Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 40

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Austro-Hungarian casualties in World War I

Nihlus1 has added a reliable source to several articles that says x% of Austro-Hungarian casualties occurred on certain fronts, and Nihlus has then applied these percentages to the (low) numbers for 'Total military deaths' and 'Military wounded' we have cited on World War I casualties#Casualties by 1914–18 borders, to calculate figures for those articles. Would this amount to original research? Diffs for the Eastern Front, Italian Front and Romanian Front.
Also the original sources for those numbers on WW1 casualties should really be included with the source Nihlus added, but that's another issue. Alcherin (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's Nihlus1, not me. Nihlus 18:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I've also notified them that this thread was open, as is required. Nihlus 18:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably should remember to read the instructions next time. Thanks! Alcherin (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. Bodart lists proportional fatalities by front on the same page where he lists 1,213,368 military fatalities total (521,146 before his estimates for missing ones, as the data he was drawing from was incomplete). So, at least, the death figures should apply, e.g. ~728,000 dead on the Eastern Front (Bodart's 1,213,368 figure for deaths is basically the same as the 1,210,000 figure our pages cite per British data), given that the proportions and the numbers are from the same source. The prisoner figures come from other sources, so they're fine. I guess I can see the argument for wounded- Bodart doesn't list total wounded IIRC (I don't have the document in question, I copied the citation from another encyclopedia), so saying that a front had a certain number of wounded men based on his proportions but using a number from another source (the British data) is technically an extrapolation rather than something stated explicitly in any source, as Bodart never stated total wounded at 3.62 million and the British data never gave proportions of casualties by front (except for its estimates of the Italian and Balkan fronts from May 1918 to November 1918). But considering how well all the other numbers match up for those two sources (namely the death figures), I don't think it's much of one.--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see where you were going with the deaths - I'd misread your explanation in the footnotes and thought you were dismissing Bodart's estimate.
Bodart's proportions apply to all casualties in general rather than specifically separated into killed and wounded, so taking that proportion and applying it to each separately strays dangerously close to WP:SYNTH and wouldn't necessarily be as accurate as explicitly given figures. I suppose it'd be fine to include such figures though so long as they are accompanied by a tilde to indicate approximation, a citation for the British data on wounded, and an explanation of how the wounded number was calculated as well where appropriate. Alcherin (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Insertion of original research and edit warring

User:Fundamental metric tensor has been constantly edit warring on the article Hindustan and the disambiguation page, insisting the two citations he provided support the statement equating the region of Hindustan with the Republic of India [1][2]. I have reverted slowly to avoid edit warring, but now I have backed away from the articles intro and dab page to avoid edit warring; especially after a warning was given to both of us, but he continues to insist it supports his statements. He also ignored my edit summaries and discussion on the talk page, only by asking me to discuss, which I already did and had to repeat myself. On the discussion page he also cites a number of companies based in India using the name "Hindustan XXX" but I have told him they do not count as reliable sources, not even close it you ask me.

Just a note to add, there is a section in the article that discusses other uses of the term, with one of them being the modern Republic of India. However, a distinction is still made between the Republic of India and the historic geographic term. This was already mentioned in the other usages section prior to my editing the article. I have also pointed him to WP:RS and WP:OR. From his discussions, it seems he is not familiar with policy on sourcing and original research and continues to ignore this. Having been on Wikipedia for 11 years but having barely 2,500 edits seems to confirm that he needs to be properly informed and corrected on sourcing policy.

I need a review of this ASAP as it's becoming tiresome. Thank you for reading--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I would first like to point out that a synonym for modern day Republic of India is an important and prevalent use of the term Hindustan. This can be verified by the entry for Hindustan for various English language dictionaries:

1) Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hindustan

2) Dictionary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hindustan?s=t

3) Free Thesarus: http://www.freethesaurus.com/Hindustan

Additionally, pg 276 of the Lonely Planet book for India, translates "Hindustan Zindabad" as "Long Live India", as does this BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150429-indias-bizarre-border-ritual I have provided other English language sources (Everett) where "Hindustan Zindabad" means "Long Live India". In scholastic usage, Arvind Sharma, in the journal Numen, defines Hindustan as India (Sharma, Arvind. "On Hindu, Hindustān, Hinduism and Hindutva." Numen 49.1 (2002): 1-36.) I think these, in sum, prove that not only is Republic of India an important meaning of Hindustan in English, it is likely to be one of the most common meanings encountered by English speakers and users. My edits reflected this usage, along with its other uses which refer to the entire Indian subcontinent, or its Northern part. User NadirAli, insists on reducing this important use of the term Hindustan to an ambiguous side note in the article, and emphasizing only the other uses. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed, the Wikipedia policy is verifiability. WP:RS is a content guideline that explains what a reliable source means. FMT's edits are clearly verifiable, in fact, verifiable in the sources that were already present in the article. But I have also added more sources now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree... FMT's edits are not Original research. However, I think Nadir may have a point where it comes to UNDUE WEIGHT... while the article should mention the verifiable fact that "Hindustan" has (in modern usage) become synonymous with the Republic of India (at least in India itself), we should not give that modern usage UNDUE weight. The modern usage should be presented, but it needs to be presented in proper context of how the term has evolved through the years, and not overly stressed. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Blueboar, neither of those two links directly support the statement they are citing that's why I see original research. TBH I don't even think the first book is a reliable source at all. Check them. I have addressed the dictionary.com source. The word Hindustan is a Persian word, referring to the historic term India (land of the Indus, not the Republic of India). Another problem is, scholars still distinguish between Republic of India and Hindustan- which is a geographic term. Neither of these two state Hindustan being the modern Republic of India. That BBC source is again referring to the popularization of the word to refer to Republic of India, which the article already mentions.----NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this WP:OR? Secularism in Turkey

Disputed content: [3]

Link to article: Secularism in Turkey

Issue: Primary sources, essay style writing, arguing a thesis - the sources do not seem to be discussing scholarly criticism that Turkey is secular, the argument seems to be pieced together from various sources as WP:SYNTH. The editor has reverted twice but without being able to show sources that contains this analysis

Related: The same editor is pushing the same WP:OR in this RfC Talk:Turkey#Secular - the same argument was advanced in a previous RfC by Tiptoethrutheminefield, who has since been indeffed as a sock of a disruptive editor in this topic area. Though this has been discussed multiple times now, no one has produced a source that puts forth this particular analysis. Seraphim System (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

On a procedueral note - this discussion was opened without any discussion on Talk:Secularism in Turkey. OP has returned from a brief retirement [4], and proceeded to blank approximately a third of Secularism in Turkey - the section critical of AKP's policies. The section could use some work in general - but blanket removal is a bit much.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really support large removals in general but the entire thing is WP:OR ... it may have a place in another article, especially the table, but I did not see anything in the section that could be salvaged. I know Bektashi has a long history, but there are no sources that say "Turkey's secularism has been disputed because the following religions are not recognized by the state" - tables like this often have WP:OR problems. And detailed primary information about the agency's budget. I don't see any justification for the reverts besides the content being "critical of AKP policies." I'm not sure what AKP has to do with this, or why you just brought that up like it was meaningful but there have been a POV and WP:OR problem across multiple articles, and I want it to stop. Seraphim System (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ronan McCrea (2010). Religion and the Public Order of the European Union. Oxford University Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-19-959535-8. Turkey, secularism has come to represent the control of religion by the state rather than the separation of religion and the state.--Moxy (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
That is not the same thing as saying Turkey is not secular, it describes how this was achieved - it is common to describe Turkey's secularism as "authoriation" but the content of the article goes much further then this, the source says Turkey is a secular republic, However Turkish secularism is different... I don't think this section can stay in based on that source you just gave without violating WP:SYNTH. This shouldn't be a discussion about my personal opinion, as much as it is a discussion about whether the academic sources support this theory based on analysis of recent developments (which is being pushed on several articles now). Seraphim System (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Point of the source was to show its not black and white.....no view was given. Just read the talk page that is full of rants about OR and such..........we need some expert editors there ASAP if this article wants to keep its GA status. I will look for more academic sources and take this weekend to do some sourcing clean up (with appropriate changes if need be. (PS dont care about infobox debate) .--Moxy (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Secularism in Turkey, which is what this post is about, is not a GA article. There are two separate articles Turkey and Secularism in Turkey but the WP:OR problem is overwhelming and similar on both articles, for example Talk:Secularism_in_Turkey#Turkey_-never_was_and-_is_not_a_Secular_State - the problem is obviously being compounded by sockpuppets like Tiptoethrutheminefield. I shouldn't have to "rant" - can we agree that this is WP:OR or not? Seraphim System (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

List of rampage killers

The page List of rampage killers clearly meets WP:SAL standards, but I feel there are multiple content issues on the page and on sub-pages. I'm not sure what should be done here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it original research to call an orbit a "trajectory"?

Earlier this year, the Orbit page redefined an orbit from a "path" to a "trajectory". The justification for this change is unclear, since all cited sources explicitly use the word "path". No reason was given for the change at the time, but recent editors are backing the use of "trajectory", asserting that "Trajectory is more accurate" and "path seems unnecessarily less specific". Are they violating Wikipedia's prohibition on original research?

Yes they are according to NASA Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's probably word preciseness and less an OR piece. As that NASA page states, an orbit is usually endless , while a trajectory describes a finite path. Both are "paths" of how a body moves around another, but in terms of WP and english, the terms seem otherwise interchangeable and not an OR issue. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Novel interpretation and analysis at Rape myths

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Rape myth#Improper tone and approach and the three short threads immediately below it (including a big deletion spree in the article); some additional editorial input (especially from NORN regulars) would be of value, since the discussion has turned circular and only involves three editors, but is rather important for this article. The first of these threads mostly focuses on NPOV concerns, but introduced the NOR one, which has developed in the threads after it. This is an old and kind of languishing article that recently got a lot of focused attention, but from too few parties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ezidkhan

Ezidkhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was up to July this year an article mainly about a historical region.[5] Since then Niele~enwiki (talk · contribs) has turned it into an article about " unrecognised de facto autonomous area established in the western part of the Iraqi Sinjar region.[verification needed]".(tag added in September by User:Ahmedo Semsurî. According to the infobox it has its own official language, a government which is a Democratic confederalism and Direct democracy and a Supreme Spiritual Council. Only the last has any sources, [6] which cites the second source[7].

Very little of the article is sourced. Much is about various takeovers and various security forces. This isn't the place to argue about the reliability of the sources, although I'm dubious about the two above. My point is that I can find no reliable sources justifying the claim in the introduction and the infobox, as well as elsewhere, that this is any form of government. If the claim by this source[8] is true, that there is an "Ezidixan autonomy commission under the auspices of the United Nations," - or if any of the basic thesis is true, why can't I find more clearly reliable sources? Doug Weller talk 12:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

See this - [9] (Yazidi autonomy (or various Yazidi + something) are probably better search words). The article does however seem to take things a bit, umm, too far - though some mention probably is in order.Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Addendum - there has also been some recent (counter-Yazidi I believe) developments on the ground - [10].Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I wich way does the article takes anything to far? I do not understand why you downplay the reality of this fully autonomous region and on wich basis do you make those claims?.
East-Sinjar has already 3 years governed by autonomous Yezidi council control. With no Bagdad officials or KRG official allowed to enter the region during this whole period.
It officially declared autonomy and has set up own institutions, policeforce, military,...
It is indeed sad that it isn't covered by media more otherwise I would have added a lot extra sourcing.
Many larger media outlets just ignore the region, recklessly putting it falsely under KRG or Bhagdads government control depending the mediaoutlet loyalities or loyalities of their article sources. While non of these 2 have any control over this area the past 3 years.
At this time it's autonomy is even better established than that of the problem-plagued KRG.
But the sourcing on the page is very clear, explains the declaration of autonomy. It also neutral as also statements of the autonomous region opponents are added in the article. Framing the Syrian-YPG introduced region in Iraq as 'PKK'.
For sure is an area that is governed completely autonomous for now already 3 years very Encyclopia and wikipedia-worthy.
Any help in extra sourcing the article, of an autonomous region that is ignored by a lot of press is very helpfull.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
More reliable sources are required. And clearly this claim is contested - by ISIS, the KRG, Shia Iraq, and Turkey. De-facto control of the ground in western Sinjar throughout the three years has not be totally continuous I believe. We have other corners of Iraq and Syria which have been under the De-facto control of various groups - e.g. Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade control a piece of south-western Syria rather continuously since 2013 or so. We haven't modified Quneitra Governorate. We need to be very careful not to support the sectarian claims of various factions beyond the level evident in the sources (Which in this case, the KRG and YPG might want to show as part of a continuous Kurdish region - linking Iraq and Syria).Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The sources for the existence of an autonomous region are partisan - if this was clearly true, I'm sure there would be better sources, and the defense that other media are telling porkies isn't going to hold water. There are no sources for the form of government, the languages, and much else. I'm not sure that the editor adding all of this is really clear about what we mean by no original research. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Beshogur (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no evidence of recognition either of autonomy, or of any process to consider it. The proclamation of autonomy should certainly be mentioned, but to present it as established is misleading. Significant clean-up is required, but simple Burden can justify removal much of the problematic text. Batternut (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there consensus to clean this up? Doug Weller talk 18:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Scrub away, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Constructal law

This article looks to me to be arguing a case entirely from primary sources, largely by the person who coined the term (around 2/3 or more of the references). Incidentally, I think Mre env (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly closely associated with Adrian Bejan, or at least a massive fan, because that is his sole topic of interest. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa) (2nd nomination)

The discussion about deletion of Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa) partly revolves around whether or not the channel is made up/synthesized. Given that this is a deletion discussion please post there. Spshu (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

information in source cited is an image

I've run into a situation where a source is cited, but the information cited is not in the text of the source, it is derived from observing a photograph in the article. Would this qualify as original research? One issue that springs to mind immediately is the fact that the image could be mirrored. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. As noted above for Starfox, only the most obvious details can be taken from a picture, but anything else would be original research. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I was leaning that way but just wanted to check. Gabriel syme (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Spectral Estimation of NMR Relaxation

This is a presentation of the work of Dr. Naugler, by a user with no other contributions, relguan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Naugler backwards. I removed some cites to OMICS, I am pretty confident this is not a policy-compliant article.

National trauma

Resolved
 – Uncited material removed and article re-written with citations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The article National trauma has no references, and I can't find any that define the term "national trauma". power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

While the concept of national trauma is a recognized concept in scholarship (see, for example, [11], [12], [13], etc.), the list of examples should be removed completely. Looking through the history, all of these examples appear to have been added by individual editors based solely on their own appreciation of the term and show a heavy WP:RECENTISM bias. Such examples as November 2015 Paris attacks for France, every example listed for India, Assassination of Pim Fortuyn and Assassination of Theo van Gogh for Netherlands, etc. etc. appear to meet no definition beyond, "somebody died and it was in the news a lot." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Fully agree and I've removed them. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I've re-written the page completely. It is now fully-cited and the list of examples has been trimmed to a citeable selection. Since this term seems most prominent in U.S. scholarship, there is a bias of the list to US-centric traumas. Any sourcable additions for other nations are invited and encouraged. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is calculating a published percentage of a published number original research?

Query for deleted entry in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

The final 2 sentences of the following quote were deleted. The editor said it contained original research. The 3% and 12% figures were from a cited document and in line with other estimates from other sources cited in the article. The 13,774 figure is from government reports (which perhaps I should have cited). I made a simple arithmetic calculation of these 2 non-controvertial numbers to estimate actual numbers of incidences per year. Is this really Original Research?

"They found that 12% of rape allegations fell into the broader definition of false accusations and that 3% of the false rape allegations were identified as malicious. There were 13,774 reported rapes in 2008, suggesting 413 instances of malicious false accusations of rape with a possibility of a further 1,240 instances falling in the "questionable" range determined from the 12% bracket. The authorities convict about 20 false accusers per year.[10]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.136.72 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2017

  • I'd say yes, it is original research. First, you're combining numbers from two different sources and they may be using different underlying methods for estimation. Second, even if it were the same source, you don't know the accuracy of the percentages (3% or 3.5% rounded down or 2.51% rounded up or something in between). To use these percentages to back into numbers is dubious and the resulting 413, for e.g., gives a false sense of accuracy. --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Per both RegentsPark's points, obvious original research and synthesis. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is precisely what surveys and statistics are used for. To sample a population in order to predict how the entire population will behave. In most (real) cases, both sample distribution and population are 'estimates'. In my case, the estimates of the sample are roughly similar in several surveys (2% is the lowest estimate and others go as high as 8). Is it really unacceptable to make such an estimate? Do you have suggestions how to provide an acceptable number? 189.172.136.72 (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to practice your statistical analyses though. That's the definition of original research. Also sampling distributions are hypothetical distribution of sample statistics. The population is not an estimate, it's the pool of elements a sample is drawn from. For inferential statistics, we rely on probability sampling techniques to generate statistics we can infer with using probability theory. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

polyandry in Islam

On page of polyandry, original research is used which is not contained in the source. The source does not state that a woman can hove more than one husband at the same time, as per the definition of polyandry. But state that after dissolution of marriage and after ensuring that she is not pregnant she can marry. I have also explained on the talk page of polyandry but an editor idunious refuses to listen. Please help.for further discussion xplaination see talk page of polyand y. Source is online, anyone can see. Smatrah (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ignore him, see when readers disagree they will check the talkpage and see that this is a name-fed claim (someones position which can't be backed). If you continue to revert him, you will be punished for nothing. Does not worth it really, main-pages change regularly, the important is that you showed the claim does not stand in talkpage (where no one will revert you). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Both editors have probably crossed the line in to edit-warring, but I agree that this looks like original research. I have no idea about the overall quality of the translation being cited, but the quote looks pretty inscrutable to me. Regardless, this is a primary source, and it's not obvious from reading it that it is an endorsement of polyandry. Editors would need a good quality secondary source to support a claim about the practice of polyandry and/or to make anything more than a patently obvious interpretation of a text. Nblund talk 00:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe you have gotten users mixed up. Strange that all three of you seem to have made that mistake. First of all, it is not a primary source. The paragraph does not cite the original source, but the interpretation by the scholar. Besides, I have now added a source to verify the matter, which seems to resolve the issue. Gammalflamma (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't resolve the issue, really. I agree that this probably refers to marriage, but (as other editors have noted) its not clear whether this would qualify as polyandry or if it would be something closer to annulling a previous marriage. I can't find any source that says that this passage endorses polyandry. You need to find a reliable source for that interpretation. Nblund talk 14:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
[14]
Here is a source that is extremely clear on the issue. It says that the meaning is, you are allowed to marry women who are already married, just as stated in the paragraph. It also clearly states that it is an exception to the rule forbidding marriage to married women. It also clearly states that it is about marriage - not about carnal knowledge. [15] I do understand that this issue is a difficult one to deal with. Not liking a fact is however not a valid reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. Gammalflamma (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
""Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess" From this verse, it is clear that one can marry women who are already married if they constitute those from what your right hands possess (taken captive). Again, focus is on marriage, not sex for lust and they have to believing captives (Not pagans). See 4.25 above. (Continued 004.024) "...Thus has God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed (Arabic: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan); but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree mutually, there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise" This verse makes it clear that all married women are forbidden apart from a specific exception. Exception:Those women who are married but have come to be captured or possessed (Ma Malakat Amanakum) are lawful are in marriage. Note this exception. But the question still remains - lawful to one in what way? The rest of the verse clearly states that all women (including the exception - Right hands possess) have to be married (in wedlock). The legality being wedlock. Note the Arabic term: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan (give them their bridal due as obligation). It is clear therefore that the intention is of wedlock not of fornication, or lust. This seals the fate of sex with women from the category of 'right hands possess' outside marriage. These women are only lawful to one in marriage."Gammalflamma (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to refer to this quote: "There is disagreement, however, among jurists as to what should be done if both husband and wife have been taken captive together. Abu Hanifah and the jurists of his school are of the opinion that their marriage should remain intact. Malik and Shafi'i, on the other hand, argue that their matrimonial contract should be rendered void." (Tafhimat, vol. 2, pp. 366-84, and Rasai'il wa Masa'il, 6th edition, Lahore, 1976, vol. 3, pp. 102-4.) As you can see, there are scholars who claim that even with permission granted to marry married women who are captives of war, these women could still keep their primary husband. Gammalflamma (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't seem to be reading the dispute: I'm not questioning whether the passage refers to marriage, I'm questioning whether any source would call this "polyandry". Would the previous marriage still be legally binding? Would children conceived with the previous husband be considered legitimate? The passage doesn't say and the commentary doesn't say. I can point to several academics who note that Islamic law and custom prohibit polyandry. For example: "Polyandry, or marrying more than one husband, is not permitted to maintain the children’s lineage for purposes of inheritance and protect children’s rights as heirs".
I can't find a single source that describes Islam as accepting polyandry in some situations. Nblund talk 17:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't seem to read the quotes. All parts of the paragraph have been proven. It is forbidden to marry a married woman in Islam. There is one exception - if the married woman is in your possession, then you can marry her even if she is married before. There is a difference of opinion if the woman is to be separated from her first husband in such cases, which means that some say she was not separated from her first husband. QED. Polyandry is a term for a women who is married to more than one man. Or, as is stated in the article "In its broadest use, polyandry refers to sexual relations with multiple males within or without marriage.". The sources here given prove that Islam allows a married woman to be married again. It proves that not all scholars say that the woman was separated from her first husband when this happened. The article is about Polyandry and the section is about polyandry - in any sense - occurring in religious context. This has been proven here. What a muslim husband would call it is not relevant. Idunius (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
[16] Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Can I assume good faith and interpret that as conceding the point, after having considered arguments and sources above? Idunius (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Being "married again" is different from being married to multiple people simultaneously. The former is called serial monogamy, the latter would be polygamy. Reliable academic sources say that Islam prohibits polyandry, as far as I can tell, none of those academic sources mention this passage being an exception to that rule. If you can find a source that does mention that this is an exception, then cite it and we can move on. Otherwise, this is OR. Regarding the commentary quoted above, it appears to have left out the preceding sentence. The full quote seems to support the notion that the previous marriage would ordinarily be nullified:

Women who come as captives of war, leaving their husbands behind in Dar al-Harb (Domain of War), are not prohibited, for their marriage is nullified by virtue of their entry into Dar al-Islam (Domain of Islam). A man may marry such women and, if they happen to be his slave-girls, he may have sexual relations with them.There is disagreement, however, among jurists as to what should be done if both husband and wife have been taken captive together. Abu Hanifah and the jurists of his school are of the opinion that their marriage should remain intact. Malik and Shafi'i, on the other hand, argue that their matrimonial contract should be rendered void.

source: note 44

See we're still at square one, because he will quote from that sentence: There is disagreement, however, among jurists as to what should be done if both husband and wife have been taken captive together. Abu Hanifah and the jurists of his school are of the opinion that their marriage should remain intact. Malik and Shafi'i, on the other hand, argue that their matrimonial contract should be rendered void. I will write to him, if the marriage is not nullified there is no indication that those women could be taken as wives, ... :) The solution is to just remove non-notable exceptions from articles. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. And your last proposal is a matter of changing a general principle on Wikipedia, not a matter concerning this article. So the point made in this discussion seems to be clear, and this is no longer a discussion about original research - that claim has been proven false. And as you say, it has also been proven that there is scholarly disagreement and the claim in the paragraph can be made. I would therefor suggest that the discussion here come to an end, and instead those who wish to give nuance to the paragraph do so according to our basic guidelines, by adding facts, nuance and sources. Idunius (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
See I am not, obscure exceptions can be considered as fringe. In this case it exist because of the inherent limitations of languages. In written language they often exclude what would seem obvious (another marriage, implies usually a prior divorce). That's why I previously said that there is abuse of process here. It is compared to exploiting a bug in Windows. That the bug is there, does not mean that the bug was intended. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That is an impossible argument, since if they were divorced no special permission would be needed to marry them. So that is a contradiction in terms. And if you look at different translations you will see that there is general agreement that the ayah is about marrying married women. You are simply coming up with illogical inventions now because you dislike what the sources say. Anyway, as stated above the discussion here should end since the allegation about original research has been proven wrong. Please, follow the basic guidelines instead by adding depth and nuance to the passage, using valid sources. Idunius (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be general agreement that the passage is about marrying women whose previous marriages have been nullified (despite a lack of a formal divorce) because they were no longer in contact with their previous husbands. No anthropologist would call this polyandry - the previous marriage isn't considered legitimate, the previous husband and wife are no longer live together. (see footnote c-24 page 110-111 here). WP:OR prohibits using a source "to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". If you want the discussion to end, all you need to do is dig up a single academic or scholarly source that says "this passage endorses polyandry" - I find several that explicitly say it is is prohibited. Simply find one source that disputes that claim.

Regarding the note from Abu Hanifah: Idunius, is your contention is that this means, if the couple is captured together, Abu Hanifah believes that the previous marriage should remain intact, but that (for some reason) the women should also be able to remarry and both marriages remain simultaneously valid? The logical interpretation is that Hanifah believes a new marriage would not be lawful because the previous marriage isn't nullified. This is plainly obvious if you look at other translations of that text.

That is, those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah and those of his way of thinking are of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik and Shafi 'i, are of the opinion that it would also break.

http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/4.23

In other words: it's only lawful if the previous marriage is nullified. Abu Hanifah thinks it isn't nullified if the spouses are captured together, and so he disagrees that it is lawful. Nblund talk 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Again: since the claim about original research has been proven wrong, this is no longer the place to discuss. Please use the proper talk page to discuss content. Idunius (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Wikipedia operates on consensus, there's clearly no consensus on whether or not this statement constitutes OR. By my count, 4 editors have questioned whether this is OR, and I don't see where any of those editors have been persuaded. I'm certainly more convinced than ever that this is a clear misreading that is not supported by any reliable - or even any unreliable -sources. Nblund talk 16:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion, including an answer to your prior argument, is continued on the article's talk page, not closed.]] But since the issue now is content, not original research, the talk page is the correct place to discuss. Idunius (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nblund, since I have disengaged, I guess it's 3-2, yet no census. But I don't think number of users is a good determinant, because we got all engaged in the article. One way I see is to provide the sentence to someone else and ask for comments. That may not be sufficient; another option would be to word a sentence in such a way that it can be interpreted as either way (if there is yet no consensus, putting the blame on the inherent limitation of written language). :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that outside input would be helpful. I posted the issue on a couple of wikiprojects, so maybe we will get some more response. Just so I'm clear: have you changed your view, or are you just saying you don't want to participate in the discussion anymore? Nblund talk 04:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
See what he is reporting is useful, maybe that's not the case here, but in several situations phrases could be interpreted in several different ways. It is a bug in the system. Because what happens when a sentence could be interpreted by some as explicit while for others not? We could be in a similar situation to Hacking for Good [17]. I haven't changed my mind, I just believe that the approach I am taking isn't appropriate. If it is decided that that thing does not go on the article, we ought to find also other criterias for inclusion which do not solely rely on written language. This involves blinding methods, etc... So it is pointless for me to raise it here when this problem is not specific to this particular article. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Fox McCloud's legs - were they amputated?

@Idazmi:

The question is whether you can use artwork alone to argue whether a fictional character (Fox McCloud) had his legs removed despite statements from the Star Fox's programmer (Dylan Cuthbert) and the game's main producer (Shigeru Miyamoto) saying the legs were not amputated. Please see the thread at: Talk:Fox_McCloud#Legs_not_prosthetic WhisperToMe (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, interpreting images to reach a contentious conclusion is definitely SYNTH. There are some clearly obvious things you can pull (he's a fox, he's orange-colored) but to try to argue his size on a box cover is due to amputation is waaaaay out of line. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree with Masem. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor making this call would be OR (though perhaps stating they are metallic looking would be stating the obvious?). Relying on sources that make this call, possibly qualifying this (e.g. according to...), e.g. - [18] [19] [20] would not be OR.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the RS-ness of those sources, we'd first would have to state that "According to so-and-so, Fox's legs appear amputated..." with those sources. But let's add the fact that two of the people directly involved with the game's development have said otherwise - even if their statements come from over Twitter or other unreliable sources. It's the type of case that this shouldn't even be included unless a lot of RS carried the misinformation and we wanted to use the involved people's statements to dismiss that misinformation. But that's just not what's happening here, its a silly fringe theory that we don't need to give credence to. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It's beyond a FRINGE theory - from a brief look here it seems this theory is all over the place - including a hip-hop artist who lost his foot referring to this. RSness for video games is an issue in general, and I agree that editors should be interpreting images by themselves, however this is a fan (and possibly Nintendo originally back in the 90s) theory of some weight.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Having looked, I found [21] which is an RS for us and sufficient to mention the amputation being a fan theory that (as of 2013) never was commented on by Nintendo, but since debunked by the creators over Twitter. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't use debunk to describe fictional to begin with - it is difficult to debunk a fictional detail - however other than that we're agreed.Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Idazmi added back the robotic legs they to the article. I don't think this is good form as he discussion is still going on. IMO it's full of OR. @Icewhiz:@Sergecross73:@Masem: - I am in favor of a single sentence about this, but he's insisting on saying the robotic leg theory is true, which is out of line. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can original research be used to challenge an edit?

One thing WP:OR is unclear about is the use of original research to challenge information on wikipedia? In the case of Macrophilia there have been several edit wars about the wording of "typically a male fantasy". While cited sources do state that, the sources appear biased by reporting only on material typically marketed to the male demographic. From personal experience in the community and having attended sizecon, there appears to be close to equal representation of both the female and male demographics. Sizecon was organized by a female artist [22] who appears to have participated in the edit war Talk:Macrophilia/Archive_1#Taking_a_stand. I wish those involved used the proper channels to make their points, but the past can't be helped. So my question is can an aggregation of user data (many profiles displaying gender) and poll data be used to settle a long standing argument about whether text should be Removed from a wikipedia article?

Any response positive or negative on this issue is appreciated, especially if from someone with an authoritative 'final' say such as an admin or bureaucrat. Thank you in advance. Eaterjolly (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You cannot make an edit based on original research. However, ocassionally reliable sources will provide incorrect information which you think is wrong, in which case you should find the sources to make the correction. Also, extraordinary claims require higher sources so you can challenge claims that are not widely reported or adequately supported. No one btw has an authoritative final say. TFD (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I should have said well-respected say.
I think Wikinews shows OR doesn't necessarily violate NPOV, so I don't see why we can't let it influence our edits so long as we aren't building claims based on it. Eaterjolly (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Removal of verifiable information is always a contentious issue... but ultimately it comes down to consensus. Anything can be removed if there is consensus to remove it. Remember that “verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
If I understand the question Eaterjolly: you're not talking about including original research in an article, but original research has shown that a claim from a reliable source is factually incorrect, and you want to remove it? I think editors can use their better judgement, and if there is general consensus that the claim is wrong, it might make sense to remove it.
I don't know if user profiles would convince me entirely, but it also looks like there is weak support for the claim that this is typically a male fantasy - it appears to be a claim made based on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic demographic research. The article from psychology today makes it clear that there is a lack of peer-reviewed research on this topic, and hedges by stating that most macrophiles are "thought to be heterosexual males". Putting the OR issue aside, I think it would be better to avoid stating this as a fact by attributing it in-text to Helen Friedman, and then acknowledge the lack of high-quality research on the topic. Nblund talk 20:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, consensus is the final say. Another source I found actually criticizes specifically that psychology today article. I think the best course of action would be attributing it inline and demoting it from the lead to one of the subsections. I hope that will be an agree-able change when I get around to it.
Though I have to admit a few other sources mention it, like this playboy article however here's a quote "everything I’ve read on the topic suggests that it tends to be most common among men"
Eaterjolly (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cogewea

Could I request some input on the article Cogewea. I have been identifying and tagging significant original research in the article, and the author, Trentprof, has been removing the problematic passages, but is contesting that gathering course syllabi to support a claim that "This edition is used widely in post-secondary classrooms" is original research. As far as I am concerned, it is clearly original research, because the source is Trentprof's own research, rather than something that has been published. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

See also Talk:Cogewea#Challenge to “Original Research” claim. Could someone else offer a view here? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? This isn't a complicated debate, but we could do with outside input. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it is iffy, but should probably be removed. On the one hand, you might make a case that this is somewhat akin to the accepted practice of saying that a film was "generally well received by critics" on the basis of multiple critical reviews, but in those cases we have a rough idea of who the important critics are and we have things like review aggregators to further support those claims. In this case, I think there could be a real debate in this case about when a text could be considered "widely used" because we don't really know what the base rate is. How many English lit classes are there in the world? Nblund talk 18:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nblund. I agree. There's also the issue of whether reading lists for university courses can be considered published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

List of totalitarian regimes

I'm not sure where to take this issue. The article has literally no sources and the claims about type of government don't always match those of the country's own article. The ideologies section ditto, it appears to be mainly an analysis of the main article. The main editor now points out that User:Sjö says sources aren't needed for the list just that " if the article says it is or was totalitarian or words to that effect the regime can be included. That eliminates the need for edit wars here." But of course articles change, and I the first few I looked at the main article didn't say totalitarian. In any case, WP:SOURCELIST clearly says "Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked." Doug Weller talk 19:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Even a list needs sources for any content added, so [citation needed] for everything, then remove within a week if no sources are given Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I think citations are needed for lists to avoid WP:OR or indiscriminate adds, lists are magnets for subtle vandalism. If this one has problems with IPs frequently adding unsourced information, then pending changes protection might be in order, until it is improved and referenced. Seraphim System (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The IP mainly editing has an account, so they could switch to that. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Cold_War#Request_for_Comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_War#Request_for_Comment

On the Cold War Talk page, I've been accused of engaging in OR on numerous edits because I used more than one secondary source. I've also been accused of misrepresenting sources. My own perspective, after extensive debate, is that there may be political issues clouding my fellow editors' judgement—but of course I could be wrong.

The RfC linked above is something of a test case. It's developed into a debate on whether the pre-World War II period should be included in the article at all, but it originated with this contribution of mine:

"Events which further fueled suspicion included: the Bolsheviks'...publishing of secret treaties which exposed the Allies' imperialistic war aims, [1] [2]particularly over the middle east.[3] [4] [5]"

In some respects, I've left myself open by using so many citations, and by using the provocative phrase "imperialistic war aims." Yet "imperialistic war aims" is actually a quotation from this source in relation to exposure of the treaties. Pages 131-133 of this source harmonizes with the above in its portrayal of the Allies' quest for "indemnities and territory [which] hardly squared with noble ideals..." The Bolsheviks' desire to "unmask capitalist duplicity" and the subsequent "embarrassment to the Allies and...calamity for [Woodrow] Wilson" mark this as a proto-Cold War episode.

I don't want to go on at length here, but I'll note that the core of my statement in the second clause, about the secret treaty on the Middle East (Sykes-Picot Agreement) and the origins of the Cold War is a summary of this article. The other citations are just supporting and aren't really even needed for summary, much less synthesis.

Please weigh in at the RfC. I'd really like to know if I've overstepped my bounds on this.

Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, sure, some background information about the pre-World War II period should be included in the article. No one disputed it on article talk page. Hence the reasons for the RfC and this posting are doubtful. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pierce, Anne (2017-10-23). Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman: Mission and Power in American Foreign Policy. Routledge. ISBN 9781351471152.
  2. ^ Steel, Ronald (1980). Walter Lippmann and the American Century. [Mit Portr.] (2. Print.). Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412841153.
  3. ^ Jazeera, Al. "A century on: Why Arabs resent Sykes-Picot". interactive.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2017-12-21.
  4. ^ Graham, David A. "How Did the 'Secret' Sykes-Picot Agreement Become Public?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-12-21.
  5. ^ "Publication of the Secret Treaties". Seventeen Moments in Soviet History. 2015-08-13. Retrieved 2017-12-21.

Episode order for television series Earth 2

At Earth 2 (TV series)#Episodes, the listed episode order is unsourced, and several editors are insisting that strict airdate order must be used. This would seem to be WP:SYNTHESIS - taking airdate information and forming that into an "episode order". Now, for most series, using the airing order is a good shortcut to listing the episode order, as they tend to be one in the same. For some series, Firefly (TV series)#Episodes very notably, the airing order was conflated due to network machinations, usually because a series is being shelved or contractual airing obligations have to be met before killing the series. When this happens, either the producers will communicate the "right" viewing order, or perhaps the order will be fixed on a future home media release. This is the case with Earth 2. As it stands, the article as ZERO sources for the "episode order". The episode order was previously correct, but an undiscussed edit in 2010 changed the order, and that unsourced order persists. I had attempted to update this with sources for the correct order. I ask that others please look at this through the lens of Wikipedia:Verifiability and achieve consensus that we should not WP:SYNTH the order by simply assuming it from airdates. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the consensus for inclusion of simulated behaviors of bypass capacitors?

Recent edit by User:Constant314 I don't understand how original research pertains to an image?Vinyasi (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

First let me state that I believe that the edits in question were made in good faith.
Constant314 I'm sure they were. So were mine.Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The disputed content is the graphical results of a SPICE simulation of a circuit that purports to demonstrate certain behavior. The circuit appears to be entirely the editor’s own work.
Constant314 Both circuits are almost entirely of my own creation. The only distinction is that Fig.1 succeeds at suppressing back EMF while Fig.2 does not.[1] I originally got a semblance of both[2] from a guy[3] at All About Circuits. His was a simple demonstration of back EMF and there was no capacitor in his. Instead, he had a three ohm resistor. I replaced that resistor with a capacitor, because I saw the potential that my substitution had in turning it into a bypass capacitor of a simple variety (according to this website[4]). Then, I tweaked it to highlight the ON state by lingering for a mere micro second during the OFF state since the OFF state did not interest me any further than depicting it as a mere spike. I'm not that smart to build such a circuit from scratch! I went there specifically to educate myself on back EMF. What I concluded was that his technique for exhibiting back EMF was capable of becoming a simple bypass circuit according the a cite I used in my text.[4] Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The editor is, in effect, stipulating that the circuit demonstrates the effect, the circuit depicted in the SPICE graphic is a correct implementation of the circuit, and that the simulator produced correct results. All those facts require a reliable source.
Constant314 Sorry I didn't make that more plain. I guess I could be a little bit more verbose in the text to set aside these concerns so that no one else could raise them? Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
That does not mean that a SPICE simulation would always be WP:OR. For example, if a reliable source published a circuit, a SPICE implementation, and graphical results from the implementation, it would not be OR to implement the simulation for the purpose of generating high quality graphics of the waveforms.
Constant314 Exactly what I did! Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
So, there are two extremes: an instance where an editor conceives, implements and simulates a circuit, which is almost certainly OR and an instance where all the results come from a WP:RS and the editor simply makes esthetic improvements which is almost certainly not OR, but may be WP:CV.
Constant314 Looked like it was given away without license - copyleft, I presume. Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Are there in-between cases? Yes, probably. For example, manufactures of integrated circuits often include simple schematics showing how output current or voltage is measured. This could possibly be “paraphrased” into a SPICE depiction, especially if the depiction were simple enough to be verified by interested editors.
However, SPICE has a problems along this line of being verifiable by interested editors. There is no standard GUI for SPICE. While resisters and capacitors are generally recognizable, the symbols for sources and switches varies. Different SPICE implementations may assign default values for hidden parameters. For example LTspice will assign a DC resistance of one milliohm to any inductor for which the series resistance has not been assigned.
Constant314 I tried adding 1 milli ohm series resistance to the inductor. The result was no different than before (probably since I already have one milli ohm resistance adjacent to it). Then I tried altering the series resistance to one ohm. Then I did the same, separately, to the adjacent resistor. All both did was accelerate the rise for amperage. It also scaled downward all three outputs except the voltage input measured at node labeled Vin since there was less time/opportunity for the amperage to accumulate itself when switch was ON which has the additional consequence of reducing the voltage measured at V(1) when switched OFF showing less back EMF. Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of hidden variables, especially the parasitic values. LTspice has three different transient simulators. Sometimes the transient simulation converges to non-sense.
Constant314 I tried both standards for increased strictness: 'Gear Integration Method' and 'Engine Solver: Alternate' with no variation of result from the original default settings of 'Modified Trapezoidal Integration Method' and 'Engine Solver: Normal'. Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, SPICE allows the depiction and simulation of impossible circuits. I can create a SPICE circuit that produces more energy than it consumes.
Constant314 So can I, but that doesn't mean that all of its simulations are suspect by default. Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
In the end, I am highly dubious of the claim, “I simulated it with SPICE, therefore it is reliable.” Constant314 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Constant314 I did more than merely simulate this circuit. Since I have several months of experience simulating circuits which defy reality, and since I have no formal training in this field (requiring me to exhaust all possible factors to see what might happen), I can tell you unequivocally that this circuit is legit for the simple reason that modifying any one of a circuit's parameters or component values can put a swift halt to 'weirdness' - if I may quote Paul Falstad[5] from his source code concerning the behavior of diodes and transistors sometimes soar to infinite values if their activity is not capped. Thanks for your concern. Vinyasi (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


I understand that you attempted to be very diligent. However, that is just more evidence that it is OR. Constant314 (talk)
For what it's worth, I updated both images with added markings delineating when the switch is ON vs OFF. Suppressed_back_EMF_with_a_bypass_filter Back_EMF_with_bypass_filter Vinyasi (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Decided to do a comparison image for contrasting benefit vs cost in each case. Vinyasi (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ my last good edit
  2. ^ LTSpice simulation of back EMF
  3. ^ Gadzooks, you found me out.
  4. ^ a b The Basics - Bypass Capacitors
  5. ^ Github source of Falstad's Electronic Simulator

State atheism

Hello, I'd like to have some input/consesus about the possible WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in the State atheism article: a couple of us have opened a discussion about it since some time, and one contributor has even compiled a source analysis for one section as evidence of this, but the article authors don't seem very interested in addressing the issue.

State atheism is the name of the article, and its content describes events that themselves are verifiable, but almost all of the article's sources do not describe these events as, or use or even mention the term, "state atheism". So since the cited source does not call these events by that label, I don't see how the article can (this would mean that it was the wikipedia contributors applying it (without supporing sources)), but I would like a second (or more) opinion/confirmation about the WP:SYNTH (or WP:OR) quality of this.

Thanks, TP ✎ ✓ 20:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: some most-demonstrably WP:OR (WP:SYNTH)) content has been removed, but the article could much use extra eyes/minds assessing the above in the rest of the article. TP ✎ ✓ 08:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ann Powers

We need some input regarding text and citations in the Ann Powers article. We've had a discussion at Talk:Ann Powers#The_Dreaming and have reached an impasse. The article text under discussion is In 2007, Ann Powers wrote a proposal for a book on Kate Bush’s album The Dreaming that was intended to be part of the 33 1/3 series; however, the project was abandoned when Powers started her work at the Los Angeles Times and the book was never written. The second part of the sentence was added in this edit whose summary indicates that the BLP subject wanted the text clarified. The text currently has two citations: one to an online description of the book and one to the list of the series this book would be a part of if it existed (it is not in the list).

My position is that the subject's communication to the editor is not a reliable source and that since there are no reliable sources discussing this book situation, the text is OR. The position of the other two editors BrillLyle and Innisfree987 is twofold: first, to invoke IAR because although the book appears to exist ((it has an ISBN, etc), it does not, and Wikipedia should not publish false information; second, the article should reflect the subject's wishes as communicated to the editor.

Is the disputed text OR? Thanks for your help and guidance. Ca2james (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not need input. The issue, which was not even really an issue, was already resolved on the talk page of the article. BLP subjects who have communicated with Wiki editors (either via OTRS or via email, etc.) their correction of inaccuracies on their pages is in no way considered original research. This is just plain wrong. I believe this newbie editor is very confused about what they are talking about here. And has refused multiple request to stop fixating on a non-issue and move on. This is not a question of false information. It is a question of a relatively inexperienced editor not understanding or accepting what is going on here. I have tried to be patient and clear about this but this editor is being obstructive by bringing this issue here and not accepting that the issue was actually closed and resolved already. Bringing it here is a waste of time. -- BrillLyle (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Ca2james, as I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that it's certainly not my position that this or any "article should reflect the subject's wishes as communicated to the editor" (!!) Beyond that I feel we've crossed onto the wrong side of WP:NOTBURO here so I'm just going to leave it at the opinions I've already shared, on the entry's talk page and in edit summaries. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for misrepresenting your position; I wanted to include both your rationales but I erred in not attributing the positions correctly. If I've misjudged our OR policies then I'd like to know that from editors who are uninvolved in the discussion; I thought that bringing the issue here was the right place for that. Hopefully some uninvolved editors can weigh in? Ca2james (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It turns out that there's a tweet that does support the disputed text so there's no OR question. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Ca2james (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to apologize, and the tweet was only written a couple hours ago. BrillLyle had added the information based on a private conversation with the subject ("I tried to update & correct your @Wikipedia entry as we discussed"), a practice she continues to defend. (According to her, it is "1000% unreasonable" to insist on verifiability in a BLP.) Rebbing 01:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

organhistoricalsociety.org

Because the page for this site requests input, I endorse the site because it is a "source" by its publication (The Tracker) that identifies my surname immigrating ancestor in Volume 7, Number 2, pages 1-4, 1962, to defend adding that ancestor's name as a Personlichkeit (a Personality) who lived (for 12 years) in a specified village in Germany on de.wikipedia.org as well as a church citation for the baptism in 1824. VatievonHans VatievonHans (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a larger site than you seem to realize. You've given us very little context for what you're talking about. I'm guessing that you're talking about the article Organ Historical Society, maybe? If that's the case, their own website is a primary source, so it's only useful for claims solely about themselves and with proper attribution. It would not establish notability.
Though some of your other posts indicates that you're talking about a completely different article relating to your surname. As you have made no other contributions, we have no clue what you're talking about. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"death of character in TV show" => "final appearance of actor as that character in TV show"?

A bunch of our articles on individual episodes of Game of Thrones include some variation on "The Dragon and the Wolf" marks Aidan Gillen's final appearance as Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish or Indira Varma made her final appearance as Ellaria Sand with no citation attached, and the implicit assumption that the fact the character died in the episode (which in the latter case isn't even true) justifies saying the actors are done playing the characters as well, despite the occasional use of flashbacks and the fact that several spin-off (like prequel) series are in development.

Should these be tagged, blanked, or what?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: Your argument sounds fair enough. There should be some sources supporting those claims. --Mhhossein talk 18:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: --Mhhossein talk 18:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Given GoT uses weirdass plots there is every chance characters killed off will reappear in some sort of flashback, so citations needed for claims that they are definitely gone Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'm curious about something. If it is factual information, is it okay to cite directly from a company's website for minimal information (e.g Roku's website to verify the countries that they distribute to. JacobPace (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that factual information is irrelevant. If no reliable secondary sources have covered that information, then the information is unlikely notable enough to be included. Alex Shih (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
JacobPace, primary sources are fine in many cases for factual information. See WP:PRIMARY which begins: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I see no problem since there will be no "analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims". Lstfllw203 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Background section in '2017–18 Iranian protests'

Can anyone please check the following point:

The second paragraph in the background section in 2017–18 Iranian protests is cited to a 2016 source which is naturally not related to an incident happening in 2018. I think this is against the OR policy which says "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Any ideas? --Mhhossein talk 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What was being sourced was the fact that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the second-longest leader after the Shah [[23]]. That fact was already true in 2016, and so the information being cited is for 2016, not 2018. The statement cited is not anything that happened in 2018 so I don't get Hossein's argument here. And of course the Supreme Leader and his reign are related to the protests -- a major feature of the protests have been calls for him to be removed from office [[24]]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I already got your understanding of Original Research in Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#Background. --Mhhossein talk 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Thanks for your insight. As you see here and on the article TP, I've done a great deal of efforts to make the supporters of these OR understand that "the relevance of that statement to the article topic" is a determining criterion and they still ignore this and fail to provide RSs for this matter. --Mhhossein talk 11:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, actually at the time you posted this I had already presented another RS [[25]]. I am simply waiting for the verdict on this discussion because I am interested in the outcome, as a learning experience for us both about policy. If I'm wrong I intend to accept that and abide by it in future cases (although in this one, now, I have a 2018 source, so...). --Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a good experience for you. But, the policy is clear, I don't know why you tend to ignore that? --Mhhossein talk 19:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Uhh, no, there is a 2018 source discussing the protests that says this, and for days you have not gotten any response other than Blueboar's (tepid),, so I'm not sure what is "clear" that favors your argument.--Calthinus (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Just imagine you were persistently insisting that using a 2016 source for a writing factors leading to a 2018 incident was allowed since it was a simple math! Not weird from "a learning" user. --Mhhossein talk 18:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
No for the nth time that was a tangent. I hate admitting this but the truth is I realize I was misunderstanding your argument for something it wasn't. But the point here is that it was in a background section, where plenty of prior sourced stuff is usually reported elsewhere on wikipedia (indeed, some people would say this is absolutely necessarily background info given that the protestors chanted "death to Khamenei"...... surely readers would want to know who he is without visiting his page, no?). Of course we are all learning and if it turns out that what I thought were the rules regarding background sections aren't (i.e. prior sourcing is encouraged for info that is valuable to the reader) then that is useful to know ... but perhaps all of this surreal situation is "academic" at this point since we now have a 2018 source that discusses the protests saying as much :).--Calthinus (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a step forward...good. Another point, we usually don't rely on other articles for editing in WP. There might be millions of errors across this encyclopedia and we're not going to repeat them just because they are there. I see your point regarding "readers would want to know", but look, we should just rely on reliable sources. Sources will certainly cover all necessary info and editors just rewrite them. Yes, we're all learning. --Mhhossein talk 20:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There should be a source directly proving it's relevance to the background section. That 2016 source is not a suitable choice though.Lstfllw203 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not OR - perhaps an UNDUE claim. However - multiple 2018 sources, covering the protests, are out there - added to the article.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Iran’s supreme leader blames US-Israeli plot for protests, Financial Times, 9 January 2018
  2. ^ The Islamic Republic’s Power Centers, CFR, 5 January 2018
  3. ^ Nobel peace laureate Ebadi urges Iranians to keep up protests, Business Insider (Reuters), 4 January 2018

Secondary question

  • @Blueboar: Please see the following, too; This source is used to support the sentence "Khamenei allegedly controls a charitable foundation that was worth at least $95 billion in 2013" and to say that this is a background for the unrest, while the source does not directly says that this matter was a factor in the protests. --Mhhossein talk 12:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mhhossein: I urge you to, if you want to bring up multiple perceived violations of hte policy, start a thread for each. Having multiple cases for one thread makes things murky and harder for volunteers to come to a decision.--Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The "95 billion" has been moved and attributed to the commentator who 'mentioned' it, so the question is probably now academic. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Really new new religious movements

This discussion tangentially relates to a current existing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple. One of the issues involved in that discussion is whether a group which originated in about 2012, which is more recent than any of the reference books I checked on in gathering the data for List of new religious movements, can be counted as a new religious movement in its own right. Right now, we have one source which counts Satanism as an NRM, and this group is in a sense a Satanist group, but most of the other entries in the reference works I used in generating the list are for specific denominations. This question may not be particularly important in this particular instance, but there may well be others which arise in the future. Anyway, thoughts on whether a religious group too new to be included in available reference works on new religious movements can be counted as one? John Carter (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think making that distinction here falls into OR and we should hold off until the researchers and academics of the subject weigh in. In my understanding a group would need to consider themselves a religion in order to be a NRM, and I remain unconvinced that this group thinks they are a new religion. Yes there are some quotes saying effectively "we are a real religion" but I think those statements were made in the context of discussing Satanism, not claiming to be a new and distinct religion. Additionally it's problematic because many statements made by this group can be contradicted by other statements also made by the group so it's unclear where they actually stand on things today, and how that will impact their position tomorrow. They claimed to be literal devil worshipers in 2013 for example, only changing the position to be atheistic in 2014. Add to that the fact that the primary spokesperson for the group has a long history prior to this group's existence with other Satanist groups, I suspect if he was attempting to start a new religion all together rather than just riff on established Satanism there would be no question about it. I'm clear that other editors disagree with me on some of this but everything I've referenced in the ongoing discussion is well documented. Anyway, as Wikipedia is currently the only non-press source claiming they are a religion, and all academics who have discussed them do so in the context of them being an organization, classifying them as a NRM seems premature. Seanbonner (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it is kind of obvious that you've never actually looked at the List of new religious movements or at much of the literature involved. One of the most obvious exceptions to your understanding is Freemasonry and at least a few of the other groups included like Opus Dei and at least some of the groups in the Charismatic movement are also groups which exist specifically and exclusively within individual denominations. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's poor judgement to make accusations about what someone may or may not be familiar with. I use my real name here, it's not hard to easily learn that I've been involved in public discussions around Satanism for decades and New Religious Moments as they relate to Satanism for the last several years. I'm not claiming to be an expert in NRMs, as I said "In my understanding" which could be incorrect and I'd welcome the chance to learn something. I don't pretend to be the end all be all knowledgeable source, however I do want the math to add up and I know what I'm talking about in relation to Satanism and can point to citations to support every position I've taken. I'm in no way versed on the exhaustive reach of Christian denominations, however, again from what I understand they all share the same source material, if there's a Christian denomination that doesn't reference The Holy Bible I'm unaware of it and happy to be corrected. As Faxneld notes on page 74 of Contemporary Esotericism [26] "An enduring tradition of Satanism was initiated in 1966 when Anton LaVey founded the Church of Satan" so when someone who for at least a decade was very publicly associated with the Church of Satan announces a new organization of Satanists who don't recognize LaVey or his writings and claim to be multi-generational theists that's curious to me, and even more so when a year later they switch lanes, convert to atheism (like LaVey's Satanism) and say the theism thing was just a joke. I want to understand how that fits into the bigger picture and discuss it correctly. The recent proposal that this group is it's own religion outside of existing Satanism (that I vocally disagreed with at the time but have come around on) seems to be to be the least conflicted route and worth exploring, but in order to do that we need to have the correct language, I don't think it's fair or appropriate that my observation that calling two different religions who have different source material the exact same thing might be confusing is somehow biased or out of line. I want the article to be the most accurate it can be, dumping everything that anyone called "satanic" into one muddy bucket is not accurate and was exactly the situation prior to 1966 which LaVey sought to rectify by creating a defined religion around the term. Seanbonner (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be saying in the above that possibly to your eyes LaVey's definition should somehow be binding on others. That would be rather similar to saying that the Catholic Church's definition of what is and is not acceptable as defining aspects of Christianity must be accepted by all other purportedly Christian groups. I doubt very many people here would support such thinking. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not what I said at all, please reread. Seanbonner (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
To any editors coming to this discussion who aren't familiar with the controversy regarding what is or is not an NRM, we basically agreed some time before I assembled the list of NRMs that Wikipedia would describe something as an NRM if one or more of the reference works in the field, including those used to assemble and reference that list in it's current format, described it as such. The term itself is apparently a politically correct alternative for "cult". It includes several groups like Erhard Seminars Training which do not remotely call themselves religious. The specific group in question is newer than the reference works consulted, but has a great deal of significant factors which it has in common with those groups listed. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rogue state

None of the sources in article rogue state claim that the United States has classified Rhodesia and South Africa as a rogue state. The sources refer sanctions that these countries experienced during the Cold War. The User:Gregorius deretius, who added such information, had already been rolled back several times in the past: 1, 2, 3. I ask that the page go back to the previous version of the editions of Gregorius deretius because it is a case of WP: SYNTHESIS.--201.1.43.76 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Due to the number of sanctions that these countries recieved and some facts like the development of south africa's nuclear program, South africa and Rhodesia's gross human rights violations and their poor relationship with the United States,Both countries fit in the category of rogue states . ([[User talk:Gregorius Deretius|talk)16:00, 08 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gregorius Deretius: your opinion that these facts about the two countries means they are or were "rogue states" is, I'm afraid, not useful. It is, as the IP user has stated above, a clear violation of Wikipedia policies on original research. In order to justify inclusion of these countries, you can't just give us reasons why you think they qualify. You need to provide a reliable, secondary source which uses that term and cite that usage. Please read, understand, and follow the no original research policy before adding any rogue state examples. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
None of the sources cited in the text mention that South Africa and Rhodesia have ever been classified as "rogue states". This information is only a personal conclusion of the user, not being supported by the sources.--201.1.43.76 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We cannot say that the U.S. considered a state to be a rogue state unless we have sources that say exactly that. Besides, how could the U.S. consider Rhodesia to be a rogue state when it did not recognize the state of Rhodesia? TFD (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I do think we can say Rhodesia was regarded as a rogue state (US designation aside) - in fact, I think it pretty much is the defining example in the modern era.... See - Beck, Martin, and Johannes Gerschewski. "On the Fringes of the International Community: The Making and Survival of" Rogue States"." Sicherheit und Frieden (S+ F)/Security and Peace (2009): 84-90., [27], [28].Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The format of the article is to say who used the term, when, and why. That should be the precondition for inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Extremely clear: If no reliable source said it, it cannot be added. Manelolo (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

How to rectify what "age of consent" means re:Texas?

@Fabrickator: Defining what age of consent for Texas is tricky because there is a law prohibiting sexual activity with those under 17 but there is also a law against inducement of sexual conduct from someone under 18 (one does not need to be doing this for a performance). Effectively that makes the 18 the minimum age in which the person's partner won't be prosecuted for a felony; the question is whether that should be interpreted as the "age of consent" using Wikipedia's definition of age of consent in that article (and stating directly that it is 18), or whether doing so is Original Research and therefore the article can't clearly define an age of consent for Texas.

  • The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), the statewide law enforcement agency, considers the age of consent to be 18
  • The court case Ex parte Fujisaka, 472 S.W.3d 792, 800, 801 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015), which considered both laws stated above, ruled that the age of consent was 17

Articles in the popular media usually state the age of consent in Texas is 17.

To quote User:John M Baker:

  • " The standard legal dictionary in the United States is Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Here's its definition of "age of consent": "The age, usu. defined by statute as 16 years, at which a person is legally capable of agreeing to marriage (without parental consent) or to sexual intercourse. • If a person over the age of consent has sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent, the older person may be prosecuted for statutory rape regardless of whether the younger person consented to the act. See statutory rape under RAPE (2); JAILBAIT." In other words, "age of consent" traditionally is closely associated with statutory rape (or ability to contract marriage, but that is not what is being discussed here).
   The problem is that people don't really care all that much whether engaging in sex with someone under a certain age will result in prosecution for statutory rape, as opposed to prosecution for some other felony; if it's a serious crime, it's a serious crime. Our articles probably should clarify this in some standardized way, although that seems like it would be a substantial job. John M Baker"

In Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Please_fix_Texas_on_the_map there is a question. Do we:

  • definitely state that the age of consent is 18, like in this edit
  • state the two laws with different ages and state the different interpretations of age of consent from Texas government organs (both DPS and Ex parte Fujisaka) without definitively giving an age of consent for Texas in this edit?

How do you convey useful information while avoiding original research? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest addressing (and resolving) the question about how "age of consent" is to be defined prior to addressing the other questions. Until the issue of what is to be meant by "age of consent" is settled, it will just make for a confusing discussion as to what should be specified as the "age of consent" in a particular state. Fabrickator (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
In that case I'm partial to using Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), at least in relation to the US, but I would like to also find a written published RS that states, in John Baker's words, "people don't really care all that much whether engaging in sex with someone under a certain age will result in prosecution for statutory rape, as opposed to prosecution for some other felony; if it's a serious crime, it's a serious crime." ( I would like to add that being put on a sex offender list versus being absent from one would differentiate felonies) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Black's Law Dictionary? I don't know if we need such a reference, as these words have a "plain language" meaning: In any given state, the age of sexual consent is the youngest age at which the law provides for a distinction between consensual and non-consensual sex. Otherwise, you would have a definition in which the state would be in the position of recognizing, by law, that a person under the age of consent is nevertheless able to give consent. Fabrickator (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
As an FYI for all editors I want to supply the Merriam Webster's definitions which match "man on the street" ones.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this issue needs to be framed better. The question is really whether the page in question (and presumably, other "age of consent" pages) should be about something which the phrase "age of consent" means according to some third-party source, or whether it should be about something else. Does it matter what a judge calls out as the "age of consent" in a particular statute, when that actually isn't the criteria for how to determine guilt, is it helpful to have a "common law" definition that explains the general concept, when that's not actually consistent with modern statutory constructs, would a survey of the general public understanding of the "age of consent" resolve this issue for us, or should the focus be on what the needs are in order for this page to provide the information that's actually going to address the questions people who come to this page are most likely to have?
The issue that you are raising is the notion that there is some kind of problem with using a specialized definition if we do not have a reliable source for that definition, as you believe that otherwise, it would require "original research" to use some unsourced definition, therfore being in conflict with Wikipedia policy.
There seems to be a secondary issue as to how such a specialized definition would be presented. I don't think there's much to object to in putting this definition in words, but I would argue that "everybody else" really doesn't seem to have a problem, as they are able to figure this out from the context that the subject of the page is really about whether one may run afoul of the law by having consensual sex with persons under a particular age . Fabrickator (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

In hopes of salvaging something from this NOR discussion, would any "third parties" care to address the issue of whether providing a specialized definition requires a source? In other words, if a definition is provided indicating how a term is used within a Wikipedia article, is it sufficient to provide the definintion of the term, or must the definition that is used within the article come from a reliable source? Fabrickator (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Black-eyed children and supposed Iroquois legends: pure speculation

An IP has twice tried to add a supposed race of evil black-eyed children in their tribe's mythology to this article, speculating that the person who made this up out of whole cloth in Texas must have heard of this New York State tribe's similarly-labeled beings. I don't want to edit war, but WP:OR is clearly relevant here, as is WP:RS. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Appeasement, fascism, economics

We could use some new voices in the debate at Talk:Appeasement. Specifically I've proposed a section on economic appeasement in the 1930s, and we are voting on whether it is OR or not:

Numerous scholars have explored the trade aspects of appeasement. Britain's commercial relationship with Germany was steady throughout the 1930s, extending even beyond the invasion of Prague. Germany was, after India, Britain’s largest exporter. "In consequence," The Economist notes, "the German war machine continued to be fueled with oil and armed with metals from British sources" up until the declaration of war in September 1939. It has been argued that trade in strategic materials with the Nazis was necessary for Britain's rearmament.[1]

Even as appeasement seemed to collapse in the aftermath of Kristalnacht, economic appeasement escalated. In January 1939, London and Berlin representatives helped negotiate an Anglo-German coal cartel.[2] A major trade conference commenced in Dusseldorf that March, although government participation was disrupted by the Prague crisis. The Federation of British Industries and other trade groups proceeded with the meetings nonetheless. By the eve of the war, the two countries had 133 trade agreements in effect.[3]

The American policy of neutrality at this time could sometimes lapse into appeasement.[4] This was particularly true economically; with no serious sanctions on the rising Axis powers until 1941, top US firms like IBM and General Motors were extremely active in Nazi Germany for years, and exchange controls ensured that most of their profits were cycled back into the country, thereby strengthening Hitler's regime.[5] This also meant that Nazi-associated businesses like IG Farben and Thyssen industries did extensive dealings with elite US banks like Brown Brothers Harriman and Union Banking Corporation up through the outbreak of the war.[6] With the knowledge of the US government, the American film industry catered consciously to Germany. Most major Hollywood studios worked directly with the German Consul Georg Gyssling up until 1940 to censor films for anti-Nazi or pro-Jewish sentiment, even for versions distributed outside of Germany.[7][8]

It's been argued by some there that the theory of economic appeasement isn't widely accepted, however, it's actually well established:

The question of economic appeasement, first broached by Gilbert and Gott, has also re-emerged as a focus for study. Scott Newton attempted “to relate appeasement to the domestic politico-economic background from which it was developed,” ...(74. Scott Newton, Profits of Peace: The Political Economy of Anglo-German Appeasement (Oxford, 1996), pp. 3–6.)
In a somewhat similar vein, Neil Forbes explored Anglo–German economic and financial relations in the 1930s. The morality of conducting peacetime trade with dictatorships was set aside as was the argument that British business abetted, or was sympathetic to, Nazism. I... 75 (75. Neil Forbes, Doing Business with Nazi Germany: Britain's Economic and Financial Relations with Germany, 1931–1939 (London, 2000), pp. 225–226.) Economic appeasement on a broader canvas but with similar conclusions is examined in Paul N. Hehn, A Low Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe, and the Economic Origins of World War II, 1930–1941 (London, 2002).
- "Appeasement: Before and After Revisionism" Sidney Aster," Diplomacy & Statecraft Vol. 19, Iss. 3, 2008

-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Staff (15 March 2001) "Trading with evil" (book reviews) The Economist
  2. ^ C A MacDonaldm United States Britain And Appeasement 1936–1939 (Springer, 1981), pp, 130–37
  3. ^ Frank McDonough, Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War, pp. 145–48
  4. ^ William E. Leuchtenburg, "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Foreign Affairs" The Miller Center, University of Virginia
  5. ^ Geoffrey Jones, "Firms and Global Capitalism" in The Cambridge History of Capitalism Volume 2, Larry Neal et al, eds. (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 180–86
  6. ^ Adam LeBor, Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank that Runs the World (Public Affairs, 2014), Chapter Nine
  7. ^ The Oxford History of World Cinema edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (Oxford University Press, 1997), p.245
  8. ^ Anthony Quinn, "The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler by Ben Urwand – review", The Guardian, October 16, 2013

Artist's impressions

I've just come across File:Brontoscorpio.png in Brontoscorpio. While it's a great image, I'm unsure whether it is appropriate for us to include, as the only specimen of this species is one 10cm piece. The original description estimated it's size from that, but the illustration is not based on anything previously published, which in my opinion makes it OR. What do you think? SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I find little, in the literature, about being a marine species, as the illustration seems to suggest. This seems to discuss it in the context of terrestrial species. I will boldy remove.--cyclopiaspeak! 14:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Section Islam in polyandry

On this section WP:SYN is used but no one is trying to know the truth. Please help remove it I cannot see any source claiming to allow polyandry it is WP:SYN. I do not know why such blunder only for one religion but not others. I have already explained here and also Nblund on its talk page. Please help block such vandalistic editors. Smatrah (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and created and RfC on the talk page for Polyandry. Pleas comment here Nblund talk 17:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Calculation of vote share in an election

An editor has complained about this sentence in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 1987:

However, the official vote count does establish that the MUF polled 31% of the votes cast in the Valley.[note 1]

[note 1}: The Muslim United Front polled 470,580 votes by the official count,[1] out of 1,477,250 votes cast in the Valley,[2] making it roughly 31%.

References

  1. ^ Hussain, Masood (23 March 2016), "MUFfed", Kashmir Life, retrieved 17 February 2018
  2. ^ Statistical Report on the General Election, 1987, Election Commission of India, New Delhi.

The complaint was:

It gets worse in that there is added WP:SYNTHESIS between (even worse) WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. See this edit where you have synthesized content between a secondary source and an official election commission paper.

What is your view? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides the lack of reliability (this was a rigged election after all) of the electoral commission report, it is a WP:PRIMARY source. Challenging peer reviewed secondary sources such as the scholar Bose with primary material constitutes WP:OR.
There are also too many contradictions between the two sources given to do an accurate calculation. An example is that the first source Kautilya3 used said the NC got 713232 votes but the second source Kautilya3 used shows that the NC got 857830 votes. So with such a contradiction between both its not possible to do an accurate mathematical calculation using both materials. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Contradicting "scholar Bose" is not the issue being raised here. What is raised is your claim that calculating vote share constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. I have referred you to WP:CALC and WP:SYNTHNOT, but you have apparently ignored them. The first source (a journalist) did not go and count the votes himself. He is obviously using the election commission data and summarising it as relevant to the issues discussed. The supposed contradiction between the two sources is your misunderstanding. The first source is summarising the data for the Kashmir Valley. The Election Commission is summarising it for the whole State. The two numbers will be obviously different. But, once again, this has no impact on your claim, which is basically an attempt to defeat WP:CALC and WP:SYNTHNOT.
The "scholar Bose" made a statement of fact. Whether that statement is correct or not is independently verifiable. Facts do not change according to scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the 31% figure is given in the first source itself. It is written as "30.96 percent of the popular vote". But the journalist is not being careful with the wording. It should be explicated that it is the "30.96 percent of the popular vote in the Valley". For that purpose, we are cross-checking with the Election Commission report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Your claim that the first source is summarizing the data for only the Kashmir Valley is not supported in the first source. Nothing in the Kashmir Life article says so, it just says ″of Kashmir's electors″. Kashmir is the catchphrase here, not Kashmir Valley, and the term Kashmir includes the entire region of Jammu and Ladakh since the post mid-19th century. So the only correct conclusion is that there is a contradiction between the two sources and it is wrong to calculate using two contradictory materials. And the electoral commission paper should not be used in calculations in the first place because it is a WP:PRIMARY material. WP:CALC does not have any liberty over WP:PRIMARY sources because the policy states ″Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.″
The sentence in the article that precedes the contested content...The basis for this estimate appears to be that, since the MUF won a third of the officially declared vote state-wide, its vote share in the Valley would have been far higher.[1]...is content from a secondary scholarly source. So it is fine. The same cannot be said for the contested sentence, which is a futile attempt to refute the scholarly-sourced content, because it is not sourced to secondary sources, it is half-sourced to a WP:PRIMARY source. Also, WP:SYNTHESIS is not allowed with WP:PRIMARY sources. Read policy. Your arrogance that WP:SYNTHESIS is not a problem is a very, very serious matter.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see any evidence that "Kashmir" in the first source means the entire region of Jammu and Ladakh. How did you conclude that?
  • Besides, the MUF only contested seats in the Valley. So, even if one counted their number of votes in the entire state, the result would be the same number.
  • You are forgetting that calculating percentage vote shares from election statistics is done by hundreds of excellent secondary sources, including the first source mentioned here. The idea that calculating percentages is somehow SYNTHESIS is quite far-fetched.
  • It doesn't seem like very many people are watching this notice board. Let me ping a few people: RegentsPark, NeilN, Vanamonde93, Sitush, Winged Blades of Godric, can you offer your view to the question up above? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bose, Transforming India 2013, p. 275: "Muslim United Front candidates won in just four constituencies, including the towns of Anantnag and Sopore, although according to the official results the opposition alliance got one-third of the statewide vote (which meant that its official vote in the Valley was much higher than one-third). ... The most likely scenario had there been a free and fair election in 1987 was that the Muslim United Front would have won most of the constituencies in the Kashmir Valley and a few in the Jammu region and emerged as a large opposition in the J&K legislature, holding at least 30 of the 76 seats."
I will ignore your WP:CANVASSING of your familiars, I see that you are not WP:LISTENING which is a form of WP:DISRUPTION. It is, as you said, up to the hundreds of excellent secondary sources to calculate percentage vote shares from election statistics. Last I checked, a Wikipedia user is not a secondary source. You have skipped my point that you yourself cannot WP:CALCULATE using WP:PRIMARY material. You need to find a WP:SECONDARY source for the calculations you have made if you want them in the main space. If you do not give a secondary source your own calculations would only count as WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS from WP:PRIMARY source, all of which are prohibited here.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Nah..The accusations of canvassing are just nonsense.RP, NeliN, Sitush and V93 are all highly-respected contributors, in wiki-circles, who may happen to be familiar with Kautilya3.~ Winged BladesGodric 09:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Responding to the ping. We allow simple calculations, such as vote share. We also have a limited acceptance of primary sources. Calculating the vote share based on the official source in this situation seems entirely reasonable. I do not deny that elections are sometimes rigged but the solution to that, from our perspective, is to reflect the reliable sources. Thus, if there are reliable sources which report the rigging then we need to include those also. As long as we qualify that our calculation of vote share etc is based on the official figures but there is some reliably-sourced dispute about those figures, there is no problem that I can see. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Besides the problem that the calculation would be based off WP:PRIMARY material, the calculation result Kautilya3 has got contradicts the calculation of the scholar Sumantra Bose, a WP:RS, who has been quoted in my 5:22 reply. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So show both. I really do not see what the issue is here and I absolutely guarantee you that such a basic calculation using a primary source published by a government body is acceptable, even if disputed. The key is to show the dispute, not censor the source. On the other hand, if the secondary source (Bose, in this case) clearly states a calculation based on the primary and then goes on to dispute it then we do not actually need to cite the primary. That's a mere technicality. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Bose's statement "according to the official results the opposition alliance got one-third of the statewide vote (which meant that its official vote in the Valley was much higher than one-third)" is quite speculative and wishy-washy. I would have completely omitted it if not for the fact that he draws some quite drastic conclusions from it, which have strong adherents. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Your personal opinion about what the scholar has said counts for nothing and strengthens my case against your desperate endeavors to include WP:PRIMARY material contradicting the WP:RS. If you want some luck try finding a WP:RS which disagrees with Bose. Otherwise this will be counted as WP:OR pushing. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Just drop it. Eg: "According to official figures, A = B. Bose, however, contends that X = Y because ...". It isn't rocket science. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is this even an argument? Nobody is using a primary source to contradict a secondary source; it is the Kashmir Life article which contradicts Bose. The primary document is used merely as additional support. Which is perfectly acceptable. Nobody's removing Bose's statement here. Drop it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I will assume WP:GOODFAITH and put aside the WP:CANVASSING you have responded to. The argument is about using a WP:PRIMARY source for WP:CALCULATION. The policy explicitly says not to. Please don't pluck up arguments from the air to give an impression that you have rebutted anything on the table. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY gives no allowance for WP:SYNTHESIS, which is what WP:CALC is. No analysis and evaluation is allowed either with WP:PRIMARY materials. Read policy...Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so....There is nothing wrong in being keen to keep WP:SYNTHESIS of WP:PRIMARY material out of an article. If Kautilya3 is so keen to hold on to this figure in mainspace he needs to WP:CALCULATE using WP:SECONDARY sources. If you still do not WP:LISTEN I will have to regard this as WP:DISRUPTION. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep outdenting your replies. There is already a secondary source, as Vanamonde has noted, and the primary is being used in a perfectly acceptable way. Feel free to regard me as disruptive - let's see how far that gets you - but while you pursue whatever channel you intend to follow regarding that, you still need to be aware that multiple experienced contributors are telling you that you are flogging a dead horse here. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that an acceptable way.
"The Muslim United Front polled 470,580 votes by the official count,[28] out of 1,477,250 votes cast in the Valley,[1] representing 31.9% of the vote share. Its share of votes in the whole state was 18.9%."
I do not find the value in "1,477,250" in source [1], and source [28] (the kashmirlife article) writes: "It took 470580 votes making 30.96 percent of the popular vote". If 470580 represents 30.96% of the votes, the total number of votes cast should have been more than 1,519,500. Or the other way around: 470580/1477250=31.86%, which is not within the error margin of (30.96±0.01)%.
How can one include a calculation that combines two sources to produce a result that conflicts with one of them? Or more to the point, what's the use, since one source already gives the percentage you try to calculate, and the primary source doesn't add anything, on the contrary:
  • combining several sources in a calculation makes the result less reliable, not more.
  • as far as I can see, the source doesn't differentiate between MUF and other independent candidates, so without additional info (like a list of MUF candidates), there's not a lot you can do with it (in this context).
When a scholar suggests that the vote was rigged, one can quote the official results, but not in a way that seems to imply he was wrong ("However, the official vote count does establish..."). The statement "the basis for this estimate appears to be that, since the MUF won ..." doesn't add much, and is speculation/interpretation, ie WP:OR. (seems rather obvious what Bose meant: you'd expect a larger share of the votes in a region where >90% of the population is Muslim than in a region where only 1/3 is Muslim, but writing that would be WP:OR as well). Prevalence 02:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Royal title

A phrase on a late 19th century colonial treaty is being used on the Mohamoud Ali Shire page to justify the claim that this ruler's official royal title in the colonial documents was "Elder of the Warsangeli Tribe"-- "the British government and the Elders of the Warsangli Tribe who have signed this agreement" [29]. The url does not mention this sultan by name, but he did apparently sign a treaty with the colonial authorities. Isn't this title, then, original research? Also, please take into consideration that this ruler seems to have been relatively young during the late 1920s and not yet in the elder age range-- "this man is still young" [30]. Soupforone (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect. No one made the claim that the subject had an "official royal title", there are no sources on this. The article previously described him as a ruler without any WP:RS justifying this description. As such that description was corrected to "elder of a Somali clan", per official British treaty describing the leaders of this clan as "Elders of the Warsangli Tribe" [31], this description is in line with uses in other sources as well [32], as well as to describe his grandson who inherited his position [33]. The use of 'elder' in this context is not a comment on age but on status. As for the 'title', both titles of (Sultan) and (Senior Akil) included seem well sourced.--Kzl55 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Links describing this ruler as an elder ca. 1966 [34] and an elderly descendant of his as such ca. 2003 [35] are obviously not equivalent to the original claim that an early colonial treaty qualified him as an elder ca. the late 19th century [36]. There is no source that describes him as an elder in the late 19th century, apparently because he was still a young man at the time. A normal human being also cannot remain an elder for 60+ years. Soupforone (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are missing a rather obvious point, when his grandson is described as "the clan's senior elder" [37], the statement is not a comment on his age, but rather his status/position. Your claim that this individual has an "official royal title" is unsourced. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not what the OP is about. The actual issue is over your original claim that the word elder should be used in the lead instead of ruler because "per official British treaty "The British Government and the Elders of the Warsangli Tribe" goo.gl/bNFEsU" [38]. However, that goo.gl url does not mention this sultan by name, and he also was apparently still young during the late 1920s, around 20 years after that treaty. Therefore, he could not have been an elder in the late 19th century, though he certainly was by 1966. Also, Sultan is a royal title - see Category:Royal_titles. Soupforone (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As I stated, your assertion that there is an “official royal title” for this individual is unsourced. Your preference for the use of ‘ruler’ is also unsourced [39]. We have an official British treaty (apparently the only official document of this kind signed by elders of this clan) clearly describing them as “elders of the Warsangali tribe”. Given that this elder was a leader of this tribe, and that we have other sources describing him as such [40] ('Somali elder' here is not a comment on his age, he was not included in the publication for being an old Somali man), the use is justified. I have also included a description of his grandson, who holds the same position, described as an elder of the clan [41]. I originally used the word “tribe” per source wording, but due to your objection it was substituted with clan [42]. Again, I stress that it is not a comment on his age, but rather his status/position. Also, the use of Sultan in the context of Somali clans is to describe a traditional elder/chief of a tribe, it is not an “official royal title”.--01:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears that although the power of most of the sultans was limited to their respective clan territories, they were locally regarded as sultans in the ordinary titular sense [43]. Elder is indeed a title, albeit one that comes with age, when one is elderly. It is not typically bestowed upon the young. A work that describes the sultan as an elder in 1966 thus cannot be equated with elder status for this individual in the late 1800s, during his youth. Soupforone (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, neither "official royal title" nor the use of "ruler" were sourced. Somali use of word 'Sultan' was to denote clan elders, your source is clear that they had little or none of the power held by 'Sultans' in the ordinary sense. The word Sultan itself is just one of several interchangeable titles used to refer to Somali tribal elders, again, per your source: ("In addition to the universally understood Arabic Suldaan... the position has several different titles. Purer Somali expressions are Boqor, Ugaas... and Garaad... These various titles are now all more or less synonamous'' [44]. The use of "clan elder" in the Somali context is to mark a position of leadership/influence, it is not a description of age. The British treaty was signed by the leaders of the clan, and the use of "elders" in the treaty had nothing to do with age of the 14 traditional chiefs. Also, the article is about an individual who is apparently notable due to being a leader/chief of this clan, it is not an article about his youth. --Kzl55 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That work indicates that "the emphasis placed on seniority in age and on experience is evident in the title given to the man who in any particular hamlet tends to direct its affairs. Whatever its kinship composition, its leader is always referred to as 'elder', or 'old-man'". Older age is therefore indeed an inherent aspect of the elder title, as it is only bestowed upon elderly men. According to the author, sultan is a different title and it does approximate the ordinary titular sultan, even though most of the contemporary sultans wielded little significant power. He elucidates on this elsewhere [45]-- "Most clans, although not all, have titular leaders dignified beyond their actual power and authority by the Arabian title Sultan." He also indicates that although the sultan title is now interchangeable with various other titles, some of these titles were previously distinguished by different ranks [46]-- "Suldaan, Boqor, Ugaas, Garaad, and Islaam are all used in the North with much the same sense. Formerly some of these titles seem to have distinguished different ranks." Also, he writes that the 'aaqil title is not equivalent to the sultan title, but instead denotes salaried representatives, as in the Ottoman Egypt Khedivate [goo.gl/QuJcjp]. Soupforone (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I reiterate, neither "official royal title" nor the use of "ruler" were sourced, per source above, Somalis have traditional clan elders, these elders held different titles (including Sultan, Boqor, Garaad, Akil..etc), these titles are synonymous in meaning as indicated by the text above. The individuals chosen to lead the clan had little or none of the power held by 'Sultans' in the ordinary sense (again per source above). As for elder, it is indeed not a comment on age as per British treaty (referring to clan chiefs as elders) as well as references to the individual elsewhere [47]. Elder simply means traditional clan chief. There are no distinctions between the uses of Garaad, Sultan, and Akil as well as other terms in the Somali context. Furthermore, the usage of these terms is not precise (The main traditional authorities are the caqil, usually transcribed “Aqil” or “Akil”; suldan, generally “sultan” in English; garaad, boqor and ugaas... For various reasons, these titles came to be used in a rather loose manner all over northern Somalia...) [48]. All the different terms indicate one thing, namely a position of leadership/influence within the clan.--Kzl55 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Repetition aside, that url also explains that the aqil office is distinct from that of the sultan-- "the aqil[...] could also emancipate himself to some degree from the sultan" [49]; "in the colonial period the position of Aqil was stabilized as an intermediary authority between the elders and the sultan" [50]. Soupforone (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is clear, all these titles are now synonymous, their use is not precise, and they all refer to traditional Somali clan elders, no such thing as "official royal title" nor of "ruler".--Kzl55 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones's "aggressive opposition to gun control"

I would like to get a few opinions from this noticeboard regarding an edit at Alex Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The description of Jones's opposition to gun control is described as "aggressive", on the basis of editors watching a video and evaluating the way he responds as "aggressive", but without any of the sources making any mention of the term "aggressive". Please see edit 1, edit 2, and talk section Jones's "aggressive opposition to gun control". Thank you. Dr. K. 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is OR to watch a video and determine that the person's opposition is aggressive. That's a judgment that must be sourced. Also, it is better to avoid that term, since while metaphorically it means emphatic, literally it means violent. Not a good metaphor when talking about weapons. TFD (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is an inaccurate summary. There are two sources in that section, [51] and [52]. The first was added in direct response to Dr.K.s complaints about the video being used alone, so it makes no sense that they wouldn't mention it, here. It can clearly be seen in the second diff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The first was added in direct response to Dr.K.s complaints about the video being used alone, so it makes no sense that they wouldn't mention it, here. I provided two diffs, one of which includes the second source by CSM, so I did not intend to hide it. The reason I did not specifically mention it is that it is useless in the context of my report at ORN, because it does not verify the term "aggressive". None of the two sources describes Jones's opposition as "aggressive". So, both are useless, and no amount of obfuscation or PAs will change that. Dr. K. 06:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It is definitely OR to watch a video and ascribe an emotional aspect to it like "aggressive" (We don't allow that for writing plot summaries of visual works), but it does appear that the term can be sourced to RSes describing it themselves. --Masem (t) 05:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: Thank you Masem. At the moment, however, none of the two sources mentions the term "aggressive". I also agree with The Four Deuces that using the term "agressive" must be sourced, and in this case it is not. Even if we find a source, this description should be attributed to the source. Checking an archived version of CSM the descriptor "aggressive" does not exist. Despite that, the opposition is accusing me of "lying", although my presentation here is absolutely accurate that none of the two sources use the descriptor "aggressive", therefore it is unsourced OR at present. Also, adding this descriptor at the lead, without it being mentioned in the main body of the article, is a violation of WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Dr. K. 06:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Funnily enough, you were fine with quoting the CSM in the lede. I made that edit, and even I was very uncomfortable with it. Curiously, you only seem to find problems with edits when anyone else has any input. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP weren't problems for you until an edit that you hadn't dictated went live. An edit with unarguably fewer BLP and UNDUE problems, I might add. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Funnily enough, you were fine with quoting the CSM in the lede False. This is my reply to you at Talk:Alex Jones regarding the CSM piece: As far as the CSM piece, at least it is compliant with V and RS. BLP-wise, I wouldn't have chosen such a piece to be at the lead. For something to be at the lead, it must be covered in the main article body. So your edit violates WP:LEAD. Now, do I want to keep reverting your edits to clean up the article? No.. It is clear that I did not think that edit was appropriate but since you were adding this stuff anyway, I chose not to edit-war about it. That doesn't mean, by any stretch that I was fine with it. The other edit, calling Jones's opposition "aggressive" without qualification, and by failing WP:V, was even worse. And don't forget, you started the discussion at the talkpage by initially defending the use of the term "aggressive" on the basis of watching the video. Example: There is no analysis in that source which refers to Jones' behavior as aggressive. But my point is that we don't need that to make a statement as simple as "He was aggressively defending gun rights", because there's no reasonable assertion that Jones was being anything but aggressive in that video. If a video showed someone walking down the street, I can't imagine any reasonable editor claiming that the video can't be used to source the claim that the person in question walked down the street in the video. If, as you assert, it is unverifiable in that video that Jones was being aggressive, all you need to do is provide a reasonable alternative interpretation. So make a reasoned (it doesn't even need to be compelling, just "not complete bollocks") argument that he was being calm, or jocular, or easy-going, or indeed anything that would preclude aggression, and I will drop the matter.. You did this for quite some time. That was not constructive. Dr. K. 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
ANI is thataway. Feel free to go whine about me there. In fact, please do. I would dearly love to point out to that audience how you started edit warring and only stopped because you were cut off at the pass by my refusal to enable it, then opened a discussion by accusing me of edit warring and POV pushing, continued to accuse me of edit warring and POV pushing even as I made edits based entirely on your suggestions, grossly misrepresented the facts in opening this discussion and how you've continued to complain about me on both pages instead of making even the barest effort to focus on the content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
As usual, you bypass all my arguments in defence of your falsehoods and you WP:BAIT me with ANI, using more false arguments. I am not interested in your theatrics. Dr. K. 18:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that CSM says "Ultraconservative radio talk host Alex Jones appeared on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” on Monday talking about gun control, although “talking” is a word that might not really describe what went on. Mr. Jones shouted, ranted, and preached in a voice so loud that Rush Limbaugh is a whispering golf announcer by comparison. Jones did everything but wrap himself in an American flag – though he did offer to fight Mr. Morgan while wearing red white and blue trunks." It then goes on to describes Jones as "snarl[ing]" and "very loud", and states "The National Rifle Association might be furious: Jones is so outrageous and vituperative that the gun lobby must believe he’s counterproductive." It adds "He delivered much of this screed in a singsong British accent meant to mock Morgan..." and still manages to squeeze in "He also attacked his host for using notecards. We are not making that up."
I don't think "aggressive" is OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It's scrapping the edges of OR since it is not used exactly even though it is synonous with what CSM published; this is where quoting sourcing material can go a long way. Also keep in mind, we're only talking about this one appearance, it seems, so to broadly call Jones' stance on gun control aggressive from one interview is definitely an OR issue. --Masem (t) 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, quoting the CSM would be a BLP violation, or at least too close to one for my comfort. Their language is just too hyperbolic for that; including a claim that is (strictly speaking) demonstrably false and could be construed as defamatory, were we to enshrine it in our nominally neutral encyclopedia article. As for the issue of scope, I think it's more an issue of fixing the grammar, as it's that particular instance which is being referred to. There's virtually no coverage of Jones' stance on gun control in a general sense. All the sources you can find which are focused on Jones and gun control are about this incident, though some of the articles on Jones' school shooting conspiracy theories mention gun control. Maybe the lede should say "his aggressive debate with Piers Morgan".
I will contend the following without exception: The CSM source absolutely supports "aggressive".
While I'm not interested in arguing over whether or not the video supports the use of "aggressive", (the CSM source is more important, IMHO) I would suggest that anyone willing to watch that video and then argue based on that watching that Jones was not behaving aggressively is not a reasonable person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
So a couple things; we have a section on Jones' Gun Rights beliefs, and then a second section on TV appearances that includes this PMT interview. I think those needs to be combined under the Gun Control aspect, which can include a second paragraph to discuss how the PMT interview raised questions of how "extreme" his views on gun control appear to commentators. Now, given this, I also think that it is fully appropriate to quote and attribute any non-hyperbole descriptions of Jones' intensity in this interview; that avoids any OR of how to describe how he was speaking the video, and as long as you quote/attribute and avoid the hyperbole from an otherwise RS, there's no BLP issue. For example you could say Jones' stance on gun rights became a subject of discussion following his appearance on PMT in October 2016, in which, according to the CSM, Jones "shouted, ranted, and preached" in defending his view on gun rights; after this, you can then include his 1776 statements, and further commentary towards how others saw Jones as a terrible spokesperson for gun rights. And just looking through sources, I can see it can be described as "rant" or "tirade", which all imply "aggressive" without using that word. --Masem (t) 16:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Good suggestions, there. I'd be fine with "ranting" or calling it a "tirade", mostly because (to be honest): I fail to see how that's any different than calling it "aggressive". My concern here is that the sources are written with a mocking, hyperbolic tone. Which is appropriate for them, of course, but not us. I don't like the idea of quoting a source like that unless we're making a point of emphasizing how little the RSes think of the topic, and I'm not sure why we would need to do that in this case. I only really think we should do that when there's a disconnect between what expert RSes and what popular RSes say.
BTW, I've since made a change based on my last comment to the lede, to address the issue you raised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The term "aggressive" still fails verification because it is not mentioned by the source. We should also attribute any descriptors to CSM in any case. Calling it "aggressive" in Wikipedia's voice still fails WP:V. Dr. K. 18:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you know what a synonym is? Your argument is phenomenally ignorant. If only content which is stated verbatim by sources is verifiable, then all content which is not direct quotes fails WP:V. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ignorance is demonstrated by your inability to understand WP:OR. "Aggressive" is not a synonym for the terms used in any of the sources you provided. You also fail to understand that there are not any sources calling Jones's opposition to gun control "aggressive", and in general not many sources deal with Jones's opposition to gun control. So we need to accurately attribute the few sources that use adjectives to characterise Jones's opposition, quoting their terms, and not making up terms they don't explicitly use, while using Wikipedia's voice. Dr. K. 19:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
CSM describes Jones words to Morgan as "attacks" twice. "Attacking" is given as a direct synonym to "Aggressive". You should really check this stuff out before you make such inaccurate claims. It only takes a few second to search google. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You should really check this stuff out before you make such inaccurate claims. It only takes a few second to search google. I guess you just now came up with this idea, otherwise you would have explained your rationale more clearly in the extensive discussion above. Next time, instead of waiting to launch yet another condescending diatribe, take your own advice and explain what terms in the source you are using led you to believe that "aggressive" is a proper descriptor, since the WP:BURDEN is on you to add this term to the article. Even so, CSM states "But if anything, the White House should be happy that Jones is getting so much publicity for his attacks on Morgan’s pro-gun control stance.". This is the opinion of CSM, and as such it should be attributed to CSM in the article, not given as an unqualified generalised statement as it stands now. Dr. K. 20:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, if you think I'm going to keep responding to your childishness, you're sadly mistaken. Unless Masem has anything else to add, I'm done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what provoked your latest PA. But, sadly, that's par for the course for you. Dr. K. 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Just gotta get that last word in, eh? And with a hamfisted attempt at gaslighting, no less. I'll give you a 7 for effort, but you're still a flat 0 on results. But seriously: this isn't a drama board. You've got to stop causing drama. If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion except your deeply held conviction that anything I say must be wrong due to the fact that you didn't think of it first, then you really have no business in this thread, OP or not. Hell, you really have no business on this project, for that matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34 6 March 2018 (UTC)
That"s funny. Complaining about me having the last word, after you just announced above that you are out of here. But you cannot stand justified criticism of your actions without trying to attack, bully, and intimidate people who stand up to your egregious violations of WP:OR. Keep it up. You'll be outta here in no time. Dr. K. 23:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Whatever you say, cupcake. Anything else you want to add? Question my parentage, tell me how fat my momma is, maybe call me a Nazi? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
This is my last word here, telling you that you can have the last word, as long as you show some sense of humour, as you did in your latest post. Dr. K. 01:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Need some extra eyes at Weight plate

Hi, I've had a long-term problem with an IP who keeps changing numbers at weight plate inconsistent with the cited sources (example 1 2 3). I'm not going to revert war with the IP but I also can't use my admin tools given that I'm the creator the article. I would appreciate help.--Father Goose (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Clitoris

First sentence in the third paragraph of the Clitoris article found at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris> "Sociological, sexological and medical debate have focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." I am concerned that this may be "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research> My primary concern is that there is no reliable source to verify the claim that "Sociological... debate [sic] have focused on the clitoris..." and also no reliable source to verify the synthesis about debates in the fields of sociology, sexology, and medicine. I am a new editor, and would appreciate assistance in resolving this issue. AnaSoc (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is "debate" the word you are finding problematic, or that those fields have discussed the topic at all? I think it is weak to state there is debate without being specific as to what the debate is over so I don't like that sentence much. Anything that is not explicitly sourced can be challenged and removed but I don't think the statements are too far out there. How would you prefer the paragraph to read? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The relevant talk page section is Talk:Clitoris#Latest edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The are a number of reliable sources supporting that the clitoris has been the subject of sociological analysis and debate, particularly with respect to feminist sociology. So I'm not completely understanding AnaSoc's objection to noting that clitoris has been the topic of sociological debate. And there are obviously numerous sources noting the topic and debates with regard to sexology and medicine. The lead is meant to summarize the article and it's not vague about what type of debates exist. In any case, like Johnuniq stated, this discussion is at the article talk page, where I've provided sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is providing context to a quote Original Research

There is a disagreement between myself, Spacecowboy420, and a IP 124.106.137.248. There is a quote in the article Jake Zyrus that states Zyrus was dubbed by Oprah Winfrey as "the most talented girl in the world" (before his transition). Spacecowboy420 and the IP want it removed and I believe it shouldn't be as it provides context and isn't OR. I took it to the Talk page because I believe consensus should be gained, but IP hasn't discussed it and Spacecowboy while writing a comment, just took out the comment, deciding they were right. Another user Hariboneagle927 thought the comment was appropriate but thinks it should be taken out of brackets which I agree also but wasn't going to change until the consensus on if it stays or not is reached. Can we get others input on if this is OR or not. NZFC(talk) 06:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Tying background material to a topic if RS's don't

I have a question about WP:SYN related to a section of an article. The article 2018_NRA_boycott is just a month old as it describes a boycott in response to the school shooting in Florida. The article contains a background section with two parts. The primary part is clear background mentioning the crime and early protests. There is a subsection talking about an NRA list of companies that are anti-gun [[53]]. The mention of this list seems unconnected to the rest of the article. While the section is supported by reliably sourced material, all the references predate the Boycott that is the subject of the article by several years. When is it OR to include material in a background section? I don't think the material logically fits and we have no RSs that tie the material and the article subject together. Here is the talk page discussion [[54]]. Am I correct in thinking this material is WP:SYN? Thanks Springee (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, yes, it is both synthesis and original research. If cited sources do not tie something together, or make a conclusion, it is definitely both synthesis and original research for a Wikipedia editor to try and do this. Classic synthesis and original research. Clear policy violation. The material, despite being cited, does not belong. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
These two editors are the ones arguing to remove it. In fact Springee has a history of trying to downplay anything negative about the NRA. The RS are noticing. [55] [56] I've explained my position on the section on the page. I have no idea why this discussion was opened. Legacypac (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please AGF. Factually questionable external articles are a red herring. Your argument for inclusion needs to address the OR concerns. So far it doesn't. Two editors have raised concerns and you are the only editor to offer a reason for inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be creating a false balance to include it. The topic isn't mentioned again, it's not mentioned by other sources. The logic used to keep is "well, there's a bunch of companies boycotting the NRA, so let's make sure to include that the NRA is boycotting its own list). It doesn't seem at all connected unless that boycott list was a result of the boycott against the NRA (which it doesn't appear to be). --Masem (t) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of outdated sources in"Development" sections of film articles?

The first half of the "Development" section of our article on Black Panther (film) relies fairly heavily on sources from the 1990s and mid-2000s, a decade or more before the actual film was even announced, and I kinda suspect the same is true for other similar pages (this article has apparently had essentially the same problem since at least 2008). While this kind of discussion provides interesting background to the film our article is actually about, it kinda feels like SYNTH to be doing so when the connection is not explicitly made by recent sources that were aware of the 2018 Ryan Coogler film.

Some of the citations in that section are recent, but the material that is cited only to 1990s sources is suspicious: should it be required that more recent sources giving that information in the context of background to the 2018 film be cited as well as the original 1990s sources?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is a clear line of film rights/details from that far back to the present work, then it would make sense to include them (for example, there's been a planned live-action Akira movie in the hands of WB for around a decade, clearly all part of the same effort, so I would keep all that). But the stuff about a possible Black Panther from the 90s all seems like unrelated efforts outside of BP being a Marvel property; it might be worth briefly summarizing attempts to bring the character to the screen, but not treating it as the same development work. --Masem (t) 01:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
To add, I thin the Iron Man one seems fine; there does seem to be a thread connecting the 1990 idea to the first MCU film. And in that cases, as long as newer sources help support the line of logic, using the original 90s/00s sources to support that early development is completely fine. --Masem (t) 01:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we treat the SPLC as a primary source

User:Seraphim System has placed a "non-primary source needed" tag on Nation of Islam[57] for the statement of fact "The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks the NOI as a hate group". This seems wrong and out of line with our definition, but since I've reverted his removal of the statement once when he removed it as primary (among other things) I'm bringing it here. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

While we can source that SPLC catalogs the group as a hate group using the SPLC directly, we should be putting that in context of how broader consensus of sources sees the group. If there is non-fringe collection of opinions that the group is a hate group or related (which there does appear to be in the Criticism section), then noting the SPLC considers it such is reasonable, though it would be good to have a third-party point out too that SPLC calls it such (which there is [58]). This specific article is less a problem, but the hypothetical to worry about is that if no one else but the SPLC called a group a hate group, including the SPLC just because they say so would be a problem as a primary-only source. --Masem (t) 17:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is being posted to OR/n - WP:OR is not the only issue with using primary. Another issue is establishing due weight, especially when a primary statement is given a prominent place in the LEDE - as Masem says above which I completely agree with including the SPLC just because they say so would be a problem as a primary-only source. It would be better to include a brief summary of the majority view of multiple WP:RS (especially for the LEDE)
However, looking over the Critiscm section, it does seem to include WP:OR - for example citing the SPLC, and then citing primary quotes from the Nation of Islam website in support. This section should probably be rewritten first, to follow the analysis of secondary sources, and the lede should summarize the main points.Seraphim System (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo: A Moment in Civilization

Kosovo: A Moment in Civilization is a film made by filmmaker Boris Malagurski and financed by Serbian govt agencies. The film is basically about Serbian cultural heritage within Kosovo and accuses the current Kosovo govt of failing to protect that heritage.

A response to the film from the present Kosovo PM's office, among other criticisms of the film says "The Kosovo prime minister's office also disputed the idea that Serb monuments and churches in Kosovo were Serbian property". source for PMs response here.

An editor added the text "though they are listed as Serbia's cultural heritage under UNESCO protection" as a 'reply' to the PM's remarks. I reverted giving as my edit reason "Improper use of a primary source ... being listed as Serbian heritage does not establish ownership and is not a response to the film". edit and revert here.

This was itself reverted, edit reason " Material is properly sourced, facts are facts". It is incidental to whether this content belongs in the film article, but in fact Unesco refers only to the specific named group of buildings as "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo", thereby side-stepping any issue of ownership, and makes clear that they are 'Serbian' in the sense that Serbia was the nominating country. It makes no comment at all about legal ownership of Serbian heritage in Kosovo.

I don't doubt the Unesco designation of these buildings, though it has little bearing on 'ownership' in the legal sense (as opposed to cultural ownership), but I claim it is OR as it seeks to refute the PM's response, rather than neutrally report responses to the film. If Unesco had issued some direct response to the film, that would be valid content, but this is clearly not the case here. The edit IMO is seeking to argue the rights and wrongs of "ownership", rather then neutrally report the film's claims and responses to the film.Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating original images from self-reported commercial sites

Would appreciate it if someone can look at this file [59] used in the Haplogroup_T-M184 article. It appears to be an original image based on self-reported results from commercial sites FTDNA and Yfull (as per legend), and used in the article to illustrate unpublished content. Does the use of self-reported results from commercial sites to illustrate unpublished ideas constitute original research? Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me it's just as much OR when expressed as an image, as when put into text or tables. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
As is, it's OR - there's no exact link to the data supporting the image. It could be possible that if the data is presented in a textual tree structure (as images on Yfull suggest), translating that to a tree image is not OR (data can't be copyrighted), but that original data has to be clearly identified. --Masem (t) 00:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
It is apparently an illustration of self-reported results from the aforementioned commercial sites, i.e. not published content from RSs. I am in agreement on it being OR. I have explained the issue of it being OR to the author numerous times through rev summaries [60] but its going no where. Would removing the OR file from the article be a reasonable next step? Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Privacy, free expression, and transparency

Not sure this is the place for this, but:

This strikes me as less an encyclopedia article than it does a college undergraduate essay. Agree or disagree? If yes, it is salvageable? --Calton | Talk 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privacy, free expression, and transparency. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like part of a not-so-perfect plan that's been floating about to use free UNESCO sources to build articles with. I believe there's a Wikipedian in Residence or two involved, or at least they were at some point. As you can see, it doesn't always exactly produce FA quality material. GMGtalk 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I was not aware of that plan. Let's see if the creator says anything at the AfD. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling as a performing art

On the article professional wrestling an editor User:Galatz has repeatedly tried to show sources that do not refer to wrestling as a performing art and use a defintion of performing art in violation of WP:SYNTH stating that because it matches the definition I can't ask for a source. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the given source [61] writers work on plots and storylines well in advance, and every match is another chapter in the story. Who wins and who loses is all in the script. It also says It's true that the plots are predetermined and the moves are choreographed. Its a script and its choreographed. Just because it doesnt use the term "performing arts" it doesn't mean that using that source is WP:SYNTH. this is all one source, not multiple as SYNTH would require. Per m-w ypes of art (such as music, dance, or drama) that are performed for an audience. There is no question that the source clearly shows its an art form, no different than a choreographed play. There is also no question its performed in front of an audience. - GalatzTalk 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, @Galatz:, WP:SYNTH does mean that "Just because it doesnt [sic] use the term "performing arts" ... that using that source is [synthesis]." The first sentence of that policy section says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. emphasis added Your definition of performance art is from an online dictionary. Your description of wrestlers' and writers' cooperation is from an openly-edited web page. Neither says "wrestling is performance art" or anything like it. You are putting A+B together to say something neither explicitly says itself, which is textbook synthesis. Rainbowofpeace is correct in their assessment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, I am proving the definition of a word. If we were talking about a performance, and the person said its not a performance, showing the definition of the word is not SYNTH. The dictionary is not a source. - GalatzTalk 23:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
My problem has never been with the word performance. Many forms of sports, arts and even vocations include performance. My problem is with the specific phrase "Performing (or Performance) Art". There is also nothing wrong with implying it is a performing art based on sources without outright saying it. For example the sources talk about storylines and costumes you could state the wrestlers perform with costumes to preset storylines. That implies what you want without outright saying something that isn't directly sourced.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
But if you issue isn't with the way I am defining the word, then per WP:ANALYSIS: Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Isn't that exactly what I am doing? - GalatzTalk 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No, A)Dictionaries are not secondary sources. Please see WP:DICTS which shows using a dictionary for a source is incredibly problematic and I don't think in this case could be used as a secondary source. B)You can post just about anything within reason on wikipedia until it is challenged. I challenge it on WP:SYNTH based on "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.". In short, using the dictionary definition of Performing Arts is at the very least problematic if allowed at all and secondly your argument is synth because you are combining multiple sources and parts of single sources to come to a conclusion that is not directly stated within your source or sources. Also remember WP:VERIFYOR states "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source". -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I specifically said I am not using it as a source, I have only brought it up on talk pages to avoid confusion as to what the term we are discussing actually means. It is not listed as a ref anywhere in the article. - GalatzTalk 11:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Icewhiz that is much closer to be not WP:SYNTH Listen I like you guys and I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia. Here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/991806-realism-in-pro-wrestling-whats-in-a-finisher http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1009620-realism-in-pro-wrestling-the-oftently-forgoten-primal-fiction and possibly http://www.hellokids.com/c_16471/reading-learning/reports-information/sports/professional-wrestling although its a bit more questionable given the audience its written for. If you use the book by Icewhiz and these sources in place of the sources you currently have on the page I will drop the case if I'm allowed to do so. I admit that much like you I have my own biases. I can tell from your talk page Galatz you are passionate about Professional Wrestling. I'm also passionate but for Performing Arts. I still stand by by statement that your use of your first sources was WP:SYNTH but my goal isn't to defend my opinion but to protect Wikipedia. I therefore submit this as a solution to you Galatz. Thank you for the debate and your patience with me. Happy Editing-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Bleacher report is not a WP:RS for professional wrestling, see WP:PW/Sources - GalatzTalk 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Described by association and probable original research

I would appreciate extra eyes at a controversial article:Tabarnia The sources used are in Spanish or Catalan.

the problem is with the contents of this edit to the lead of the article where it is claimed that the Tabarnia movement is supported by some associations. The edit seems biased to me. The sources don't directly state such support. just support for one of its demonstrations against the independence of Catalonia from Spain. The edit also claims that Societat Civil Catalana (an anti separatist platform) is a right-wing organization when they define themselves as independent and according to the cited source have in their boards of directors politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, including various from the Socialists' Party of Catalonia. When I told filiprino that making that claim was original research and misrepresentation of the sources he responded: "Just look at what they do, not who are they or in what political party are some of their members". Another IP editor tried to fix the article by reverting his edits but gave up to avoid an edit war. I removed the edit myself trying to explain the reasons with edit summaries first and then at the talk page (see here) but had little success in reasoning with the editor. Help will be much appreciated as I would also prefer to distance myself if possible. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed similar issues at the article on Societat Civil Catalana itself that seems to have been edited extensively by the same user (sample edit). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
To summarize, the two questions relating to original research are:
  1. If a source states that organization X supports one event of organization Y, would making the wider claimi in the lead of organization Y that it is supported by organization X (not just the event) be original research? (without clarifying that the support was for just that event. The source does not claim support of the organization itself, just the event, to defend the edit the author claimed: "supporting an event of other organization means supporting that organization and its ideas, because the demonstration is an expression of the ideas of the caller")
  2. If a source states that some members of an organization have a political inclination (right-wing) would adding right-wing as label for that organization be original research? (no source makes that direct claim. The organization in question claims in its own page to be politically independent and the sources state as well that some of the members of its ruling body are from a left wing party. at Talk:Tabarnia#Filiprino's_recent_edits the author of the edit justified his edit referring to one of this members by claims that "The truth is that he was never left-wing as was never Joseph Stallin. Having a member in the ruling body from the PSC means nothing. We know PSC/PSOE has "tránsfugas", people sympathizing with right-wing people and political parties")
Comments will be appreciated. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Since there have been no answers let me provide three sources that clearly state that Societat Civil Catalana is ruled by representatives of the three major political parties in Catalonia that oppose the separatists:
  • Público:Societat Civil Catalana "cuenta en su junta directiva con políticos y militantes del PSC y de Ciutadans, entre otros." Its board of directors has politicians and militants from the PSC(Socialists' Party of Catalonia) and from Citizens among others.
  • Cronica Global: "La primera junta directiva de la entidad mostraba ese delicado juego de contrapesos. Josep Ramon Bosch —cercano al PP— era el presidente, y le acompañaban en la vicepresidencia primera Joaquim Coll —vinculado al PSC" The first board of directors showed that delicate balance of power Josep Ramon Bosch close to PP(People's Party of Catalonia) was the president accompanied a vice-president by Joaquim Coll linkded to PSC(Socialists' Party of Catalonia).
  • Elmón: "Les tres vicepresidències seran ocupades per José Domingo, exdiputat al Parlament per Ciutadans, Alex Ramos i Miriam Tey." The three vice-presidencies will by given to José Domingo ex member of parliament by Citizens, Alex Ramos(PSC) and Miriam Tey(PP).
The second source above also states that the European Citizen's Prize given by the European Parliament was possible due to cooperation of politicians from PSC, PP and C’s in Brussels ("Un galardón que legitimó (y dio prestigio) la labor de la entidad y que hubiese sido imposible lograr sin la actuación conjunta de los representantes de PSC, PP y C’s en Bruselas") --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dirty Subsidy

Dirty Subsidy is a brand-new article and the product of one of Wiki-Ed's programs, and it appears to be not an overview of a existing concept but a college paper promoting a neologism. The top hit on Google for this term is the article itself -- which is only one day old, so already a bad sign. --Calton | Talk 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy unless someone thinks it should be speedied, in which case go ahead. A Google search strongly suggests the term is original research, certainly not one used in economics or indeed any academic literature. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

English Monarch Reign Dates

Academic reference works such as the Handbook of British Chronologypp.30-31(Frdye et al, 1986) and the Handbook of Dates (Cheney, 2000) date the reigns of English Monarchs from the coronation of the monarch from 1066-1272. In 1272 the principle of immediate succession was introduced and reigns were then dated from the day following the death of the predecessor in 1272-1483 and from the day of the death of the predecessor consistently from 1547 onwards. Some editors are convinced that the later rule of immediate succession has always applied but have not provided a source for this claim. I believe it is original research to apply a rule that only existed later to an earlier period, especially when it is contradicted by reliable sources. Am I correct in thinking this? A RfC has now been opened at Talk:List of English monarchs‎#Proposal to change reign dates and the previous discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#Reign dates. Jhood1 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jhood1 Given the sources provided, and as long as there are no reliable sources to claim otherwise, applying the immediate succession rule before 1547 would be original research (unless a specific reference by a reliable source could be found for that particular coronation). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Noting that this seems to be spreading to several different forums now.
It would be original research to take some pattern and apply it to cases where no source has applied it. This is true if the pattern is date of death of the previous monarch or date of coronation or anything else. To avoid original research, your best option is to find published dates for each monarch - in this topic this should not be difficult to do.
I have in front of me a 1991 copy of the Collins Gem Kings and Queens - a reliable source - that gives dates for the beginning of each reign that are the same as the date of death of the previous monarch. I do not for a moment believe that this is the only such source. It is obvious that no original research is required to lift dates from such a source and use them in our articles. That it may be a style that your sources do not agree with does not change that. Kahastok talk 08:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree, my comment above, as I said, would only apply in case that there is no source for the coronation of a particular Monarch. If there is a reliable source as the one cited by Kahastok for a particular Monarch, it should be used, otherwise the ones mentioned above by Jhood1 would be valid. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Kahastok, for providing a source. Could you please write up a list of the reign dates given in the Collins Gem so that we can compare them to other sources? Also does the Collins Gem give a reason for the dates that it uses? I still believe that the reign dates given in academic sources would be preferable where they conflict, but clearly I was wrong to believe that there was not a source that supported the other dates. Jhood1 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The differences from this revision (which generally lists date of accession = date of predecessor's death) for the period from the conquest to 1547 are:
Event Collins Gem[1] Wikipedia
Accession of William I 14 October 1066 25 December 1066
Accession of William II 10 September 1087 9 September 1087
Accession of Matilda April 1141 7 April 1141
End of Matilda's reign (None given; reign length 7 months) 1 November 1141
Death of John 18 October 1216 19 October 1216
Accession of Henry III 18 October 1216 19 October 1216
Reign of Louis Not included Included
Accession of Edward I 20 November 1272 16 November 1272
Abdication of Edward II 20 January 1327[2] 24 January 1327
Accession of Richard II 22 June 1399 21 June 1399
First accession of Henry VI 1 September 1422 31 August 1422
Accession of Henry VIII 22 April 1509 21 April 1509
The book does not specify a particular system, it just gives literal dates. That's the sort of source that you need if you want to avoid original research - but for monarchs of England I think it's also the sort of source that should be trivial to find in any relevant museum gift shop, let alone proper academic book shops. In fact, I got this book at the gift shop in the Tower of London. Kahastok talk 13:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I've copied the table to Talk:List of English monarchs‎#Proposal to change reign dates and added reign dates listed in the other sources. Could you look over the Collins list to make sure it is correct. Thanks.Jhood1 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have made a correction to Henry I, otherwise they are all correct. Kahastok talk 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Collins Gem Kings and Queens by David Lambert and Randal Gray, published 1991
  2. ^ But Edward III's accession is 25 January as in Wikipedia.

Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling

TBBC is insistent on adding a line into the Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling article which is unsupported. They are stating that every wrestler who appeared on the show has been elected to the WWE Hall of Fame however when I removed their WP:OR, they added it back with just a generic link to all WWE wrestler pages which I again removed. They attempted to add it back with [62] however I explained to them that this is the exact definition of WP:SYNTH. They are refusing the discuss the issue and are ignoring comments I have left for them on their talk page. They have been blocked for similar styles of edit warring before. - GalatzTalk 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have indeed discussed the issue with you, cited it like you said but you said it reverts ANOTHER Wikipedia policy. So that just makes me feel that I can't follow one Wikipedia policy without violating another. Incidentally no other user has reverted my edits, just you--TBBC (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to say, that was terribly worded. What policy are you following while violating another. You are simply just violating policies, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:3RR. What policy are you following by adding information not supported by the references? - GalatzTalk 14:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I add sources (like the official link to the WWE Hall of Fame website which shows all the superstars to appear on Hulk Hogan's Rock 'N' Wrestling)But then you say that goes against this WP:SYNTH policy. So I figured I can't follow one policy without violating another.--TBBC (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No, that does not support your claim. You are sourcing it to something that does not support what you are writing. Therefore you are NOT following WP:RS by linking to that. You need a second source to put the two pieces together, which is WP:SYNTH, as I have explained to you multiple times. - GalatzTalk 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the official website of the WWE hall of fame also has a site dedicated to the cartoon, so how about just add the WWE website as a whole--TBBC (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it does not work that way. - GalatzTalk 14:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

See, and there's no website that can be considered a reliable source that'll state that. And yet everyone who looks at that page will see every WWE employee to be featured in this cartoon are in the WWE hall of fame, but YOU (no one else) are so insistent we just ignore that fact.--TBBC (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Judging by [63] there are fewer than 30 people who follow the page, that could be as few as 5 people, no one knows, so that is not very surprising. Just because no one reverts something that violates a policy doesn't make it right. - GalatzTalk 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually the sentence has been changed from WWE employee to character, so there's another person who didn't see a problem with it.--TBBC (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And that makes it automatically void of following policies? - GalatzTalk 15:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No, the fact that we're all suppose to pretend that such an interesting tidbit about the show which really helps define the Rock 'N' Wrestling Era until a website that is a reliable source points it out does. You're not going to get a gold medal for following Wikipedia policy, which you're so intent on you know.--TBBC (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No matter how interesting you find it, you clearly are finally admitting it is violating WP policy. There is no exception due to something being interesting to WP policy. - GalatzTalk 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
But you made following Wikipedia policy pointless as following one violates another.--TBBC (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Your edit follows ZERO policies, as has been pointed out to you several times. - GalatzTalk 15:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok then, so it's settled, I'll add citations to the official hall of fame website and the official photo gallery and not violate the original research, but unfortunately violate the whole no synth policy.--TBBC (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No that is you violating WP:OR as WP:SYNTH is a subsection under OR, it is the method of OR you are violating. - GalatzTalk 15:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Then in that case, it's impossible not to violate WP:OR--TBBC (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

For what you want to add, yes, it appears that way. That is exactly the point as to why we are here. - GalatzTalk 15:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The WWE Hall of Fame is for professional wrestlers. Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling starred cartoon characters. Cartoons characters are different from professional wrestlers. They do far more dangerous work, for far less pay and with far fewer complaints if we ignore their contributions to the business. A smart wrestling promoter would hire only cartoon characters if he could get away with it, but they can't, and neither can TBBC. It's just incredible. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Professional wrestlers and cartoon characters are similarly not employees, by the way. One is an independent contractor, the other intellectual property. Spread the word! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And here's a fact for you...in fact two, 1) you're not funny and 2) no one likes a smart arse--TBBC (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I actually found it funny, and I love smart asses. Just an FYI - GalatzTalk 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. But if I can be serious for a moment, that wasn't me being funny. The need to plainly explain why people aren't cartoons is just a naturally absurd premise. This is the dry, text-based equivalent of Goldberg wandering into a blonde wig or leg-humping midget backstage; anybody could've gotten that pop, just like anybody could have gotten over like he did if booked to never lose.
Any human, anyway. The Dic Hulkster was (literally) canned after going a mere 26-0. That's not to bury the imaginary guy, but Terry Bollea did much more, in-universe and out, which is why we treat him (and Hillbilly and Koko) with the respect we do on Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Social Causation VS Downward Drift

The article Social Causation VS Downward Drift is what I would call an essay. The bulk of the article consists of presentations of views expressed in a variety of sources, all of them cited. But it seems to be that the very nature of the article is to choose what sources are relevant to the purported debate and to reach some conclusions.

I worked through the removal of conclusions and remarks that were clearly superimposed by the author on the source material. What's left is largely factual, in the sense of "It's true that these sources say these things", but I can't help thinking that the very nature of this article is still a WP:Synthesis piece. I'm hesitating to submit it for AFD, though. I thought I'd step back and see if anyone can take a fresh look and let me know whether this is a genuine Wikipedia article or something that should be somewhere else. Largoplazo (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this article is WP:SYNTH that reads like an essay. The creator acknowledges that it was a class assignment. Such "compare and contrast" text belongs in the article for the phenomenon being explained, e.g., Causes of mental disorders, not in its own article. 32.218.152.253 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably should be merged to other articles. If kept as an article, the capital VS definitely needs to go. Change to "versus" or even better "and". —DIYeditor (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Gajendra Singh Shekhawat

Lot of original contents without any reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkrishnan (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Atari Jaguar original research and coi

I am asking for advice on a user who gives the impression, through edits over a series of articles, to be using OR. They also have a COI issue which they refuse to address but I will take that up separately.

I have deleted numerous additions they have made as, on investigating the citations, there is no, or very low quality evidence to support their assertions.

Article in question is here. [1]

Here is an example deletion I made to article, please note the justifications I have given. There has been in excess of 20k of text I have deleted from this one article [2]

I raised the issue in the associated talk - [3]

His response to this was effectively "Meh" and an attempt to claim I had an agenda. This is true in one way, I have an agenda to correct blatent errors.

The same concerns on OR and COI were raised in a different article[4], as well as associated talk[5] , and were also denied with no evidence offered.[6]


When I corrected errors in first article the same user then went to the referenced titles articles and inserted the deleted citations and assertions in those.[7]

I have also noticed they have deleted the external tag for the cancelled games article while inserting it in all other games he believes existed so as to remove it from the category. [8]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_Atari_Jaguar_games
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/831547605
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_cancelled_Atari_Jaguar_games
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atari_Jaguar_games
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Talk:List_of_Atari_Jaguar_games
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/831518220
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/836750190
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/836921506

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StraightDown (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism

This book is a collective volume that combines the works of several experts in their fields. According to our criteria, each chapter is a secondary source. In addition to the chapters, the Book is supplemented with an introduction, where no independent research have been presented. The introduction draws conclusions from some data taken from BB chapters.

Is the introduction a secondary or tertiary source? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

According to our article The Black Book of Communism, the introduction to the book received disproportionate criticism for its sweeping generalizations. In my view, it would be best to cite individual chapters instead of the introduction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The book is a secondary academic source, and a highly reliable one, unlike the wikipedia article about it. Just as any scientific review, the book (including the Introduction) uses a a number of other published sources. The Introduction was written by one of this book authors Stéphane Courtois who also served as an editor. This is basically just another chapter of the book, similar to the last chapter, also written by the same author. Anything reliably published by Courtois should be a treated as an RS. But in this case we are talking about a highly cited academic book published and republished in many countries. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
My very best wishes, with due respect, I would like to see a third opinion. We can continue our dispute on the talk page. However, I would like to see something except your opinion that demonstrate the Courtois' work was an independent research. As far as I know, this statement is blatantly false. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Which statement was "blatantly false"? That work by Courtois was research? My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. How many references does it contain? However, if you think it is not a blatant lie, then you must admit that is is the worst part of the book, and it that case it should not be used at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
How many references? This 1st chapter ("Crimes of Communism") cites 34 other secondary and primary sources (see pages 760, 761). Did you read the book? My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
To be completely honest, I agree with almost everything in this chapter. This is not surprising because it was written by such an expert on the subject. This book is classic, just as certain books by James Watson, Linus Pauling or Richard Feynman, but only in very different fields. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Whether you WP:LIKEIT doesn't really matter Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not that I like it (actually, it is difficult to read - too much condensed info). I am telling the book is unique in its field in terms of the depth and the coverage of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to provide a reliable source that criticizes Watson's works as provocative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just realised I posted this question on the wrong noticeboard. Does anybody think I should repost it on WP:RSN?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah probably better, RSN also gets more attention Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Done--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Cold War II

There is currently a map at Cold War II that claims to describe which countries are on which sides in "Cold War II". I believe this map is original research and synthesis, and must be removed. The criteria for inclusion (such as countries opposing the Syrian government on the Syrian Civil War) are arbitrary, and there's no reason to believe that the sources describing a "cold war" between the US and Russia, and the sources describing a conflict between the US and China are referring to the same conflict. (courtesy ping @DemocraticSocialism, Odemirense, Firebrace, George Ho, and Fenetrejones:) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yup. Obvious OR, using sources that don't even mention this concept as it appears to be happening means just whichever countries/conflicts the makers of the map think is part of this cold war II is included. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Seconded with "power" and Galobtter. I also have concerns about the OR. Also, it would mislead readers into thinking that the "Cold War II" is actually happening. The fact that the article exists doesn't mean that another "Cold War" is happening, right? Back to the map, (inserted) I let the two contribute to the map and didn't do anything else, like edit-warring with them; rather I let someone else handle the map situation better.(end insert) If anyone feels that the map should be kept, then the image should be changed. I.e. one color representing sides with Russia, one color representing sides with China, and one color representing sides with Russia and China. Otherwise, best to remove the image once and for all. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC); edited, 05:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I was also thinking the article topic seems problematic - the lead should probably say something like "Various commentators and academics have described the current state of political and military tensions as being a Cold War II" because the term isn't really used widely enough; the whole article seems to have problems with SYNTH, just using any source where the term is mentioned. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If you like, you can do the 2nd AFD nomination. When the 1st AFD nom was closed by non-admin as "kept", the article was massively larger and more misleading. George Ho (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho: Please read WP:CANVAS, thank you. Firebrace (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't see it getting deleted, anyhow; writing a reasonable article would be difficult or impossible; it's also pulling together all the various terms used into one thing which is also somewhat SYNTH; but it'll mostly be keep !votes putting GNG GNG Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging George Ho, also FenetreJones and Firebrace: Actually the 1st map that I had created was very simple, I had only colored USA, EU, Russia, China, Syria and North Korea, I think. There are some criteria that possibly shouldn't be there, like the relations with Venezuela or the civil war in Yemen. I think the civil war in Syria makes sense to be there, though, since Russia and USA have been actually supporting opposite sides. I could create a map with more colors, displaying alignment with USA, Russia, China, Russia+China vs USA, USA+China (it could be the case for Djibouti) and USA+Russia/ vs China (This might be the case for India and Nicaragua, for example). Or I could create two maps, one for USA/Russia and another for USA/China. Maybe it can also be exagerated to display the colors according to military bases belonging to US allies that are not USA. If the article itself is not reasonable, then that's not up to me to discuss. Greetings! Odemirense (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

94.210.116.247

May someone review Special:Contributions/94.210.116.247? At Darius the Mede, the IP has been pushing a crackpot POV through WP:OR, namely that the Hebrew word Koresh does not mean Cyrus. Diff: [64]. The IP stated Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Koresh is. This translates into English as "Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Cyrus is." Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WWE Money in the Bank

JDC808 insists on adding information into the article WWE Money in the Bank which is not supported by a source, see [65] as an example of their edits. I attempted to explain to the user here User talk:JDC808#MITB as to their issues however they are insistent that because its not rocket science it is ok to add it. They are combining pieces of information from multiple sources to draw their conclusion, a clear WP:SYNTH violation. Currently the WWE has 2 world champions, and the users only source says "A World Championship" and does not specify which. They have concluded this means both are eligible but they do not have one clear source which states this, making it a clear case of WP:OR. Although their conclusion is the probable eventuality, nothing has been announced officially so there is no way to confirm this information is correct or not. - GalatzTalk 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Galatz keeps insisting that the claims are not supported by the sources when they in fact are. He says "my only source", which is false, as there are four sources that support the information, but Galatz is overlooking that because of his own misinterpretation and believing what I'm doing is SYNTH, which is false. On the shows themselves, supported by RSs, they have said what the contracts can be used for. Another editor added the information back, but Galatz also reverted them with no explanation. Galatz is now claiming my edits are OR, which is completely false. --JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Then please provide a source that says both world titles or both women's title are eligible. If the 4 you listed aren't the only ones then why have you not provided one source, all information in one source, that states both titles are eligible. If you are unable to provide a source that states both are eligible, then yes it is OR - GalatzTalk 21:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
And here it is again. Galatz keeps insisting to provide a source when they're already there. There has to be at least two sources, one for the men's match, one for the women's match, and both are there. The two additional sources are for further validation. On my talk page, I have quoted the sources, I have spelled them out, but Galatz for some reason does not comprehend them as he tried to say that none of what I quoted supported the claims. --JDC808 ♫ 21:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Once again, here are your quotes and why they do not support your claim
  1. "He said he would win MITB and then he’d be in full control of his destiny and will then take back the Universal Championship"; "He said they need to be in a position of power and the way to do that is to win MITB and the WWE Universal Championship" - This is not an official announcement. Wrestlers say things all the time that dont pan out, so this definitely does not work to support it. And even if it did, it does not mean the WWE Championship is in.
  2. "She said that whichever superstars grab the briefcases will take them back to their respective brands" - That is the briefcase, doesnt mean the title.
  3. "With the contract inside, the victorious Superstar will guarantee himself a World Championship opportunity anytime and anywhere they wish in the subsequent year" - Per WP:PRIMARY * Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. That is exactly what you are doing. They do not say what World Championship, only it will be for one. You are coming to the conclusion.
  4. "This year’s follow-up Ladder Match promises to bring the Women’s Evolution to new heights, as Raw and SmackDown LIVE’s most daring Superstars will once again take to the rungs"; "With ladders scattered around the ring, who will conquer the opposition, climb the dangerous rungs, grab the Money in the Bank briefcase and capture the coveted contract to earn an opportunity to challenge a World Champion any time they wish in the next year" - Once again no mention of which or both championships only that it is one, so you are once again violating WP:PRIMARY
#1 even if you wanted to say it counted for Universal, it excludes WWE Championship, so this one doesn't work to support your claim. #2 bringing the contract to their brand but without knowing which championships are eligible we don't know what it is for, so this one doesn't support your claim. #3 and #4 only say a world championship, and do not say which or if its more than one. So once again, since none of these support your claim, what do you have that does? - GalatzTalk 21:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This is just clear evidence that Galatz does not comprehend the sources. Working backwards. Point 3 and 4 are sources from WWE themselves for both matches which state that the winner of each will earn a contract (contained within a briefcase) for a world championship match. Galatz is correct when he said there are two world championships (for the men and women, respectively), but for some reason, he does not understand the language here. "A world championship"/"A world champion" means there is more than one. This is simple English. For Points 1 and 2: Point 1 is further support that the Universal title is included (since Galatz's issue was that it is not spelled out for him in the other source), and Point 2 is further support that the contracts contained within the briefcases are to be used for the world titles of the respective brands, meaning if a wrestler on the Raw brand won, they could only use it on Raw's world titles (which are the Universal Championship and Raw Women's Championship), whereas if a wrestler on the SmackDown brand won, they could only use it on SmackDown's world titles (the WWE Championship and SmackDown Women's Championship). --JDC808 ♫ 21:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you say "The WWE Championship is a world championship in the WWE" is an incorrect statement? If you believe it is correct than saying a world championship could mean just that one. - GalatzTalk 12:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That is a correct statement, but if they were just meaning that championship, they would have said that and other comments on the shows wouldn't have been made. --JDC808 ♫ 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not our place to ask why they chose to word it that way, it could be because they haven't made up their mind yet. They didnt announce how the Royal Rumble would work until the preshow the day of. So what you are saying you are taking all the comments together to draw a conclusion, in violation of WP:SYNTH. Got it. - GalatzTalk 19:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
No. Please stop making false accusations. If anything, you are drawing your own conclusions based on a misunderstanding of wording. --JDC808 ♫ 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not drawing any conclusions. I am saying they are being vague and not stating it clearly for a reason. You are taking it and making a determination what it means. - GalatzTalk 20:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
"I am saying they are being vague and not stating it clearly for a reason." Your drawn conclusion that has no backing. --JDC808 ♫ 20:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Saying they haven't clearly stated what it is, is not drawing a conclusion, I am saying there is plenty of possible outcomes. They have not come out and said "It is for Universal or WWE Championship", yet you have concluded they have. - GalatzTalk 20:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I am the editor mentioned above who reverted (some of) JDC's additins back in - but only of them as much was irrelevant to the topic. I support JDC's more extensive reading of the sources. Furthermore, if I know look on one of these [66], this reading seems to be now explicit: "At WWE Money in the Bank, eight of Raw and SmackDown LIVE’s elite competitors will squthe [some code error, probably it should read: "square off for the"] opportunity to challenge the Champion from their respective brands. are off in the Men’s Money in the Bank Ladder Match with the goal of climbing the rungs and claiming the prized briefcase. With the contract inside, the victorious Superstar will guarantee himself the opportunity to challenge the World Champion from his respective brand anytime and anywhere they wish in the subsequent year." It is obvious that by "world champion", WWE refers not only to the actual "WWE World Champion" but also to the Mil.. I mean, the "Universal Championship". Otherwise, allowing wrestles from either brand into the match wouldn't make sense. How can they cash in anytime, anyplace when they are on the same show on PPVs.
And for the women [67]: "The victorious Superstar will guarantee herself the opportunity to challenge the World Champion from her respective brand anytime and anywhere they wish in the subsequent year. While referring to either women's champion as a "world champion" is uncommon, there is no other female champion around.
Finally, let me state that nothing could be further from the truth than to state "It is not our place to ask why they chose to word it that way". It is very much our place to read source with a mind that is not switched-off. Str1977 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, your sources support the claim. It appears that they have changed the wording as that is not what it said previously, as you can see JDC quoted above is different than what it says now. As for your other comments though, yes it is not our place. If they can be read in multiple ways or have more than one meaning, we should not be coming to our own conclusions. - GalatzTalk 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
"If they can be read in multiple ways or have more than one meaning, we should not be coming to our own conclusions" - on the contrary, we cannot avoid it. JDC drew his conclusions and so did you. We merely have to be careful not to stray too far. Str1977 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The correct answer is to not include it at all and wait until it is officially announced. - GalatzTalk 00:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

802.11ax

I'm having a bit of an issue on IEEE 802.11ax. An editor, or several (and presumably coordinated, because I seem to be reverted more often than one would expect without coordination), are adding a large chunk of primary-sourced content WP:SYNTHisizing (mostly) the minutes of the committee for the standard (in a WP:POVPUSH fashion especially for the non-technical content related to the standard). Some of it strays into questionable BLP-related discussion. I've removed the content and at least one other editor has issue with it, yet we have been reverted multiple times.

I'm on wikibreak, so I don't want to spend a lot of time checking in for the appropriateness of the content. Other editors are encouraged to participate, watch, and whatnot (and validate my actions, of course! ;). I will probably cross-post this thread to one or two other noticeboards. --Izno (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ta'wiz

Hello,

I hope you are doing well. I have cited the following hadith on Ta'wiz:

Whoever wears an amulet, may Allah not fulfill it (i.e., his want) for him, and whoever wears a sea-shell, may Allah not give him peace

I do not believe it is original research because I have cited a source, citation #7 in this pre-rollbacked revision right above it, which states that Ta'wiz is impermissible based on a scholarly interpretation of the hadith, followed by a direct quotation of the hadith. Therefore, I have not interpreted anything, but am simply writing and citing the interpretation of the scholar.

Thank you. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that you have not presented a scholarly view of anything, and I'm not honestly convinced you even know what Wikipedia considers a scholar to be. A scholar is someone whose works have been carried by reputable scholarly publications. And in fact, we should be citing those publications if you want to say that something is a scholarly opinion. And in this specific case, the publication would have to explicitly mention Ta'wiz - not be about amulets in general. If you can't do that, then you can't say it's a scholarly opinion. Now, if there are some very notable or influential preachers or sects that teach that Ta'wiz is impermissible, then there could be room in the article for dissenting religious views. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I appreciate your input on this matter. If you visit the Ta'wiz Wikipedia article, the first line reads: "The ta'wiz, tawiz (Urdu: تعویز‎, ), muska (Turkish) or taʿwīdh (Arabic: تعويذ‎) is an amulet or locket", so a Ta'wiz is a specific type of amulet as other exist, such as the "Hand of Fatima", which is common in North African culture. In my latest pre-rollbacked revision, I explained that views differ and cited sources, which is another matter.
In regards to scholarly sources, I have cited two sources that back up the content I added explaining that one view is that they are forbidden, the first (citation #7 in the pre-rollbacked revision) quoting the interpretation of the hadith by the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta, an Islamic organization run by the Saudi government that consists of scholars. Is this an acceptable source for Wikipedia (please note that the domain also cited in the Fatwa article)? Additionally, non-academic sources such as IslamQA.info are used in a plethora of Wikipedia Islam articles: [68]. Therefore, I believe that this is not original research. :) Thank you. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 22:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. A ta'wiz is a specific thing. If you want to write about ta'wiz, you need sources that talk about ta'wiz. This is how every article is written. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, they do. :) – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_40&oldid=1088112356"