Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Jill Stein political positions

Article: Jill Stein#GMOs and pesticides

Sources: Green Party Platform,[1] "Anti-science claims dog Green Party's Jill Stein," CNN[2]

Which of the following phrasing is preferable:

1. Stein supports GMO labeling and a moratorium on new GMOs until they are proven safe, and would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown, as well as the pesticides used on them.

2. Stein's official platform calls for a "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe."...Stein later clarified that her moratorium proposal would apply to "new" GMOs until they are proven safe (though her official platform calling for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides" remains unchanged) and that the US should "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown.

I prefer the first, which states the position Stein says she supports. In my opinion, the second version wanders into OR by implying that Stein is misrepresenting her own platform or has revised it rather than merely clarifying it. We should not make that judgment, per "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources": "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

TFD (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the second phrasing. A compromise that fits all sources and avoids OR is to say:

• "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + this Washington Post story[3]). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)".

When candidates propose vague and contradictory policies, and later modify them while retaining some ambiguity, we should note both. Imagine if Clinton's official platform up until July 2016 stated that she "favored a $15 minimum wage" but later in an August 2016 interview she clarified that she only "favored a $15 minimum wage in select cities and regions". Wouldn't it be reasonable to phrase her position on the minimum wage as "Clinton's official platform calls for a $15 minimum wage. Clinton later clarified that she supported favored a $15 minimum wage in select cities and regions."? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If external observers say that in reliable sources then we can report it, otherwise it is synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." Your conclusion is that Stein proposed "vague and contradictory policies," but that is specifically prohibited by policy. TFD (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(i) The sources are not combined to imply a conclusion that is not mentioned by either of the sources (WaPo cites the platform, CNN cites her old claims and then her recent clarifications); (ii) I'm not proposing to say that she proposed "vague and contradictory policies." Please address the substance. I'm as clear as can be about what the third proposal is: "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + this Washington Post story[4]). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"When candidates propose vague and contradictory policies, and later modify them while retaining some ambiguity, we should note both....I'm not proposing to say that she proposed "vague and contradictory policies." Well you just said it. You want the article to imply that her positions are vague and contradictory, which is why you want to note that she "clarified her position." That is implied synthesis.

Correct me if I am wrong. You think that Stein's clarification is actually a change in her position. You think the article should, if not actually say that, at least present the two versions and let the reader decide. Certainly that is fair and informative. But that is not how policy says articles should be written. And while your judgment may be correct, the policy prevents the injection of incorrect judgments as well. For example, Clinton is reported to have said, "We're Going to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class".[5] We could add that to her political positions to imply they are vague and contradictory. Fortunately we have reliable secondary sources that have addressed the apparent contradiction, something we lack in Stein's case. TFD (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not OR to use reasoning to support your arguments on a talk page. Handling contradictory claims is part of the editorial function. It would only be OR if the article were to literally say "Jill Stein's platform is contradictory." Rhoark (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see either phrasing being an OR problem, they both would be acceptable, however I prefer the first because it is more succinct. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cross-step waltz history

Cross-step_waltz The history of the dance here is referenced only to primary sources (19th-early 20th century books). The whole article seems to be copied from the book co-authored by the original author of the article Link to google books This book seems to be self-published. I suppose that all the history section here is OR and should be removed or referenced as opinion of certain authors.

I don't see anything that indicates OR, but you might want to follow up on whether its a WP:COPYVIO. Rhoark (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this a synth violation

There ia s policy contention here, which requires external third party review to clarify a point. The guidebook writes:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

At Black Sunday, 1937, I introduced a source, and added a further source later on. The page deals with a moment in the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936-1939, when from autumn 1937 the Zionist group Irgun decided to adopt terrorist tactics, by ignoring the policy of restraint (havlagah) and killing civilians, a turning point in Zionism's history marked by that event and in its immediate aftermaths.

(A) source Benny Morris,Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011 pp.145f

Now for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed, for the first time more or less matching the numbers of Jews murdered in the Arab pogroms and rioting of 1929 and 1936. This “innovation” soon found Arab imitators and became something of a “tradition”; during the coming decades Palestine’s (and, later, Israel’s) marketplaces, bus stations, movie theaters, and other public buildings became routine targets lending a particularly brutal flavour to the conflict.’

(B) source David Hirst, Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East, Nation Books, 2010 p.34

the Arabs may have begun the violence, but they (Zionists) imitated and, with their much improved techniques, far outdid them. All of them – not just the ‘terrorist’ undergrounds, the Irgun and the Stern Gang of future prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, but the official, mainstream, Hagana – abandoned ‘self-restraint’, if they had ever really practiced it. A policy of indiscriminate ‘reprisals’ took its place. These, wrote the official historian of the Irgun, ‘did not aim at those who had perpetrated acts of violence against Jews, and had no geographic connection with the places where they had done so. The principal consideration in the choice of target was first accessibility, and then the (maximum) number of Arabs that could be hit.’ At the climax of their anti-Arab rampage, with bombs in market-places or mosques, grenades hurled into buses or the machine gunning of trains, they killed more Palestinians, 140, in the space of three weeks than the Palestinians had killed Jews in the year and a half since the Rebellion began, an achievement over which the Irgun’s National Bulletin openly exulted.’

I wrote from these 2 sources:

(C)One practice adopted by the Irgun in particular at the time, and subsequently by the Lehi gang, according to Benny Morris, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: for the first time, grenades were thrown at, and powerful bombs were planted in, places like markets, mosques and bus stations where crowds of Arabs thronged in order to maximize the impact of indiscriminate killings. This technique formed a precedent, and was picked up soon after by Arabs. In the following decades, the method became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel. According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, a figure exceeding the total number of Jews killed in the one and a half years from the start of the Arab revolt. In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.

It is this that was denounced as WP:SYNTH. Both mention the Great Arab Revolt, both on these pages note the breaking of the 'restraint policy'; both deal with the aftermath set by this precedent. For those who see my introduction of Hirst as WP:SYNTH, the error would be that Morris mentions the specific date and incident marking the turn, whereas Hirst makes a general comment on the adoption of the terrorist tactic at that period and illustrates it with several instances that are elsewhere attested in the sources on Black Sunday already used, without challenge, on the page. I cannot see where I have joined Morris and Hirst to make a conclusion that is not in either source, which is what a WP:SYNTH specifically identifies as an abuse.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not only clear WP:SYNTH (Hirst does not mention the event or the dates that are the topic of the article, but is talking in general about the Arab revolt), but source misrepresentation. Hirst says it was the Zionists who imitated the Arabs, you changed the meaning completely, and claimed it was the Arabs who imitated the Zionists. Epson Salts (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've asked for external input. Your failure to grasp the distinction between 'imitate' and 'innovate' which are antonyms, not, as you think in your complaint, synonyms, means I' m not getting much sense there. See the talk page. If such basic errors are being made, evidently third opinions are requires, not a quarrel repeated here.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the difference, your pompous condescending notwithstanding, but it doesn't look like you do.. The two soruces say opposite things with regards to who imitated who. Morris says the Zionists innovated and the Arabs later copied them, Hirst says the Zionists imitated the Arabs. These are two opposite things. If you don't understand that, then you lack the basic competence to edit Wikipedia. Epson Salts (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are taking two sources, SYNTHesizing one sentence that is not supported directly by either, and attributing it to Morris. If you bothered to quote a sentence or two prior to where you started, you'd even see that Morris specifically says grenades were already used and doesn't include it in the "innovation" part, but after SYNTHing with Hirst it looks like Morris said it was. That's just one easy to see example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You asserted that on the talk page. I have given the primary texts (without included Gannon, and Caplan, which you don't object to), and my paraphrase. All neutral thirty parties need do is examine the 2 secondary sources, analyse what I did with them, and determine whether I ' reach(ed) or impl(ied) a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' So let's leave it to the WP:SYNTH experts, rather than bury the sincere desire for clarification under a WP:TLDR wall of text repeating what is already on the talk page. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

By all means. But you didn't bother to correctly describe the objection, so I did. Calling my two sentences of explanation a "TLDR wall of text" when it's not even 10% of what you posted is ridiculous. For future reference, there would have been less text for uninvolved editors to read if you just let my clarification sit there and didn't respond (telling me not to respond). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well right off the bat there seems to be problems. The quote you've supplied from Morris doesn't mention anything about Irgun or the Lehi gang. It also doesn't mention anything about grenades. Also, Morris says dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered, but doesn't say the using of bombs was to maximize indiscriminate killing. Morris also doesn't say anything about precedent, which seems to be an extrapolation from the word "tradition". So already we have multiple violations of WP:Reliable, regardless of whether it's specifically synthesis. I understand that your source doesn't include the page prior to the quote you've used, but without a source that can verify that Morris was speaking about the Irgun or the Lehi gang, then these shouldn't be included. It's also clear you took the word "grenade" from Hirst and attributed it to Morris which is an example of synthesis. I also don't see where Hirst mentioned anything about a reprisal between the two groups. So there are multiple liberties that you've taken in writing this paragraph from these two sources...or at least from the quotes you've provided from these sources. A lot of work needs to be done and it's probably better to just quote directly from the source if you're having difficulty representing them accurately.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I combined two sources describing the same event, each supplementing the other (Morris doesn't mention grenades and mosques, Hirst does,etc.) I originally had the paragraph written with all 4 sources at the end, and only put Hirst sourced to grenade and mosque when I thought (apparently incorrectly), NMMGG wanted that done, forgetting to remove the attribution to Morris. The whole issue has since been fixed by a rewrite by another editor. We are obliged to paraphrase not to plagiarize, and 'precedent' means 'innovation' ('It is dangerous to make a precedent, an innovation'. John Pratt). NMMGG questioned Hirst, not the three other sources. The text above, which I wrote, was based on, other than Morris and Hurst, Gannon and Neil Caplan,who mentions a spiral of a spiral reprisal between the two groups, consequent on the events of Fall 1937. I can't see where drew a conclusion not in the sources, which is what, despite popular misprisions, the policy diagnoses as the problem of synthing.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You just got done lecturing us that you came here to get uninvolved expert input. now you got it, kindly stop arguing with the uninvolved experts. Epson Salts (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with issues other contributors might have had. I listed numerous problems with verifiability and synth. Precedent does not mean innovation. There are many innovations that don't set precedent for their industry, and using a quote from Pratt to try and justify Morris claiming "precedent" is another example of synthesizing. Paraphrasing does not allow you to include thoughts or text not supported by an individual source. This are the things I pointed out as problems and Wikipedia does not give editors an artistic license to combine sources to create your own narrative. No, sources must be neutrally and accurately represented and you have not done that with your "paraphrasing". You wanted an outside opinion, now you have one.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: I have made another stab at the prose. Perhaps you can take a look at it and see if all SYNTH concerns are addressed?

One practice, adopted by the Irgun in particular, introduced an innovation to the armed conflict: the use of massive bombs in crowded areas, indiscriminately killing and maiming dozens of people.(cite Morris) The targets were chosen based on accessibility and so that the maximum number of Arabs could be hit.(cite Hirst) This technique was soon picked up by Arabs: in the following decades, the targeting of public buildings became a tradition in Palestine, and later in Israel.(cite Morris) According to David Hirst, this approach resulted in the death of some 140 Palestinians in a three week period, which is more than the number of Jews killed in the previous year and a half of the uprising.(cite Hirst) Morris states that the numbers of Arabs killed in these indiscriminate attacks matched the number of Jews killed by Arabs in the 1929 and 1936 uprisings.(cite Morris) In July 1938 alone two such Irgun bombs planted in Haifa’s central market accounted for 74 Arab dead and 129 wounded, leading to a generalized cycle of reprisal between the two groups.(cite Caplan)

The only assumption being made in the passage, as a whole, is that all sources (Morris, Hirst, Caplan) are talking about the same time period. This is easily checked from the sources, using the times and the descriptions. All the sentences in the passage are cited to single sources - no two sources are combined for any assertion.

I'll also quote the Caplan source, the part which I'm using:

In July 1938, two Irgun bombings killed 74 Arabs and wounded 129 in Haifa's main market, unleashing a cycle of reprisal attacks targeting Jewish and Arab civilians.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are combining what Morris said about incidents in 1937 with what Hirst said about incidents in 1938, for starters. Not to mention nobody has demonstrated an explicit connection between what Hirst is talking about and the incident the article is about, which I believe is also considered OR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Morris is talking about the Irgun bombings of 1937-38. That is made clear in the very next paragraph. The Irgun bombs of 1937-38 sowed terror in the Arab population and substantially increased its casualties. A couple of paragraphs below, he goes through the bombings in detail: first the 11 November 1937 attack, then the major attacks on 14 November (Black Sunday), then he mentions the July 6 1938 bombings, July 15 bombing, and July 25, then August 26 bombing.The July 6 and 25 bombs were both in the Haifa market, which Caplan also mentions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you took what he said about 1937 and synthed it with what Hirst said about 1938. Morris does indeed talk about the later incidents later, but that is not relevant to the issue here. For example, you put Morris' comparison of the Arab casualties (in 1937) with the Jewish ones in 1929/1936 with Hirst's mention of casualties from the 1938 bombings. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am certain that the previous paragraph (which was quoted above) is also talking about 1937-38. I don't think it makes sense to think that he was talking about the number of Arabs killed in 1937 and comparing it to number of Jews killed in 1929/1936. Rather, he's talking about the number in the whole period (1937-38) when Irgun planted bombs, as the next paragraph makes clear. It does not make sense to separate out the 1937 bombings from the 1938 bombings artificially: in the paragraph below he talks about them together. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at paragraph (A) Nishidani quoted above. "Now, for the first time" was Nov 1937. In (B) Hirst talks about "at the climax" (July 1938), not "the first time". Seems fairly obvious they are not talking about the same incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. The "first time" occurred in Nov 1937. The bombings continued through 1938. The most serious incidents were in July 1938 (July 6, 15, 25), this is why Hirst mentions those specifically. In the paragraph quoted by Nishidani, Morris is talking about massive bombs in crowded places like markets. This is precisely what happened in July 1938 - so why would Morris leave them out when he's talking about this phenomenon? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to argue that "the first time" and "the climax" are the same, we're going to just have to agree to disagree. I'd like to point out that the article this stuff is being COATRACKed on is about shootings, not bombings. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think the revised paragraph is much better. The only thing I would change is to talk about the changing tactics in hostile attacks in general first, then start getting into specifics about the Irgun. So the first sentence should be a general statement about the need for change and the Jews' loss of self restraint to pursue more violent retaliation. Also, Amazon books actually has the pages before the text you're using, and in there I confirmed that Morris is talking about the Irgun. It's clear that both are addressing a new form of hostile actions in the same time period. I appreciate that you listened to the concerns that I had with the passage, and did a great job rephrasing the paragraph and trimming it down to remove some of the editorializing. I disagree with Mr Nice Guy and at least one of these sources is talking about how the use of guns and sniping people evolved into the use of mass bombings. So it's not an example of coatracking to include that information because it's directly related and significant. Good job.Scoobydunk (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added an introductory sentence "Renewal of Arab violence in October 1937 led to changes in tactics by the Zionists" - citing Morris. The rest is the same. The edit is here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a very obvious COATRACK. The very obvious clues are the fact that sources never deal with this event on its own (only a few even use the name the article uses, and it seems the more specialized the source, the less likely they are to use it), it's almost always a part of a group of events; the fact that only about 1/4th of the article deals directly with the event itself, the rest is "background" and "aftermath"; and the "aftermath" section is larger than the section ostensibly dealing directly with the topic of the article. Compare to, say, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, an event with significant repercussions and aftermath. The two articles have almost the same size sections dealing with the aftermath, if you can believe that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

LaVoy Finicum Shooting by Oregon State Patrol

NOTE! This is a replacement pic after the thread pretty much went silent. THe first one was an excerpt from a vid that might have copyvio issues. It was a synchronization of a free vid from the US govt taken from a plane plus a nonfree vid taken by Shawna Cox in the pickup. This new vid shows the exact same moment but is only the free FBI vid. this change has no impact on the discussion so far, and the pic still shows the same split second.

I'd like to hear opinion about this image before I attempt to use it. (Click image for larger view) As I explained at the image description page, this shows LaVoy Finicum just before he was shot and killed during the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I am the final author of this derivative work. During the event in question, a cell phone video (with audio) was taken inside Finicum's truck, and another video (without audio) was taken by the FBI from the air. Both were turned over to the Central Oregon Major Incident Team, which was able to synchronize them. Article by Oregon Public Broadcasting and Full synched vid posted by OPB to YouTube.

Here's where I come in.

I downloaded the youtube vid and marked the time point when you hear the first of the three gunshots that killed Finicum. That was time 5:41. Next I stepped through the vid from 5:39 forward, frame by frame, back and forth, to locate a frame just before he was hit by the first round. There is no audio when you do this, and there is no conclusive way to determine which frame is the last before the first bullet's impact. In case you're wondering, the rectangular inset in the lower left is the other video, most of which I cropped out.

What do ya'll say? Is this by definition OR? My guess is someone is gonna say ""depends how its used" so just to get ahead of that, what if the caption said something like "LaVoy Finicum just before being shot"? Obviously we can't say "the final frame before bullet impact" because there's no way to know that.

Thanks for input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well its an interesting question. It's really as much a Wikipedia:Verifiability as a OR question. IMO the basic reason in this case for considering it nonverifiable original research is: who are you? While its OK for me, a fellow editor, to assume you're being truthful, we can't ask the reader to make that leap of faith. For all we know that photo was staged by you and some friends, or photoshopped.

If the picture was from the LA Times, then 1) readers can check that it did indeed appear under the LA Times aegis by accessing into the paper's archives, and 2) the LA Times fact-checking operation is such that we (and the reader) can have some confidence that picture is what is says it is.

On the other hand, as a practical matter, we use a lot of images that are original research in this sense. We have to, because published photos are copyrighted... "Statue of Queen Victoria at Bathurst Park, taken by me" is the only picture of that (and very many other things) we are ever going to get. Yet the picture may be no such thing, it may be another statue or be photoshopped or whatever. Yet we allow it.

Yet we would surely not allow text in this manner: "At the time he was shot, he was surrounded by officers" <ref>I was there and I saw it with my own eyes.</ref>.

It's an interesting philosophical question. I myself would allow it because by precedent we don't hold photos to the same standards that we would a text description of the same thing. Precedent rules.

As to the purely OR aspects, assuming you're not trying to push a particular slanted narrative by using this particular picture, and assuming you're not cherry-picking an unencycloedically obscure fact to highlight, and assuming that video does show what you think it shows and that you culled the still from the video correctly -- all if which I do assume -- I don't see a huge OR hurdle here. I'd treat it the same as "Statue of Queen Victoria at Bathurst Park, taken by me". Herostratus (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking so much time on your answer. As to verifiability, well of course it's verifiable. Anyone can look at the same source vid that I used, which was posted to youtube by Oregon Public Broadcasting and also embedded in their related article. I included links to both in the opening post. OPB reports they got it after public release from COMIT, as I already explained. That leaves the question whether my pic is really a frame from that video. There's a million RSs at LaVoy Finicum... well, ok maybe not a million.... but there are a bunch that say he was shot 3 times as officers believed he was reaching for weapon (which they did find on him). I'm not going into all that here. Point is anyone can listen to the entire original vid, mark the gunshots at 5:41 and then step through the vid frame by frame to verify my cropping/enlargement is really from the source vid fewer than 5 frames before he must have been hit. At 20 frames or so per second that's pretty fair basis for saying "just before he was shot" I would think. Since potential POV misuse isn't relevant to questions of original research, I'll just note your mentioning of it and say I agree POV edits are always a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez color me stupid. I misread and thought that the you had gotten the video from some private source.

still on veracity, YouTube videos are not generally usable as sources because they're a self-publishing platform; no one at YouTube checks their veracity. My personal opinion is that there ought to be some give on this depending on circumstances. A video of some guy talking "Hello, I'm nuclear weapons expert Ralph Spoilsport..." of course we can't use to ref a fact; he may be no such person. If it's from a news broadcast though... it's not impossible to build a fake news news and stage a fake broadcast, but... not likely. Another editor, though, might say "YouTube videos, while OK for external links, cannot be used to source anything in an article (including a still photo) without positive proof of veracity, period. and in this case you and some friends could have staged this video. Probably not, but 'probably not' is not good enough".

But it makes no difference, you have the Oregon Public Broadcasting video. It's verified, and matches the YouTube video closely enough to prove that they are from the same source. So you're good WP:V-wise.

As to the original research angle, you're fine. What you did is no different than excerpting a sentence from a book. BTW {{Cite AV media}} has a "time" field so you can show the reader the approximate location of your still. I would ref the still, at the end of its caption, to both the Oregon Public Broadcasting page (to show veracity) and then the YouTube video (since that's the actual source of the still), Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"no different than excerpting a sentence from a book." well, now I'm the slow-wit. I should have thought of that myself. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Post-progressive

"Post-progressive" is a term that appears in a few books on progressive rock, sometimes in quotes or in sentences like "X could be termed post-progressive". I am not sure if it should be considered a music genre. In the books that I have access to, it is used as an adjective, while the author of the article uses it as a noun (eg. Post-progressive's beginning may be located to the year 1978). He also placed it in infoboxes in a number of articles (eg. jazz or ambient music), again as a noun. Nearly all edits I made on this topic ended in edit wars, so I decided to put this here. Chilton (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This user has had similiar discussions before Mlpearc (open channel) 17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no similarity here. A totally irrelevant discussion on whether Pink Floyd should be called a "rock band" or a "progressive rock band", along with a misunderstanding (on Mlpearc's part) on how WP:VERIFY works.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The true story is that they had to distinguish themselves from the other start up gig in town. Since that group was Blue Floyd, they adopted the name Pink Floyd. Therefore, "Pink" is an adjective in this useage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the partial offtopic (I'm just hoping that the matter will get more exposure), but he also did some bad things (involving "post-progressive" and deleting most of the text) to the experimental rock article, as I described here. Chilton (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful not to mislead others. As explained there (and on Talk:Experimental rock), I rewrote the article from scratch because it contained virtually no references for 7+ years. I sourced as much as I could. There is now arguably more substance in the article than there was before.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment — There is no original research in the Post-progressive article. A cursory glance at sources will tell you that "post-progressive" refers to a style of rock music that is not unlike "post-punk" and "post-rock". "Post-progressive" has been consistently used in numerous reliable sources to refer to a strain of rock music which emerged after the decline of "classic" or "vintage progressive rock" in the late 1970s. Chilton strongly believes that the opening sentence of Post-progressive should say it "refers to a term" invented by authors Paul Hegarty and Martin Halliwell. This is wrong for 2 reasons.

1) Those authors did not coin the term. It's been around since at least 1982.

2) Per WP:UMD:

Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to a Wikipedia article. For example, the article Computer architecture once began with the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer."

That is not true: Computer architecture is the theory. The words "computer architecture" refer to the theory, but the article is not about the words; it is about the theory.

Thus it is better to say, "Computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer."

The aforementioned definition of "post-progressive" music is not contradicted by any of the sources. It has been distinguished from "neo-progressive rock" – and even referenced with post-rock – on repeated occasions (I'm sure Chilton would agree that "neo-progressive rock" and "post-rock" are genres).

Chilton has been removing as many references to "post-progressive" in articles as he can, citing his personal belief that it is "not an established genre" He has not offered a single source to support his assertions. With emphasis added, I will demonstrate that it is an established genre of music. Observe below.

Relevant "post-progressive" quotations

The term 'post-progressive' is designed to distinguish a type of rock music from the persistence of a progressive rock style that directly refers to 1970s prog. The 'post' also refers to that which has come after other forms of avant-garde and popular music since the mid-1970s. ... [it] identifies progressive rock that stems from sources other than progressive rock. ... there are those who contend, though, that progressive rock is far hidden, and that post-progressive rock feeds a more explicit return to prog: in other words, a return that is not one. This trend is best exemplified by two British avant-rock acts of the 1980s and early 1990s: David Sylvian and Talk Talk.

— Hegarty, Paul; Halliwell, Martin (2011). Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock Since the 1960s. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-2332-0.

Since the 80s, we have seen the rise of both a neo-progressive movement, with young bands, many of them European, attemping to bring a more contemporary sensibility to the 'classic' idiom, and a post-progressive style following the implications of King Crimsons' Discipline album of 1981, with its introduction of elements drawn from minimalism and ethnic musics, elements new to rock.

— Bruford, Bill (2009). Bill Bruford: The Autobiography : Yes, King Crimson, Earthworks, and More. Jawbone Press. ISBN 978-1-906002-23-7.

A number of new bands have cultivated what might be termed a post-progressive style ... no comparable consensus has emerged concerning the major neo- or post-progressive rock bands of the 1980s and 1990s, following up on the implications of King Crimson's landmark Discipline LP of 1981 and introducing entirely new elements (drawn especially from minimalism and various ethnic musics) into the genre.

— Macan, Edward (1997). Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509887-7.

Musically and lyrically, "Our Little Victory" demonstrates the reasons for many rock critics never having come to terms with Rush. However, the reasons for Rush's influence on Primus and on other 1990s, alternative, progressive metal, and post-progressive bands ("musicians' musicians") certainly also hold for this song.

— Bowman, Durrell (2014). Experiencing Rush: A Listener's Companion. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-3131-3.

"post-progressive" (sub-genre of progressive rock) (as labelled from index)

— Holm-Hudson, Kevin, ed. (2013). Progressive Rock Reconsidered. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-71022-4.

He [Holm-Hudson] further states that "'post-progressive' groups such as ... Radiohead also draw upon selective aspects of vintage progressive rock, even as they actively seek to distance themselves with the genre.

— Letts, Marianne Tatom (2010). Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album: How to Disappear Completely. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-00491-8.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Before anyone writes anything else, I just want to notice how skillfully you avoided the noun-or-adjective question. Also I never wrote or even suggested that the term "post-progressive" was coined by Hegarty and Halliwell. Chilton (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I eagerly await you to make the same "noun-or-adjective" case against post-rock, new prog, punk rock, psychedelic rock, and oh yes, progressive rock. And if your implication wasn't that they invented it - then why bother with WP:INTEXT? No other music genre lead uses in-text attribution to explain a genre's rudimentary qualities.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Related discussions

• Talk:Post-progressive#Post-progressive - an established genre?
• Talk:Post-progressive#Re: Sylvian, Talk Talk, Crimson
• User talk:Ilovetopaint#Post-progressive

Most of these discussions are centered around Chilton's grasp on the difference between progressive rock music and prog rock (the cited authors distinguish both terms). From what I understand, the only thing Chilton has reasonably challenged is whether "post-progressive" should be listed in the infoboxes for King Crimson, Talk Talk, and David Sylvian. This is because only one RS can be found which calls them "post-progressive" artists. (He ignores the fact that literally every other genre listed in those article's infoboxes are also referenced to only one RS.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chilton: My superficial reading of this thread leads me to believe you don't know how to proceed when you have a content dispute. Please see WP:Dispute resolution. I'm especially troubled by your frustrated statement, "how skillfully you avoided the noun-or-adjective question". Please see WP:AGF and try to discuss content and sources rather than behavior. Maybe someone interested in arts and culture would agree to play the role of WP:THIRDOPINION.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping that someone else will join the discussion and give their opinion.. What would you recommend I do? Chilton (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Using original research to removed sourced material

The WP:OR policy states that original research which is prohibited "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". However, the rest of the language and examples all refer to cases where {{WP:OR]] is used to add material to the article. My question is, can original research be used to removed well-sourced material from reputable sources? Suppose an academic who is a recognized authority in a field publishes research in a peer-reviewed academic journal, whose main thesis is "I've researched X, and my conclusion is Y". This material is then used in an article to say that the named expert researched X, and concluded Y. Can an editor perform his own research on X, conclude that the result is actually not Y, and then use his personal research to remove the sourced material from the article on that basis? Epson Salts (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)