Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 41

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Mass shootings

I encourage editors to take a look at Talk:Mass shootings in the United States #Neutral point of view. A source lists six recent mass shootings in which AR-15 style rifles were used, but Niteshift36 has stated that the source is mistaken because one of the weapons was not actually an AR-15 style rifle. Is it appropriate to "correct" this perceived error by changing the article text from "six" to "five", or does this constitute original research? –dlthewave ☎ 21:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t an Original Research issue... but one of source evaluation. Even the best sources can contain occasional errors. When an error in an otherwise reliable source occurs, the best practice is to simply NOT USE the erroneous source in that context. Base our article content (whether a specific fact, sentence, paragraph or section) on other sources.
In this case, surely there are plenty of other sources that mention how many times AR-15 style weapons were used in mass shootings. (And if NOT, then our mentioning that specific factoid seems UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Way to leave out the important part. In the discussion about this point, I provided a Washington Post article [1] that says "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles." They go on to quote someone who actually understands the firearm to say "otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.” So tell me again how it's me engaging in OR? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It is OR (more specifically, WP:SYN) because you are combining two sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated by either source. We don't have a source that says "five out of ten", and it is misleading to cite the LA Times article as the source for a statistic which was compiled by you as an editor. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Your argument that it's synth to take the 6:10 source, then say one of their numbers is wrong and thus it's 5:10 is sound. However, since we also have established that the source incorrectly categorized one of the 6 of 10 how should that be handled? One obvious method is to say the claim is incorrect and thus remove it from the article. We shouldn't leave a known false claim in the article. Springee (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Your illustrious source makes a statement that I've shown 4 other reliable sources refute. How are you still trying to defend him? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that your source says "thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles" - in other words, it's still in that family, according to them. Part of the trouble here is that "AR-15 style rifle" is not a very well-defined term. The patents on Colt's original AR-15 expired years ago and many companies make rifles with some similarities that you may or may not consider AR-15 style. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Colt patent isn't an issue here at all. The Sig MCX uses a completely different operating system. The AR15 uses a direct impingment gas system. The MCX uses a short stroke gas operated piston. Once again "has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form". Apparently you do what many reporters do, see something visually similar and make a lot of assumptions that simply are not correct. You try incorrectly presenting "all but", while ignoring the actual title: "The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15." Pretty definitive. Business Insider also reports this [2]. CNBC says "But not all recent mass shootings involve the AR-15 or its variants. The massacre of 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, for instance, was carried out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a semi-automatic rifle that is internally distinct from the AR-15, despite its similar look." [3]. Tampa Bay Times [4]. Again, try to make the case that I'm engaging in OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If RS's contradict the claim that one of the shootings was conducted with an AR-15 then we have to take that claim as in error. The article may have good information but that claim isn't good. Springee (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. -72bikers (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a distinction without a difference. They operate differently internally, but that's obviously not the point that the article is making. Both are modular semi-automatic rifles that fire would be classified as "assault weapons" under the 1994 law, and both guns are part of the family of guns marketed as "modern sporting rifles" by manufacturers. Time and USAToday also call the MCX "AR-15 style rifle". NPR also calls it an assault-style rifle, and quotes law enforcement sources calling it an "AR-15 equivalent". Maybe its more technically accurate to use the language from the Washington Post and call these "assault style rifles": "Of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the highest number of casualties — killed AND wounded — in the U.S., seven involved the use of an assault-style rifle, according to Mother Jones's database" Nblund talk 21:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There IS a difference and that's kind of the point. Because the reporter didn't understand the difference, he made incorrect statements. That is the basis of this complaint. The complaint of OR has been disproven and this should be closed. The 1994 law is moot since it stopped being law in 2004. The MCX didn't even exist in 1994.... or 2004. Mother Jones uses a different way of counting. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference, but it's a pedantic one that isn't significant to any aspect of the gun debate. Both gun are members of the family of Assault-Style/Modern Sporting rifles. If precision is key, the issue can be solved by changing the wording: "The AR-15 and similar rifles", or "Assault-style rifles such as the AR-15" or even "Semi-automatic rifles commonly referred to as 'assault-style rifles' or 'modern shooting rifles'" Alternatively, the quote from WaPo above gets the same point across. Any of these seem fine to me and are probably preferable to changing the number. Nblund talk 22:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your point that, in the case of the Pulse shooting the differences between an MCX and an AR-15 are in consequential. I would go further and say that would hold true if we changed the MCX out for a Mini-14 or AK pattern rifle. Basically any intermediate round, semi-auto rifle with interchangeable magazines could have done similar harm. But that doesn't mean we should incorrectly state that "AR-15 style rifles" were used when that isn't the case. We also wouldn't say "a batch of contaminated Band-Aids" resulted in an outbreak of skin disease" unless it was Johnson and Johnson Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages that were involved. This is particularly significant in the AR-15 style rifle article since the MCX isn't the subject of the article. Springee (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not pedantic. The statement under discussion was that 6 AR15's were used. That is wrong. Not pedantics, just wrong. Using your reasoning, we could say that all cars are Corvettes because they have 4 tires, a motor and a seat. Now you are discussing a wording change, which is not part of the OR complaint. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Whether the rifles have differing internal mechanisms is pedantry. Tactically and functionally the weapons are identical. They fire the same round; have the same general types of accessories which make them more useful in an engagement (basically anything you can lock onto a Picatinny rail); have a similar range of barrel lengths; generate the same velocities and cause the same wounds. How the weapon is cycled, beyond 'semi-auto', is irrelevant. In a mass shooting no one cares about internal design difference. All that matters is how the weapon handles tactically and how the ammunition performs upon striking flesh. As far as non-gun-aficionados know or care if it looks more like an M-16 than an AK-47 then it is "AR-15 style" and we should not invalidate a source for that. Jbh Talk 01:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That same logic might be used to suggest a Spitfire is the same aircraft as a ME109. While I would agree the AR-15 and MCX were functionally interchangeable with respect to the crime, they aren't the same thing and the MCX is not an AR-15 and we should not suggest it is otherwise when we know better. Springee (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, what we should not do is create pedantic categorization to detract from the magnitude of the issue based on internal technical distinctions which make no difference in the political and social discussion happening around these weapons. The press and the general population are now using AR-15 style as a catch-all for guns that look similar and are used in mass shootings. Legislators, advocates and the general public are not going to say "well we had 7 massacres but of the guns used only 3 of them were AR-15 style, the other four had a different recoil system so there is not really a problem to be addressed here … but if two more of those had that damn ching-ching ringey sounding DGI piston then by god we'd really have had a problem" That is just not what the mass shooting debate is about. All seven matter regardless of how they handle gases that do not send rounds down range. Jbh Talk 05:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Last edited: and PS If one were to try to fight a Spitfire like a Messerschmidt or vice-versa. One would die. Even a cursory reading of a Wikipedia article makes it obvious they are not tactically interchangeable. The same can not be said with the two weapons we are discussing here. 05:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not pedantry. Based on your logic, a Corvette and a F150 are the same things because they both have 4 tires, a steering wheel and an 8 cylinder engine. Just because people who don't know the difference misuse the term, we don't get to ignore the actual meaning. They are "tactically identical"? What is that even supposed to mean? Most people don't care about the difference between Hong Kong/China, yet we make the distinctions. This is an encyclopedia, actual meanings should mean something here of all places.
I agree that the media is using this as a sort of catch-all, but it's probably preferable for an encyclopedia to be less loose with language where possible. Is there any objection to simply saying "AR-15 or similar rifles" or any of the other phrases I suggested above? Nblund talk 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with that in the mass shooting article. If there is consensus to keep the statement in general would it be an issue to add a footnote stating that one of the "6" is a rifle similar is user function (how you interact with it vs how in mechanically operates inside) but isn't an AR-15? I wouldn't be OK with such a statement in the AR-15 style rifle article (which isn't the source of this NORN question) simply because the scope is "AR-15 style rifles" not "AR-15s and similar". Springee (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that AR-15 style rifle has been improperly restricted to clones of the AR-15 rather than those "based on the Colt AR-15 design", as the article lead states. There are many elements of rifle design which can be traced through the AR-15 design and can reasonable be seen as based on but not duplicating the original AR-15. The MCX is, certainly as far as the public is concerned, based on the design of the AR-15. From a technical point of view it shares design elements like use of 5.56N ammunition, modularity, light weight for easy deployment as well as magazine design with the AR-15. These can be seen as distinct design elements which seem to differentiate the AR-15 from linages based on the AK, FN/FAL, M14 with which the AR-15's design contrasted. Jbh Talk 16:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What the general public incorrectly thinks shouldn't be a factor here. What you call technical differences aren't mere technicalities. You're just inclined to dismiss them for some reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No. Although if you must use poor rhetorical analogies – it would be accurate to say the Ford F150 is 'equivalent' to the Chevrolet Silverado. In truth though using analogies to pickup trucks and WWII fighters are simply poor rhetorical devices which fail to address the arguments presented. Jbh Talk 16:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a poor analogy. When you take mere cosmetic similarities and a few mechanical similarities, mash them together and say they're the same, you get a false equivalency. Want a closer one? While the Dodge Charger and the Ford Crown Victoria share many similarities (4 dr, full size, RWD, 8 cylinder etc), they are ditinctly different cars and no substantial parts are interchangeable between the two. Trying to force a false "equivalent" conclusion is more of s POV push than anything else. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Knowingly and repetitively adding false or misleading information to any article, no matter the reason, is by definition "Disruptive Editing." "Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours." --RAF910 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Springee: I agree on the AR15 article and I think a footnote is a sensible solution. Nblund talk 15:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bismuth-209

I attempted to remove the Bismuth-209#Hypothetical decay section of Bismuth-209 as original research, but my action was reverted on the basis of WP:CALC. I do not believe that it is a "routine calculation" since it involves an exponential. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a routine calculation. The question should be whether it belongs in the article at all, even if true. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Someguy1221. It's a permissible calculation, but it's also ridiculous content that should probably be removed for other reasons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that already covered by CALC? The result is obvious and correct (I assume, I haven't checked), but not meaningful. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Or, from another angle, taking the total amount of bismuth mined in a year and calculating how much would be left after the doubling of the age of the universe is obviously not routine in the same sense that adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are -- the math is all very simple (and so routine in one sense), but this is not something that is done routinely in the course of writing an encyclopedia article. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes badly needs review and input

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Side discussion on scope, splitting, notability, OR.

The short version is this appears to be a giant WP:COATRACK and an OR and PoV-pushing farm. It has 37 talk archive pages of constant dispute, the PoV problem of the title has been debated at least 18 times without resolution (19, counting the ongoing RM); it's been AfDed again and again, barely surviving with "no consensus" several times, and a strong case can made that it has to be split into things like Mass killings by the Soviet Union, etc., to get around the WP:FRINGE problem. That problem is that virtually no sources (just two, apparently, that other sources do not cite) seem to be trying to equate or inter-relate democidal and other mass-killing actions by various governments that happen to be communist, and determine communism to be the cause, but our article is giving this fringe view in WP's own voice, then working in material from RS that do not hold that view at all, as if they do. That's patently WP:SYNTH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Terminology" section is definitely an original research and should be deleted. With regard to splitting, it makes no sense, because every separate topic already has their own articles.
The article contains some general theorisings which creates a visibility of the subject's notability. However, all this material already presented in Black Book of Communism, Democide and Red Holocaust articles. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with SMcCandlish's remarks. I believe that that the talk page @ Mass killings has become a category 5 POV storm. Anybody can jump into the discussion and present their own opinion ie.OR that is not supported by a reliable source. This BS storm should stop and only reliable sources should be discussed. Please lets take the time to familiarize ourselves with the sources, the books are out there on the internet for sale.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Arabic-Russian transcription table

There has been a disagreement about the table in Cyrillization of Arabic. It started out with what looked like a hoax, but its current version is superficially more acceptable: it is adapted from the table in the corresponding article on the Russian wikipedia. For each Arabic letter that table gives the Russian scholarly transcription, as well as the letter (or often enough several letters) used in the practical orthography. The trouble is that our article ignores most of this content and simply picks one of the practical variants of each letter and then presents the whole thing as though it were a single coherent system. Isn't such a selection a case of OR? (That's leaving aside the question of using another wikipedia as a source).

I see two acceptable solutions: either to remove the table (which I did, but one editor has adamantly objected), or to translate the whole Russian table, including all the variants, the prose text at the top and the explanatory footnotes (I wouldn't object if others do that but I'm not willling to do that myself unless I've checked the sources of the Russian article, and that's not something I've got the resources to do at this stage). Is there anything about the whole concept of original research that I'm misunderstanding here? Any thoughts anyone? – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Hoax" is a hyperbolic description. In its original form the conversions listed could be found on the Russian article, which is reliably sourced (so no we're not "using another wikipedia as a source") – the selection was just odd. You complained about it being unsourced, so I added sources. You complained about the selection of uncommon Cyrillic variants, so I replaced them with the more common ones. You complained about the Cyrillic spellings of the letters, so I corrected them. We agree that the current version is imperfect. Instead of continuously coming up with new reasons to remove it, why don't you help me improve it? – Joe (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Eric Turkheimer

I am concerned about a sentence in the "Research" section of the article on Eric Turkheimer (which I might add is a BLP). The sentence in question, about a failure to replicate Turkheimer et al. (2003) is sourced to this paper and was added by Deleet. I have expressed concern that the sentence is WP:OR on Talk:Eric Turkheimer, but Deleet has dismissed this; I still want this issue to receive more scrutiny and for other editors to assess whether they think the content in the article violates WP:OR or not. Everymorning talk to me 18:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the Environmental inequality in Europe article have WP:SYNTH issues?

Does the Environmental inequality in Europe article have WP:SYNTH issues?

Please see article talk page for full history of the content dispute. There have been claims that the entire article is a WP:SYNTH. This claim has also been used as rationale for blanking large sections of the article (see edit history; December 2017).

Thank you, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the synth on this one runs deep. I mean, look at the "Germany" section, for example. Consider this rambling paragraph, which is nearly half of the section:
 The systematic targeting and genocide of Romani and Sinti communities in Germany during the Holocaust was not officially recognized until 1982. Despite having a recorded presence in German-speaking territories since 1419, many Romani and Sinti were denied or stripped of citizenship following the war. In absence of comprehensive reparation or conciliation processes, Romani and Sinti in Germany have experienced ongoing violence, harassment, and marginalization within a broader context of environmental discrimination.
Seriously? The essayist WP:SYNTHed the National Socialist Holocaust, through which the National Socialists killed about half the Gypsies of Europe, into an article ostensibly about "the environment". Look, I think we all can agree the Holocaust was a horrible thing and a genocide of the Gypsies, but the fact it got dragged into this article goes to show the whole essay is a hopeless mess of WP:SYNTH and in needs of a serious re-write, from top to bottom. XavierItzm (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Early Christianity and incest

See Talk:Early_Christianity#"Incest". This is the contentious edit in question.

The other editor and I have accused each other of original research by misrepresenting a source's acceptance or suspicion of ancient sectarian claims. A third (at least) voice is needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Negative reviews of the ONLY source in the literature. It is sourced to apparently a specious introduction to an appalling translation. Lacking an appropriate quality source this is garbage OR. (And to let you know, my personal belief is that the low quality source is "right," but is not appropriately high quality for the claims, and the claims are wrongly put as for whose opinion and there is 90% too much weight put upon them). Fifelfoo (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Abstract expressionism

This article for some time has included two lists of painters in the field, categorized as "Major" and "Other". The lists are entirely unsourced, both as to the characterization of the artists' work as falling into the field and as to whether the artists' stature/relationship to the field is "major" or "other". The problem was raised, but not resolved, a few years ago, and the defense of the lists was not based on RS or verifiability policy. We don't generally do this in other fields, scientific or artistic; there are no such lists in Set theory or Symphony or Science fiction. The enterprise is fundamentally unencyclopedic (not listing itselfbut comprehensively deciding who is a "major" artist and who is not). Just settling on the criteria would itself likely be original research, and certainly measuring each artist against the criteria would be. I've removed the lists, but they've repeatedly been reinstated without any policy justification, despite the undeniable NOR, NPOV, RS, and verifiability failures. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually we very often do this, in lists and articles (let alone categories) - I'm obviously not going to give examples for HW to go and duff up. I'd say it's pretty normal in arts articles on movements etc. Very often such lists have been moved off to a list, which might be a solution here. We have List of symphony composers, indeed a whole category of Category:Lists of symphonies, as well as a 98-strong Category:Set theorists and of course List of science-fiction authors. Here, the groups, which are perhaps misnamed, cover different things:
"Major artists: Significant artists whose mature work defined American abstract expressionism:"
"Other artists: Significant artists whose mature work relates to the American Abstract Expressionist movement:"

- among other things, I think you have to be American to be in the first group. It is not a quality judgement, though it may seem like that. So that point is incorrect. It would of course be possible to reference the lists, but as was pointed out on article talk, that will take time, as both sections are long (perhaps too long). I suggest HW follows normal procedures and tags them first, rather than just deleting. But we know that is not his style. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  • There's nothing wrong with having a moderately-long list of abstract impressionists in the article, but the "major" and "other" designations do cross the line into OR unless we have reliable sources that describe them as such. Generally we should include a few of the most influential or defining artists in the prose for the purpose of describing the topic to the reader and list everyone else alphabetically or by year. –dlthewave ☎ 01:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
One more thing, the obvious solution would be to simply remove the "major" and "other" labels. There's no need to delete content. –dlthewave ☎ 02:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "I won't provide examples because nasty old Wolfowitz will just refute them". That's not hardly convincing, it's more an admission that Johnbod's argument doesn't hold water. "Normal procedure", per WP:V, is that Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. And deciding which artists are "significant", what work is "mature", and which work "defines" a field rather than merely "relate" to the field are plainly critical value judgments that may not be presented in Wikipedia's voice but require identification and attribution. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Johnbod is correct, Hullaballoo needs to stop deleting the work of other editors, when all he/she needs to do is add a tag. Better yet, instead of waisting everyone's time on threads like this (and so many others), he/she can help improve the article(s) by finding a source and adding it to the article. Coldcreation (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The onus is on those who want to include disputed material to provide a valid reference. Claiming an artist is a 'major' artist in a field is a critical claim that requires an explicit reference. Absent a reliable source it can be removed, if you want to keep lists of 'major artists'. Or it can be reworked to 'examples of artists in the field' which would only require a source that they are in that field. Generally if a blue-linked article contains a valid reference (so the artist biography in this case) for a non-contentious claim, its not always required to duplicate the ref in lists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about Italian football list

Hi everyone, first of all sorry for my English. Reading List of most expensive association football transfers, I was reminded of something I would ask of you. What do you think about the list / evolution / progression of the most expensive transfers of Serie A, but starting from 1930s-1940s (ie the birth of professionalism)? Obviously each transfer will be associated with at least one historical and verified source. I tell you that a "global" list (for example from all over Europe) of transfers is practically impossible to draw, because we should cross the historical sources of each nation (if there are any) and then compare the different currencies! If it is to be drawn up, it can only be done by country in my opinion. I would to know if an article like this (basically a list) is or is not an original research. I tell you that there are serious sources on the web about this ranking/list concerning only Serie A; however, there is no complete source that starts from the beginning of professionalism. Thanks! --94.162.39.83 (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC) moved from Wikipedia talk:No original research by user:Meters

Note that this IP's first two attempts to make this edit were blocked because they tripped the "Fuerdai vandal" edit filter. Meters (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
And a few minutes before that a named user's edits were similarly blocked by the edit filter. I'm not familiar with the Fuerdai vandal so I don't know if these were false positives as they claimed. Meters (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
My edits were blocked because I've write a phrase that I cannot report here, because it's impossible to introduce it by filter block action. The phrase is Wel, I would to know (change Wel to Well and try yourself: the filter blocks you). --94.162.39.83 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Meters, Wikipedia says: Be polite, and welcoming to new users. You're treating me like I'm a bandit and you are a cop. I don't understand really. I believe you are an immature person. --94.162.39.83 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If it was a false positive there's no problem (other than a suggestion not to keep attempting to make a blocked edit, and not to edit war over adding off topic comments to a talk page). As I said, I don't know anything about t that vandal. I left the comments because I moved the material here and I don't want any blow back if it turns out that this post is part of a vandal's work. I did not call call you a vandal. The edit filter designed to catch a particular vandal's edits caught your edits.. And now that you have descended to personal attacks, I'm done. Please read WP:NPA. Meters (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Was it necessary to report what I did or not? I'm here simply for a question. I'm not here to be followed by a shadow telling me what to do, what I do not have to do in my every move. --94.162.39.83 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The challenging issue is most expensive. Is a transfer the most expensive of the year because a source (newspaper, magazine, sports almanac) said it is? If that's the case, no problem. Is it the most expensive of the year because we haven't found a source for a more-expensive transfer? That's where we're hitting the realm of original research. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Of course, for first years (1930s-40s) we need a clear newspaper source reference. I think for next transfers we don't necessary need a source tell us this is the new record, but it's necessary having a source tell us the transfer cost is higher than the record at that time. In any case, I'm pretty sure the newspapers should also clearly state that this is the new record, but it could also happen that for some transfers this statement is not reported, but we can reconstruct it. Am I right? --94.162.39.83 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily, provided I understand your question correctly. Suppose transfer 2 is higher than transfer 1, which previously held the record. I believe your question is whether we can assume that transfer 2 is a new record and report it as such, because we have a source saying it is higher. The answer is no, because there could have been a transfer 3, which took place between transfers 1 and 2, that was higher than both of them. Then transfer 3 would have broken the record, and transfer 2 would have done nothing. So no, we can't assume that the second one broke the record just because it was higher than a previous record. We need a source saying that the particular transfer in question was the one that broke the previous record. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Clear. Thanks. --94.163.72.27 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Reproductions of studies or other such publications

Over recent weeks a number of articles have been created which are based on previously published papers issued under public license. The Wikipedia reproductions follow the line of thought of those papers, the flow, reproduce entire passages of text. Examples include: Media independence (for which I have raised an AfD), Human rights and encryption, Online youth radicalization, Online hate speech, Multi-stakeholder governance, Media pluralism. Those articles are very closely aligned to previously published works, in this case published by UNESCO. As they are under free license and properly attributed, there are no immediate copyvio concerns. I do believe, however, there are a number of policies and guidelines that are actually being touched on: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPAPERS.

  • WP:OR: the policy stipulates that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. The key question here is, does WP:OR get resolved plainly by the fact that an entire body of work has been published by a government/organisation/person elsewhere or does it persist as OR by proxy if the work reproduced on Wikipedia remains close to the original work (as it does in this case)
  • WP:NPOV: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral perspective, incorporating all available views and give them appropriate weight. There are two concerns here: 1) if an article is very close to one published work (even though that has many secondary references) can the Wikipedia article even be perceived as neutral given it is aligned to ONE original synthesis and 2) how to assess if articles written by orgs/govts etc are inherently neutral or have systemic bias (as anything from official sources is always a compromise of political processes at the time). The transcription of those articles into Wikipedia may also have certain WP:COI elements.
  • WP:NOTPAPERS: this stipulates that Wikipedia should not a depository of scientific papers. In this case, not the entire paper was published, there has been some redaction. However, it remains close.

Most of those articles are very complex and sometimes on sensitive political/society topics and an individual assessment - especially about inherent neutrality (or lack thereof) - may be a complex and time consuming task for the community of laypeople. If it is believed there are no OR or NOTPAPERS concerns, the NPOV side remains. As a proper review of such papers should take place prior live publication, it may be a thought to require sending such articles through AfC similar to COI editing. I appreciate the thoughts of the community. Many thanks. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research does not apply to any sourced text, as it mostly prevents Wikipedia editors from publishing their own ideas on any subject matter.: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. 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. ... The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is of far more valid concern here. Due to our requirement for an "impartial tone", most texts have to be modified to avoid laudatory or disparaging terms.: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to make clear, the content added from UNESCO is not from scientific papers, they are all secondary and tertiary sources and include a lot of academic references, so WP:NOTPAPERS doesn't seem relevant. The content is not being added to articles about the organisation, but sharing the knowledge from the organisation in its areas of expertise. John Cummings (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
However they have been brought into a certain context by the organisation that compiled this synthesis (in this case the UNESCO). So strictly speaking the article title should be "Media independence as viewed by UNESCO". While I regard the UN/UNESCO highly, there will be many people on this planet who don't agree with that certain view of the world. A different example. Consulting firms regularly churn out all sorts of papers. I have just downloaded a random paper from one of the big 4 consulting firms. This happens to be an overview of next generation automotive technology (autonomous cars etc). Very similar to the UNESCO papers, it is primarily based on a review of other sources. So (copyrights aside), would we be happy to convert this into an article about autonomous cars (again, putting aside this article already exists)? pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
None of the articles that have been created are locked and improvements can be made by other people, the articles contain a significant number of references (40 being the lowest I'm aware of). As with any reuse of existing text on Wikipedia, the consulting firm's text in your example as the basis of an article would be assessed on the same criteria as any other Wikipedia contributors content. John Cummings (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This is true for every Wikipedia article, however we regularly don't admit articles that are closely aligned or where the author may have vested interests. UNESCO and the UN in general are primarily political organisations with an agenda to form opinions on certain topics. They are not neutral - see UNESCO#Controversies and Criticism of the United Nations. The fact that the articles appear to have diverse sources is secondary if the selection of sources and the line of thought of the article is aligned to ONE "master source". We don't know how those sources have been selected, if they are indeed independent of UNESCO in this case, etc. Those are all the same concerns that I would have with any "promo piece". pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
These articles are tertiary publications summarizing the relevant literature. Consequently had they been written by Wikipedia editors, the articles would have met no original research, reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies. The only conceivable reason for not allowing them would be notability, which should be carried out on a case by case basis. TFD (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

State atheism - mostly WP:SYNTH?

This article designates real, factual events, under its State atheism title, as State atheism, yet next to none of the sources cited use this term. The article talk page records one contributor's analysis of one section of this article (since removed), which turned out to be almost completely WP:SYNTH, which is a good representation of the rest. No tertiary sources mention this term, nor present the facts therein in this way. I expect this to be tested.

To be clear, this article was written from a Christian Evangelist/Apologist 'atheist atrocities fallacy' POV, as an attempt to blame history's worst atrocities on 'atheism'; the article presents this accusation as 'common knowledge' without ever mentioning its POV-specific source (even in the description of the 'State athiesm' term's origin).

One section of this article, that concerning the Soviet-era 'Godless brigade' (Союз воинствующих безбожников - 'league of (the) militant Godless'), might be retainable, although 'State atheism' is not a precise or widely-used translation for describing it. In any case, this relatively minor (and short-lived) Soviet movement cannot be made to represent the entire Soviet-dictatorship 'effort'... and, again, no reliable sources do this.

I'd suggest reducing the article to this one section, and/or rewriting the article as the Christian Evangelist/Apologist accusation it is, but perhaps this should be the topic of a discussion. TP ✎ ✓ 09:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An objective examination/input would be appreciated. TP ✎ ✓ 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on the comments in the past RFC at Talk:State atheism#RfC: What to do with this article?, opened by the same editor (and closed not in their favor), and other comments on that talk page, I get the distinct impression that this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I do not see evidence in the present article of Christian POV or blaming of these atrocities on atheism. Perhaps its just a matter of correlation that a state that becomes so authoritarian as to outlaw religion is likely to be a state that flexed its might against its population in other ways. The term "state atheism" seems to be covered in scholarship. I think the OP is confusing WP:SYNTH with the normal process of writing an article which involves bringing information from several sources together. SYNTH is more about particular misleading statements, so maybe OP could point out some they think are problematic. -- Netoholic @ 10:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but my earlier ham-handed attempts to draw attention to the article doesn't mean that there's 'nothing to it'. In your 'scholarly' results, you'll see that most (if not all) of them are pro-religious authors and publications; 'State atheism' is a neologism used practically only by these (few, if any, reliable (sectarian) secondary sources use the term, yet even this fact is unmentioned in the article). And providing evidence of something absent is pretty difficult: how, other than indicating the article and its reference themselves, am I to indicate that the reference cited almost never contains the term 'State atheism'? By the title, the article would imply that everything under it 'is' State atheism. And, again, the talk-page synthesis of a now-removed section of the article is a good (and testable) demonstration of the method used throughout the article... perhaps it is not WP:SYNTH, per se, (perhaps WP:COATRACK? I don't WikiLawyer); all I know is that most of the article's claims (that the events indicated 'are' "State atheism") are unsupported by their sources. TP ✎ ✓ 12:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not a neologism. It seems to have been in use ever since the practice has, though grown in recent decades probably along with professional study of it. I believe others on the talk page have made similar restorations of the neologism claim. --Netoholic @ 13:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Outside of its longer-standing use as a (rough) translation of "Godless brigade", it is... so, do you mean to say that the term is in wide use by non-sectarian, mainstream, reliable, secondary and tertiary sources? If it isn't, it's a neologism, and/or being used as one. Again, it's hard to provide evidence of it not being in such publications. And the rest of my point? TP ✎ ✓ 13:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: I wasn't aware of that Google had an ngram analyser... thanks a million! TP ✎ ✓ 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
(after days of no reply) Well, unless more attention is brought to the article, it will be impossible to make changes there (it is 'protected' by its creators). What else (than here) can one suggest: an (other) RfC? TP ✎ ✓ 08:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope... when you have made several attempts (in different forums) to convince others that something is problematic, and no one agrees... then it is time to accept that you won’t change things by arguing further. Beating a dead horse is never the solution. Accept that you “lost” the argument, move on and work on other articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
If the points raised don't stand to testing, then we can talk about the 'methods' of the contributor bringing them up. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 20:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You don't get to declare that your complaints haven't been resolved simply because no one succeeded in convincing you otherwise. Basically no one agrees with you. Consensus is firmly against you. Move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
More of the same.
So it's 'okay' to start a 'Bindidddle resistance' article, and fill it with sourced facts pertaining to, say, the Boer war, backed by sources none of which mention or use the term 'Bindiddle resistance'? That's what this article does.
And this sort of misuse of Wikipedia to spread 'truth' is most often organised (as when reason and verifiablility are absent, only !vote and ('gang'-)protectionism remain), so of course consensus is going to be against whoever attempts to challenge it. And this problem is common to many similar mid-to-low-level articles on Wikipedia... as even this page shows. TP ✎ ✓ 04:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello? TP ✎ ✓ 14:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
If there are multiple sources that describe elements of a "resistance" and attribute it to a "Bindiddle" group, then there does not need to be a specific source using the exact phrase to describe it or title it as a "Bindiddle resistance". Of course, if there is a different common name used by sources, we tend to prefer that, but such a name has to be demonstrable as the primary name for the term. bd2412 T 17:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not even a question of exact phrase; the article would pin the listed atrocities (that sources attribute totalitarian/anti-religious actions to communism, to the Soviet regime, etc.) on 'atheism'. This POV (accusation) can only be found in evangelist and apologist opinion pieces, but the article would have readers believe that this term (and its attribution) is widespread common knowledge and fact (thus mentioned in reliable second and third-source references)... it is not at all. TP ✎ ✓ 12:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

reading academic citations

In this edit, Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) seems to conclude that the oldest paper cited in a 2015 paper for a certain point necessarily reflects first study on that point. I don't think there is text in either article that make the claim of "first". Admittedly I quickly skimmed both and could have missed text. I attempted to tag it "failed verification" for this reason, but Prokaryotes just reverted the tag and pointed to the fact its the oldest cite in the later paper and in the edit summary states there aren't any older papers. That sounds like a leap to a conclusion combined with original research to me. What do you think? Some otherwise uninvolved eds who watch for OR would be useful here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is how scientific papers are written, to clear things up, a Yale article noted, "In 1969, Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko developed a simple energy-balance theory of climate that captured a key feature of polar amplification." http://www.yalescientific.org/2016/06/ice-in-action-sea-ice-at-the-north-pole-has-something-to-say-about-climate-change prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at any of the papers, but judging entirely on what has been presented here, I can note: 1) If a papers says that MD developed a certain model in 1969 it doesn't automatically follow that he's the first person to have done so; 2) If his 1969 paper is earliest one cited in a text that is a comprehensive historical overview of a certain topic then this might indeed suggest that he's the first to have done any influential work on that topic, but it doesn't show it; claiming so is a textbook case of OR. If the person's work has been influential then there's bound to be sources out there that explicitly say so. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The National Science Foundation-funded study appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 45 years after atmospheric scientists Mikhail Budyko and William Sellers hypothesized that the Arctic would amplify global warming as sea ice melted.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1041/nasa-satellites-see-arctic-surface-darkening-faster or

"The effect of solar radiation variation on the climate of the Earth," published in 1969 was one of the first theoretical investigation of the ice-albedo feed back mechanism

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/budyko.htm

Notice that there are two authors noted in the literature for this mechanism, those are Mikhail Budyko and William D. Sellers, because they published both on the same topic. However, Sellers submitted his publication two months after Budyko (six months later published), which you can read from the studies header publication dates - other authors (I came across three references in other publication) cite always Budyko first. On the related pages, I pointed this out mentioned both, ie. Polar amplification and History of climate change science.prokaryotes (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala wrote "If his 1969 paper is earliest one cited in a text that is a comprehensive historical overview of a certain topic then this might indeed suggest that he's the first to have done any influential work on that topic"
This review cites Budyko first

He published an influential article in the English‐language journal Tellus in 1969 (Ref 51) which advanced a simple energy balance model highlighting the sensitive nature of the earth's contemporary climate. The model suggested that relatively small variations in the level of incoming solar radiation could have marked consequences for the earth's heat balance leading to periods of significant cooling or warming via its effect on sea ice. His ideas displayed overlap with the work of the US physicist, William D. Sellers who was based at the University of Arizona. While more complex than Budyko's approach, Seller's energy balance model (Ref 52) was similar in many respects, and their shared emphasis on the possibility of a ‘runaway positive feedback’ linked to the global climate system attracted a great deal of attention

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.412 prokaryotes (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The first reference from above cite reads, "Sea ice loss affects Arctic temperatures through the surface albedo feedback (Budyko 1969; Sellers 1969), again mentioning Budyko first. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2489-1.pdf prokaryotes (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and just removed the suggestion that he was the first to publish on this topic, because this is getting way too complicated, and I really don't have the time to defend this super close timing issue here. If he earns the honor to be first, because he submitted his papers first, then I guess someone else will point this out in the future. prokaryotes (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Good call. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically he was first, the question is if he shares this with Sellers together. prokaryotes (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hadith collection headings - primary source or secondary source?

Hello,

Would the headings above the hadiths on http://cmje.usc.edu/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/004-smt.php be considered a primary source or secondary source? My opinion is that:

  • The actual matn (Prophetic narration) are primary sources.
  • The chapter headings are not narrations, rather notes by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (hadith compiler), and are secondary sources and it is allowed to derive rulings from them without violating WP:OR. Your thoughts on this?

– Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The specific edit you would like to make would allow for a better answer but based on what you have said: That site seems to be a collection of English translations of primary source material. Regardless, headings are not secondary sources. A heading is a label, it does not provide analysis, synthesis or interpretation. The sole thing it may be useful for is, assuming WP:DUE,WP:WEIGHT, etc. one may be able to say –'Author X has chosen to group (hadiths) together (as)' – but only if the source has some commentary on why they were so grouped.
I am not sure what you mean by "derive rulings from them". It sounds like you intend a construction like Because (some heading says) and (some other heading says) we may therefore say (something not said in source). This is expressly the type of thing intended by not allowing original research. WP:NOR prohibits a Wikipedia editor from doing any form of analysis, synthesis or interpretation of source material. Whether that material is nominally primary, secondary or tertiary is not relevant. Jbh Talk 00:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
For example, there is a chapter titled "Chapter 200: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PLASTER THE GRAVE OR CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING OVER IT". If I were to write in a Wikipedia article "It is prohibited to build shrines over graves in Islam.", citing that heading, does this violate WP:OR? – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 21:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
At most it might be possible to say that particular scholar has determined it to be so but that would only be possible if there were no nuance in the chapter i.e. some grave coverings may be haram but others only makruh. All in all I would advise against it. Also, I would regardless of technicalities consider any centuries old compendium of hadith to be WP:PRIMARY because the interpretations, accepted and rejected isnads etc will vary from scholar to scholar and the acceptance of a scholar's work from school to school so it is very unlikely any universal claim could be made from such. Then there are the various ways others have interpreted things as insight and understanding changes through the centuries. Not to mention the differences of acceptance between Sunni and the various Shi'a sects or even the various differences in Sunni interpretations. For instance Sufi shrines are an obvious counter-example to the statement 'shrines are forbidden in Islam'
In short it is not possible to make a universal claim of something being true for all of Islam based on the work of a single work, no matter how respected. I am sure there are various scholarly books which discuss these things. Jbh Talk 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! So, is it permitted to quote the chapter title in the following manner without deriving rulings and to abide by WP:OR: 'Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj placed three ahadith under the following heading: "Chapter 200: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PLASTER THE GRAVE OR CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING OVER IT".'? Furthermore, I have found some reliable resources that cover this topic from the prohibitionist viewpoint but would like to explore all sourcing options. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 04:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Bump, @Jbhunley:. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 22:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Batreeq: The best I can do is give you my opinion above without seeing the specific edit, in context, in an article. You can ping me from the article talk page but I will not be around much for several days or maybe weeks so my response will likely be slow. I would suggest that the use of headings be limited to discussion of the specific work. There are also issues of WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT to consider ie why does it matter and why does it matter that it is the case in this work as opposed to others. Jbh Talk 22:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: Okay, thanks! – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking for outside opinion on these edits

On Talk:Lachlan_(name)#Origins I've tried to explain the concept of original research to another editor. I've reached out to WP:Third Opinion where another editor agreed with my assessment. I'm now reaching out here for further opinions.

Background. The article is about the name Lachlan, an Anglicised form of the Gaelic Lachlann. A variant of this Gaelic name is Lachann. Another editor's own view—unsupported by any source—is that the Gaelic names are entirely different, and that in Scotland the true Gaelic form of Lachlan is Lachann. As a result, the editor has progressively skewed the article by inserting synthesised arguments and personal research to prove this point of view.

In this edit, the editor makes note of a proverb he's cherry-picked from a nineteenth-century book, and asserts that it is an "old bardic proverb" and evidence that Lachann was "particularly popular" in the Hebrides. The source of the quotation gives no context whatsoever for the proverb. It's only the editor's opinion that this primary source proves anything about the name's popularity.

In the same edit, the editor takes it upon himself to critique the coverage of the names Lachann and Lachlann given by a reliable source (Black's Surnames of Scotland) because it "begs further scrutiny". The editor crafts a counterpoint to Black about a clan chief named Tearlach, and then criticises the layout of Black's book. The editor further notes more proverbs he's gathered, and adds his own speculation about how the date of these proverbs is "unknown", adding "Whatever the date, it is clear it was not written by a Maclean or Maclean bard, who would never denigrate the family of their patron. It is also unlikely the Macleans would use the degraded version Lachann if it originated from a verse that insulted them, but they had no qualms using it". So the editor has synthed a fact about a chief's name, and added some other critical and irrelevant observations about a reliable source. He's further combined this with personal conjecture about the age and context of more primary sources.

With this edit, the editor cites a Gaelic dictionary that was published one hundred and ninety years ago. It neither mentions the names Lachlann or Lachann. It does however give the word "lach" as "a duck, a wild duck, a drake", which the editor uses as evidence that the name Lachann must mean "Wild Ducks". As a result of this concocted etymology, the editor concludes "There is no evidence or suggestion that it is related to the Gaelic name Lachainn/Lachann". The editor also throws in an out-dated (and incorrect) etymology for the Gaelic name Eachann. So the editor has again mined another out-dated book, this time as way to create his own preferred etymology, and tops it off with more synth about another name, all as a means to prove his point of view.

And now the editor's cherry-picking nineteenth-century editions of parish registers, privy council records, prisoner lists, and tenant lists. So more personal research mined from primary sources, mixed together with the editor's own observations and analysis.

My efforts to explain "original research" on the talkpage have failed. The article has become a badly formatted mess of bizarre proverb-based rebuttals, personal speculation, concocted/incorrect etymologies, and an undue collection of muster rolls and lists of random MacLean clansmen! It's almost funny how obviously unacceptable it is. But it's so frustrating when you're alone with someone who refuses to get the point.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh. I see that the situation is a bit complex. Perhaps next time, you can condense the request to edits and lack of sourcing or synthesis of a source. This will help others get you responses more promptly.
Now onto the case, original research (OR) involves claims without sources and synthesis (SYN) involves combining sources to make claims not found in the sources or making claims not explicitly mentioned in the sources. Some of the conjecture from User:Theirishslave does look like SYN with quite a bit of explaining by User:Theirishslave. Using the census (bad source either way for this topic) and dictionaries and making combinations of arguments that are not explicitly made by the sources is definitely OR and/or SYN. In wikipedia, all non-obvious claims must be sourced and the sources must make the connections and arguments explicitly.
I would recommend that you ask for quotes in the sources so that everything is transparent. That way you and User:Theirishslave can see if a source actually says the explict claim or not. If the sources do not make the explicit claims or arguments that User:Theirishslave is putting in the article, then they do not belong in the article. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the request should have been more concise. As I understand it, another editor wants to add claims based on their analysis of information, without a reliable source that makes the same conclusion. That is original research. TFD (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Sorry about the wall of text. I was just woundup with frustration at that point. The article and talkpage have been quiet since.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it original research to cite the plot of a TV show to refute an incorrect statement made about that plot by a third party?

See the discussion here: Talk:Manhunt: Unabomber#Unsourced addition. This is the addition that was removed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the source implies that the show said Fitzgerald was present at the arrest. It merely states that fact to say that Fitzgerald's role was not that major. So you can rewrite the text to reflect the source. To answer your general question, when secondary sources misrepresent primary sources, we should not use them, or at least not repeat erroneous statements. TFD (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Read literally, Stejskal's statement is criticizing the show for focusing on Fitzgerald, and not for any alleged factual inaccuracies. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that the content of the source should be reflect the claims explicitly made in the source. But there are some problems. 1) The source does not seem to discuss a plot point and relevance would be the only thing to look at and also 2) the commentary edit is clearly a wikipedia editor's interpretation without a source. #2 is OR for sure. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this Original Research?

I was looking for the Metropolitan area of Trivandrum city. It's hard to find. Then i came across this source here: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/3214_PART_B_THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.pdf. It's published by the Directorate of Census Operations of Government of India. So it's a reliable source and it has the Metropolitan area data of the city in it. The only problem is that they listed the area of each census towns separately. The total area is not in the document. So you need to add the total area manually. Is that original research? I have no connection with the source. So is there any way that i can use this source in the article, by using reference notes or something? Thanks in advance. AG47 Talk 09:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just basic arithmetic (addition). WP:CALC says basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers are allowed here. But I need another editor's opinion. Here is a document with the total addition done. (here). All the data except the total added figure is in the census source given above. AG47 Talk 10:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
That just seems like basic addition. Provided that maybe a footnote is provided I see no issues with compliance with WP:CALCGaruda28 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I am having trouble reading through the source. If it identifies which municipalities constitute the metropolitan area and separately lists the population for each one, then adding them is simple arithmetic. But if the list of municipalities comes from somewhere else, then it is synthesis. Different sources may draw different boundaries for the metropolitan area. TFD (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@TFD Yes it's confusing. But it's easy. It's a 450 page document. But all the data we need is on one single page of the document. It's page 30 of the handbook. (page 37 of the pdf file). The full data we need is under the heading "URBAN". The population and area is also given in the same page. You just need to add the census towns and municipalities under Thiruvananthapuram UA together (like i did in the document given). In India, urban area is calculated by adding adjacent municipalities and Census towns with the city. So you need to know the census tows to do this. It is also available in the same website (here) and it's also available in the state's (Kerala's) census handbook (here (194 MB document). You don't need to take any data from these documents. All the data (population and area) are available in the source i given. The different boundaries is not a problem here as it is not from different sources. It's from the same website and the links to these data is from here. This is why i asked is there any way to use this source by using reference notes or something? Thanks. AG47 Talk 12:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The previous page (29) shows totals for population. I don't mean to be argumentative, but why do you assume that the urban districts are all part of the metropolitan area while the rural districts are not? There could be rural districts surrounded by urban ones and vice versa. TFD (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@TFD No. page 29 is about the marginal workers. See the heading in that page. Page 30 is the total population. :) In India, the Urban Agglomeration or Urban area is the Metropolitan area. It is defined by the government as "urban agglomeration is a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining outgrowths (OGs), or two or more physically contiguous towns together with or without outgrowths of such towns." So, there may be some rural areas surrounded by urban ones. But they are not added to the metropolitan area of the city. The census towns (CT) are urban. The government selects the adjoining census towns under Thiruvananthapuram metro region. So it is already defined by the government. To see the census towns defined by the government, see: [5]. The total population of Thiruvananthapuram Metropolitan area is 1,679,754. The government published this total population but they didn't published the total area. That's why I needed to add the areas from the source i given (page 30). You can see the total population figure here.
If you add the census towns which comes under the Thiruvananthapuram metro region form the page 30, you will get the total area and the same population figure (1,679,754). So, basically, the census towns come under the metropolitan region is defined by the government. The total population of Thiruvananthapuram metro region is also published. The only thing remaining is the area and it can be found by just adding the area of census towns, which come under the metropolitan region. It also matches with the population figure. Thanks :) AG47 Talk 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Lucien Cuénot

Please read Lucien Cuénot#A voice unheard? and then read my comments on the article's talk page. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Marcuse

I have been dealing with an original research issue at the Herbert Marcuse article. The dispute is with a single person who has edited the article from multiple IP addresses: 2601:447:4101:41f9:595d:1efc:be67:64b5, 68.47.65.239, 2601:447:4101:41f9:1c38:f501:2e85:f7a7, 2601:447:4101:41f9:3c4d:17d2:e221:7a4a, 2601:447:4101:41f9:529:dcba:f533:b7fa, and 2601:447:4101:41f9:e469:5cbf:1851:1d18. The user has edit warred to restore flawed content he added to the article, for example here. The content includes the statement "He viewed the integration of Eros and Logos to be the liberation of society", added to the the lead, and a paragraph reading, "Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive. Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it. In One Dimensional Man, he argued that Logos would also liberate's one's gratification", added to the article body.

There are multiple problems with that content. Some of it, such as the part about "the liberation of society", in the lead, is vague but could perhaps be improved. Some of it, such as the part about how "Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive", seems all but meaningless and is plainly useless to readers. Both those additions may involve original research, but the main original research problem is the sentence "Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it", which is cited to pages 125 and 126 Marcuse's book Eros and Civilization, but which simply does not give an accurate account of Marcuse's ideas. It is simply untrue that Plato argued that while "Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it" and nor does Marcuse say Plato did argue that (I have a copy of Eros and Civilization and can quote some of the text if anyone finds that helpful; one of the relevant pages of the book can be viewed here). The relevant passages of Eros and Civilization are quite dense, but it is clear nonetheless that the IP has put a totally false interpretation on them.

I have tried to explain repeatedly to the IP user that the source he cited does not support his claims about Marcuse's work and he has repeatedly ignored me. I have also tried to get him to understand WP:NOR, especially the point that even content cited to reliable sources can be original research if it presents a novel interpretation of those sources, but he has made contradictory statements about his understanding of the policy and does not seem to really understand it. I have already sought a third opinion over this issue, and it can be seen here; Reidgreg agreed that the content "does look like original research". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

But Marcuse's own words do not match this assumption. You can read Eros and Civilization here and a snippet of One Dimensional Man where he further discusses the benefits of Logos and why he felt it should reconcile with Eros here. My Eros and Civilization link also cites page 126, which is not listed in the source FreeKnowledgeCreator provided. This page notes more interesting views about Logos and how Eros became "archaic-mythical residue" as early as Plato.2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Made some edits. You see, FreeKnowledgeCreator left a mistake I made when I made edits to the Eros and Civilization article and I still assumed it was "Plato's ideas." However, I took another look at page 126 when I noticed he didn't source it and noted I made a mistake. Now that I read the book page clearly, I was able to make the appropriate edits to both the Herbert Marcuse and Eros and Civilization article.2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's quite a helpful comment because it amounts to an admission that some of the content you added, ("Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it"), was simply wrong and reflected your inability to read Eros and Civilization properly. I am glad that you have belatedly realized that you were totally mistaken. Unfortunately, your comment fails to address the issue that some of the other content you added to the Herbert Marcuse article, such as "Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive" and "In One Dimensional Man, he argued that Logos would also liberate's one's gratification" is of no use to readers because it is incomprehensible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Your addition on Eros and Civilization currently reads, 'In Eros and Civilization, Marcuse wrote that while Eros was constructive, its self-development became "archaic-mythical residue" as early as Plato. However, Logos was "commanding, mastering, an directing reason to man and nature are to be subjected" and would eventually absorb Eros"'. I accept that that is a good faith addition and on one level it is better than what you added before; unfortunately, however, my judgment remains that it really does nothing to explain Marcuse's ideas properly. It serves no purpose to flash phrases such as "archaic-mythical residue" at readers with no explanation of what they mean: the overwhelming majority of people are going to be totally mystified by them. In the absence of any reason to think that it is likely to help readers understand Marcuse, I still think your added paragraph should be removed. It also needs to be noted that you are still using inappropriate sources, such as this, in order to support your additions (such as the "Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive" rubbish). Granted that the author of that document appears to be an academic and a scholar, it is still an unpublished and as such unacceptable source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Using maps to determine the actual location of a place

Hi again!

At Talk:St. Barnabas' Episcopal Church, Leeland an editor argued that using U.S. Census Bureau maps (such as this index map and its pages) to determine the location of a church by citing them with a reference to the postal address of the church (with the church's own location map) would be original research Synthesis. I argued that the map is merely being used to verify the actual physical location, rather than synthesizing new information.

Here are two previous discussions about this kind of scenario: Talk:ENSCO, Inc.#Regarding the address and location of this company which involved a company in Northern Virginia that had a Falls Church, Virginia postal address but was located way outside the city (this was posted at this same noticeboard: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations) and Talk:Centennial_Airport#The_way_to_settle_the_map_location_dispute:_US_census_bureau_maps which involved an airport miles away from the city designated by its postal address.

This however leads to a question: I wonder if it would be good to clarify how/when using maps would not be original research. One of the reasons why this is important for U.S. places is that the U.S. Postal Service addresses do not correspond with municipal boundaries, and many communities are unincorporated (not in any city). Many newspapers report locations based on the postal address city name rather than the actual location of a place. The OR page already has guidelines on mathematical calculations, so I think maps should be addressed too.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't claim that my opinion is worth much, here, but this doesn't seem like a violation of the spirit of SYNTH to me. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of cast template box

Should the article; Desperate Measures (musical) include a template box for the separate casts or is prose enough? Please help form a consensus at Talk:Desperate Measures (musical)#RFC on inclusion of cast template box. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with original reasearch? Or WP:NPOV or WP:BLP or WP:RS, which are the other noticeboards you've posted this at? --Calton | Talk 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Skylab 4 human factors

Over at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors, I'm working on a draft to ultimately replace the Skylab mutiny article (see its talk page if you're bored). I'm pretty sure you'll find some original research in this draft, but I'm also pretty sure that a fair chunk of it is appropriately cited to secondary sources, and that at least some of the primary source utilization is reasonable (though, in some cases, it's not entirely clear to me if the particular application of a source is primary or secondary). I'm curious to figure out which sources and/or assertions cross the line to make further improvements. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is quite the right board, but I couldn't find a board for verifiability questions.

At the article Minimum legal ages in Belgium, someone recently made an edit "updating" the age of consent in Belgium from 16 to 14. Has it really been lowered recently? I googled "'age of consent' belgium" and couldn't find a definitive answer. Given that this was a mobile edit by an ISP (2600:1700:62E0:6670:3C2C:C9B6:73B1:796B) I'm particularly leery of this edit. Has there been a real change in the law, or is this just willful vandalism? I'm stumped. Khemehekis (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

[6]. Unless the change in the law is so new that Belgium's government hasn't updated its online criminal code, age of consent is still 16. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that site, Someguy1221. It's cool that you can read Flemish! I also checked out your userpage and enjoyed reading your thoughts on vandalism. Khemehekis (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I should update that with some new thoughts - most of it is 10 years old. Also, literally while typing this response, I notice there is actually an update to the criminal code on its way to change that law: [7]. I didn't find any sources actually giving a date for when this would happen. Some speak as if the law has changed, but some from the same day or later say the law will change. But actually this is a Romeo and Juliet law, not a strict change to the age of consent. The newspapers mention that "some laws will change, others will be removed". If the government made an official announcement, I haven't found it. I'd say the sources I can find are too vague to serve as sources, so it wasn't vandalism or trolling, but that content should remain as is for now. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
[8] [9] [10] An agreement on the reform of Book 2 of the Penal Code was announced on 20 July by the Federal Government of Belgium's Council of Ministers, as planned in the 2014 coalition agreement (page 126), so "for now" there is a political majority consensus on the wording that will eventually be proposed to Parliament, after the summer recess. General age of consent would be harmonized to 16 years, reduced to 14 years if the age difference is less than 5 years and if there's no position of authority involved. But elections are nearby, 26 May 2019 at the latest: you're spot on in saying that it's WP:Too soon. Wakari07 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I checked out that WP:Too soon page, and it really needs to be updated. Check out this part: "A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after – however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then." Khemehekis (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Funny that starring in Lundon's Bridge and the Three Keys in 2013 apparently warranted Paris Jackson enough notability to create her an own article in 2013. But also the non-fact was added that she was a billionaire and that could also have had an influence. The last argument in the deletion discussion, anyway, is a bogus one: Do we really need to announce to a world full of kooks what school she goes to? Do we really need to post a photocopy of her birth certificate for heavens sake? That held simply no WP:Relevance since that would be a gross WP:BLP violation. Wikipedia is not a cops' child protection agency. Wakari07 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
And today, the two members of the expert commission that was supposed to work on the reform took their leave [11] [12]. Did you ever hear about the process of decision-making in Belgium? Wakari07 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Two different names on two different maps but same feature

I have a question about how WP:NOR applies to maps. File:Micronesia and Marshall islands bathymetry.pdf comes from here and shows two seamounts named Aean̄-Kaņ and Wōd-Eņ Iōn̄. This publication has a differently styled bathymetric map of the same area, and this map shows two seamounts named Marovoiy and Nazimova. Based on a comparison of the two maps, Marovoiy = Aean̄-Kaņ and Wōd-Eņ Iōn̄ = Nazimova; would this conclusion be acceptable under WP:NOR? There is no source explicitly making the connection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger)

There is an original research issue at the article Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger). Διοτιμα has edit warred to add the following text to the end of the article's lead: "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein has led it to regarded by some writers as fascist in character". See for example here, where the misleading edit summary "expanded lead, as per WP:LEAD" was used. I believe that the added material is original research. It is not supported by a single cited source in the article. Although the added material is followed by a citation, the source used is page 8 of Julian Young's book Heidegger, Nazism, philosophy, and that page simply does not support the statement Διοτιμα added. It does note that Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics has been considered a fascist work (in much stronger language than that used by Διοτιμα, which minimizes the work's reputation as fascist) but nowhere does it state that this is because of its "primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein".

Διοτιμα may have made the addition in good faith, but the result is destructive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Deep state in the United States

My edit here was reverted by BullRangifer on the claim that I was doing original research for these sentences:

What started as a conspiracy theory, was actually proven true. [1]

The allegations made by Trump and others were without proof and as such considered to be a conspiracy theory. Then on September 5, 2018, an unusual anonymous op-ed was published in the New York Times with the title I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. [2] The New York Times verified that this individual was a "senior official in the Trump administration"[2] who was in the "upper echelon of [the] administration."[3] This senior government official claimed that "many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda" and "steer the administration." [2] Even the liberal website Vox found that "Apparently President Donald Trump is right: There really is a 'deep state' of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will." [4]

References

  1. ^ Lind, Dara (5 September 2018). "The New York Times's Trump-bashing op-ed from a senior Trump official, explained". Vox. Retrieved 10 October 2018. There really is a "deep state" of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will.
  2. ^ a b c Anonymous (5 September 2018). "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration". New York Times. Retrieved 10 October 2018.
  3. ^ The New York Times (8 September 2018). "How the Anonymous Op-Ed Came to Be". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 October 2018.
  4. ^ Lind, Dara (5 September 2018). "The New York Times's Trump-bashing op-ed from a senior Trump official, explained". Vox. Retrieved 10 October 2018.

Here is the key part of the original source for the key Vox article: 

Apparently President Donald Trump is right: There really is a “deep state” of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will. And now, one of them is taking to the pages of the New York Times to brag about it.

I acknowledge that I didn't cite anything for it being a conspiracy theory before, but this is cited elsewhere in the article and not in dispute. The question is, did I accurately express the view of the Vox article cited. According to K.e.coffman in talk, the Vox article was really being sarcastic, was just joking, and did not seriously mean what was said. The evidence of this, according to K.e.coffman is the use of scare quotes. I however believe the scare quotes are being used because it is not their term, they are using another person's meaning of the words "deep state." BullRangifer thinks the author is joking too because it uses the phrase "'Trump is right', ergo it can't be true. ". And even if it were true, BullRangifer argues, we should attribute it as an opinion. I don't think that is appropriate without another RS saying this RS is wrong (which has not yet been presented by BullRangifer). -Obsidi (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Ugh. Scare quotes. Obviously Vox is having fun with it. If you think they are merely citing, and truly believe in the concept of a "deep state", you don't know Vox very well. No one on the left, where Vox lives, takes this deep state stuff seriously. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that is the case (that no one on the left takes this deep state stuff seriously), and I provided this vanity fair article on the talk page to demonstrate that (which is obviously also written from a left-wing perspective) and states very clearly that:

It’s a cosmic irony of Trump’s Washington that the same people Donald Trump has arbitrarily branded the “Deep State”—Never Trumpers, so-called Obama holdovers, establishment Republicans, and those who disagree with Trump’s agenda—have been forced underground, meeting clandestinely, communicating furtively. Ordinary staffers have been converted into reluctant “resistance” fighters. While it is business as usual in many corners of Foggy Bottom, the mood in some pockets of the State Department, the former official said, has “turned normal-functioning government into a scary thing for regular civil servants.” One source recounted stories of employees in select State Department bureaus decorating their cubicles with pro-Trump imagery, so as to avoid suspicion. If the Deep State didn’t exist before, Trump has brought it into being.

Notice the similar use of scare quotes (because they consider the term "arbitrarily branded" by Trump, and not their term), and it stated in a very clear and unambiguously serious tone that they believe it to be true. -Obsidi (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Notice those words: "If the Deep State didn’t exist before, Trump has brought it into being." So when an unruly child charges into the antique store and starts destroying things, and the adults in the room start hiding the most valuable objects to keep them from being destroyed, their actions are "deep state". Then the child calls the adults "bullies", and the adults call the child a "vandal". Got it. So are you going to side with the child or the adults? Who's right? How should this be parsed? Shall we honor the child's interpretation or the adults'?
We don't normally call this type of behavior "deep state". We call it "damage control", or insubordination and sabotage as patriotic activities. Whatever it is, it's not normally "deep state" and not enough to totally redirect the direction of a whole article. You could start a new article about it, but we actually have an article about it: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. This content and POV belongs there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
We follow the RS, including how they use the term. -Obsidi (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Obsidi, my point is exactly that you don't seem to know how "they" (that is, the left-wing publications) use the word. It is used with derision. They are making fun of the people who believe in a "deep state". The "deep state" called thusly in square quotes has nothing to do with what QAnon calls "deep state". The one "deep state" is a fictional conspiracy that has permeated the entire government, indeed the world (plus it's probably another Jewish ("globalist") affair, funded by Soros, etc. etc.); the other "deep state" (or should I say ""deep state""?) is simply a joke used a. to point at the ridiculous fringey-ness of it and b. to indicate that there are a few people at work who want to keep their names a secret. Not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Look at Eugene Robinson's op-ed in the Washington Post, he is as far left as you can get, and he doesn't say the "deep state" isn't real, the term is used by Trump as "propaganda, intended to cast a sinister light" but he thinks the efforts of those people are a good thing not that they don't exist, saying With a supine Congress unwilling to play the role it is assigned by the Constitution, the deep state stands between us and the abyss. and In this emergency, the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher duty. It’s called patriotism. Obviously if you define it as a giant conspiracy that "permeated the entire government" yet alone the rest of that (that some crazy QAnon people might believe), no one believes that. But that isn't the only way that term is used. Do they consider it a term mostly invented by Trump, yes, but it describes things that actually do exist (although are not sinister in their eyes). -Obsidi (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
But that's the actual original use of the term - the "deep state" in Egypt literally overthrew the government and took over the country. The writer of the "Resistance" op-ed appears to be a Trump appointee who doesn't share his exact policy agenda, but who presumably still answers to the president. This is problematic, but it's also not unprecedented - although Trump appears uniquely bad at keeping a lid on it. Nblund talk 22:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if you define the term like in Egypt or Turkey terms (a shadow government who is running the country in all but name), then no, obvious that isn't the case here. But in my edit, I used the definition of "government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy" which is what ABC News defined the term as here. Obviously the term began in Turkey, but that doesn't mean that is the definition as understood in the United States. -Obsidi (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The network described by the author of the NYT piece and the network described by the "deep state" conspiracy theory bear virtually no resemblance to each other beyond the fact that they both consist of high ranking officials and both would oppose Trump (though the CS version would presumably also oppose every other president, as well). Note that the "deep state" had supposedly been in power long before Trump took office (since before 2014 in fact, with a different, though no less sinister shadowy cabal in place long before that, giving rise to such iconic characters as the Cigarette Smoking Man of X-Files fame and the Men in Black), and Trump ran for president in order to "heroically" fight against them (note the messianic tones: this is no coincidence), according to the conspiracy theory. The use of scare quotes in the Vox source, combined with the fact that it then immediately defines the term in a very different way than any other RS has ever defined it makes it quite clear that they are making the comparison for rhetorical effect: noting the irony of it. Expecting us to read this as an endorsement of the conspiracy theory is akin to pointing to a SNL sketch as proof that Trump and Putin are engaged in a romantic affair. Expecting us to then accept this single endorsement as proof is just ridiculous, even if this were an endorsement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Resistance op-ed proves those claims true only if you accept the absurd expansion of the definition to include basically anyone (including Trump appointees) who undermines the president in some way. "Deep State", much like "Fake news" is kind of meaningless at this point - thus, the scare quotes. Dara Lind's other mentions of this term make it pretty clear that he thinks Trump is misapplying it here. Nblund talk 22:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
That article isn't by Dara Lind, it is also before the NYT's op-ed. So if the NYT's op-ed changed the factual situation (as is claimed), what previously was understood not to have proof of its existence could be changed. -Obsidi (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That's right: It's not by Dara Lind and it predates the NYT Op-ed. So now we've established that Vox authors have -on more than one occasion- used "deep state" in a way that bears no resemblance to the actual conspiracy theory. Given the tone of the two articles, that's likely because they think using it that way is a dig at Trump supporters who believe the conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You really think this part of that article is a "dig at Trump supporters"? Lake and Greenwald’s complaints share a common thread. Both agree that there’s a “permanent state” or “deep state” inside the US government, made up of its intelligence and security establishment, and that this government-within-a-government’s volleys against the Trump administration are a threat to democracy. Now obviously that isn't a conspiracy theory. But it merely comes down to how you define "deep state" then. My edit, that was reverted, defined it as "government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy." Which is very close to Lake/Greenwald's definition of "deep state" (not used in the Turkey/Egypt sense of the term). -Obsidi (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You really think this part of that article is a "dig at Trump supporters"? Yup. I'm surprised you can't see it. Oh wait, no I'm not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Interviews

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

  1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
  2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
  3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
  4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
  5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor trying to insert their own literary analysis into an article

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:John Grisham#RfC on 'recurring themes' section regarding whether or not a section of unsourced 'recurring themes in the author's work' (eg "Grisham's books show the writer's manifest dislike of mega law firms" with no references) falls foul of WP:NOR. Input there appreciated. Amisom (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

In the article Warsaw Ghetto boy, an anonymous World War II photograph, a published source states that the image is public domain as well as NARA and the Institute of National Remembrance, which hold the photograph. Another user has recently edited the page to portray the public domain-ness of the image as equivalent to claims by Corbis Corporation and later Getty Images that the image is under copyright. The same user has used a news story about Corbis Corporation's archives being acquired by Getty Images to imply that this particular image was acquired by Getty at that time. Anyway, I would appreciate if someone could help sort it out. Catrìona (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The Notion Club Papers - unsourced mention of "an odd coincidence"

I deleted[13] the mention of an "odd coincidence" between a mention by Tolkien in the story the article is about of a great storm in June 1987 and an actual storm, the Great Storm of 1987 in October 1987, with the edit summary "unsourced speculation". User:GwydionM reverted me with the edit summary "Undid foolish revision. The storm is a fact, and so is the mention of it." I pointed out to the editor on his talk page that he should know about our policy on original research - I'm not the only editor to have done so. I reverted Gwydion with the edit summary "It's policy that we would need at least one reliable source making the link, otherwise it's original research." His response was to reinstate the text saying "This can be seen as an odd coincidence" with separate sources for the existence of the mention in the story and the existence of the storm and the edit summary "If you insist on a source for the complete bloody obvious, OK". This seems to be classical original research. Note that our article coincidence clearly states "From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively." To even mention this concidence seems WP:NPOV as well as OR, to call it an odd one would require good sourcing and probably attribution. Note that I haven't reverted, I'm still at 1RR. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious SYNTH. I'd leave it out even if there was a source making the link because it is a rather weak coincidence (not even the right month). Zerotalk 12:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In the Guide to Middle Earth, Colin Duriez writes, "Interestingly, there was a great storm - a hurricane - in Britain that Autumn which had a devastating impact!"[14] One could mention that Duriez made that connection but it is obvious OR for editors to make the connection. TFD (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Tolkien (as editor of Sauron Defeated) makes an explicit reference to the (real) storm. I don't have the page number handy, I'm afraid, but would this be an adequate source? Tevildo (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced summarisation of reviews for "Kill the Moon"

Hi. We have been discussing "the episode received polarising reviews" statement on the article's talk page. There is no consensus, yet editor AlexTheWhovian keeps adding unsourced info and claims "summarisation is always beneficial". I just wanted to hear other opinions on this. Sebastian James (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so. -- AlexTW 12:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the term is meaningful. Shouldn't it be polarized? TFD (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Brześć Ghetto

Uninvolved editors requested. In Brześć Ghetto#Soviets and Germans as "wartime allies", an editor is insisting on the language The German armed forces launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union – previously its own wartime ally which does not appear in the cited source for the passage (sztetl.org.pl - a wiki-like project). In Talk:Brześć Ghetto#Dead priests citing a book published by "Saint Maximilian Kolbe Foundation" for one bit, and a 1957 book from "Crown Publishers" for another book, which describe priests killed for aiding Jews by the Germans (but not Brześć Ghetto, or for some of them even Brześć/Brest) the dispute is whether these merit inclusion in the "Holocaust rescue" section of Brześć Ghetto. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians

This is about [15], namely about what WP:PRIMARY means in respect to WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS and WP:SCIRS. Origin of the Romanians#DNA / Paleogenetics seems exclusively based on primary sources, no reviews are cited. See Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. It's not our task to write reviews of primary scientific literature. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that people are confusing "secondary source" with "MEDRS-compliant source". The sources in question are secondary sources since the actual definition of the term is A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. - you may notice that it says nowhere "of other publications". However, they don't meet MEDRS and I'd ask for a stronger, MEDRS-like source i.e a meta review or such here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles.
  • A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific review (the article/document) with peer review (the activity).
  • A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Encyclopedias, general textbooks, popular science books, and tables of values are tertiary sources.
From WP:SCIRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
1) What the OP editor considers WP:PRIMARY in the DNA section mentioned is debatable. A cursory look at one such DNA study mentioned will show that it actually references several other previous studies, thus presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. That's the very definition of a secondary source, as according to the Wiki definition, "in some fields, a secondary source may include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of a scientific paper." These DNA studies also introduce new information but that's par for the course, so the classification here is not obvious, although I'd argue it leans towards these studies being secondary sources.
2) These DNA studies also comply with WP:MEDRS, as "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies."
3) These DNA studies also comply with WP:SCIRS, as ""Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge."
4) Anyone (including the OP) is free to post (other) secondary or tertiary sources in that section, if any are available at this time.
5) There are countless Wiki pages dedicated to DNA studies of various populations and they all contain such sources as are "in question" here. If somehow we create a precedent where we deem these type of sources "unreliable" then we'd need to delete all those Wiki pages and completely remove all DNA studies from Wikipedia, which would amount to nothing short of a travesty.
In summary, I believe we should keep all the info in the section and if the OP (or anyone else) has anything to ADD in the way of secondary or tertiary sources, he's welcome to do so. That would improve the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: As per WP:CLAIMS, what exactly are the sources that you find inappropriate?Cealicuca (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean: all sources which are neither literature reviews nor treatises, handbooks and such. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: What I meant is for you to list the sources that are not, according to you, appropriate.Cealicuca (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps with the exception of the first sentence, everything else is based only on primary scientific literature in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Copy/pasted from WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean: being a Romanian is not a disease so, strictly speaking, it is not a biomedical claim. But for all other purposes such research in human genetics is primary literature in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: What I meant is for you to have listed the sources that are not, according to you, appropriate. You haven't done that. Instead you chose to re-iterate a WP:RULE. I would like to remind you that "one of the poorest attempts at unsubstantiated claims is to merely suggest a situation violates a list of Wikipedia acronyms, but give no evidence, as merely "WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER". Such a list of WP acronyms is often a warning sign to beware that there is no significant basis to the claims" accodring to WP:CLAIMS.Cealicuca (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I reiterate my point: except perhaps the first and second sentence in that section, everything else is sourced to primary scientific literature in biology. I mean: everything else, prove me wrong if you can. You cannot, because there is no other secondary scientific literature in biology there. Don't WP:Wikilawyer to hammer your point, I have been clear enough. E.g. no other source is called "review", "treatise" or "handbook". Oh, yes, Pinhasi et. al. seems a review, and so is apparently Renfrew (although we cannot be sure about the later). These two sources are used to verify the first two sentences, in that section these two sentences only serve as introduction to the topic, the positive findings of these two sources about Romanians and their ancestors are not in any way used in the article. So, only lip service is paid to secondary scientific literature in biology, there is no use made of their positive findings, although per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS the secondary literature should supersede every other source cited in that section. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It's good that you reiterate your point. You started by dismissing the whole section. I think you should reconsider. I don't have to prove you wrong, and neither anyone else, when you don't back up your claims. I am disheartened by your aggressiveness on this matter. I don't understand what's so hard - simply post the sources that you consider are not appropriate.Cealicuca (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean the whole section has no positive information about the origin of Romanians sourced to any secondary scientific literature in biology. I the areas I have edited, this has been often seen as a problem, not as a virtue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So you are able to take the time to re-iterate the same idea, but don't have the time to do a simple copy-paste and list the exact problems? You find the time to copy-paste from WP:POLICY but (again) avoid naming those sources? It's a small section, it's not the entire article - an article which, by the way, contains a section Evidence that you seem to have no problem that it uses sourced statements in a context contrary to what those sources meant, or that it lists sourced statements without any connection/relevance to what the article itself designates as being mainstream theories. Otherwise - you use some generic statements that may be true. Everyone can agree to that...Cealicuca (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As they say, all it takes to show that all swans aren't white is one black swan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
They might say that - and thank you for the insight - but it is irrelevant to the current debate. However, since you insist on playing logic: Wow... You're actually expecting *other* people to "disprove" a negative statement that you make? "They" actually say that showing a swan is black is all it takes to prove that not all swans are white. There's a huge difference. When you state that ALL swans are black, and later on admit that there's some white among them, it seems only natural to actually revise your original statement (ie. instead of "all swans are black" -> "some swans are black") as well as actually pointing out which swans are black. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The two sources which could be construed as secondary literature are not used for positive statements about the origin of the Romanians, they are used for paying lip service to the greatness of genetic studies. I have consulted those two sources, and they don't have anything to say about Romanians in particular. Pinhasi has concerns about contamination of Ancient DNA. A common denominator of the literature in the field is that it is hard to differentiate among European populations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh well... since you can't seem to be bothered to do it, I'll do it. You're talking about "From molecular genetics to archaeogenetics. PNAS, Colin Renfrew, 2001" and "Pinhasi R, Thomas MG, Hofreiter M, Currat M, Burger J. The genetic history of Europeans. Trends in Genetics. 2012 Oct;28(10):496-505. PubMed PMID 22889475. Epub 2012/08/15. Eng". Those two sources being related to the following: "The use of genetic data to supplement traditional disciplines has now become mainstream. Given the palimpsest nature of modern genetic diversity, more direct evidence has been sought from ancient DNA (aDNA)." Both those statements clearly refer to the general setting of genetic data and modern genetics - they don't even pretend to do something else. The fact that we have that in a "DNA / Paleogenetics" section is not hurting, but actually adds context to whatever other content is added. Considering the parent section is labeled Evidence (without establishing what are the sourced statements evidence for, that despite the sources themselves stating that...) I see no problem with establishing, with two statements, the general credibility of genetic research or the fact that genetic research is relevant to the study of the origin of a population.Cealicuca (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that it would be irrelevant. Fact is that from that section any positive information about Romanians and their ancestors is only based upon primary scientific literature in biology. And that in most WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS areas is a big sign of unreliability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And... it gets increasingly odd and silly... all living Europeans had the same European ancestors 1000 years ago, see [16]. Back then I had the same European ancestors as the Queen of England. See also [17]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

* Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

ARIJ in Halamish

There is a dispute about a report issued by the Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem in the article Halamish. The report is this village profile of Deir Nidham. In the report it says that

In 1997 Israeli authorities confiscated 604 dunums of Deir Nidham lands (21.9% of the village’s total area) for the construction of the Hamich settlement, which is currently inhabited by around 1000 Israeli settlers.

Earlier in the report it says the following:

The public water system passes through the Israeli settlement of Hamich and settlers sometimes break the line, leading to water shortages for the village.

and

Wastewater from the Hamich settlement is discharged on the village’s agricultural lands, causing serious problems and leaking into springs and ground water.

The only settlement near Deir Nidham is Halamish, and there are a number of sources discussing the water being shut off by Halamish, eg Oxfam:

In village after village, people told Oxfam staff of damage to water networks, sources, and storage facilities by settlers and the Israeli military. This included ripping up pipes, shooting at PWA and municipality water personnel and the destruction of cisterns. The water supply to the village of Deir Nidham, Ramallah District, is connected to the Israeli network but comes through the Halamish settlement first. Villagers report that settlers shut off the valve for periods of time and on four occasions gave destroyed the water pipe in the stretch after village's water metre located in the settlement.

An editor is arguing that it is OR to say the ARIJ is referring to Hamich, while my position is that it is evident that there is a difference in spelling here but that the settlement in question is obvious. Is it OR to include this? nableezy - 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeez - OR on NOR/N - water/sewege spats are common (one can find such on nearly all inhabited places in the West Bank). One should note that ARIJ in a document on a different village - [18] - use Hallamish. Where Hamich (not a reasonable Hebrew/Arabic-English error - dropped L + garbled ending) might be (though probably not the Hamoch near Aachen) is not for us to guess.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I wasnt using Oxfam to say it was uncommon for settlers to destroy Palestinian water pipes, but to say that in Deir Nidham that it happens due to settlers in Halamish. That is, I was showing that the place that ARIJ called Hamich is called Halamish in other sources. nableezy - 20:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
As Oxfam merely spins a common tale in the region, but does not say Hamich=Halamish - this is pure OR.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Im not putting in an article "Hamich=Halamish", so I dont really know what you are complaining about. I am using, here, Oxfam to show that ARIJ was referring to what we call "Halamish". nableezy - 20:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

mentioned wrong history on bhumihar

history on bhumihar written on the article is not correct. the content is abusive and sprading a wrong message in the community so please give your attention on this topic because wikipedia common for collectin the information. so you should give your attention on the credibility of wekipedia.

i am giving you the genetic report of NCBI on bhumihar , which prove that bhumihar and brahmin have same genetic. thank you link:- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:a0c2:55a7:f17a:3ace:1c33:9029 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Cowboy bedroll

The Cowboy bedroll page seems to have rather a lot of original research, particularly in "The traveling cowboy" subsection which spends quite a long time criticising a source without providing any supporting material. The editor who added this analysis seems to have done a lot of research themselves and I don't necessarily doubt their conclusions, but would the NOR policy cover this? It makes it very hard to take the article at face value because it's clear the editor has performed their own analysis and isn't citing their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.176.28 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Impact of the privatisation of British Rail

This article - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail - has the tone and content of a white paper for a think tank, rather than an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.22.31 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Ahbash

Original research is likely here regarding Al-Azhar in the article. Would like input regarding this RFC [19]

Tulsa race riot original research about a fire

Most of this set of edits[20] is an OR attempt to explain what happened during a fire using sources that do not mention the riot. Seems classic synthesis but the IP disagrees. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

please discuss your issues on the page's talk page so that editors can understand your concerns.175.36.196.38 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe this may actually be an NPOV issue, so editors please be aware of the ongoing NPOV that Doug Weller is trying to avoid by calling the discussion of the matter original research.175.36.196.38 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I've no clue what NPOV issue the IP is referring to. The whole section "New eyewitness account" is full of OR, from using sources discussing fires but not the Tulsa riot to make an argument against the account to "Franklin creatively describes", "He did not report", and " In many ways, this account mirrors accounts previously examined by Warner". Suitable for an essay but not for Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The IP's latest edit includes, unsourced, "Furthermore it curious that witnesses claimed Brady dedicated the tarring and feathering to, "the women and children of Belgium." The reference to Belgium may be a reference to the WW1 occupation of Belgium by Germany." Doug Weller talk 17:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
'It is curious that...' is pure EDITORIALIZING; '...may be a reference to...' is speculation, which without attribution certainly becomes OR. Also agree that the series of edits shown above is SYNTH - it's joining dots between sources, explaining the reasoning, and drawing possible conclusions. The conclusions might well be reasonable (I haven't read the sourcing properly yet), but they seem to be a novel synthesis that isn't explicit in the sources. GirthSummit (blether) 18:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

if you check the article revision history, immediately after i reverted your deletion I did in fact add the section NPOV and appropriately referenced it in the edit summary, "23:12, 19 December 2018‎ 175.36.196.38 (talk)‎ . . (95,119 bytes) +60‎ . . (→‎New eyewitness account: added npov tag POV-section|talk=John W. Franklin|date=December 20,2018)"

this is another issue entirely but if it must be discussed here instead of the NPOV section then I will do so. The tulsa daily world article in that section relating to brady mentions only unnamed assailants. it was assumed, based on the half of a document provided by the Land Press, authored by LA brown, that the ringleader was W Tate Brady. On the first page of that archived Tulsa Daily World paper refers to a group of men arrested outside the I.W.W. headquarters. no mention of the race of the victims in this particular tarring incident is mentioned by either Brown or the TDW article. instead, brown mentions a trade unionist movement and strikes while the TDW article mentions a number of...im not sure if they can be considered factual or fanciful articles about IWW members being arrested with deadly new secret poisons. the TDW ran a few articles on the IWW during the war, none of them seeming particularly factual. anyway, the IWW was a trade union and the men were targeted for belonging to the trade union. purportedly so, according to the TDW article and L.A. Brown memo. the only relationship between a politically motivated attack and belgium likely is that trade unions were considered to be communist splinter cells planning to sabotage domestic industry, hence supporting the enemy in the war effort. as flanders was a major staging area in WW1, the relationship between the conquest of belgium and supporting the enemy through domestic industrial action, as many saw it at that time in history seems a logical conclusion. There's no other explanation for why someone affiliated with a group publicly decried as german spies(factually or not) would torture another and claim the act was in support of belgium in the year of 1917. sources indicate that it was a politically motivated attack, not a racially motivated attack. however there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that the W Tate Brady was present during the attack. i'm trying not to expand too much with things that dont seem relevant to the article.

In regards to the issue raised concerning the roofs catching fire, I've clearly illustrated that the hollow, unpartitioned walls of balloon-framed houses easily allow fire to spread within the internal wall cavity and that the prevalence of wooden roofing of a particular type in this era easily allows fire to spread via ember attack from rooftop to rooftop with documented cases of this occurring. so the statement that what Franklin observed can and does happen even in the absence of aerial bombardment is the issue? so it can just be divided into two lines such as, "franklin observed fire spreading from rooftop to rooftop which led him to the conclusion that they must be under attack by air." and, "fires have been observed spreading from rooftop to rooftop in the absence of aerial bombardment." and then I can just move over the content to the balloon-framing article and ember attack articles where relevant?

175.36.196.38 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have made edits to the areas of which there has been criticism, the eye witness account subheading and tate brady paragraph. Can you please check if this conforms to your expectations? 175.36.196.38 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Searching for an editor’s citations

Is it possible to find all citations added to articles by an editor?--That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the it need a source or the sky is blue?

Uninvolved editors' comment is requested.

Black people holding MEK's flags.

Do we need a source saying these black people (probably of African decent) depicted in this picture are non-Iranian? Beside's other things, you can see the woman standing is wearing a cross necklace. Also, it's apparently a common practice for MEK to bring non-Iranian people to their gatherings ([21], [22], [23], [24]). This source especially says how African people are brought to the MEK's gatherings. --Mhhossein talk 09:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a source is needed. While I would agree that it is quite likely that the people in your photo are not Iranians, we can not be positive. There are people of African-Iranian heritage. This isn’t a “sky is blue” situation. Blueboar (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Blueboar: Yes, there are Afro-Iranians. But, as far as I know, those depicted in this picture never look like Afro-Iranians and the probability of having Christian Afro-Iranians supporting MEK is quite zero. --Mhhossein talk 11:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
And just what is an Afro-Iranian supposed to look like? Do they all have only one eye or something? Seriously, you can not tell someone’s nationality from a photo (and even ethnicity is difficult). As for the fact that one person is wearing a cross... does not tell us anything, since there are Christians from Iran (not a lot, mind you, but they do exist). Finally, have you considered the possibility that the photo may show a mix of people (both Iranians AND non-Iranians)? We can not say for sure who these people are without a source. There are too many possibilities. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Let me question your partiality having asked such a question. I'm not sure if this is a serious question, but Afro-Iranians are usually not that black and certainly have 2 eyes (See their photos). You're closing your eyes on a reliable source saying "The MEK flew a group of 25 Africans from Sudan and Eritrea to New York from their homes in Ottowa, Canada," showing that it's highly possible to have repeated the same scenario. Of course one's nationality or ethnicity is possibly determinable seeing his/her photo. I'm seeing your effort at considering very much unlike possibilities into considerations. It's very hard to believe that those in the picture are 11 christian Afro-Iranians participating a MEK gathering in Paris!!! --Mhhossein talk 13:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It's clearly an OR issue. Consider how many loops of logic you are asking people to jump through to understand there's no way these could be non-Iranian black people in the photo. Far far far too many, requiring background information and inductive reasoning. We can say, from the photo alone, they are black people, and there are a number of them, and they are holding signs, but that's about all WP editors can state before it delves into OR requiring sourcing. --Masem (t) 15:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Afro-Iranians exist. As do African American-Iranians - e.g. T. J. Houshmandzadeh. And even if they did not exist - this would be OR to say they are not Iranian - and also OR to say they were paid.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
[Note: the above comment is made by an involved party] --Mhhossein talk 13:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Who said they don't exist? --Mhhossein talk 12:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Less involved than yourself - and the question (or subsequent participation) here is not neutrally phrased. Prior discussion - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#"Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" image.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
you can quote, if you attribute it inline. from your reference, for example, you could say,  "Kourosh Kalhour, spokesman for an iranian pro-monarchist group was quoted as stating, “Basically, what you see is “rent-a-crowd,” " but then it becomes immediately obvious to the reader that they could be just saying that because they're the opposition. if you look for an opposing quote, criticism of the pro-monarchist group's protest or commentary of some sort from the day giving each parties perspective then it's more likely to not be challenged. part of wikipedia is stating facts and letting others decide what to make of the facts. for the photo, you would need to find a photograph that is opensource or you own the copyright for it, publish it at wikipedia and have a source of a reliable news organisation or author or institution criticising the race of people in the photo. I dont think you will be able to manage this so its probably best to leave the photo alone.

the reference you give states that the sudanese people in the photograph were there to support the group and promote awareness of similar human rights abuses in Dafur.[25]

175.36.196.38 (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As an involved editor,@Masem: such demonstrations (which were organized by MEK) have occurred opposite the Headquarters of the United Nations in 2013 and according to farda report, the presence of non-Iranian has been considerable. You use Google to translate the Persian text saying there were plenty of non-Iranians in the demonstration. You can see black people, too.Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
When a picture is provided and readers are asked to draw conclusions, it is implicit OR. If the lead picture for "United States" was "Obese American eating a hamburger," for example, it would provide a narrative. You do not mention btw what article the picture is used for or what text it is supposed to illustrate. If the demonstration and the make up of demonstrators is discussed, it could be appropriate. Incidentally, the picture is sourced to VOA and says, "African-American citizens with People's Mujahedin of Iran banners in demonstrations in front of headquarters of the United Nations, New York City." If you can demonstrate that the picture and caption come from them and that VOA is a reliable source, you could use that rather than a personal interpretation of the image. TFD (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Illustrating an interactive work's complex plot?

Over the weekend Netflix released Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, an interactive movie that the viewer can make choices. As noted by third-party RSes, the story has a complex branching pathway, but as long as you make the same choices as someone else, you'll end up following the same narrative as a similar viewer doing the same.

For purposes of illustration, it would be nice to show a segment of this complex branching pathways, which we can make in a free image using simple shapes/etc. (Non-wikipedian versions of the flow chart have started looking like: [26]). The OR question becomes, based on all that we know about how the movie works, is a WPian making such a simplified flow chart by following the paths in the interactive movie considered OR? I would consider it "no" in the same way that normal plot summaries are not OR with implicit sourcing to the work itself to support it. This would only allow a rather high-level flow chart (it is claimed there's > 1 trillion paths for the work , and multiple endings, but for a WPian to track that all themselves would definitely be diving into OR) but that's all I'd want to see, enough to show that some choices loop back to previous scenes, etc, all broad details easily confirmed in third-party sources. --Masem (t) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is OR and so are plot summaries based on readings or viewings or original material. One issue in no original research is, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." Most readers want to know the information that reliable sources find important, and expect that articles cover them and don't want to read information that reliable sources give little or no coverage.
Bear in mind that readers are not necessarily fans.
TFD (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOR allows for basic descriptions of a plot to be cited to primary sources (ie, the work itself). Any analysis of the plot, however, requires secondary sources. The problem with a flow chart is that it falls between a “description” of the plot, and an “analysis” of it. It isn’t a clear case of one or the other. However, because it does involve at least some degree of analysis, I would say it should be avoided. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Lists of works by year of entry into the public domain

A set of articles have been created to list works that have entered the public domain, broken down by year of entry.

By and large, none of these articles cite sources for the claims made that each of the works listed (a) has entered the public domain and (b) did so in the year indicated.

While entry into the public domain is determined by copyright law, and a given Wikipedia editor may be aware of some or all of the provisions behind entry into the public domain, and may be aware of the factors used in making that determination, it appears to me that making the determination here based on facts obtained elsewhere that a given work has entered the public domain is an example of original research, very much the sort that is covered by WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH. I believe that the commentary at WP:NOTOR and WP:NOTSYNTH makes it even more clear that the provisions regarding original research and synthesis are applicable here.

It even seems to me that, in making the determination of public domain status for arbitrary works on its own, Wikipedia is essentially issuing a legal opinion on each of them (as opposed to reporting a legal opinion expressed in a reliable source), which Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. I don't know whether this is particularly worrisome to Wikipedia, but it seems to me that it could be, as I don't know whether a disclaimer like the one at Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer is a guarantee of immunity from prosecution in all countries of the world.

I approached the situation by tagging each of the articles with {{original research}} tags. User:Leutha removed them all. In a follow-up discussion that I initiated on Leutha's talk page (to which User:Ymblanter contributed one comment), the beginning of which is here and the remainder of which (after an archiving of the talk page) is here. Leutha directed me to WP:NOTOR and WP:NOTSYNTH but, for reasons that I set forth at length, I found that they supported strongly my view that this is very much a situation that WP:SYNTH is meant to cover. I've received no response since I expressed that finding almost three days ago.

Taking into account the contents of the aforementioned discussion, in which I even laid out concerns about possible sources of inaccuracy in reaching these conclusions about entry into the public domain, in addition to their originality, I wondered whether anyone here would chime in on the following questions:

  • Should these lists be tagged for original research?
  • Is the original research content of these articles so great, and would resolving the OR issue be so laborious (because every work would have to be sourced separately), that every work without a citation should be removed, and, if no works, or practically no works, are left, then the lists should be deleted?

Largoplazo (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I would agree these should be sourced, not only to avoid the OR described above, but as well as to provide a factor of notability. We're not including all works that possibly entered the PD, but those noted by sources (eg [27] for this year). Otherwise, these can start to become unmaintainable for non-notable works. --Masem (t) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • These lists aren't about works, but authors of works. The list you link to is fundamentally different, and only concerned with works coming into PD under the wacky US system. Our pages are all about death +x years. As far as I can see there is almost no overlap. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Are we allowed say a writer "agrees" with another writer if they don't mention each other?

Black Panther (film) currently includes the following text:

James Wilt, writing for Canadian Dimension, stated that "at its core, Black Panther contains a fundamentally reactionary understanding of black liberation that blatantly advocates respectability politics over revolution" allowing "white folks such as myself to feel extremely comfortable watching it". Wilt found the scene where Ross is portrayed as "the hero" for shooting down the Wakandan ships to be the film's way of endorsing the crushing of armed revolt against oppression. Wilt also felt that Killmonger was given the "most hideous traits imaginable [making] the only major African-American character and agitator for revolution a manic killer consumed by rage and violence". Russell Rickford of Africa is a Country agreed with Wilt's assessment of Killmonger, whose role as a character is "to discredit radical internationalism".

The thing is, Rickford doesn't mention Wilt, or Canadian Dimension, at all, and given the length of both pieces and the fact that they were apparently published one day apart, it seems highly unlikely that Rickford was even aware of Wilt's article before he sat down to write his own essay on a similar topic -- presumably they both just came to similar conclusions from watching the film when it was released a few days earlier.

Is this kind of writing okay? I'm honestly not sure; I wouldn't write it myself, but I'm not convinced enough to unilaterally change it, so I'm here for a second (and maybe third, fourth, etc...) opinion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Best not to say they "agree" in these circumstances, unless the point is really specific (like say a disputed date). And here it's not even clear they are making exactly the same point. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I would also not use ageeed either since that implies that Rickford is specifically referencing Wilt and there is nothing in the cited paragraph to indicate that is the case.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It is OR and actually inaccurate since it implies Rickford had mentioned Wilt. I would like to see an introduction to the section that outlines the various approaches taken to analysis of the film. TFD (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree is mildly inaccurate (and ORish). Adding a "likewise" connector may still be OR (but may well fall under the WP:BLUE exception), would be accurate, and improve readability. Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "agrees" suggests that the writer used this word, so not appropriate word IMO. "Likewise" is good. Alternatively, "... has the same view..." or "... reaches the same conclusion..." are good too (and not OR if it is obvious from the text quoted or cited, like it is not OR to say that 2+2=4). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As others have said, "agree" would imply that Rickford is commenting something Wilt said, hence using "agree" would be improper and original research. In situations like this it is uncontroversial to replace "agree" with something neutral, for instance "NN said ..." or "NN wrote ..." Politrukki (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Are software word counts OR?

This issue has come up at Talk:List of longest novels. One editor doesn't seem too keen to continue the discussion there and suggested I take up the issue here. His point is a software word count is definitely OR, as explained under Wikipedia:No original research. My points are: I can't really understand why doing arithmetic is original research. It's not like one is going to the library and coming up with some new, original, independent conclusion based on one's researches. A software word count will agree with a human word count as long as the agreed rules are fixed: for example, if one discounts the front and back matters. We wondered if word count might be considered routine calculations: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." To me, it might just be, except counting words are far more tedious.

We need to know whether editors can do a software word count themselves, if they agree on the edition used. For citations, the edition used will be cited. A lot of the cited word counts have been proven inaccurate using software on Gutenberg or Amazon ebook texts. DORC (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If I were to take your post above dump it into wordcounter.net and say it contains 216 words and 1,284 characters (if I were compulsive, I would also count myself) - that would fall under WP:CALC which is not OR. However, the problem with what you are suggesting is not the word count per se, but rather:
  1. What is the text you will be dumping into the word counter? Are you agreed that the digitized text itself is a faithful representation of the book (no missing pages, no duplicated pages, etc.)?
  2. Agreement on what constitutes a novel (e.g. is a 30 volume book (or the smaller A Song of Ice and Fire) a single book? Several?).
The counting in an of itself doesn't sound like the issue (per WP:CALC) - agreeing on the input to the counting does. Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Good questions. 1. Usually the text you dump into the word counter is either a) a Gutenberg e-text, of which extraneous materials like the disclaimer, front and back matters etc. are excised; or b) an Amazon e-book. The person who puts it through the program needs to discount these extraneous materials as well, such as copyright etc. One way to do this is to block the required text and copy it to a word processor, then do the word count from there. I don't believe such texts will have duplicated or missing pages. Gutenberg is well known for their integrity of their texts. An editor should cite his/her edition (Gutenberg or Amazon e-book) with an online link. We will not be accepting e-texts from dubious sources.
2. The definition of a novel, and whether to include such things as novel sequences, are ongoing discussions at the talk page. These are quite different issues from that of a word count. DORC (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that word counters often disagree on the answer due to differing meanings of "word". Some don't recognize non-English letters. Some don't count numbers and some do. Most can't detect extraneous items like page numbers that shouldn't be counted. So it isn't quite as simple as a routine calculation. Zerotalk 10:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Could we agree to use a standard Word processor (e.g. MS Word?) Most people use MS Word to do word counts rather than an online word counter. It has the advantage of being able to remove extraneous materials. It doesn't count page numbers.
Also, I know that there will be some errors involved in the calculations. But we can round the count off to the nearest thousand. We don't need to be so precise--all we need to know is whether they exceed the 500,000 word mark. A count rounded off to the nearest thousand will be accurate enough to rank the results. DORC (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would argue word counting novels is definitely OR, as it is not a simple CALC. Let's compare it to a user-generated value for a measurement of the land area taken by a small town - yes, a WPian could possibly do it with maps and surveyor tools, but we'd take that as OR. The issue with long novels is that counting 10,000s could be error prone, something that an average person may screw up easily. Counter this, counting the number of chapters in a novel would be allowable; its a small enough scope that has little room for error. --Masem (t) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    It's OR without question. EEng 04:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis in the lead of Friendship paradox

At the mathematical article Friendship paradox an editor inserted a primary sourced Zuckerman/Jost paper (a tangential work about self-enhancement) in the lead description diff.

By way of explanation the Friendship paradox is "mathematically people have fewer friends then their friend have" (a paradox of the law of averages) and the Zuckerman/Jost paper is one of the many applications of the Friendship paradox that says "people think they have more friends than their friends do (and we know this because we compared our results to the figures in the Friendship paradox)" (A study of self-enhancement/Illusory superiority).

Since it was not part of the lead paragraph description of the Friendship paradox I moved it to "See also" as topic Illusory superiority (what all secondary sources say Zuckerman/Jost is about) and the editor reverted it with the rational Zuckerman/Jost was the "explanation for why this should be called a paradox". Also claim made again hereherehere.

This seems to be a classical WP:SYNTH A (Friendship paradox primary source paper) +B (Zuckerman/Jost primary source paper mentioning the Friendship paradox) = C (Zuckerman/Jost explains or is the paradox) - claim not made by either source and there is no secondary source that even comes close to making this claim.

Did another cleanup cleanup moving Zuckerman/Jost to the body of the article and summarized it and the (9 or 10?) other papers describing applications of the Friendship paradox in the lead but the editor keeps reverting the cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I have tried without success to figure out what the OP is talking about. For example, the very first diff is purported to show where "an editor inserted a primary sourced Zuckerman/Jost paper", but in fact both sides of the diff show the Z/J paper used the same way. EEng 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    This issue has been discussed repeatedly on Talk:Friendship paradox with FoBW failing to persuade others their that their objections have any merit. Note also that FoBW simultaneously escalated this issue to here and WP:AN3, a clear case of forum shopping. And (per EEng's comment above) the writing quality of FoBW's "cleanup" of the article is no more clear than his report here; that lack of clarity is the primary reason for my reverts, as I have made clear both in my edit summaries and on my own talk. FoBW has repeatedly failed to understand the point of mentioning ZJ on friendship paradox, which is to explain in part why the effect is counter to many people's intuitions. Instead FoBW has replaced that information by text describing the experiments ZJ performed. This replacement is completely missing the point, completely off-topic to the article, and actually is problematic from the point of view of NORN since it described primary research without secondary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    the very first diff is purported to show where "an editor inserted a primary sourced Zuckerman/Jost paper", but in fact both sides of the diff show the Z/J paper used the same way"" - original edit had Z/J as (a secondary source?) sourcing the description of the FP. The edit changed Z/J to source for an added sentence implying "people thinking they have more friends" described what the paradox was. "ZJ on friendship paradox, which is to explain in part why the effect is counter to many people's intuitions" - and there it is not implied - and it is incorrect. FP is counter to the mathmatical law that everyone should have an average number of friends, it has nothing to do with "people's intuitions". As for "forum shopping", WP:AN3 is not a forum, its where you report edit warring when it happens. This noticeboard is about OR, a different issue. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    I am completely unable to comprehend what you're saying (and just so you know, I have a degree in applied mathematics and statistics) – is there really a mathmatical law that everyone should have an average number of friends? While we're here, do not ever silently modify your post like this [28] after others have responded. EEng 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently you can't read edit summaries or understand what "fix wrong diff" means. As for the rest, try Law of large numbers. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments; people shouldn't have to go through the page history to discover that you changed your post after others have responded to it. If you think the law of large numbers implies that everyone should have an average number of friends, then I think it's time for this thread to be closed. EEng 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    "may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided" doesn't mean ever and context was fix and it didn't deprive anyone of anything. Otherwise, don't play dumb about the methodology of statistical sampling, both papers are very clear about how they go about it. Secondary sources are also very clear about what each study covers (insert sound of crickets coming from the direction of the editors who are supposed to be supplying secondary sources to prove this is not WP:SYNTH). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    You seem unable to benefit from the guidance of those with more knowledge and experience. Please be my guest and have the last word. EEng 01:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add some flavor to this discussion. The changes on the Friendship Paradox page grew out of a dispute on the List of Common Misconceptions page. FOBW has engaged several editors there and attempted to remove sections, including the Friendship Paradox. When his initial critique of notability was rejected he then attempted to make a removal based on similar logic to what I think he is arguing here. When I pointed out that there was no such distinction on the host page, he began attempting to make edits there that I think would put him in a position to make changes on the Misconceptions page. This is clearly just my opinion, but I think it best explains why the writing is so difficult to understand. I believe the editor is attempting to force a narrow interpretation into a wider discussion to suit other preferences. Squatch347 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Should be pointed out that the entry at List of common misconceptions was a copy/paste of the lead of Friendship paradox, so, yeah, the OR was copied over as well so its probably a matter of cleaning up that OR first. It has not been a one sided debate, another editor (Ahecht) has also pointed out that calling a mathematical paradox a "misconception" is illogical [29][30]. Asking editors to explain the logic of the entry or supply reliable sources has been an exercise in listening to the crickets. The (confusion?) over this stems from a paper on a mathematical paradox and a paper on self-enhancement being SYNTH'ed together in a claim that one showing an under-count in friends and one showing an over estimation in friends is the "paradox". Its not, the "paradox" is a mathematical paradox stated in the first paper "the mean number of friends of friends is always greater than the mean number of friends of individuals". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is really getting crazy. The friendship "paradox" is no more an actual mathematical paradox than is the "birthday paradox". If you don't understand that then you're not competent to participate in discussions about this article. EEng 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources disagree with you[31]. You can quibble over what level a paradox rises to but the one thing Feld's paper is not is a paper on self-enhancement (so cue the "One of these things is not like the other" song). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Gosh, I guess I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the source you just linked. Please quote the sentence which disagrees with me i.e. which confirms that the friendship paradox is an actual mathematical paradox. EEng 18:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
No response being received, I'm forced to surmise that you've misinterpreted the phrase "He didn't need any data to show that the friendship paradox was true" as meaning "The friendship paradox is an actual mathematical paradox", when in fact it means the exact opposite. There's no such thing as "levels of paradox"; there are actual paradoxes, and then there are counterintuitive results that are not in fact paradoxes but which are colloquially referred to as such because it lends an air of mystery. That you don't understand this confirms my prediction that you lack sufficient mathematical maturity to deal with this kind of material. Seriously. You don't know what you're talking about. EEng 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You failed to show how it is self-enhancement, you know, the actual question. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I quote [32]:
As has been said by me and several others in previous iterations of what is essentially the same debate in multiple venues, I agree. The position Fountains of Bryn Mawr has been driving on all these threads has not won over the support of any other editor, while several said they disagree, and have explained -- more than enough times -- why. It's time to drop it.
EEng 05:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Are user-generated maps acceptable?

Normally in yearly tornado articles, we place a chart, created by the Storm Prediction Center in the infobox based on the cumulative number of tornado reports in the United States. However, due to the federal government shutdown, no such chart has been issued for 2019 and it is unclear when it might be provided. I have created a map showing the touchdown location and Enhanced Fujita scale rating of all tornadoes so far confirmed in the United States in 2019. The information is taken directly from National Weather Service survey reports, which can be found in the references at List of United States tornadoes in January 2019. While I take information from multiple reports, I do not interpret it: I only show the location and intensity of each tornado and add up the number of tornadoes of each rating. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say we can temporarily invoke WP:IAR in this case... my guess is that publication of the “official” map is merely delayed due to the shutdown, and will eventually be published. As long as the intent is to replace the user generated map with the published one (once it comes out) I think it is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Even with the likelihood a gov't produced chart will be made, in the broader case, this is certainly within the allowances of SYNTH, given the data is openly published by a reliable source. Just make sure to link to those sources somewhere on the file description page. --Masem (t) 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully we won't need it for very long then. Currently I'd only need to link to about a dozen source pages, but by the end of the year it would be in the hundreds. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Channel Island English

Channel Island English is effectively entirely unsourced and likely to reflect a high proportion of original research. If no sources can be found I suggest it is deleted, per WP:V. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Some sources which could help: [1][2][3][4] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mari Jones (4 March 2010). The Lesser-Known Varieties of English: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 35–. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511676529.004. ISBN 978-1-139-48741-2.
  2. ^ Bernd Kortmann; Clive Upton (10 December 2008). The British Isles. Walter de Gruyter. p. 232–. ISBN 978-3-11-020839-9.
  3. ^ Raymond Hickey (6 December 2012). Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-85121-3.
  4. ^ Mari Jones (8 January 2015). Variation and Change in Mainland and Insular Norman: A Study of Superstrate Influence. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-25713-9.
@ReconditeRodent: Nice work! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Australian paradox

I cam across the article Australian paradox, and felt that the article becomes more and more an original research essay as it goes on. Looking at the history, I noted two major additions from Awbarclay, an editor who has only ever edited this article and that of Jennie Brand-Miller, and appears to me to be Brand-Miller's co-author Alan Barclay. IntoThinAir and Awbarclay are responsible for 73.3% of the edits and 95.3% of the text in the article. Looking at the history, it is clear to me that IntoThinAir wrote the original article in 2014, removed some subsequent additions from Awbarclay on NPOV grounds later that year, and that almost all changes subsequent to then and especially since December 2017 have come from Awbarclay. The isses that I see are:

  • OR argument rather than NPOV RS-based summary
  • Use of questionable sources included from predatory journals
  • Unfamiliarity with encyclopaedic format and referencing
  • Likely COI interest

I debated whether to post this to NPOV, RS, COI, or this noticeboard, and will post cross-notifications. I invite comment / suggestions / bold edits, etc. Thanks to all for any help. EdChem (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've stripped out 4 completely unsourced paragraphs some which included quoted text.
That said, reading this more, I think understanding that this article is about a legitimacy of a study in a possibly-predatory journal is going to require mentioning predatory journals here (heck there was even an investigation into MDPI over this). I do feel the article tries to be sympathetic towards Brand-Miller and Barclay's paper by manner of tone, so the COI sniff test is right on the nose.
The article probably would have less issues if it was frames as a controversial study rather than a seeming-sound scientific principle. That is, maaaaybe the conclusion is right, but our focus should be why this paper raised may an eyebrow. --Masem (t) 01:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't like the look of this script edit by a regular, just removing wrongly-formatted refs, rather than correcting them. Most of the (Oct 18) article text is taken up with criticism of the idea, and the first line seems neutral. All the paras you have removed were referenced before this! WTF???? At the moment it would seem appropriate to revert both of you, back to October! User:Walter Görlitz, perhaps you would like to explain what you were doing? I note the paper kicking this off was published in 2011, while the board resignations were not until 2018. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I restored three of the four paragraphs that I took out given that they were earlier sourced. (however, they were badly formated - using single-bracket external link approach instead of refs, which are a no-no, and why the script edit removed them.) The four paragraph read as OR and COI, as the only conclusion of the three reports were to say sugar consumption did appear to drop, but did not discuss the increase of obseity so that the Brand-Miller conclusions is not proven out by those. --Masem (t) 03:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I created this a while ago (almost 5 years ago now!) and I haven't been paying too much attention to it lately, to be honest. But looking at the old version (before the recent helpful clean-ups by Masem and others) it clearly had a lot of problems with unsourced OR and SYNTH. Mostly these seem to have been solved though there still seems to be some biased language ("Rikkers et al's flawed analysis"). IntoThinAir (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. I thought the last para looked iffy. The subject is clearly a big thing in Oz, and perhaps beyond, so we should have an article. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I was editing the article and the edit summaries and diffs show what was done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed the diff does, but then it would, wouldn't it! Like I said, you were just removing wrongly-formatted refs, rather than correcting them. Your edit summary "(per WP:Linking, General formatting by script)" is highly misleading, with nothing about completely removing references. Seriously, do you think this is in accordance with policy, or a good idea? Are many of your edits like this? Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Space elevator

I hate to ask for this, but a long-winded argument (now going on around a dozen screenfuls) is essentially based on the question about whether what's being added is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or entirely acceptable. Discussion at Talk:Space_elevator#Graphs_of_optimal_profiles with a brief diversion to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Space_elevator#Graphs_of_optimal_profiles (which I inadvertently blew up by stating I didn't think the dispute was amendable to resolution).

At this point, the discussion has foundered over a point whether symbolic integration (which was done incorrectly at least the first time) qualifies under the WP:CALC exemption of "obvious and correct". But it's more than that, the very premises of the equations that are being subjected to integral calculus are unclear. And uncited, of course, hence my request here.

If I can trouble an expert on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to take a look, I'd appreciate it. I'm entirely amendable to being told I'm being unreasonable, but given the tremendously long discussion over what should be the simple point "what WP:RS documents this interpretation?", I don't think I am.

I'll leave a mention on the talk page that this request has been filed. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is Eric Kvaalen. I am the one with whom Tarl and another guy who prefers to remain anonymous have been arguing. I do not agree with Tarl's description of what's going on. Just yesterday I wrote something in our discussion and used an integration to show something. That was on the talk page, not in the article. I claim that there's nothing wrong with doing a simple integration on a talk page. The point of it was to show that the radius of the earth plays a role. This question came up because Tarl himself claimed that the earth's radius had nothing to do with the subject (how strong the cable of a space elevator has to be).
The actual discussion is not about some easy integral on the talk page, but about the fact that I made two graphs, based on an equation that was already in the article and which is supported by a "reliable source", and I put those two graphs into the article. Tarl and the other guy claimed that that was "original research". I claim that it's totally legitimate to graph a function and put the graphs in. The calculations are very straightforward. They do not involve doing some sort of integration.
Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Which equation cited by which source are you using now? My original objection was that you came to a conclusion that the ratio of characteristic length (or free breaking length as used in the conversation) to radius of the earth was meaningful. At this point I have no idea what you are currently planning on, and after a dozen screenfuls of greatly involved discussion, I'm not really interested. Just document which equation you are using from which WP:RS to produce your graphs, so I can verify that your graph doesn't generate any conclusions the source doesn't. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the discussion at talk, and while I'm not about to jump into that big mess of math, I will make a couple of generalized points here:
  1. The radius of Earth does matter, but (AFAIK) only insofar as it established a minimum distance from the center of gravity of Earth where the base of the elevator would be tethered. In other words, it doesn't appear to need to be a be fundamental unit in the equation.
  2. Merely graphing an equation is categorically not original research, unless it involves the editor doing so providing arbitrary values to some terms and then using the result to come to a conclusion. So, it's not OR to graph  Fx = x2  unless the user arbitrarily states that  x = π  in order to show that  Fx = π2 , which you might recognize as having more problems than simple OR.
  3. The graphs proffered at talk both seem to both insert an arbitrary value (the Earth's radius and 1/10th the Earth's radius, respectively, both apparently in kilometers), as well as express one axis as a ratio of altitude (in unspecified units, presumably kilometers) to that value. That seems to be the root of the problem. I'm not prepared to declare those graphs OR on the basis of an arbitrary choice of units, but it seems to me that the concerns about it are warranted. It would be best to alter the graphs so as to use one kilometer as the chosen unit, which would not only address the OR concerns but make the graph easier to read for those of us whose brain starts hurting whenever we hear the word "equation". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


Tarl N., the equation I graphed is equation 7 of Aravind.

MPants at work, the problem is that the graphs are, let's say, y versus x, but there's a parameter called L. To make a graph, you have to choose a value of L and then vary x and see what happens to y. Now of course one could use a random number generator to come up with L, but that would be stupid. The whole point of making graphs is to illustrate something meaningful. Now, the text of the article, before I edited it, mentioned the fact that L has to be similar to the earth's radius, and that if L is one tenth of that then you get a ridiculous space elevator. So those are the two values I used, and sure enough, they illustrate the point very well. So what are we supposed to do? Throw out these useful values of the parameter L and use some values that are NOT useful?

By the way, I offered to try to put a kilometre scale as well, but got no reply. The advantage of the scale I used is that it allows the reader (or viewer) to see immediately what the mass ratio would be, because it's the area under the curve if you graph it with this scale. To understand that one does need a tiny amount of mathematics.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants at work, the problem is that the graphs are, let's say, y versus x, but there's a parameter called L. To make a graph, you have to choose a value of L and then vary x and see what happens to y. Yes, I'm aware of that. But there's no requirement that you use x/L as a unit, which is something you did for the X-axis of both graphs.I don't think that picking the Earth's radius as an input for Lc is OR, but I can see how then using that to establish a ratio of altitude/Lc as the units for the X-axis could be seen as synth. I mean, you're taking a value that's specified to be important for something, and then using it for that and for a related purpose. That's putting a ton of weight on a single input, weight that doesn't need to be there. Hence my hypothetical example of setting  x=π  to prove that  Fx=π2 .
I would also note that there's no label on the Y-axis. I'm still unsure what the units are, there. I know that axis is the cable diameter, but in what units? Meters seems too small, but kilometers seems to much. Is it a proportion to some other number? I just can't tell.
At the end of the day, I don't think this is egregious OR. It looks more like a bit of minor synthesis to me. But even minor synthesis doesn't belong, and given that most of the choices you seem to have made in producing those graphs don't have to be carved in stone, the easiest solution would be for you guys to agree on a set of choice that doesn't look like OR to the other parties. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to a graph of Aravind eq (7), in SI units. I had thought you were interested in eq (8) given your focus on the characteristic length. Bot are simple exponential curves, although in different directions, not sure what's interesting about them. What parameters are you going to use for ρ and T in eq(7)? (I'll post this on the Space Elevator talk page, since the discussion really belongs there). Tarl N. (discuss) 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're not replying to me, you should probably outdent your comment one (you can take this one with it). If you are; I'm not planning on graphing anything. I have a lot of experience reading graphs of all different sorts, but my math-fu is not good enough that I'd feel comfortable contributing in any way more in-depth than my comments here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. It was a reply to Kvaalen. I've posted on the article talk page, which is where that discussion belongs. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CALC: Since there does not appear to be a consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources, then the only plausible conclusion (at this stage) is that the calculations are OR. The Rfc that you started should settle it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:C-Kobold/EU parliament national election systems

Hello everyone, I would like to hear your improvement suggestions and opinions about my law quotations in foreign languages (!) in my article User:C-Kobold/EU_parliament_national_election_systems. Is it WP:QUOTEFARM? Is it WP:NOR? Please also consider why I made these long quotations from foreign laws and did not just quote (scientific) research papers or newspaper articles:

  • to make the statements in the table easily verifiable with e.g. Google Translate and
  • to make the statements in the table easily updateable: if the laws change, the content behind the links changes as well and the table can get updated easily. Scientific research papers or newspaper articles do not get updated however when laws change, so references to them are useless in the near future C-Kobold (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive Editing at Book of Enoch

I have honestly no clue what to say to this person. They just posted a rant about the Book of Enoch on their talk page. What do? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 00:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it a violation of WP:SYNTH if one the correct translation is taken from context?

If a foreign language source uses a word that has two or more different meanings in English, can the correct translation be taken from an English-language source even for information which only exists in the foreign language source without violating WP:SYNTH? SoWhy 11:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Original post:

Okay, here is my problem: The article on Adele Spitzeder mostly relies on German sources, many of which use the German word "Schneeballsystem" to refer to Spitzeder's business practices. Unlike in English, in German Ponzi scheme (one person defrauding all people) and pyramid scheme (one person asking people to defraud other people) are usually used synonymously. Hence many dictionaries, such as LEO, Linguee, Langenscheidt and BEOLingus will offer both terms as potential English translations. A couple of German sources attribute the first such schemes to Spitzeder, which would be a major point of interest. However, the English-language sources I can find all more or less confirm that she ran a "ponzi scheme" (see [33], [34], [35], [36]) but none that she was necessarily the first to do so. Based on this, it's clear to me that "Ponzi scheme" is the correct translation for "Schneeballsystem" in this instance. So is it a SYNTH violation to use "ponzi scheme" in the article to cite a German source using the word "Schneeballsystem"? And by extension, can I use a German source using the word "Schneeballsystem" to verify that she ran the first ponzi scheme? Regards SoWhy 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I know have found some German sources that both use the word "Schneeballsystem" and "Ponzi-System" to refer to the same business, clarifying that "ponzi scheme" is the correct translation. With that in mind, can I now verify the claim that this was the first ponzi scheme even with sources that do not explicitly use the word "Ponzi"? Regards SoWhy 13:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme denotes a fraudulent snowball system. Harper's Weekly included "Spitzeder swindle" in 1873, and this usage requires a proper adjective followed by a pejorative noun. Other examples of "Ponzi scheme" or "Spitzeder swindle" may exist, but in translating Spitzeder's method, "Ponzi scheme" seems to be accurate.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow, nice source find. Thanks (also for your comment regarding the translation). Regards SoWhy 16:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I concur with Tamanoeconomico. In more general terms, no it's not a WP:SYNTH problem, categorically. A particular instance of "selective translation" could be, of course, but we'll know that when either a) no RS can be found to corroborate the idea you're trying to get across by translating something a particular way, or b) RS directly contradict your claim and show it to be wishful or inventive thinking. But it cannot be the case that (to clarify the RfC's opening) "if a foreign language source uses a term that has two or more different translations in English" that you're engaging in SYNTH if you pick one. Otherwise it would not be possible to use and translate non-English material for use on WP at all, since the majority of non-English terms can be translated different ways. Hell, even the majority of English words have multiple synonyms, and we use this feature of the language every day, following the non-plagiarism mandate to use our own wording and not rip off our sources by copy-pasting from them or too-closely paraphrasing. If someone does this in a PoV-pushing way, this become obvious pretty quickly. E.g., look at "nationality" in a thesaurus [37], and consider what effect it would have on any given sentence if you swapped in a word like "race". Any time you "translate" – from one language to another or from one term to another in the same language – the important part is not significantly altering the underlying meaning, the implications or the likely inferences.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yasmine Taeb

Requesting a third opinion on recent edits to Yasmine Taeb. I'm concerned that much of the material added in recent edits by User:VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck is either poorly sourced, original research or given undue weight. (I'm not quite sure which noticeboard to go to!)

Specifically, the YouTube video and Soundcloud podcast are dubious. Additionally, there are several instances of probable original research, such as the use of board minutes (it's unclear which) to claim Taeb isn't engaging with the board. Even the material supported by sources is undue; for example, an entire section has been assigned to the BDS issue despite no indication that any independent secondary source cares. I'm not saying these edits are necessarily false (I freely admit my lack of knowledge of AmPol), just that the current state of the sourcing is unacceptable. I reverted the addition once, but the material has been re-added mostly unchanged. – Teratix ₵ 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

IP repeatedly adding personal websites as citations

153.101.246.136 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added personal websites to Letter of intent and Affidavit. The sites are https://scholarshipfellow.com/letter-of-intent-loi-letter-of-intent-for-job-letter-of-intent-for-scholarship-letter-of-intent-sample/ for Letter of intent and https://afidavit.com/affidavit-definition-of-affidavit-affidavit-types-affidavit-purpose-how-to-write-an-affidavit/ for Affidavit. All of the edits by this editor have been devoted to these sites. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Black-throated finch

Black-throated finch - reliable sources stating there are no reliable population estimates have been removed. this has been regarded as original research by an editor. they instead substitute their own obsolete references which misquote the deleted references. article tags are being repeatedly deleted without attempting to resolve the issue. Verify references (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Rfc about whether public domain list articles present OR concerns

PROCEDURAL CLOSE
Note: I am closing this RfC; however, it is effectively a continuation of both Discussion 1, Discussion 2, and Discussion 3.

Results.

The closing of this discussion could effect Template:Years in Public Domain and the 11 pages within it. Participants in Discussion 1, 2, and 3 would also be legitimately interested in the results of this RfC. However, this RfC was only posted in No original research/Noticeboard with the following tag: {{rfc|policy|media|rfcid=7058BF3}}.

It possibly could have received more promotion. Either way, the final participation of this RfC was rather low. On account of these facts, though...

The result was no consensus. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 22:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do the contents of a series of list articles including 2020 in public domain, 2019 in public domain, etc., back to 2011 in public domain present concerns over original research? Largoplazo (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've set forth my analysis and the basis for my question above at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Lists of works by year of entry into the public domain. My thesis in summary: Contributions to these articles are mostly uncited and based on contributors' own application of arithmetic to data about the authors and their own understanding of public domain law in all the authors' respective countries. This falls squarely into the realm of synthesis as defined at Wikipedia:SYNTH and corroborated by my reading of WP:NOTSYNTH. It may even amount to Wikipedia issuing a legal opinion about the legal status of the works of each of these authors.

I created this Rfc because I received little feedback.

I believe responses can fall into three basic categories, though others may have answers that fall outside of that box:

  1. The content doesn't amount to impermissible original research or synthesis.
  2. The articles include WP:OR but it suffices to tag each of the articles with {{original research}}, possibly with the eventual removal of noncompliant content if the issue isn't remedied.
  3. The articles include WP:OR that should be removed immediately because Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:OR.

Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • 1: I'd say it counts as an exception under WP:CALC. While I would maybe split it up a bit more (e.g. into language, medium, etc) and come up with a reusable intro with a bit of background on common concepts like rule of the shorter term, I can definitely imagine this being helpful for someone, which is my main criteria. I myself, in fact, have thought about joining LibriVox, and wondered about where I could get a list of works which have recently entered the public domain and so won't have been covered yet. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 04:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It's that this isn't like saying "I've got 7, and I'm adding 12 to it, and I'm getting 19." It's more like "I've got 7, and I've got this source that claims it's as simple as 12, but as far as I know there are extenuating circumstances under which it's 9 or 11 or 15, or something else altogether apart from that formula, because laws can vary tremendously by country, and they can adopt international conventions with their own additional provisos, and because List of countries' copyright lengths isn't a reliable source, and, because Wikipedia isn't a lawyer, it isn't my place to have Wikipedia issue what is basically a legal opinion that the answer is 19." Largoplazo (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I take your point, but I think with an expanded disclaimer explaining both potential complications that may apply to specific works and that any given work's status depends both on the specifics of copyright law in the jurisdiction it was published and the one the reader is in would be enough to make sure that it can't be construed as legal advice. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harry Lloyd, OR consistently added by same IP address

On the Harry Lloyd page, the same IP address, 2.39.36.135, keeps adding the same information about the actor's wife. The information is entirely speculation on a "fake marriage", when the actor has actually confirmed his marital status here [1] in an interview for UTP (Un-titled Project) magazine. They also keep stating that interviews given to reputable sources by the actor are "fake", with no sourcing of this theory, claims the actor is actively vandalising his own page to "troll". Other than perhaps a throw-away sentence in a life section of some sort I don't think his wife needs any mention at all, as she is not notable and a low-profile individual.

Myself and other users keep reverting the edits, but as this material continues to be added I thought it would be appropriate to raise the issue here (apologies if this isn't correct procedure, I'm new!). The material added also infringes POV and BLPs rules as the edits consistently paint the actor as a "troll", without sources. If this isn't the correct board for this, could someone point me in the right direction?

SillyRoundKatie (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://utpmag.com/project/harry-lloyd

RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism?

RfC is here in case anyone is interested in contributing. petrarchan47คุก 20:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research?

"Increasing populations are not necessary to maintain economic growth and social vitality because of advances in automation and workers living healthy lives much longer into old age. Declining populations require fewer scarce resources and pollute less. Fewer dependents mean that families, regions, and societies can achieve more productive uses of available resources and increase their quality of life.[1]"

and

"==Criticism==

Lower fertility rates are generally associated with dramatic increases in population health and longevity.[2] Widespread advances in the growth and potential of automation along with workers living healthier into their old age both suggest that countries do not need booming populations to maintain economic growth and vitality. Declining populations place less stress on scarce resources and result in less pollution including greenhouse gas emission.[1] Larger numbers of dependents take away resources from families, regions, and societies, which can instead be devoted to more productive uses increasing the quality of life per capita.[3] While there were in the past advantages to high fertility rates, that "demographic dividend" has now largely disappeared.[4]"

References

  1. ^ a b Davis, Nicola (26 December 2018). "Falling total fertility rate should be welcomed, population expert says". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  2. ^ ESHRE Capri Workshop Group (1 October 2005). "Noncontraceptive health benefits of combined oral contraception". Human Reproduction Update. 11 (5): 513–525. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmi019. ISSN 1355-4786.
  3. ^ Lee, R; Mason, A (10 October 2014). "Is low fertility really a problem? Population aging, dependency, and consumption". Science (New York, N.Y.). 346 (6206): 229–34. doi:10.1126/science.1250542. PMID 25301626. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  4. ^ Smeeding, TM (10 October 2014). "Economics. Adjusting to the fertility bust". Science (New York, N.Y.). 346 (6206): 163–4. doi:10.1126/science.1260504. PMID 25301602. Retrieved 16 March 2019.

None of the sources discuss the topic of the article. There's now an RfC to include it at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory and an NPOV tag has been added to the article as it doesn't include them. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As I asked at the RFC, if someone publishes an "Elephant overpopulation scourge" theory, would we be forbidden from including sources in its article saying that elephant populations are not growing simply because they don't have the words "overpopulation scourge" in them? The idea that low birth rates are harmful or otherwise bad is the central tenet of the white genocide conspiracy theory. Including WP:MEDRS sources debunking the idea is not only permitted, but required to neurally balance the extremist fringe article. EllenCT (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about white birth rates, it's an article about a conspiracy theory. And NOR 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." Your sources aren't related to the conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pacific Islands - user citing a self-published book matching username

On February 27, I removed original research by User:SteveDehner in the articles Malden Island, Winslow Reef, Phoenix Islands, Baker Island, Kanton Island, and Carondelet Reff, where the user cites a self-published Scribd document. I also left a template on his talk page and he responded with a nonsense screed on mine that included calling me a neo-Nazi. Today this user reverted my removals on those articles. Mr. Dehner, you are welcome to cite reliable published sources containing this information, or in some clear cases primary sources, but do not add your WP:Original research and do not make personal attacks at me or you will be blocked from editing. Reywas92Talk 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:OR

My edit here was reverted by doomsdayer520 on the claim that the content that I removed was sourced and not original research. When I explained to them what the source is about and asked them what part of the content that they restored in the intro is supposed to be backed by it, they ignored my request and accused me of misusing the term "original research", because according to them Original research (on Wikipedia) is when a scientist tries to claim that his/her own research is notable.

Your views on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

M.Bitton, we have a precise but very minor disagreement that does not belong here. My original reversion of your edit was because you removed two different pieces of notable material and justified it with one reason (original research) that I found to be inaccurate in both cases. I actually took some of your words to heart and concluded that the source on the translation of the band's name could be considered unreliable -- a much different problem -- and I added a "better source needed" tag to that piece of information in the article. You seem to have missed this step. Meanwhile, disagreement about the band's hometown is not even close to a dispute over the meaning of original research. We have a minor disagreement between two good-faith editors who care about the accuracy of that article, and it can be discussed there even if I said something you don't like. Wait for other people to support you or disagree with you there. For everyone else on this board, M.Bitton's decision to bring the discussion here as an incident that needs to be investigated is an over-reaction at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doomsdayer520: We're here because we disagree over the "interpretation of the OR policy". You think that the translation is not OR and I think that your interpretation of OR is erroneous, therefore, we need input from uninvolved editors familiar with the policy. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Translating foreign languages to English is not original research Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions though it's reasonable to ask for sourcing to support difficult or questionable interpretations. Rhoark (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Translating foreign languages to English is not original research, provided the source is relevant. In our case, what's being translated is the group's name using a dictionary that doesn't even mention the group in question. Let me illustrate by way of an analogy why this method is both OR and terribly flawed (regardless of the result). Imagine the Bee Gees article being created in the French Wikipedia. How wrong would the editors be if, in order to define the group's name, they decide to use an English to French dictionary to translate the words "Bee" and "Gee"?
The other issue is Doomsdayer520's interpretation of the OR policy (highlighted in green). What do you think of it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for input from an experienced editor. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_41&oldid=1142590940"