Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Delmonico's restaurant

A dispute exists regarding the following text:

It is not uncommon for profiles in media reports to confuse the present incarnation [of Delmonico's] for the original; for instance Time Out New York magazine erroneously reported that it opened in 1831, and ABC News reported that Lobster a la Newberg was invented at the South Williams location when it fact it was invented uptown.

It is agreed that the facts cited are indeed wrong. The disagreement centers around whether citing them as such to substantiate the claim that "it is not uncommon for profiles in media reports to confuse the present incarnation [of Delmonico's] for the original" constitutes synthesis/original research. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm the other party in this dispute (over on the talk page), and basically what I was saying is that it's synthesis to source the reviews and draw a conclusion about them that's not directly stated. To come to the conclusion stated in the quotation, a reliable source that says something to the effect of "reviews made by Time Out and ABC News are inaccurate." A third opinion was given in this case and agreed that it was synthesis. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and my contention is that for a synthesis to exist, under the guidelines it must be shown that the author is attempting to "advance a position" that might reasonably be contested by others, which is not the case here. It entirely permissible to make an observation about the material cited that is uncontroversial and verifiably true.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to a note by the other party in WikiProject Food and Drink: While Sylvain1972 is correct, and could probably say that about a lot of other revived restaurants, I think policy plainly requires that a reliable source make this statement and not a Wikipedia editor. The "position" he/she is advancing is that reviewers often are wrong on a key fact concerning this restaurant. That is undoubtedly true, but the policy does not say "advance a wrong position." Truth and falsity are frequently in dispute. I think it is an open-and-shut case of synthesis. I've removed the passage, but request that other editors keep an eye on this article and this passage. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Truth and falsity are not in dispute here at all, synthesis is. If a X magazine states, "Michael Jackson was born in 1960," it is perfectly permissible for a wikipedia article to say "X magazine erroneously reported Michael Jackson was born in 1960." The editor does not need to get a third source to state that. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. From WP:SYN:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

What you're doing in the text is essentially stating that (A), "Delmonico's opened in 1827", (B), "Time Out says Delmonico's opened in 1831," and therefore (C), "Time Out is wrong." And you can't do that without a third source to state C. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to include a statement saying that "X is incorrect" in an article, you do need a source for that statement. Otherwise, how do we know that X magazine is incorrect? The only way to demonstrate that fact is to provide a source for it.

Now, if we are talking about talk page discussions, we are allowed to venture into OR (within reason). If we are discussing a source on the talk page, we can say things like: "no, no, no... Source X is wrong... look at what sources Y and Z say... they have it right". Then we can try to determine how to account for the discrepancy in the article.

When sources disagree, we have several options... In most cases, the best is to mention what both say, per WP:NPOV, by saying something like: "According to X, Delmonico's first opened in 1827, while according to Y it opened in 1831. " Another option (assuming there is clear consensus that one source definitely is incorrect, and everyone on the talk page agrees) is to simply ignore the incorrect source, and rely on what all the other sources say. But what we should never do is say "X is incorrect" unless we have a source that specifically points out this fact about X. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, there are sources in the article confirming that X is incorrect. No one is disputing that X is incorrect.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "confirming that X is incorrect"? Do they actually say "X is incorrect"? If so then it is ok for us to say so. If they simply give a different date, then it is ok for us to assume that X is incorrect on the talk page, but it is not ok for us to explicitly say so in the article (as saying so would insert our own analysis into the article).

It sounds like you are dealing with a reliability issue and not a NOR issue. If it is clear that one source contains an error, such as disagreeing with all others as to something like a date, it is ok to simply assume that there is a typo in the odd man out. We can reach a consensus and determine that the odd man out is unreliable on this one date (it can still be reliable for other information). For the date, we can rely on the other sources and simply ignore the source with the erronious date. There is no need to explicitly point out the error in the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think that pointing out the error in the article would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As the first outside observer who commented that this is a synthesis and should not be included, I also agree with the independent commentators here. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the two supposedly "independent" commentators to which you refer indicates that he was recruited to join the discussion in WikiProject Food and Drink, but nonetheless I consider the matter closed for the time being.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I responded to a neutral posting requesting participation in the discussion. I had never edited that article before. To imply that I was not independent is not warranted. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheeseburger

The cheese in a cheeseburger substantially changes its nutritional value. For example, in comparison to their standard hamburger, which only differs by the slice of cheese, a McDonald's cheeseburger has 20% more calories, 33% more fat and 25% more protein. Other types of cheese would have varying effects, depending on their nutritional content.

This paragraph is from the lead of the cheeseburger article. I removed this passage as I believe it to be a violation of WP:Synth because it takes facts about a McDonald's cheeseburger and hamburger and makes a comparative analysis of the nutritional makeup of the two, which I contend is synthesized original research.

NJGW contends that is simple calculations and thus is exempt from the original research guidelines.

I would like some comments from independent contributors on the matter. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also consider it OR. The source cited does not state that all differences in figures between the two are due to the cheese - as per the notes at the end of the document, "Variation in serving sizes, preparation techniques, product testing and sources of supply, as well as regional and seasonal differences may affect the nutrition values for each product. In addition, product formulations change periodically." IMHO, editors need to be very careful of 'differencing' calculations; they can vastly increase relative errors.

There are also issues of rounding/false precision. For instance, representing 12/9 as "33%" implies a precision of one part in a hundred, which is far beyond what the data supports.

Here's another 'simple calculation': the entry for the hamburger has 2 grams of fiber equalling 6% of daily requirements, and the cheeseburger has 2 grams equalling 7% of daily requirements... from that we can conclude that 0 grams of fiber equal 1% of daily requirements. --GenericBob (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sources to nutritional data of American cheese and a plain hamburger, removing all connection to McD's and their nutritional mistakes. This should also eliminate any questions about differences in preparation. A + B = C ... B / A = %-increase. NJGW (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it once again, as the new paragraph is still SYN, in that it is your personal math regarding the available variables. Unless you can cite a reliable source for that, it will not be included.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion. Instead of reverting me, please address the problems here and wait for people to respond before continuing further.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact is you're still doing original research by doing your own math from material you have read, instead of a published source that cites it directly. We are not publishers of original thought.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For any who care, below is the new paragraph:

The cheese in a cheeseburger substantially changes its nutritional value. For example, an ounce of low cholesterol American cheese will add to large prepared hamburger almost 25% more calories, about 45% more fat and over 25% more protein. Other types of cheese would have varying effects, depending on their nutritional content.

As far as I can see, it still presents problems of OR/SYN. Please discuss.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of striking through Daedalus969's comments given the following reply on my talk page after I asked for clarification: "I've reverted my own edits to CB. Surely that is enough to figure out, I'm busy irl, so I'm not going to be able to explain further, you should be able to figure it out for yourself." NJGW (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It'd be ideal to find a secondary source that discusses this directly, but the math is so simple and the conclusion so straightforward that I don't think this is a violation.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This version is a lot better - providing a source specifically for cheese fixes the differencing problem. I've taken the liberty of rounding those numbers a bit to avoid implying excessive precision; with that change, it looks reasonable to me. --GenericBob (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree that the new version still presents a synthesis/OR problem. Surely a reliable source can be found on the shift in nutritional characteristics after tossing on a piece of cheese. This is not a massive issue, for the math is clear, but still, it seems a bit prominent in a rather brief article and it would be best for Sanjay Gupta or someone like that to make the point.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty in SYN with Weird Al song and its implied location

For Weird Al's lastest song, "Skipper Dan" (which is currently listed at Internet Leaks in lieu of a full article due to lack of coverage), there's an issue in OR-ish nature. The song's lyrics, which tell of a man in charge of a jungle cruise ride, do not cite the location, though it mentions "Adventureland" and uses direct quotes from Disneyland's Jungle Cruise. The associated video for the song asserts this further; the person is seen living near the HOllywood sign, and guests on the ride are clearly wearing mouse ears, though again, no specific mention of Disneyland is named. I believe that presuming that the ride is the Jungle Cruise line at Disneyland is original research barring any source that suggests it is only that, as because plenty of other theme parks have similar rides, and such we cannot eliminate all others by process of elimination. Others suggest it's the case that it's the only obvious solution given all of the above. Now, I've been watching for sources, and plenty of blogs and sites dedicated to Disneyland state this, and certainly if a reliable source states this, then, no further questions, but until then, this is the type of SYN that we need to avoid, I believe. (It may be that I've never been to Disneyland and thus the "this is exactly how it happens" approach others suggest doesn't ring any bells with me, but I think that's a stronger point that it's not patently obvious and thus SYN.)--MASEM (t) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sources are appearing – [1][2] – but well done for waiting for them. ;) JN466 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles Fields of science and Science and the Bible

Fields of science looks like entirely OR. Everything under the sun seems to be a field of science. And now it's being use to structure Science and the Bible, which although it has references still has a lot of OR. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples of the problem... at a quick glance Fields of science looks ok to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's unsourced, looks like a list drawn up by a committee. The link at the bottom just goes to a UK codification of all subjects. Will our readers really consider law to be a science? Why are military history and economic history sciences, but not history? And if it is then used in articles such as 'Science and the Bible', we end up with everything but the kitchen sink, whereas I think our readers will expect such articles to relate to what are called the natural sciences. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I do think you have a point here... In fact, now that I look deeper, I have a problem with the what is included and excluded in the entire Social Sciences section... why isn't History listed (it is noramlly considered a "Social Science")? As for Military Science, what about Ballistics (which invloves the application of physics and mathematics)?

I think part of the problem is that there was a trend (common in the 1960 and 70s) to reclassify what used to be called "Humanities" and "Liberal Arts" as a science... you had every accademic department wanting to rename themselves with the word "Science" in their name... the Theater Arts dept suddenly wanted to be called "Theatrical Sciences" and the History dept wanted to be dubbed of "Social Sciences"... I suspect the trend had something to do with where the grant money was directed. This trend was reflected at the Grade school and High school level... where subjects underwent a name change as well... History class became "Social Studies", while English class became "Language Studies".

In any case, you are right... that list needs a clear criteria for inclusion... and that criteria needs to be based on a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could take a look at Science and the Bible I'd appreciate it - it's changed quite a bit recently thanks to one editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Lead may or may not be OR. I couldn't determine whether it was OR because it is not clear what the "sourced" statements were saying. It thus wasn't clear whether the sources being cited are all talking about the same thing. If they aren't all discussing the same thing, then the statements for which they are being cited are OR.

2. Content is completely OR. The only source that addresses the topic/theme and is being used properly is Gould, but which only appears in the lead. The only other potentially-valid source at all is Schroeder, but that is being misused to regurgitate an argument rather than being summarized for its conclusions. The rest of the ostensibly sourced statements are all off-topic, and hence OR.

It would seem that the editors have not understood that they are not supposed to do any arguing. They need to be told that they are not to write essays. They need to learn to regurgitate sources that have already covered the topic. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible synthesis in Sam Fuld

Question here is whether his religion is adequately sourced or is synthesis, with regard to the three sources given as sources in the second paragraph of the article, where he is referred to as "Jewish" and cites three sources. None of the three sources explicitly state his religion, and that is contradicted by a Q&A with Fuld cited in the "Personal" section, which more accurately refers to him as "half-Jewish." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research Question at Criticisms of CAIR

Admin User:Athaenara suggested I post an inquiry here:

There has been an on-going content dispute at Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations over original research, BLP violations, plagiarism, and other issues.

However, my issue revolves around original research.

User:PelleSmith reverted an edit I made claiming it was original research. User:PelleSmith and User:Commodore Sloat have been edit-warring out all my additions following a failed AFD started by Pelle.

Here is a link to the beginning dispute: Identified plagiarism.. The paragraph crafted by Pelle and Sloat was practically copy and paste from the original source. I rewrote the paragraph to better represent the source, while paraphrasing and attributing quotes accurately. Then I added a corroborating source from the SFgate to affirm what is being said. I also copy edited because the original draft linked the same source 2 or 3 times. Pelle's reversion also included minor grammar and syntax fixes in other paragraphs.

For comparison of the drafts, I summarized the issues and posted the paragraphs in a sandbox. Drafts can also be found in the talk discussion but they are accompanied by intense arguments and name-calling. This just seemed easier for the lazy: User:Wikifan12345/cair dispute

I tried other dispute resolutions such as collaborative discussions and 3OO, but the edit-warring continued and I probably won't edit the article again till there is a mutual understanding or admin intervention. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - As I've explained to Wikifan numerous times on the talk page, I did not intentionally revert his version of the paragraph as "original research". I am also not the author of any of the material therein. I was attempting to remove other material that does not belong in the entry because it does not present actual criticism attributed to a third party but instead piles on supposed "facts" about the organization being criticized which are meant to make the reader think critically of it or to further substantiate the criticisms of its critics. After he brought the issue of this paragraph to my attention on the talk page I reverted it to his version. Despite this good faith revert and despite my explanations he keeps on claiming falsely that this particular edit has been contested as original research. The OR issues with some of his edits are more straightforward and represent what the rest of us feel is WP:SYNTH. If you are actually interested in these please take the time and read through the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place and you claimed the entire paragraph was original research, and there is no "us." You claimed I was editing against consensus which is total bullocks. Anyways, experienced editors please review the draft and tell me if it is OR. If not, I'll restore it. I know OR when I see it and I know policy shopping when I see it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Related Question

This might be more of a WP:NOTE or WP:RS issue than a WP:NOR issue but I wonder if using primary sources of criticism is in line with our various editing policies and conventions at all, especially if the specific criticisms sourced to primary sources have not been mentioned in secondary or tertiary sources. How do we decide they are notable enough if they come from a primary source? Does the publication itself establish notability (if lets say it is an editorial in the NYT), if so what about self-published sources? One might contend that unless a critic is made notable by mention in reliable secondary or tertiary sources as a critic of ... their criticisms should not be included. Perhaps it is not enough either that the critic shares the critical perspective generally mentioned in such sources. Hundreds or thousands of people might share those perspectives, but what makes them notable? Or maybe sharing a critical perspective that is notable and publishing in a reliable venue is enough? I think problems arise relating to "criticism" sections and articles because we do not have policies that are clear enough dealing directly with criticism. Instead we rely on related policies like WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc. I do note that we have an essay on the topic, WP:CRIT. Please move this to a more appropriate space if it does not belong here.PelleSmith (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The concerns mentioned in the above question have not been raised at the entry at all. At no time has primary sourced criticism been removed as not notable or as any other violation. I am however wondering if it should in this and related entries/sections.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to post policies doesn't mean anything. An admin suggested I post this here so no nothing should be removed. You claimed the paragraph was original research several times, and we'll see if it is. If not, I'll restore the edit because it is far superior to your copy/paste/poorly sourced/practically plagiarized paragraph. All these questions mean you clearly have no understanding how policy works and should therefor not be including rules in your summary rationale. As I've said before, practice somewhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed the paragraph was original research several times - Please provide diffs for this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I was clearly referring to my subsection "Related Question" only when I asked for it to be moved if it doesn't belong. I don't want to clutter this space with unrelated questions. That comment has nothing to do with your question. Calm down.PelleSmith (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: This ANI is strictly about Original Research. Pelle and the other editor stood by the claim for pages in discussion, and I told him several times I'd seek an admin if things weren't resolved. Here I am. Most of Pelle's other issues have already been talked to death in discussion, my latest post (in talk) summed things up quite nicely. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User created maps

Maybe this should go on the policy talk page, but I'll start here. Take this, for instance File:Aryavarta wiki.jpg which I've just found, although there are many other examples. It's clearly OR, why do we all these to be used? Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See: WP:NOR#Original images. We allow user created images as an exception to NOR. This is because we can not always use images that are published (due to copyrite laws, and other considerations). That said, I don't think we can determine whether an image is OR on its own... we have to see it in an article... I am of the opinion that an image should never stand on its own in an articel ... it should always relate to something that is discussed in the article (otherwise it is not relevant to the article). Essentially, I see image as visual illustrations of things discussed in the text of the article... and since that text is sourced, those sources carry over to an illustration of that text. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had some discussion before (for example [3] with User:Wobble, and on the Human Genetics Project discussion page) about this subject. Recently Dougweller and I were both looking a map being proposed (still by a newbie User:SOPHIAN. I think it is hard to develop a single clear rule. For example:

• If someone makes a map which is based on published maps, this is not often not going to be a case of OR, and might even be closer to a copyright violation. (But I understand a "similar" map, even if just self made to give the same basic idea, is not the same as a copyright violation?)
• What if someone is writing an article about ancient migrations, and wants to make a map showing arrow where sourced references say they were. I have done such a map, here: [4] As it happens there was some debate that then went on between editors ([5], [6]), and some adjustments were made, all with the aim of making the migration routes uncontroversial reflections of sourced materials in narrative or other form.
• The type of controversial case I have come across the most is concerning "contour maps" built up from data taken at particular geographical points. A purist might I think argue that these should be avoided unless they are basically copies of published maps, and the reason for this is that:

a. The published versions use, or should use, something like the Kriging method in order to decide what the best GUESS is about the areas where there is NO DATA. In other words, what colour do you paint the gaps between the points where really measurements were made? Using such a technique seems to me to go into the area of OR or synthesis.

b. They can normally be replaced by maps with pie charts at places, without any loss of information, but avoiding the interpolations.

Having said that I must say that these maps are popular and they help readers visualize complex subjects in a simple way. I frequently see the makers of such maps get thanks from other Wikipedians, and I understand why. So I do not like the idea of loosing them altogether. I have played with criteria for what is acceptable and discussed them in some of the discussions I've cited. Let's say you have a published contour map, or maybe two, but you want to combine them, and make an adjusted version which combines all the latest data. In this case I think you might arguably get away with it, if you check the data collection principles to make sure you are working correctly of course, and then the final version should be compared to published version to get a common sense confirmation of whether the changes are minor and only as per the data being added. In the end of course you'd be needing to convince other Wikipedians that you'd done this right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The italics portion of the images part of the OR policy is key: "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" One can think of this in exactly the same way as writing prose: simply rewriting a verifiable statement using different words does not make it original research, as long as it does not introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. An image is just another way of expressing an idea, and simply having drawn it yourself doesn't make it original research. But that is where the OR "exemption" ends (I don't think Blueboar's reply makes this clear). The map in question seems to have been deleted, but if it was implying anything that cannot be verified in a reliable source, it's original research and should go ASAP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's take as an example a map about the genetics of Europe, using a variety of journal articles published over a 20 year period. How is that not OR? (or synthesis). It shouldn't be hard to create a map based on peer reviewed articles that looks convincing and yet is very pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is this map? It's not OR if it cites the journals on which the information is based, and makes no claims over and above or contradictory to those that the journals do, and does not attempt to combine any of the individual claims of any of the journals to put forth a position that is not explicitly reached by any individually. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you can make a distinction. If you take a table to data which says that in Paris there is 30% A, 40% B, and in Rome there is 20% and 25%, and then based on this source you make a map of Europe with pie charts on Paris and Rome, then in effect you are just "writing" the table out in a graphical form. I see no OR. But if you make a contour map shows levels of % by different shades, then the question arises as to what colours you put in between Rome and Paris where you have NO data. In such cases I think you need a source for those "clines", and this could for example be a published contour map. Does this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking long and hard about this issue with regards to maps illustrating the spread of swine flu (but my thinking might be useful elsewhere). I think there are three significant issues that can cause a map to violate wikipedia's principles. Firstly if we calculate our own data (even if the calculations are routine) the variable displayed needs to be notable. Some variables may not give meaningful information or can even be positively misleading. Secondly if there is any doubt that the calculation of the variable may have significant biases in it then there should be a source that performs the same calculations and displays the numbers for comparison in some form (say a table). Otherwise we are essentially choosing a methodology in not making an attempt to correct for these biases. Thirdly if there are significant concerns that the display in map form would be misleading then we should have a source which displays the variable in map form (where the map has the same projection properties).

As examples (made up) of problematic maps showing each of these three problems consider:

1) A map displaying harvested carrots in kilograms per homicide. Both data sets are available and the calculation is trivial but the map is not notable. For a less obvious example consider reported incidents of domestic violence. The makers of the British crime survey view police recorded crime as almost useless with regards to measuring domestic violence (as reporting procedures and budgets are always changing). The figure is accurate as a reported figure but the comparison of these figures is not notable (even if the figures themselves are). Placing figures such as this in a table will mislead and gives the comparison a status it does not deserve.

2) A map that displays government estimates of cohabiting gay couples. Here many countries may erroneously report no gay couples cohabit. The data may be available but the biases introduced need to be dealt with by social scientists not wikipedians (violates NOR). When the experts are happy with the quality of the data we can then display it in a more conveniant form. If they have published comparisons of the data but are unhappy with its potential biases then their concerns should be expressed alongside the map.

3) A map that displays population by country. We may have accurate data here and the figures are certainly notable but larger countries will appear to have higher population density because there is no correction for the area of the country (violates NPOV). Other problems can be caused by using map projections that distort areas.

Of course the data on which any calculations are based must be adequately sourced and those calculations must be trivial to perform. The first two points apply to tables as well in my opinion.

I hope my thoughts are helpful. Barnaby dawson (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Privy Council Orders

I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about UK Privy Council Orders. I did not get everything I asked for but I did get a list of Privy Council Orders since 29 July 1994 in csv format.

I did not create the list it was created by the Privy Council Office but is essentially factual in nature.

Would it be OK to add this list to Wikipedia?

It would in principle be similar to this list List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2008 that is already on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cross (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 July 2009

Direct quote from WP:OR policy.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Thus the problem boils down to this. Can we consider information released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as reliably published? I plead complete ignorance about the matter. If no other use (such as supporting some claim) apart from a list article is utilized then I see no problem nor do I imagine a situation where the said information would be challenged.--LexCorp (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry I should have signed my question John Cross (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

thank you John Cross (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is whether we can call the primary document "published" or not. By sending this list to you, in reply to a FOIA request, the Privy Council has essentially distributed the document to the public. So yes, the document is published. If anyone desires verification, they can write to the Privy Council Office and request the same document. However... as a primary source, we must be very careful not to analyse the document in any way. We can discribe it's contents, but not analyse it or draw any conclusions from it. For that, we would need a secondary source. If all you are doing is listing the orders (the way the other list you mention lists Statutory Instuments) with no commentary about them, then I think you are OK as far as OR goes. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hello all. I'm having a bit of a problem with matters relating to original research at Talk:British_Isles#References. The article contains a statement that certain publishers have replaced the term "British Isles" with other terms. (Background: "British Isles" is a contentious term for some Irish folks). Yet, the sources put forward in the article to verify that claim are merely front covers of atlases. Furthermore, when I did some Googling to show that these publishers still use the term, I was then told that my Googling constituted "original research". Input would be appreciated.... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there is the other "background": "British Isles" is a contrived politically-motivated British nationalist term designed to make a British claim upon Ireland. Furthermore, the term "British Isles" is only dated to 1577 (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). All of which makes the term rejected by far, far more than "some" Irish "folk" - and indeed the term is officially and explicitly rejected by the democratically elected government of Ireland, avoided in all agreements between the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom and by the overwhelming majority of Irish journalists. "Some" indeed - nice try, though. 78.16.146.218 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To many people the term "British Isles" ceased to be in 1922 when Ireland left the United Kingdom. Of course the term is contentious to many. Much of the stable version, the 'one' you want to change, has come about because editors in the past have compromised. Read the archives please, all 30 gigabytes of them. Tfz 15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, to the editors at this page, no one at the article would have a problem with a reference that explicitly states "XYZ publisher has dropped the term 'British Isles' from its atlases". My post here is merely a matter of adhering to policy, not an attempt to espouse one or other view on the subject of the name. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Tfz's comments are irrelevant to the point at issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What "point at issue"? Tfz 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this article has been flagged up here, could I ask for a third opinion on the section immediately above. It has been tagged with a "synthesis" tag, although the editor responsible has not seen fit to explain why. Is there anything which conflicts with any of the cited sources? Or am I entitled to remove it? Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article doesn't concern me. However the article-title must remain, at the very least for historic usage reasons. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To simply say that a specific map or atlas uses a particular label is not OR. It is an easily verifiable fact. Citing to the work is an appropriate use of a primary source. (yes... I know a map or atlas would normally be considered a tertiary source... but in this instance it is the primary source for a statement as to what is on the work). However, it would definitely be OR to even hint that there was a reason why they chose this label. For that you would need a different source. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it is synthesis to combine your first point with your second point? Whoever inserted the claim has provided references pointing to Amazon so the reader sees an image of a front cover which bears a particular title. However, to suggest that this is de facto evidence that a publisher no longer uses the term is synthesising from a very flimsy evidence base. Indeed, it is not supported by a search through the publisher's work. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, from his response, whether Blueboar actually read the sentence in question and the references provided to support it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't... For what I was trying to say, I don't think I need to. Let me try to clarify. I do not think it is OR to state that a specific map or atlas uses "British Isles", or does not use "British Isles"... but to go any further would be. To say that a publisher has chosen not to goes beyond saying that a specific map or atlas does not. To say that the publisher has chosen not to use the term, you need to cite a statement from either the publisher saying this or from a secondary source that has noticed it. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. The problem is that it is exactly the latter which this article is doing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

By the publisher not using the term, I'd rightly rightly say that the publisher choose not to use the term. Anyway, it's the en.wiki , and not the brit.wiki and there is a whole world out there who never use the term, and never will. Tfz 11:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, there's a whole world out there that does use the term. Within that world there's a small part (an unknown (probably small) number of (opinionated) people in Ireland) that doesn't use it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for the rest of the World, I would just like to make the point that I am British and I do not use the term; I object to comments such as RHoPF & MBM above which give the impression that all British are ignorant. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Many people use the term... many do not... our job is to not insert our own opinions, and simply report on what reliable sources say on the subject. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Tfz 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reform Act 1832

I noted This Entry on my watchlist. I double checked and I think the IP has a point. I suspect that the IP is a newbie and would ideally liked to have tagged the section. I would also like to know what would be the most appropriate Boilerplate/action (Sorry, this excludes reworking the references as this is not a core interest of mine). Þjóðólfr (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just post a warning in the talk page that the reference and citation is been challenged as to not supporting the statement been referenced. Maybe an active editor will look into it. Also you may want to embed a comment using <!-- This reference does not support the statement been referred --> --LexCorp (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

School corporal punishment

In the article school corporal punishment I added[7] a direct quote from the position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Another user affixed[8] this with a criticism of the paper's findings.

Is the second edit OR? I mean, it does quote the original source for some of its assertions, but wouldn't this kind of criticism require a specific source? Gabbe (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks like WP:Synthesis to me. The statement that

However, the paper starts off by drawing a far wider definition for "corporal punishment" than is usually meant by the phrase in an educational context:

is either WP:OR or WP:SYN and needs to be substantiated by a source. --LexCorp (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the reference state Nearly all of those things, other than moderate spanking and paddling, have nothing to do with what U.S. educators...refer to corporal punishment in schools? Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the statement

Nearly all of those things, other than moderate spanking and paddling, have nothing to do with what U.S. educators are talking about when they refer to corporal punishment in schools, and many of them would clearly constitute unlawful assault whether or not corporal punishment proper was permitted. Also, the paper cites many research studies which in fact relate not to school corporal punishment at all but to corporal punishment in the home by parents, a quite different subject. Furthermore, cases mentioned are of paddling in the classroom, whereas most school corporal punishment in the U.S. nowadays takes place privately in the office.

is mostly WP:Synthesis that cast doubts on the conclusions or applicability of the paper in the subject at hand. For all we know the authors of the paper answer all these objections in the paper or at the time of making the conclusion limit its appropriateness to a narrower set that fall into school corporal punishment. Either way it is not Wikipedia editors who should be challenging how a paper is written, nor is methodology or conclusions. That is the job of other secondary sources.--LexCorp (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the paper is available in toto here. Gabbe (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"For all we know the authors of the paper answer all these objections in the paper.." But the reader can click on the link and see the paper for him/her self and immediately see that the paper doesn't answer these objections! On the contrary, it starts off with this wildly offbeat definition of "corporal punishment", which includes all sorts of things that are obviously assault or abuse (kicking, electric shocks, denial of toilet use, punching, choking) and which are absolutely not what is meant by school corporal punishment, and then proceeds to say that school corporal punishment is a bad thing, etc. Well of course it is a bad thing if that is how you are going to define it! It is completely unacceptable just to leave this as it was originally cited because it is so misleading. I added the gloss that I added because I was astonished when I actually managed to find the paper on line and read it for myself. It seems utterly irresponsible of the Society for Adolescent Medicine to define their terms in such an incredibly tendentious manner.

"Either way it is not Wikipedia editors who should be challenging how a paper is written, nor is methodology or conclusions. That is the job of other secondary sources". So what do we do if no secondary sources have in fact challenged it, even though anybody with any common sense can see that it is absurd? Maybe the potential secondary sources have treated it with the contempt it deserves. At all events, if we cannot draw the reader's attention to the uterly bizarre definition they are using of "corporal punishment" then we must delete reference to this paper altogether. Alarics (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the definition in the paper is offbeat is WP:OR and not shared by the authors of the paper at all given the title of the paper. If you believe this source to be either a POV actor or a WP:UNDUE problem or for that matter no a WP:RS then challenge the edit on those grounds. If not find a source that while it does not address this paper directly makes conclusions quite different from it then add it to the article on grounds of balanced views. But what is seems to be occurring here is that editors aren't happy about the conclusion and criticize them by way of WP:OR and WP:SYN. This while done in good faith is not how it is done and breaches Wikipedia Policy. Finally you concede that readers of the article can follow up the paper link and draw their own conclusion, then why would you breach WP:SYN and do that for them. A factual information is given and readers are welcome to use their brain (some of them out there do have some).--LexCorp (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Finally you concede that readers of the article can follow up the paper link and draw their own conclusion, then why would you breach WP:SYN and do that for them." Because the vast majority aren't going to go and read it, that's why -- so they will assume that the paper cited uses the normal definition of the phrase in question. We seem to be in Alice in Wonderland territory here. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' My preferred solution to this is to delete all reference to the paper in question, unless a secondary source from a WP:RS can be found which explicitly challenges it on the grounds I have set out. If we want to include some rather less hair-brained opposition to school corporal punishment in the article, there are several other possibilities we could use instead. Alarics (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You will have to discuss that with the editor that made the edit or anyone who opposes. My opinion is that Wikipedia policy supports his edit and clearly does not support yours. Again who is to said what the "normal definition" is. The warning at the top of the article is irrelevant and I may add ludicrously POV and should be removed ASAP. It clearly says if you think School corporal punishment is something else from what it is stated here then beat it even if you are a reliable source. That is a blunt attempt at ownership of the concept.--LexCorp (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is simply defining the universe of discourse for that particular article. That is not POV at all. Any reliable source would take it as read that that is what we are talking about. If someone else wants to write an article about illegal brutality in school, they can do so, but we can't have people going around conflating disparate phenomena. No coherent human discourse is possible if one cannot define the terms of the discussion. Alarics (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree but it is the sources and not you or I who should define the concept. I don't known if the source discussed here is a WP:RS or its views are WP:UNDUE. What is clear is that the author seems to define the term more broadly than other sources and it does not fall with us, the editors, to choose one over the other on grounds of merely a definition stated as an aside at the top of the article. The overall definition must be inclusive of all view to meet WP:NPOV. All views but those that the editors consider do not meet WP:RS or fail WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. I hold no position one way or the other with this particular source (other than that it doesn't seem to be WP:OR) but it is my opinion that the statement at the top of the page is preemptive POV and concept ownership.--LexCorp (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee do seem to be a pressure group formed by a particular branch of the the academdic sciences. At present, it would seem to me they have 'Raised the bar' aboved Wikipedias, current, unreferenced definition of what constitutes Corporal punishment. It now includes the use of electric shock (which I would have thought is assault) and use of excessive exercise drills (ie a few press ups in my case). I do not think that it would be hard to find dissenting views to the commitee but I agree with LexCorp that the statement at the top of the page is preemptive POV and concept ownership Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Society for Adolescent Medicine's Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee and the explanatory note at the top of School corporal punishment are two different issues. The former issue has now been dealt with by deleting the paragraph in question (because not WP:RS on this issue) and replacing it with a more WP:RS representative of the same point of view. As for the explanatory note at the top of the article, I believe that it does in fact represent what WP:RS on this subject would assume to be the proper definition, and I have now added WP:RS citations to it to that effect. Alarics (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Alarics, I'm not convinced that you have addressed the issues of preemptive POV and concept ownership Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is even worst with the citations as now they are singled out as to the authority to define the concept over any other source. I fail to understand why editor Alarics thought this an improvement, especially over the concept ownership which now with the citations included can and is attributed to the said sources..--LexCorp (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought people were saying they wanted reliable sources, so I added them. It seems nobody is going to be satisfied here, so I will delete the whole thing. When I first created this article as a fork from Corporal punishment (as part of wider attempt to unravel the incoherent muddle involving a whole range of disjointed CP-related articles, for which nobody was taking any responsibility), it was as I have defined "school corporal punishment" that I assumed it would cover and in fact as the article stands at the moment, that is what it pretty well does cover. The fact of the matter is that, where school corporal punishment is concerned, in most of the places where it is lawful, it is properly regulated and certainly doesn't include the manifestly unacceptable things that have been mentioned as falling under this definition. Alarics (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

PS It's quite an amusing sidelight on the way Wikipedia works, is it not, that for ages there was a completely anarchic chaos prevailing over all the overlapping and uncoordinated articles related to CP, and all sorts of unsourced crap masquerading as serious articles, and nobody ever intervened to say that it wouldn't do according to the rules, but when somebody who knows a little bit about the subject comes along and tries to gradually sort it all out, suddenly there is a tremendous fuss about what is or isn't a reliable source, and what is or isn't NPOV. Alarics (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement may have serve its function in the past and it is to the credit of the active editors of the page and those involved in the clearing the muddling of the CP area that it is no longer needed. You should be happy and proud that it is no longer needed.--LexCorp (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles (again)

I am conducting a straw poll on Talk:British Isles as this is the only way to get past the ridiculous deadlock there.

The problem paragraph, which I am repeating here so everyone interested can easily read it, is: A number of international publications have abandoned the term...Publishers of road atlases such as Michelin, SK Baker, Hallwag, Philip's, Reader's Digest and The Automobile Association (AA) have replaced British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps.

This is pure original research. The references are links to front pages of atlases. They are not references to support the claim that these publishers "have replaced British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps". This is not only original research, it's wrong. Let's pick Philips. [9] The map is titled "Philip's Britain and Ireland Reference Map". Does this mean they have dropped the term? No. Further down the same page in the map description we see a reference to "British Isles". Same goes for the Rail Atlas [10].

An attempt to remove this information was met with the response "don't remove others' hard work".

The straw poll is here [11]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have Michelin renamed their Guide from British Isles to Great Britain & Ireland? Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant... unless the fact that Michelin has renamed their guide has been noticed and commented upon by someone outside of Wikipedia (ie a reliable secondary source) then it is OR for us to point this fact out in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should not be the first place of publication for any fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Michelin Guide to the British Isles was published in 1911 and was relaunched as the current Great Britain and Ireland Guide in 1974.Ref The Bath Chronicle, Restaurants over the moon at their Michelin star status 24 January 2008. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah... since there is a reliable source that discusses this fact, then it is not OR to state that fact... if that is all you do. However, we must still be careful. There is the direct relevance issue to consider... In what context are we mentioning this fact? Why is this fact worth mentioning in the article on the British Isles? We can slip back into OR by implying that this fact means anything. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the truth. Shame on you Þjóðólfr. Here is the actual wording from Michelin. You can read it yourself at www.michelin.co.uk:

• "1911: The first Michelin Guide to the British Isles (including Ireland) is published and ran for 5 editions including 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1920 (there was naturally a break in production during the First World War). Production resumed in 1922 when the title was changed to Great Britain (Ireland was not included) and this ran until 1930 to include 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929 and 1930.
• "1974: The current Great Britain & Ireland Guide was re-launched and has been published continuously ever since. The 1974 edition did not include London which was published as a separate booklet but this was integrated into the main guide the following year. There were 25 one star restaurants in this first edition.

This illustrates exactly the problem at the article. Without a direct statement from the publisher, anyone can read whatever they like into the title of an atlas. As we can see from Michelin themselves, they dropped stopped using the term British Isles in 1922 when they also dropped Ireland. Þjóðólfr has utterly misrepresented the situation to suggest that they dropped it in 1974 and replaced it with another term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My quote is VERBATIM - Using exactly the same words; This illustrates exactly the problem with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, we have the full details now from the publisher. Regardless, you are inferring from it that Michelin stopped using the term. Not true. They are still using it, on the web [12] and in print (2007 publication). The web quote there is very interesting, because you and others are portraying that publishers have "dropped" the term because of issues relating to Ireland. Yet, we can see that Michelin are describing Trinity College, Dublin as being "in the British Isles". This totally and utterly refutes everything you are trying to argue. Michelin have done no such thing as drop usage of the term. No such thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I am sympathetic with both sides here. (I acknowledge the relatively recent but important historical reason not to imply that Ireland is "Little Britain". I am also aware that the two islands were once a single inhabited island, one big cultural area – which it still is to an outsider –, and that the politically correct ways to refer to that unit are all a bit defective. Of course some other cultural areas such as Benelux have similar terminological problems even when there is no dispute.) But the more complete quotation clearly establishes that the title was dropped because it no longer applied for a reason unrelated to the dispute, and then 54 years later, when the old title would have applied again, a different title was chosen instead. That's hardly the same as renaming. If there is a general trend you should be able to find better examples. It's not as if this is a very obscure topic, after all. If there is no general trend, it would be misleading to mention a single, weak, example. Hans Adler 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat makes a very important point... While it does seem that, since 1922, Michelin stopped using the term "British Isles" on the cover of their guide, they continue to use the term on the inside of their guide. Thus, it is incorrect to say that as a publisher they no longer use the term. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is not pertinent here. Looking at data set X to establish Y is always original research. And, if no one has previously said something to the effect of "a number of international publications have abandoned the term", then suggesting it is again original reasearch. Saying something that has never been said before is -- by definition -- original research. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would remind everyone that I have never ever made any claim other than the Bath Chronicle states "The Michelin Guide to the British Isles was published in 1911 and was relaunched as the current Great Britain and Ireland Guide in 1974" I am told regarding this verbatim use of a (secondary? source), This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the truth. Yet the Primary Source states. .."The first Michelin Guide to the British Isles (including Ireland) is published and ran for 5 editions including 1912... The current Great Britain & Ireland Guide was re-launched and has been published continuously ever since."... Wots going on ere then? Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when are they not the British Isles? That's what they were called when I was in school, which was a lot more recently than 1922. And if not, what are they instead? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. Ref "British Isles" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005./Ref This would indicate to me that the British Isles are still existence - its just that we should remember to add "and Ireland," if applicable. And yes there are dissenting WP:RS and these should obviously be included in the article juxtaposed the above. But it is confusing and my preference is to avoid the term wherever possible; the context of the sentence normally determines the alternative terminology. Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your formulation is misleading in two ways. 1) Since it omits the information that before the relaunch there were 54 years in which it had a third title because it covered a different area your formulation suggests a sudden change of terminology. The reality is much closer to a new, independent choice of title than that. 2) If an encyclopedia article mentions a fact, readers will assume it is either noteworthy in itself (this one isn't) or indicative of a general trend. If that's not true, as seems to be the case here since you are grasping at straws instead of offering proper sources, the article would have to make it clear that this is an isolated example.

E.g. the following is justifiable at British Isles naming dispute (but not British Isles, where it's too off-topic): "... The most straightforward solution is the term Great Britain and Ireland as e.g. in the Michelin Great Britain and Ireland Guide, a title that has been used since Michelin extended its coverage to Ireland in 1974. [Footnote: Until 1920 there had been a Michelin Guide to the English Isles]". But that's about the maximum you can get out of this little fact. Hans Adler 14:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You are mislead believing there were 54 years in which it had a third title and yes I do believe it is indicative of a general, notable, trend - possibly even the earlist example. PS if Your formulation refers to the top of the page I reiterate that that is not my work. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You've inadvertently hit upon part of the problem. British Isles is 3 syllables and Great Britain and Ireland is 6 syllables. That may sound trivial, but people tend to abbreviate things. I'm sure that's part of the reason "British Isles" persists as a name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't carry your naming dispute over here. The issue in this section is specifically Red Hat's question re: "A number of international publications have abandoned the term ...". The only thing under discussion on this noticeboard is whether claims like that one are OR or not. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry over synt issue

I am involved in a debate regarding: Catholicism and Freemasonry#Separation of church and state. We could use some third party involvement to break a stalemate. My contention is that the section under dispute relies on very outdated Catholic sources (such as the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia) to discuss this issue. More to the point, it juxtaposes these outdated sources against modern Masonic statements, as if they are connected. I think this is a WP:SYN violation... my opponent disagrees. Please read the section, the arguments on the talk page at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry#more on Church and State, and comment at the RFC. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)