LAME arguments. I feel that this literal interpretation doesn't have anything to do with "original research" per se, because citing a source doesn't generate any novel facts found only on the Wikipedia. Instead, the requirement for sources referring directly to the subject should be moved to the WP:RELEVANCE guideline, so it will only have guideline status, not policy status. NOR should be limited to original facts, opinions, and deductions, and not be the judge for if a source is on topic or not. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No one to my knowledge is pushing the "literal string" formulation. Synonyms and other obvious references to the core topic of the article seem perfectly appropriate. Broader overview articles are also generally given an "allowance" in that they may have sections addressing subtopics in some detail that are clearly and explicitly treated as part of the broader topic in reliable sources. However, even with that "exception" we are still treating the topic as it is treated in reliable sources. Presenting rebuttals, claiming information is salient and important to the topic, stating that certain topics are related and so on when reliable sources do not make those claims seem like good examples of original research. Vassyana (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

lk, I would take issue with numerous entries on that list. For the Tulip Mania article, the scientific reference appears to be supplementary to a reference that actually supports the statement. The eruption article makes a simple numerical conversion with a reference to support the conversion, which is a rare occurance and uncontroversial. Supplemental sources and simple calculations are fairly uncontroversial in most circumstances and not really relevant to the kind of exception that you are endorsing. Many of the remainder reveal flaws in our review processes, more than being indicative of good practice. (It's well-known that even the best sources have some flaws, so it's not surprising.)

As examples: The Blackhawk incident reference only supports claims British soldiers that aren't even made in the article and none of the claims for which it is cited. The Bhumibol Adulyadej reference is deeply flawed. It not only fails to mention the king, it completely fails to mention any veto and instead casts it in light of a court ruling stating that the original confirmation was unconstitutional. While it is part of Detroit Metro, Ann Arbor should instead cite statistics for Ann Arbor, such as those available here. The Article 153 paragraph is not only off-topic, but is also sourced to an opposition party press release. Vassyana (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Most of these examples are examples where citations should be replaced with improved ones, rather than examples of reasonable use of material that doesn't directly refer to the topic. The FA process is good, and fairly rigorous, but the people involved are just volunteers, who have lots of things to do. I've seen FAs pass with simple spelling errors in them. This isn't a condemnation of the process, merely pointing out that the reviewers are self-selected volunteers. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

... and given that Lovell took part in two Apollo missions (8 and 13), that spacesuit might well have been the one he wore on Apollo 13, making this a bad cite and an instance of going beyond the source (as it happens, it is the Apollo 8 spacesuit that is exhibited, and I've added a reference in Apollo 8 that makes that clear). Likewise, in the Aikido example, there are plenty of better sources like this one or this one that discuss ki as a central element of Aikido and explain the origin of the ideogram. Re Squidfryerchef, of course synonyms are fine. A source that refers to "wild cats native to Asia" or "Asiatic wild cats", or indeed the "Indian desert cat", may be perfectly appropriate. But a generic source on felids that, say, looks at the evolutionary relationship between the Felidae and Canidae, or the dentition patterns found in Felidae, without mentioning a single Asiatic species, really has no business being cited in an article on "Asian wild cats". Jayen466 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prontok mentioned that most scholarship isn't polemical. If most scholarship really isn't polemical why would we need to create polemic artificially here on Wikipedia? In the case of ATBC, arguments of several economists who are not talking about ATBC are placed in the "Criticisms" section. But why? Those economists are not criticizing ATBC, it is opinion of some Wikipedians that they do and that opinion is not supported by reliable sources.

I see that argument "we must draw our own conclusions or fringe theories would go uncontested" is used a lot by some here. In my view that is a wrong kind of argument to make. Wikipedia has a notability threshold – claims, especially controversial ones, need to be supported by reliable sources. There are good odds that reliable sources will mention controversy if it exists. If they don't that still doesn't pose a problem. In the case of ATBC we have general articles on business cycles, money supply and central banks where giving proper place to the views of mainstream economists is not OR. Placing views of those economists in topics to which they are not directly referring to is not only breach of WP:OR but also of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not even for a mainstream views. -- Vision Thing -- 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify the opposition argument: 'Sources must be excluded if they do not directly refer to the topic of an article, narrowly defined according to the title of the article. Your examples of Featured articles not following this policy is irrelevant because Featured Articles are written by amateurs and contain sources that they shouldn't. Therefore, we are right.' lk (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We have at least 4 mainstream critiques of the theory. Currently I'm browsing through a book by David Laidler which discusses the theory,[14] having skimmed a Bank of International Settlements discussion paper by him which briefly discusses it. The criticism you are synthesizing is not apparent in any of these sources. That raises the question of whether it is really a valid criticism, as you believe. This is a textbook case of synthesis. It's not really a gray area. II | (t - c) 04:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has made this argument about Austrian theory. We'll get the cite eventually. I just object to the principle 'all references that don't refer to the name of the article must be excluded'. lk (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I also object to the principle that the source must refer to the name of the article. At Chiropractic, for example, some editors object to citing sources about the effectiveness of spinal manipulation, using the WP:FRINGE argument that "chiropractic spinal manipulation" is distinct from "spinal manipulation" and that, therefore, spinal manipulation is not directly relevant to chiropractic. Obviously the sources in question could be removed from Chiropractic, but they tend to be the most-reliable sources cited (Cochrane Collaboration reviews, etc.), as neither mainstream medicine nor mainstream chiropractic buys the fringe argument in question. Removing these high-quality sources will cause Chiropractic to rely on weaker sources and inevitably will make Chiropractic less reliable and more POV-ish. For more on this topic, please see Talk:Chiropractic#Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews. Eubulides (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. (BTW, Wikipedia's article on "ditto" is wrong, this isn't a slang phrase!) VG ☎ 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change the policy, let's be open about that. But what you're saying is clearly WP:SYNTH by the policy as it is stated on WP:NOR. The example of Smith and Jones on that page is quite analagous -- you can find some fact which directly contradicts the statement of someone makes, but if you cite that fact as if it does contradict the statement, you're synthesizing to create original research. Eubulides, if the researchers in the field believe that general SM is appropriate for discussing chiropractic SM, then they will use it. If they don't, they won't, and if you're using it and they don't, clearly you're injecting your own opinion that it is appropriate. And in fact they do use it, with some mainstream researchers objecting that its not applicable, so it seems like you're way exaggerating an issue. II | (t - c) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides has already agreed that the argument that "chiropractic spinal manipulation" is distinct from "spinal manipulation" is NOT a fringe argument. Edzard Ernst has commented that not all spinal manipulation research is related to chiropractic spinal manipulation. Given that, the inclusion of non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research at Chiropractic would violate WP:OR if this non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research makes no conclusions specifically about chiropractic spinal manipulation. Because how are we - as editors - supposed to know which non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research can be related to chiropractic spinal manipulation and which ones cannot be related? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing any change in policy, no WP:SYNTH is involved, and the Smith-and-Jones example doesn't apply to the dispute at Chiropractic. At the risk of repeating that other discussion, no mainstream researchers of chiropractic have objected that spinal manipulation is not directly relevant to chiropractic. The objection by mainstream researchers was about not clearly identifying research sources, which is quite a different issue. Eubulides (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Ernst states: The authors also claim that 43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain have been published, but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation. So yes, Ernst objects that the authors failed to clearly identify research sources. But no, that is not a different issue. Ernst is stating that not all trials of spinal manipulation relate to chiropractic. In fact, he feels that the majority of the 43 which the authors looked at do not. WP:OR states: ...to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that refer directly to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. So if we have a source which doesn't refer directly to chiropractic, then using it to discuss the effectiveness of chiropractic at the article Chiropractic would present an OR violation. Right? And WP:SYN states: If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited do not refer directly to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Currently we are using sources at Chiropractic to discuss the effectiveness of chiropractic, but many of these sources are not explicitly about chiropractic nor do they explicity reach any conclusions specifically about chiropractic. They are sources which have studied spinal manipulation in general (often times as performed by practitioners other than chiropractors). Given that these sources reach conclusions about spinal manipulation in general, and given that mainstream researchers such as Ernst claim that not all spinal manipulation research is related to chiropractic, wouldn't you agree that the inclusion of non-chirorpactic spinal manipulation research at Chiropractic to discuss the effectiveness of chiropractic violates WP:OR? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And to generalize this - and shed some light on the topic of this thread - here, we have a theory (chiropractic is not fringe, but it does straddle both the alternative and mainstream medicine worlds) which some users are trying to debunk or support by citing research which doesn't specifically discuss chiropractic. Applying such research to chiropractic is of course a violation of WP:OR. So yes, citing research which doesn't specifically mention a theory but can be interpretted by a Wikipedian to contradict such a theory is a WP:SYN violation because it is using the research in an original way - a way which wasn't the intent of the authors of the research. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think in cases like this we fall into a difficult area. Many sources assert that (by far) most uses of a technique is part of a particular profession. That technique is strongly associated with the specific profession in sources and the public mind. Many references regarding that profession treat studies of the practice as applicable to the study and critique of the profession. On the other hand, there are numerous criticisms of this conflation. Many sources state that using broader studies of the technique are inappropriate because they include data pollution by regarding use of the practice outside of the profession's theories and techniques. A number of reliable authorities further critique the use of such broad studies to focus on the negatives, relating it to focusing on pharmaceutical side effects when discussing doctors of medicine (MDs).

I believe that in such cases extreme care must be exercised and that it is a very difficult balancing act. It cannot be disputed that the practice is widely considered an integral part of the profession, yet it is equally indisputable that the conflation is strongly criticized. Personally, I would lean towards treating the practice as an appropriate subtopic of the broader profession (based on the general treatment of it as such within sources and the public mind), while carefully and clearly noting that a few outside researchers & many within the profession dispute the conflation (and why they dispute it). Strong caution must be exercised to ensure that such a section does not become little more than a debunking platform or promotional soapbox, choosing a very careful and representative selection of sources. Of course, that's much easier said than done!! Vassyana (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Vassyana here. Please see #Alzheimer's article can't cite dementia papers? below for more (this section got too long). Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, where would be the better place to discuss spinal manipulation research which is not directly related to chiropractic? At Chiropractic or Spinal manipulation? Do you think that using non-chiropractic spinal manipulation studies which in themselves make no direct conclusions about chiropractic should be used in the Chiropractic article to make direct conclusions about chiropractic? Or would that be violating WP:OR? Please take into consideration that researchers such as Edzard Ernst have commented that not all spinal manipulation research is related to chiropractic spinal manipulation (much less directly related). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The studies in question are not "non-chiropractic"; they incorporate data, mostly from chiropractic sources, but sometimes from non-chiropractic, and make conclusions about the main form of treatment used by chiropractors. Obviously some spinal manipulation research is non-chiropractic, but that is not the case for the studies being disputed here. Eubulides (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They are non-chiropractic in the sense that they say nothing specifically about chiropractic in their conclusions (regardless of whether or not they relied on some chiropractic data). They discuss spinal manipulation in general, a form of treament used by other professions as well and tell us nothing about chiropractic specifically. Using such sources to talk about chiropractic at Wikipedia is in effect using a source for a purpose not intended by its authors. That is an OR violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement in WP:OR that sources for Chiropractic must say something specifically about chiropractic "in their conclusions". Their discussion of chiropractic can occur in any section; it need not be in their conclusions section. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is such a requirement: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that...directly support the information as it is presented and Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context and especially Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research. You are wanting to use conclusions which say nothing spefically about chiropractic out of context to advance positions such as "chiropractic is effective for treating foo" or "chiropractic is not effective for treating foo". In actuality these sources might say that "spinal manipulation is or isn't effective for treating foo"; however they are not referring to chiropractic specifically. Ernst has told us that not all spinal manipulation research relates to chiropractic. Therefore, we cannot relate all spinal manipulation to chiropractic. We have to find sources which refer to chiropractic specifically in the conclusions from which we are source the text we include in the article. If the don't mention chiropractic specifically, then they are probably more appropriate for the Spinal manipulation article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nothing in those quotes requires the source to support the claim in the source's conclusion section. Eubulides (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? Wikipedia needs to require that the sources we use support the conclusions of those sources? That's a very confusing statement. Perhaps you can reword and clarify for me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

SYNTH is absurd sometimes, completely absurd, yet if consensus is not available it is something we just have to stick to. I don't know how to get around this necessity. It's one of those situations where there aren't any technical ways to define when it is appropriate and when it is not, and the community has opted to simply ban it. I agree with Doug Weller that a tag might work for such articles, though "no scientific evidence" is itself SYNTH and is also not scientific as it asserts negative evidence. However, some such tag might really help. I agree that yes, it seems directly relevant, yet at the same time, there is no getting away from the argument that it's SYNTH ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Look at Wikipedia:Fringe#Parity_of_sources. You can have less RS sources in a criticism, as long as you use good ATT. But no, the problem is that allowing any SYNTH at all leads to abuses or arguments which would destroy WP. I have to agree with Vassayana, that no matter how illogical it may be in a particular case, unless there is complete and total and enduring consensus we have to stick to sources that discuss the article topic. Please also note that people are sometimes forgetting about WP:NOTABILITY. If a thing is included at all, it will have criticism if it is controversial. SYNTH is very old and basic policy, and it doesn't make sense except when you start to understand that anyone can do it. Now, there is an example about Margaret Thatcher above. I think that comes under my exception for complete consensus. If it is not controversial at all, we IAR with SYNTH. That as Ik says, is common practice. In the current situation, however, it is controversial, and therefore SYNTH must be strictly adhered to. Let me formulate it again: WP embraces OR, SYNTH and whatever, but only when it isn't controversial. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's return to that initial example, but make it more analogous to the passage in question.

1. Group A says that eating fat reduces heart attacks.
2. Group B notes that various people have eaten less fat in the hope of reducing heart attacks, and have indeed had less severe heart attacks than other people.

Now,

1. How much fat, by what measure, did group A mean?
2. How much fat, by what measure, did group B eat?
3. How much fat, by what measure, did those ”other people” eat?

The passage in question, as it is written, doesn't stand as respectable science, “original” or otherwise. —SlamDiego_←T 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Purports to be a stub. So I am inclined to be open-minded. But much of it reads like NOR to me. I'd appreciate it if others would help identify and tak any OR or remove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that article's all over the place. Possible candidate for AFD or redirect to main article. Better way to make an article like this is to write a UK paragraph in the main Christian Zionism article and break it out once it's long enough. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten pretty concerned about Stock market bottom. I'm reluctant to do a drive-by tagging of this article as being chock-full of OR, especially since it seems like the content could be taken as investment advice, which can be particularly dangerous. But, the entire article is supported by little more than primary sources and almost all the content blatantly violates WP:NOTHOWTO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these metrics are notable in their own right, but unless you have a crystal ball, there's no surefire way to know when the market's hit bottom. Perhaps this article could be heavily chopped and merged into one on market metrics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and while it's not the scope of this noticeboard, one could argue that the method in which the methods are described violates WP:NOTGUIDE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion again about a user-created graphic that has multiple problems. It has been discussed in two RfCs and been the subject of a mediation. It is drawn from two sources and the comparison it makes is a synthesis anyway. Plus it misunderstands one of the sources. The two quantities are not comparable. And the graphical presentation is inappropriate and misleading. The editor who created it and is insisting on its inclusion admits that he wants to use it to push a position (pro-photovoltaics) and has accused another editor of being in hock to the nuclear industry. The irony is that all of us editing are personally sympathetic to photovoltaics; the difference is that we know how to keep our personal feelings to one side and work on an informative and neutral article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hundred Days' Reform page references Lei Chiasheng as having a new (2004) theory explaining motives for the Empress Dowager's response to the Reform. I have a suspicion that this is OR, but I don't know much so I want to defer to more experienced editors. A google search for "Lei Chia sheng" returns only 5 hits, all in Chinese (searching "Lei Chiasheng" similarly returns 6 hits).

Agreed. I've been trying to argue for more clarity and better sources but the person who posted doesn't seem to understand my objection and keep citing a source that we can't read because it's in Chinese. Can someone please intervene in this matter? Please see the relevant discussions here. -Comatose51 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in Tamil language

Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority are threatening (based on their original research) to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. ­ Kris (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to solicit advice or perhaps action regarding Luzon Empire, which cites a number of sources in Chinese (such that I can't get at the actual contents of the articles). It suggests that a Lesser Song empire was founded on the island of Luzon in the Philippines by the last remaining remnants of the Southern Song empire. To my knowledge this is not supported by the orthodox histories of either China or the Philippines, and even if it constitutes a new theory, the article was written in a way that does not indicate that this is theory. It presents the chinese establishment of a "Luzon Empire" as if it were a fact. There is no archeological or genetic evidence to support this, and in fact the archeological data indicates the use of Sanskrit rather than Chinese during that time in Philippine history. I believe the article, and the very term "Luzon Empire" as used here (it's a term that has been used loosely elsewhere, but never in reference to a Chinese-founded empire) constitutes original research. Upon seeing this article, I created another article, Ancient Tondo, which uses existing orthodox sources to describe the same political entity. I then labeled Luzon Empire as a potential hoax and left it at that. However, I started noticing that other articles were being edited to link to Luzon Empire, and I'm afraid unless the OR-ness of that article is proven, this rewriting of Philippine pre-colonial history will continue. I need help. Thanks. Alternativity (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can read Chinese, I'll take a look at it. ON the surface, it looks very fishy. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake, this looks like a badly translated mess. I'm going to have to visit the library. This may take a while. We're talking about two flavors of Chinese, plus classical, plus both Portuguese and Spanish. Lovely. I think the basic crux of what's being gotten at is that there are two interpretations , and a touch of OR is involved in both. Most historians focused on the copperplate, and a merge may be needed, but you'd have to be able to nuance some very old books to figure out the truth. After I visit the library and have some time to compare sourcing I'll be able to give more definitive answers. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page) IMO, the whole claim of Chinese origination is based on the fact that the same character [宋] that is the name of the Song Dynasty was used several hundred years later to phonetically transcribe the name Luzon into Chinese characters [呂宋]. As you probably know, 呂 originally meant backbone, but has fallen into disuse. The two characters together are meaningless, and are quite obviously used as a transliteration to record the sound 'Luzon'. I think some good faith effort should be made to locate the 'Pangilinan, et al' article that purports to translate 東西洋考 and claims to find within a claim for Chinese origination of the Luzon empire. If the article cannot be found, the claim should be deleted. The book 東西洋考 (lit. East West Oceans Investigations) was written in the Ming Dynasty to record the trade relations with foreign countries. AFAIK, it doesn't have anything about 呂宋 being founded by 宋 dynasty refugees. My wife can read classical Chinese fluently, but I'm not about to ask her to read the whole book to find this purported claim. If a specific page in the book can be pointed to, I can ask my wife to check it. I'm of the opinion that the claim should be deleted as OR. If someone wants to defend the rather extraordinary claim made on the page, I think they bear the responsibility to provide the evidence. LK (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, some of the UFO-enthusiasts who have been stymied by the original research rule have gone over to WikiNews and begun "reporting" on UFO sightings. Then they come back here and add their sighting to List of UFO sightings with a citation to Wikinews. I think this is very smelly. Does anyone else? How should I handle the removal of Wikinews-cited UFO sightings. Also, can someone alert Wikinews people that they are being used in this way?

(Cross posted to WP:RSN.)

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Wikis are not supposed to be used as sources. So, why not just remove the Wikinews items? Handling shouldn't be a problem if you argument against the material is correct, as it appears to be. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline would seem to be WP:SPS, though really it says that other Wikipedia pages aren't valid, it doesn't specifically say Wikinews. However, I'm sure the spirit of that guideline would include Wikinews. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, some very absurd sightings with "citation needed" should be removed as well. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews should definitely NOT be cited in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have disputed with one or two editors about whether or not it is appropriate to include a comparison between a dress code under Akbar the Great and Nazi treatment of the Jews. Specifically, "During Akbar's reign Hindus in Lahore were forced to wear patches of different colours on their shoulders or sleeves so that they could be identified. Such practice was also employed by Nazis where they forced Jews to wear yellow patches for easy targeting." The first sentence I have not contested, but the last sentence refers to this source, which does not mention Akbar.

I believe that the Nazi comparison commits original research on a number of points, notably that "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." I've explained my position to the two users I disputed with: Azithmus and More random musing. In general the article seems to have problems of this sort directed towards presenting a view of Akbar much more negative than mainstream accounts. I'm not sure how this board works, but I'll notify the two opposing users and wait for some opinions here. Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OR or not, it doesn't belong there. Nazism, which came hundreds of years later, doesn't have anything to do with the article. What the editors can do is create a "see also" or a wikilink from "patches" to our Badge of shame article, which is a general article about the phenomenon. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Badge of shame may be a problematic article since it assembles some very different phenomena from different places and times. Link to Yellow badge in preference. Sourced information on practices under Akbar - I mean sourced from good quality academic history texts - could be added to that article. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that even the badge articles belong in the See also, since sources generally do not make the connection. In some Muslim societies these sorts of distinctions were enforced not so much to humiliate or punish the non-believers but rather to maintain Muslim ritual purity (which could be affected by contact with infidels according to some systems). It was not like some 'dunce cap' for not accepting Islam. Now I don't know how distinct that is from the other badge cases, but either way, we probably shouldn't suggest a connection unless an authority does so first. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor's own connection of two unrelated issues under one roof is definitely OR. When sources don't make a connection, an article shouldn't either.

The formalities aside, physical identification of the "other" appears in just about every civilization, but that doesn't mean that they are (or should be) all connected.

There even isn't anything obviously nasty in the sentence that the Judenstern connection was coatracked on to: "During Akbar's reign Hindus in Lahore were forced to wear patches of different colours on their shoulders or sleeves so that they could be identified." This isn't any obvious reference to a badge of shame. The source might merely be saying something innocuous like "Akbar had Hindu troops from Lahore who wore regimental colors on their shoulders and sleeves."

With respect to linking to the xyz badge article as see alsos: Since a perfect article would be perfectly comprehensive, it is (IMO) useful to think of "see also"s as a temporary parking place for links that -- in an perfect article -- would somehow be integrated into the article proper (and so vanish from the see alsos).

Under those conditions (and assuming that Jungian notions of a collective subconscious are not resuscitated), there isn't much of a chance that a reference to the badge articles would make sense in the Akbar article. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now some IP user put it back in. I've undone it, of course, but how long do I have to play these games with mysterious IP users? This isn't the only of this kind of dispute I've encountered so far. After dealing with the remarkable incomprehension of the very straightforward argument against the original research with the first user, some other concerned IP or single use account shows up. It seems a waste of time to treat them all with a full explanation as if they haven't been following the dispute. I think that they are just trying to use persistence and shifting identities to eventually push the original research back into the articles. Chedorlaomer (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you suspect that the IP is a sock puppet, report it at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Article was brought to AfD because it has no sources, so it was declared original research by the nominator. Someone knowledgeable may want to take a look, and hopefully add some sources. VG ☎ 09:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where best to post this but I will try it here. If this is wrong could someone please help advise.

I come from the article Magibon which is a stub. Currently the first line in which describes what is Magibon has turned red due a deletion of a hidden link titled internet celebrity.

I can be helped by answering the bottom question. Oh and I've also posted the question on the talk page of the article.

Question

How do we describe what Magibon is?

A: Do we describe it by stating it's an internet phenomenon as per G4TV and Salon.com

B: Or it's a Youtube Meme as per Salon.com

C: Internet celebrity.

D: Internet personality. Wikitionary. However do note that wikitionary is a wiki and that a search on dictionary.com or askoxford.com dosen't return with an answer.

Comment: I do not think internet celebrity describes it, as based on sources referred, none as far as I can understand, describes Magibon directly as an internet celebrity Salon.com;G4TV;Entrevue.fr.

Please discuss and help by giving much needed advice. Hetelllies (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Internet phenomenon" is the most general term and is supported by sources so use that first. You could then go on to say that it is a virtual personality. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dcoetzee wrote in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "it is perfectly acceptable to use original research in arguing on a discussion page". Is it correct?--Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of thing occurs all the time, and Wikipedia policy does not prohibit it. However, a talk-page argument directly supported by reliable sources is stronger than one merely supported by original research. Eubulides (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I had previously tried to raise discussion on the article at an AfD. I feel that the article consists of Original Synthesis, namely that the Wikipedia editors create the notion that disparate political groups form a tendency, based on the notion of the common criteria of some sort criticism of Stalin. Any opinions on this? --Soman (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a valid and interesting subject to me, although the article could be improved. I think it would answer your concern if there were cites to some reliable sources covering the Anti-Stalinist left as a general subject.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Exactly my point. If there is a valid ref on the subject as a whole, then my accusation of Original Synthesis would fall. But can such a ref be found? In previous debates (Afd, talk page), no such ref has appeared. Rather it can be shown that the term is used for individual groups, but no ref that connects the various groupings/individuals mentioned in the article. --Soman (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's there to be found. I haven't looked at this subject in a while, but I know for sure there are books which survey, generally, the anti-Stalinist left in Britain; and I once read a terrific book on the non-Communist left groups in France. Do I have the titles at my finger-tips? No. If light dawns, I'll post on the talk page. Okay, found the French book, and it's online. KD Tries Again (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) KD Tries Again

Looks like an assortment of trivial information (sometimes trivial "common knowledge" is plain wrong). Degree of each suspect's "antistalinism" or "leftism" needs proper reference, though. NVO (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractors use X-rays (some critics say "too often"). Historically, the profession is credited with much of the advances in the field of Radiology. Finding a source to confirm this, wouldn't be too difficult.

Here's a hypothetical: Let's say that there is an authoritative peer-reviewed study which states in no uncertain terms that using X-ray is dangerous. The study doesn't mention chiropractic at all, but rather uses data from dentists and medical doctors. The conclusion about the dangers of X-rays however is not limited to just the dental or medical fields. The conclusion only speaks in generalities. "Generally, the use of X-rays of any kind is dangerous." Could we use this study's conclusion in the chiropractic article in the section where we are discussing chiropractors use of X-rays? (i.e. "Chiropractors use X-rays. X-rays are dangerous.") Yes? No? Why? This is just a hypothetical in order to discuss application of WP:NOR policy. Let's not discuss the reality of X-rays safety/danger here. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Option D - none of the above. The issue of the benefits/problems of X-rays should be dealt with in the X-ray article. In the Chiropractic article, there is no real reason to go into any details as to the benefits/problems of X-rays (you can simply mention that they are used, and bluelink the word "X-ray" to the X-ray article, which will inform the reader as to any benefits/problems.) Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Can you please explain why you feel it would be better to deal with the benefits/problems of X-rays not on the chiropractic page, but rather on X-ray page? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because such benefits/problems are directly related to X-rays, and only indirectly related to chiropracty. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't make that determination without reading the relevant references presented. That's why hypotheticals don't help improve the article anyhow. QuackGuru 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair response to this hypothetical, Blueboar. Thanks again. If you have the time could you consider two other hypothetical situations? Similar but slightly different:

• What if the authoritative peer-reviewed study which states in no uncertain terms that using X-ray is dangerous, and such a study relied on some chiropractic data (along with data from MDs and dentists)? Still the study concludes nothing specific about chiropractic use of X-rays; it only makes conclusions about generalities. Would it be okay to use the conclusions of such a study in the chiropractic article? (i.e. "Chiropractors use X-rays. X-rays are dangerous.")
• What if the authoritative peer-reviewed study which concludes in no uncertain terms that chiropractic usage X-ray is dangerous, would it then be okay to use that conclusion in the chiropractic article?

Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112's questions are irrelevant. The relevant question is at RfC: Is the "subject" of spinal manipulation relevant to chiropractic?. QuackGuru 05:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a specific change to Chiropractic to address the issue of chiropractic care and X-ray safety. Please see Talk:Chiropractic #Proposed addition re X-ray safety. This is not a hypothethetical example; it is a proposal to improve the article. I suggest that followup discussion occur there. Eubulides (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

of course Xrays are dangerous, and of course they are useful. what is needed is some good RSs that the chiropractic use of XRays is in some way particualrly dangerous or particularly useless. The actual complication is that if one thinks chiropractic care totally useless, any use of potentially risky modalities would not be justified, and the question then becomes whether the actual risk is even significant at all. Like many questions brought here , it isn't as simple as it looks, and I am afraid there is some reason to think some of the sources, even those ordinarily reliable, may have skipped over some of the logical steps. DGG (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted a link to Mark Steyn's disparagement Senator Obama's correct pronunciation of Pakistan and his approval of Governor Palin's mispronunciation of Iraq. This is evidence that Mr. Steyn advocates ignorance. This was reverted as No Original Research.

How is this remotely "original research"? Eustace (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR:

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

In other words, if you want to say that Mark Steyn approves of mispronunciation, you need to find a source that says that he approves of mispronunciation. Per the above, finding one source that shows that Mark Steyn likes a given pronunciation and then finding another that states that that's the wrong pronunciation is not satisfactory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)