View source for Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 26
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards|N]][[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__

== Myspace ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#New_Myspace the very last portion of this section contains a lot of original research and dubious sources for its citations.

== RfC concerning the Lavabit email service ==

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

[[Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?]]

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the [[Lavabit]] article:

:'''Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.'''

There have been concerns expressed as to whether the above violates our no original research policy. Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

== The White Queen (TV series)#Historical Inaccuracies ==

The section [[The White Queen (TV series)#Historical Inaccuracies]] is 100% [[WP:SYN]]. I pointed this out on the talk page, but to no avail. As an IP editor I have no weight, so if there is a more experienced editor here who wants to step in, that might be helpful. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.243.196|202.81.243.196]] ([[User talk:202.81.243.196|talk]]) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:Well, there were a few sources, eg "Jane Shore, Edward IV’s mistress, is portrayed as a young courtier. In fact, she was a mature woman, the wife of a London tradesman. REF: Ross, Charles. ''Edward IV''. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974" -- of course, the TV series was broadcast this year - is this time travel? Anyway, someone did listen to you and it's gone. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 15:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:I will repeat what I wrote on the talk page: One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons. It's also an issue in which many readers are interested. As it happens I have long disagreed with the interpretation of [[WP:OR]] that you present here. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is ''in any way'' OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a ''new idea'' that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases. In this instance you might say that there are chains of reasoning that go beyond mere "fact", such as the deduction that it is supposed to be winter when the Battle of Bosworth takes place. Maybe, but it would certainly have been a very odd August. Of course the snow is obviously emblematic, like the eclipse (though that really happened), suggesting an ending and beginning. No doubt that's one reason why they changed the details. Another was probably because they could create the impression of a battle with about ten extras in a dense forest, but in a field it would just look silly. Now adding that ''would'' be OR. But undisputed historical facts are not. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 16:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:I do think we need to have a proper debate about this issue, because I think it's one of those areas in which anti-OR dogmatism damages the project. The point of [[WP:OR]] is to prevent people presenting their pet ideas as though they are accepted fact, are more significant or have more justification than mainstream opinion asserts. In this case, the effect is actually to ''suppress'' mainstream opinion in order to leave deviations from historical fact ''unchallenged''. I have long felt that this is a kind of perversion of the spirit and intent of [[WP:OR]] and that we should stop repeating the mantra that reliable sources have to have directly commented on "inaccuracies" in films and TV shows with historical content before we can note these. As far as I can see cases like this are similar to the issue of whether making arithmetical calculations, or writing translations, are OR. If there is ''nothing to dispute'' then the concept of OR is inappropriate because there is in fact no "synthesis" occurring. By adopting the approach advocated by the IP and some other editors we damage the encyclopedia by excluding information that is verifiable and which serves the purpose to inform. In addition, as I said above, this is actually one of those aspects of historical fiction that people are most interested in, for perfectly good reasons: how much of it is true? We do not serve readers by excluding information that is not in dispute. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 16:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:I have raised this at [[Wikipedia talk:No original research]] for a discussion of the broader issue. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 19:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

::You are convincing me. But the problem is, if we allow this, do we also allow it say in fringe articles, eg [[Where Troy Once Stood]]? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:::As far as I am aware we do not have to have sources commenting directly on that book to summarise the mainstream views of where Troy was, but of course that is not a case where there are simple matter of ''fact'' being contrasted with a fiction narrative that deviates from known fact with what is called "dramatic licence". We all accept that historical drama does that for aesthetic or thematic reasons. In the case you give, the author is ''arguing'' a case for an interpretation of actual history. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:::(e-c) I agree with Paul regarding some cases, like works of fiction, where the writers can sometimes play fast and loose with history. The problem is, like Doug says, some of the wacko science out there, like people who get interviewed on [[Coast to Coast AM]] and who write what might be called "speculative nonfiction." ''[[The Jesus Dynasty]]'' and a lot of the work of [[Eric von Daniken]], [[Michael Baigent]], and the like come to mind here. In a lot of the cases of, like, books, I could reasonably see having the "reception" section indicate the major points of deviation from academic or general consensus. We do seem to be getting more articles on these "alternative views" than many of us might have expected, and it might make sense to acknowledge that with some changes in the policies and guidelines dealing with them. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::"One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons." While that may be true, as Wikipedians it is not our job to be investigating and creating such analysis and interesting commentary. We are merely aggregators of content that other reliable sources have found interesting enough to publish. Our only analysis should be on whether or not or how much [[WP:UNDUE|the published analysis represents the mainstream views]]. And just providing a list of the inaccuracies does nothing to enhance our reader's knowledge of " departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons." - did they depart from fact because they didn't do research? because they believe a fringe theory that they consider "fact"?  because the budget wouldnt allow them to do another scene set in the town X where Sir Y actually died? because killing someone 3 years before their actual death would allow a dramatic widow scene in season 2 rather than season 4? all of the actual interesting parts are stuff that need the backing third party sources. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::If we put forward out own interpretation of the ''reasons'' for departures from fact, then we would indeed be engaging in original research. That, in fact is the ''whole point''. I think you draw the line in the wrong place and miss the central issue, which is the question of what constitutes OR. Of course we would have to leave it up to readers to decide what the reason for a departure from fact was - whether it was for ideological or dramatic purposes. I see nothing wrong in that at all. Readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions. I am sure a lot of the time they simply want the correct ''information'', so that they can then make of it whatever they want. This is precisely why what I amn proposing is not "creating ... analysis and interesting commentary", it is providing sourced facts and facts alone. Indeed I made that distinction very clear in my first message about the difference between speculating about why facts were altered and noting them. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 14:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::::No i do not draw the line at the wrong place. An encyclopedia does not "bring up questions for the reader to ponder and answer themselves". an encyclopedia provides the answers. if we have reliable sources that talk about the unanswered questions related to the topic, we can mention the current debates if appropriate - but again, it requires third party sources talking about the specific topic of the article. 
:::::::re: "it is providing sourced facts and facts alone." Calling out on our own, and particularly in a standalone section called "Historical Inaccuracies" ,has far more nuances and implications than "facts alone" and is  highlighted in policy [[WP:STRUCTURE]]. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 18:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Red (if I can call him/her/it Red) has a good point here. Having a separate section devoted to "Historical Inaccuracies" not only has some serious OR problems, but also quite possibly, in a lot of cases, serious WEIGHT problems. ''[[Braveheart]]'' and a few other works which have had significant attention to their inaccuracies are one thing, and I can see, in some of those cases, a standalone section. But otherwise, for a lot of these "variant histories" in fiction, I myself would probably favor just adding some words in the otherwise existing material on the subject of the history something to the effect that what is portrayed is not widely accepted by historians. So, for instance, describing that movie as "a fictionalized version of the life of William Wallace" would be to my eyes perfectly acceptable, and even a lot of the material in that article, about the screenwriter's use of sometimes dubious sources, seems reasonable. But if the subject hasn't received a lot of attention in the context of the subject of the article itself, I would be really hesitant to create a separate section. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 23:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, listing historical inaccuracies that cannot be sourced is OR. It is unlikely there will ever be many sources, unless someone decided to write a piece specifically on this topic. There are some, but they mention the inaccuracies in very general terms, mainly to explain that without them no one would want to watch the show [http://www.indiewire.com/article/television/emma-frost-interview-the-white-queen][http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/15/the-white-queen-star-defends-historically-inaccurate-show-3883197/]. A few are more specific [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10125616/The-White-Queen-brings-zips-bricks-and-manicures-to-the-15th-century.html]. Those can be used and some are in the article. Anything more, without proper sources, fits the standard definition of OR. That may be unfortunate. The preamble to [WP:ISNOT] explains what Wikipedia is, it says: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, indeed a "high-quality encyclopedia" then it probably aims to educate, at least to a certain extent. I believe that a section showing just how inaccurate history that has been fictionalized on TV can be, might be useful, especially to younger people who are likely to be Wikipedia's readers. In that respect, I would not mind a limited modification of the rules on OR .--[[User:Luke Warmwater101|Luke Warmwater101]] ([[User talk:Luke Warmwater101|talk]]) 03:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

== Spengler's Civilization Model: Prolegomenon ==

A certain user is continually reposting original research and racist spam.
The "prolegomenon" (by itself an un-encyclopaedic phrase) to the article "Spengler's Civilization Model" ([[Spengler's civilization model]]) is clearly racist as well as unrelated to the subject matter. It is 100% original research.  

Every time I tried to add the OR tag the same user deletes it. I tried deleting the Prolegomenon but he keeps reposting what is essentially a speculative essay filled with cliches, stereotypes and generalizations unrelated to the subject whatsoever. Using the Talk Page did not help at all, since the user just ignored what I wrote. 

I have currently bolded certain parts of the Prolegomenon which are especially obvious in their offensiveness - however, the WHOLE THING needs to go, it is pure speculation and original research and unverifiable and therefore un-encyclopaedic content. It even makes predictions about the future ("''In the end of 2014 AD, the synergy of new debt will decrease to zero, at which moment the world will undergo an electrical breakdown—an instantaneous tunnelling to a more negative energy state.''")Ben Ammi, [[User:Ben Ammi|Ben Ammi]] ([[User talk:Ben Ammi|talk]]) 21:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Examples of the madness:

As it stands, the Prolegomenon to this article even claims to prophesy the future, hardly an encyclopaedic thing to do:
''"In the end of 2014 AD, the synergy of new debt will decrease to zero, at which moment the world will undergo an electrical breakdown—an instantaneous tunnelling to a more negative energy state."'''''

So is this a fact or not?
If so, I'd like some verification and sources - furthermore I'd like sources for all these claims, that Wikipedia is currently making to the world in its Prolegomenon section to Spengler's Civilization Model:

''"Women like pink; Mongoloid flags (Japan, China, Vietnam) are red; sunrise (the spring of the day) is red"''

''"Men like blue; the Jewish flag is blue; midnight (the winter of the day) is blue ("No brown after six")"''

''"The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well:"''

''"Being such blueshifted fallen angels, men are Promethean (future-minded, goal-oriented) mentally and Mephistophelean (spaghettified, serpentine, penile) corporeally."''

''"Cerebrotonia is the predominance of nervous tissue, which is "cosmopolitan"—interconnected encapsulated groups (ganglia) of neurons ("Jewish communities") reside in all organs ("countries") and orchestrate them into a single organism"''

''"Infantile (feminine, rural, Mongoloid) brain:
Predominance of gray matter (the neuronal cell bodies and their dendrites, the short protrusions that communicate with immediately neighbouring neurons in the brain)."''

''"Adult (masculine, urban, Jewish) brain:
''Predominance of white matter (the axons that reach out from neurons to more distant regions of the brain; since an axon is insulated with myelin, it is "Aspergian"—alienated from its immediate surroundings)."''''

Are all these crazy claims actually verifiable facts ?
I doubt it. But this guy keeps reposting this stuff again and again, spamming Wikipedia and making a mockery of the "online encyclopedia." 

Ben Ammi [[User:Ben Ammi|Ben Ammi]] ([[User talk:Ben Ammi|talk]]) 14:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:I've blocked the editor adding this material for a 3RR violation, and others have removed the material each time it was added. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

== [[Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels]] ==

I am having a dispute with [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] about the above-mentioned article. He appears determined to remove most the article as it stood before two days or so ago, as "unsourced". His editing policy is that one edits best those articles to which one is indifferent (to paraphrase from his talkpage). I accept that he is acting is good faith, as he may see fit, but I strenuously disagree with his actions. 

Also, by being indifferent to material one is editing one is less likely to be familiar with it, and, even more importantly, less invested in it. I do not understand what has to be done to "source" this material, almost all of which, directly dovetails with the lengthy, spoilers-and-all, synopses of all these mystery novels, right here on Wikipedia. Where I am supposed to find paperbacks to cite page numbers?? Those (Christie) novels which were written after ISBNs came into existence have them on their article pages. I admit I am fond of the article in question, as a long time Christie aficionado, and to see it whittled down from a [[redwood tree|redwood]] to a [[bonsai]] is painful and, I believe, unnecessary. 

Yours, [[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|<font color="orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</font>]] 23:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
:First, I should probably apologize for my rather curt and irritable posts to Rms, as I had originally assumed (from the age of his account) that he was quite familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Due to my assumption, I was perhaps a bit too hasty to assume that he was edit warring, protecting his [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of the article, and other bad faith assumptions. I realize now that I probably should have engaged with him in a more patient and friendly manner, and maybe this whole thing could have been avoided; plus, as he initially suggested, I probably should have used the talk page to explain my edits, instead of cryptic edit summaries which alluded to Wikipedia policies.  That said, I stand by my edits, and, as Rms says, I am fairly determined to remove the original research from this article. Without rehashing everything on the talk page once again, I'm not really sure there's much to say.  Yes, someone spent much time writing up a long analysis of the tropes in Agatha Christie's fiction, but [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not the place for such things]]. Unfortunately, citing [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]], such as the books themselves, is not a valid citation. In order to have a page that discusses the tropes in question, one must find a reliable source, such as scholar or journalist, who says something is a trope, and then Wikipedia can quote that person. I suggest doing some research on Google Scholar and Google Books, which is where I found the few citations that I made. As it stands, this article is nightmare of original research, and it needs to be whittled back down to that pathetic bonsai tree in order to fit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 00:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::From a quick look at the article, I have to agree that it is almost entirely WP:OR. Who says that the 'tropes' in the novel are indeed 'tropes'? Nobody but Wikipedia contributors apparently, who have read the relevant novel, and decided that it contains a 'trope'. That is original research, plain and simple... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::: Just so everyone is aware. I did ''not'' create the article. [[User:Sordel|Sordel]] did. I am not familiar with "[[trope]]s" and it is not a word I would use; I am insufficiently intellectual for that. I did contribute after the article was created. Just so that's understood. It would have been better, I think, had it not been created at all. Perhaps AFDing later depending on the final outcome. [[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|<font color="orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</font>]] 00:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::It does not matter ''who'' created the article or really ''who'' added content (the "who is recorded in the edit summaries which is what Wikipedia requires for attribution). What does matter that the the content that is added or re-added to the article., [[WP:OR|particularly any analysis or commentary]], is supported by a [[WP:RS|reliably published sourced]] that straightforwardly makes the claim. Wikipedia editors are not so much writers as merely aggregators of content and analysis that others have already written. Yes, finding sources can take time, but books.google.com and scholar.google.com are both great free resources. (and the cite tool, when its working, makes the [[WP:CITE]]ing easy. and even if you do not understand how to provide the appropriate cite, simply linking to the reliably published sources (not blogs or random websites) within<nowiki> <ref> </ref></nowiki>  tags with a request for someone to complete the reference will suffice. The subject seems to me to be one that would have oodles of sources, although many places may not specifically use the word "trope" and I am not sure where or how the line is determined about "they did not specifically use the word 'trope' but they were clearly talking about 'tropes' " -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
::::An article could be written on this topic, but it will take time and effort.  One can not simply write long essays and upload them to Wikipedia: this is the very definition of [[WP:OR|original research]].  Instead, one must find published works and summarize them.  If you're willing to do the research necessary to write this article, you can save it.  If you're not, that's fine.  Someone else might be.  Deletion is a last resort, and it's not used to punish poorly written articles.  Articles lacking [[WP:N|notability]] or impossible to [[WP:V|verify]] are routinely deleted, but poorly written articles just get [[Wikipedia:Stub#Stubbing_existing_articles|turned into stubs]].  This is what I did.  It's perfectly within guidelines, and there isn't really any policy- or guideline-based argument you can make to keep the old version of the article.  It's been a month now since I originally tagged the article as needing additional sources, the old AfD advised a total rewrite with sources (which is what I did), and the current version of the page violates Wikipedia policy.  There really isn't anywhere to go except to revert back to my edit, which stubbed the article.  Once this is done, you can expand the article to your heart's content, ''as long as you find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to back up your assertions''.  I found several sources which discuss tropes in Agatha Christie's novels, so the topic seems notable to me.  I would not support a deletion proposal.  However, I would support [[WP:Merging|merging]] my stub into [[Agatha Christie]]. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 00:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::: Yeah, I know. I found a reflink regarding an interesting "trope" that most people are unaware of: Poirot letting or even suggesting (in certain cases) that the murderer/killer/perpetrator take his or her own life to avoid scandal, shame, prosecution, execution, etc. I also removed some marginal stuff, as well. [[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|<font color="orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</font>]] 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not sure how to make this more clear.  Maybe it's because I'm repeating myself, but I don't think you're understanding me.  Every unsourced line has to go.  Every single line in the article body has to be deleted.  There are no "iffy" sections.  Unless you can find a reliable source (such as a book, magazine, or newspaper article – not a random blogger) that backs up the assertions made, they can be removed by anyone.  I think that I've been quite patient; I originally tagged this article with a few cleanup templates a '''month''' ago.  When I returned to check up on the article, it was still a mess.  I stubbed the article and replaced it with some cited material, which you reverted.  I really must insist that you either revert the article back to my stub-version, or I'll do it myself.  Once this is done, you can re-add the removed material, but only if you can find a citation for it.  You had a month find citations for these statements, and nothing was done.  The time for precision editing has passed, and it's time to replace this mess with a proper article that's within policy.  My stub-version is exactly that. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::You are much more kind and patient than I am! -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 02:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

== Interac (Japan) ==

I have been trying to clean up [[Interac_(Japan)]] for some time now and there has recently been a revert and edit of my previous edits.  I request help with this page.[[User:Taurus669|Taurus669]] ([[User talk:Taurus669|talk]]) 02:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is full of original research related to the Union presence section and below.  

In particular, the revert and edit made by [[Mah2012]] on 23 August 2013 and by [[202.241.4.55]] on 30 August 2013 seem to be full of self-published materials by the same union(s) that these editors are including.

The edit on 30 August 2013 called "Operation Slingshot" appears to be 100% original research.[[User:Taurus669|Taurus669]] ([[User talk:Taurus669|talk]]) 02:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

== Ventura, CA: Points of Interest - Westside ==

On August 28, 2013, a large paragraph was added to [[Ventura,_California#Points_of_interest]] about the Westside Neighborhood that has no citations and appears to be original research. 

Could an editor provide further comments since the entire section needs work as does much of the page? This paragraph and others are beginning to describe neighborhoods rather than Points of Interest. The rest of the Points of Interest just seem to be random sentences. There is also a list of [[Ventura,_California#Notable_locations|Notable locations]] with the distinctive feature that many of the places are not "worthy of notice" and do not include links. If one uses [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline| the WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline]], where would information about notable landmarks and locations go? On a separate page?
--[[User:Fettlemap|Fettlemap]] ([[User talk:Fettlemap|talk]]) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
:I'm a fairly active wikipedian from Ventura.  My office was once in the [[Erle Stanley Gardner]] Building at the center of town.  I know nothing about this subject.  Other than the local knowledge that the vcstar is the local paper and the best RS close to the scene, I don't have much to bring to the party that couldn't be googled.  So as I advise others to do, I hit google.  It sounds like a lot of well informed, probably accurate, OR.  I did find several pictures glorifying the vandalism in that area of town, but matching the descriptions.  [http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/mar/29/man-who-fatally-shot-ventura-gang-member-freed/ The gang name is real].  OR:  Later I drove down Ventura Avenue and its not that graffiti ridden.  It is an old, low income area.  [http://www.vcstar.com/news/2007/dec/06/anti-graffiti-forum-shows-problem-is-countywide/ This article] indicates there is a long standing graffiti problem.  About all the biker gangs, well, my own OR knows a past Hells Angel's president lived here for many years.  I think he is now residing at one of our state prisons.  There is a biker convention of sorts here.  The locations, "The Avenue" as I hear it called, Pierpont, Fairgrounds, the Harbor are all fairly major landmarks here.  Worthy of someone writing an article about them.  At the moment, the paragraph I questioned is not exactly Chamber of Commerce material and is currently unsourced, but looks like it can be sourced if you want to. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 08:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

== [[Federal Assault Weapons Ban]] article title ==

The Wikipedia article currently titled [[Federal_assault_weapons_ban|Federal Assault Weapons Ban]] was created in January 2003 as "Assault weapons ban". After that it was redirected/renamed five times (as far as I can tell) until October 2006, when it was capitalized, without discussion that I can find. Why this decision was made and why it has stayed under the radar for so long is a mystery. A preponderence of reliable, verifiable sources use the term "federal assault weapons ban" in sentence case in running text. Many use it lowercase in titles and headers, too. I have found no evidence that the [[WP:TITLE]] policy and the [[WP:NCCAPS]] guideline should be an exception for this article. Ignoring widely-used conventions for this article in Wikipedia reflects poorly on its credibility.

I haven't mastered WP coding, so pardon me if I format these links clumsily, but here are some:
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:ap.org= Associated Press]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:bradycampaign.org= Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:feinstein.senate.gov= Senator Dianne Feinstein's official website]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:foxnews.com= Fox News]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:articles.latimes.com= Los Angeles Times]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:nraila.org= NRA Institute for Legislative Action]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:nytimes.com= The New York Times]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:gpo.gov= U.S. Government Printing Office]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:usatoday.com= USA Today]
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22federal+assault+weapons+ban%22+site:online.wsj.com= The Wall Street Journal]


I think this article would be improved by restoring its title to sentence case format. Based on the sources, to use title case seems [[WP:OR]].

--[[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 20:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:"Many use it lowercase in titles and headers, too.". And many use Title case in titles and headers, thus for running text in the article, 'federal assault weapons ban' is appropriate, but for the ''title'' of the aforementioned article, Title case is neither right nor wrong, since there is no definitive answer on whether it's become a proper noun at this point. I don't see how the article is improved by this change, which is neither supported nor rejected by a preponderance of sources. [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe|talk]]) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

::This has nothing to do with original research, nor has any complaint of original research been raised until after this discussion was opened on this notice board. It was just dropped in out-of-the-blue, as can be seen on the original talkpage. This has [[Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Article_moved_.28renamed.29_without_discussion.3F|already been discussed at length]] on the talk board of the article in question. This is being driven by a single editor who, for some unknown reason (forum shopping?), has re-created the discussion here. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">[[User:Sue Rangell|Sue Rangell]] <span style="font-size: 16px;">[[User_talk:Sue_Rangell|✍ ]][[Special:EmailUser/Sue_Rangell|✉]]</span></span> 04:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
:::The discussion was closed by one editor in the middle of a reasoned, civil exchange between two other editors. The issue had been discussed at ''some'' length, but no consensus had been reached. A request to reopen the discussion was denied by the closer, who said there was an “overwhelming” consensus of opposition to the question. A request to show this overwhelming consensus went unanswered. (The discussion and vote shows three opposed, two supported, two neutral or unstated.)  Because the discussion was closed midstream, not all relevant arguments – including [[WP:OR]] – had been explicitly introduced. That is the reason this discussion was started. [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


::The [[WP:NPOV]] policy says especial care should be taken when choosing a name for an article title. The [[WP:TITLE]] policy and [[WP:NCCAPS]] naming-convention guideline tells us to use lowercase for article titles, except for proper nouns. NCCAPS also says that because credibility is a primary objective for Wikipedia, adherence to conventions widely used in the reference-work genre is critically important.
::Wikipedia says editors’ personal experiences, interpretations, and opinions do not belong; they're [[WP:OR]].
::The original article title was published in January 2003 in agreement with current WP policy. It was renamed in October 2006 without explanation – and contrary to current policy. Now that we are aware of the issue, we should not leave the title in caps unless we can [[WP:VERIFY]] with accuracy that a preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources do so as well.
::No preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources capitalize “federal assault weapons ban” in running text. Therefore, we cannot verify with accuracy its use as a proper noun.
::If, despite the NPOV and VERIFY policies, we continue to capitalize this article, then we are publishing – whether it was originally intended or not – original research. Wikilinks and outside links to this article propagate its OR.
::I propose we restore the article title to "Federal assault weapons ban", in agreement with current WP policy and cited sources, but add a section about the variety of the names and abbreviations used by reliable sources. [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 16:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

== So sorry, I posted twice ==

I've never done one of these before. Sorry. [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 20:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

== SSL ==

A user has alleged that the following wikitext on the genesis and characteristics of the [[Somali Sign Language]] (SSL) is inconsistent with the sources presented. As discussed [[Talk:Somali_Sign_Language#Somali_Sign_Language|here]], much of the material is drawn from ''The beginning and growth of a new language - Somali Sign Language'' by Doreen E. Woodford of the Deaf Africa Fund [http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/somali_sign_language.php]:
{{hat|Hatnoted wikitext}}
<blockquote>'''Development''' <br> Somali Sign Language was originally developed by a [[Somali people|Somali]] man educated in a Somali deaf school in [[Wajir]], [[Kenya]]. In 1997, he used his knowledge of [[English language|English]] and [[Kenyan Sign Language]] (KSL) to establish the first school for the deaf in the city of [[Borama]], situated in northwestern [[Somalia]]. He had originally proposed the idea as far back as 1977. One of the teachers at Borama soon founded a deaf school in [[Djibouti]]. With a bit more difficulty, another was established in [[Hargeisa]], the capital of the autonomous [[Somaliland]] region in northwestern Somalia. Through the years, the Djibouti school's sign language system has remained the Somali Sign Language. It has, however, followed a different developmental path.[http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/somali_sign_language.php]</blockquote>

<blockquote>SSL's growth has been both consistent and quick. The first graduating class at the Borama school all passed with high marks. Alongside written [[Somali language|Somali]] and English in Somalia and Somali and [[French language|French]] in Djibouti, pupils in all the deaf schools have used SSL, which still shows its KSL influences.[http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/somali_sign_language.php]</blockquote>

<blockquote>In addition, there are plans to establish a new SSL-based deaf school in the northeastern city of [[Bosaso]], the commercial capital of Somalia's autonomous [[Puntland]] region.[http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/somali_sign_language.php] The Somali National Association for the Deaf (SNAD), Deaf Unity and other leaders in Somalia's deaf community are also working together to build more deaf schools in the country, where the Somali Sign Language is to be taught.[http://deaftimes.com/usa-l/deaf-unity-and-snad-unite-to-pave-the-way-for-deaf-somalis/]</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Characteristics''' <br> Unlike many other new sign language systems, the Somali Sign Language is not based on a foreign culture and language. It is instead centered on the [[Culture of Somalia|Somali culture]] and [[Somali language]] (Af-Somali).[http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/somali_sign_language.php][http://books.google.com/books?id=sF0wAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Somali+Sign+Language%22&redir_esc=y#search_anchor] As such, SSL's growth has been affected by a sense of shared nationhood between ethnic Somalis inhabiting both Somalia proper and other areas in or near the [[Horn of Africa]].[http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/somali_sign_language.php] <br><br> The Somali Sign language is also different from KSL and most other sign languages on the continent in that it was started by a deaf person, while the majority of the first deaf schools elsewhere were established by hearing people. Additionally, SSL's creator himself already had sign language skills. This is often not the case with other sign languages, whose hearing inventors not seldom lack sign language skills and come from environments where sign communication is regarded as counterproductive to language development. Research has likewise shown that when deaf sign language users establish a country's education programs for deaf children, a national sign language develops more quickly.[http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/somali_sign_language.php]</blockquote> 
{{hab}}
Please point out which if any of the hatnoted sentences above are problematic, and how to go about fixing that phrase(s). [[User:Middayexpress|Middayexpress]] ([[User talk:Middayexpress|talk]]) 14:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

== European English ==

Please see the debate at [[Talk:European English]]. An editor is insistent that the concept exists, but I can find no verifiable references that support the assertion. The editor has added a substantial amount of unreferenced material to the article, all of which appears to be OR. I won't revert again - I had originally set the page as a redirect to [[British English]] some time ago. Please have a look, thanks. [[User:The Roman Candle|The Roman Candle]] ([[User talk:The Roman Candle|talk]]) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)