Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Interpreting a source

For several weeks now, members of WikiProject Motorsport have been debating the meaning of the Sporting Regulations for the World Rally Championship. These are the rules produced by the governing body of motorsport, the FIA. The passage in question is Article 26, which reads as follows:

26. SEASONALLY ALLOCATED COMPETITION NUMBERS

26.1 MANUFACTURERS

P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99.

26.2 OTHER DRIVERS

Competition numbers shall be allocated rally by rally, according to the provisional classification of the Championships concerned.

It is this idea of "seasonally allocated competition numbers" that is proving problematic. One of the editors involved, Tvx1, put forward the following interpretation of Article 26:

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple seasons, we can't really be certain of that.

His argument is that because the section is referred to as "seasonally allocated" numbers, that means a driver chooses a number for one year at which point they need to reapply for that number. I believe this to be original research on his part for the following reasons:

• The numbers are only referred to as "seasonally allocated" in the title of Article 26. The body of Article 26 refers to "permanent numbers", and the phrase "seasonally allocated numbers" is never used again.
• I have searched several times for sources that support Tvx1's claim. When I use a search term for wrc "seasonal numbers", the only hits I get related to the subject are the WT:MOTOR discussion where Tvx1 made his claim.
• There are a variety of sources out there detailing the number system—the rule was first introduced in 2019—which use the term "permanent numbers". These include the FIA website, wrc.com, Autosport and Speedcafe. These are four of the most reliable publications, which are routinely used across the scope of WP:MOTOR.

Furthermore, the FIA website details the specific changes to the Sporting Regulations year on year. This passage outlines the nature of Article 26:

In order to give consistent identity to drivers and assist with promotion, Priority 1 drivers will be free to choose their permanent car number from 2019, except number 1, which will always be reserved for the reigning World Rally Champion.

This specifically refers to "permanent numbers" rather than "seasonal numbers". I have requested that both Tvx1 and Pelmeen10—who supported his interpretation—share any sources that they have to substatiate the "seasonal numbers" argument. They have either refused, ignored the request, or claimed that the burden rests with those who disagree with them.

In the past week, a new source has become available: the entry list for the first round of 2020. It shows that two drivers (Sébastien Loeb and Takamoto Katsuta) are competing with different numbers to the ones they used in 2019. This source was not available at the time Tvx1 made his claim. Tvx1 is claiming that this proves him right; however, the entry list only shows that the numbers have changed. It does not explain how the number changes came about. I believe this to be synthesis.

There are three things that I would like to see happen in this discussion:

1. I would like Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 to share whatever sources they have to substantiate Tvx1's original claim.
2. I would like members of this noticeboard to evaluate all of the sources presented and determine whether or not Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 have engaged in original research.
3. I would like members of this noticeboard to offer some idea of how to handle the paradox created by the Monte Carlo entry list for future reference.

Finally, I know that this seems like a very minor thing to come to a noticeboard for. However, the discussion is taking place at WikiProject Motorsport (rather than WikiProject World Rally) and so has the potential to affect every single article within the scope of WP:MOTOR. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am an on-off contributor to the discussion in question.

I have to agree with Mclarenfan17 that when Tvx1 came forward with the claim originally it constituted original research. I also think that Tvx1's claim that drivers must reapply for numbers every year is still original research. However I have to agree with Tvx1 that the Monaco entry list shows that driver numbers can change, this is supported by this source: [1]. How or why these number changes came about is irrelevant and this source shows that numbers can change (I.e. they are not permanent) - this means that it would be original research to assume the numbers would stay the same (as explained to Mclarenfan17 in the WT:MOTOR discussion).

To conclude up until the release of the Monaco entry list I believe that Tvx1 and Pelmeen did engage in original research but they're not anymore as more sources have come to light. And articles should reflect the most recent sources when various sources contradict each other (ie. The articles should list numbers as TBA or TBC until an entry list comes out for that season).
SSSB (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SSSB, can you actually point to a diff of a comment where I (or Pelmeen10 specifically stated that I/they think that crews have to physically reapply for the their numbers at the end of each season? And how does it even matter? As you point out yourself, how or why the number changes come about is irrelevant. The only point I and Pelmeen10 ever made was that there was no evidence whatsoever that these numbers were fixed for their entire careers, which is what I have reiterated time and time again during that WT:MOTOR discussion. Even before the Monte Carlo entry list was published you stated repeatedly that there was insufficient evidence for Mclarenfan17's claims and that listing the numbers as TBA was a sensible way forward. What's wrong with being prudent? In the end, because of Mclarenfan17's antics we ended up listing incorrect numbers for a couple of crews on that article for weeks. I would like to know why we are being accused of engaging in OR, when actually Mclarenfan17 actually did so even more clearly by claiming and insisting that crews' numbers are fixed for their careers without ever providing any concrete evidence for that claim, forcing us to actually have incorrect information in an article for weeks. Even now with clear evidence that these numbers aren't fixed for entire careers and without any support in the WP:MOTOR discussion, within the last 24 hours [2][3], they kept reinstating crew numbers that have not been announced for 2020 yet in the 2020 article on the basis that that "they stay the same as last season".Tvx1 18:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Tvx1 and Pelmeen did engage in original research but they're not anymore as more sources have come to light.

That does not justify what they did in the first place. They had no way of knowing that source would become available when they made that claim and their ongoing refusal to provide sources amounted to disruptive editing. It's especially galling considering that they insisted others produce sourcses.

Furthermore, the Monte Carlo entry list does not actually prove the original claim to be correct because the source does not offer any context. Tvx1 specifically claimed that every driver would have to go through the process of reapplying for a number, but the entry list only demonstrates that some numbers have changed. Two potential scenarios emerge:

1. Every driver had to reapply for their number. Where most kept the same number, some changed.
2. Every driver had a permanent number, but some decided to change and applied separately.

The Monte Carlo entry list does not establish either scenario as having happened, so Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 cannot claim to be right. They're quick to point out the two drivers that changed, but they're ignoring the six that did not. They should still show the sources that they used to justify the original claim that they made in November, or at least admit that they never had a source, because this sort of behaviour should not be overlooked. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a diff were I made that specific claim? And exactly what justifies what you did? What evidence did you ever provide that supported your claim that these numbers were supposedly fixed for their entire careers??Tvx1 18:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a diff were I made that specific claim?

I already have.

What evidence did you ever provide that supported your claim that these numbers were supposedly fixed for their entire careers?

I have already posted this, too—the four sources from the FIA, wrc.com, Autosport and Speedcafe that all refer to "permanent numbers". I have posted those sources both here and in the WT:MOTOR discussion. They are also used in the 2019 World Rally Championship article to explain the regulation changes. I don't know how you keep missing these. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

And where exactly did my comment in that diff state "they have to re-apply at the end of each season". Sorry but these words are just not there. As I have explained multiple times, my point was that there was insufficient evidence that these numbers were fixed for there entire careers. And as multiple editors have pointed out to you time and time again during the WT:MOTOR discussion, your sources do NOT support your theory. None of them state that they are career numbers of numbers fixed for the entire careers. In fact the Autosport source literally uses the word season with regards to the numbers (Ogier's Citroen team-mate Esapekka Lappi will carry #4 in his first season with the French manufacturer...; A number was not assigned to Sebastien Loeb, who is currently competing on the Dakar Rally, at the unveiling, but the nine-time world champion's Hyundai will carry #19 on its six outings this season.). Yet for some reason you utterly refuse to accept that even though no one agrees with you.Tvx1 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The part where you said:

It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.

So what happens at the end of that season if the number is only reserved for a year?

It's obvious what happened here. You never had the sources to support your claim, obviously engaged in original research, and now that you think you have a source that justifies it, you're trying to talk your way out of it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that's what you think I did. As explained multiple times. The only claim I actually made is that we had insufficient evidence to support the content. If you read incorrect things between the lines that's your problem, not mine. I can not be held accountable for your misinterpretations. If anyone engaged in original research and synthesis it was you. You included content in an article bases on a personal assumption causing us to include incorrect information for weeks.Tvx1 15:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The only claim I actually made is that we had insufficient evidence to support the content.

So you didn't say this, then?

They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.

It's in your edit history. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I said that. And the only thing that meant is that there was insufficient evidence that the numbers would be fixed for their entire careers. Again, it's not my fault you misinterpreted things.Tvx1 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I provided you with four sources—including the FIA and the sport's website—that all specifically referred to "permanent numbers". They also drew a direct comparison to the system used in Formula 1 where drivers keep the same number year on year. And yet somehow, this is all insufficient for you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And everyone else in the discussion has explained to you repeatedly why these sources were insufficient. That fact that you simply refuse to accept that is the core of the problem and is why you we're still here having this discussion. You've made your grievances clearly now and it's clear that this pattern of replies between is not going to yield anything. So I strongly suggest we stop this and see if any of the moderators suggests a course of action.Tvx1 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, while you insisted us to provide sources that car numbers can change, you yourself failed to provide evidence that they stay the same. The sources you provided do not explain what is a "permanent number", and now with the number changes we know it was premature to write those wrong numbers in the first place. Content of Wikipedia should not be poorly sourced. You did the same thing with writing the "WRC-2 Pro" championship will run in 2020. Remember that you wrote in May that the championship will run, while is reality it does not. The false info stayed in the article for 6 months, when on 5th of October I finally removed it. Then you demanded sources and consensus from me. Talk:2020_World_Rally_Championship/Archive_1#WRC-2_Pro_in_2020 [4] [5]. Now I ask do you understand what All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source means? Do you plan to write poorly sourced content in the future? Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources you provided do not explain what is a "permanent number", and now with the number changes we know it was premature to write those wrong numbers in the first place.

The definition of permanent is "lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely". Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a "permanent number" is "a number that is lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely".

Now I ask do you understand what All content must be verifiable

Do you? In the discussion that you cite, the only source you provided was an image of a Twitter feed. It was not clear who the author was, and totally failed WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE.

Do you plan to write poorly sourced content in the future?

I gave you four reliable, verifiable sources, which you ignored. And now you're trying to claim that "because those sources do not explicitly define what that term meant, I was under no obligation to provide any sources of my own".

You're trying to argue that because the word "permanent" was never defined in the sources, then we could not be sure that the word "permanent" actually meant "permanent" all to avoid the fact that you carried out original resesrch. Do I need a source that says the sky is blue as well? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If you ever wanted a better example of someone trying to talk "their way out of it", this one from you here is the best yet.Tvx1 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that you didn't read the discussion Pelmeen10 linked to. This is the source that he claims to be reliable and verifiable. While events ultimately played out in such a way that the claims were proven true, that does not make the source acceptable. Pelmeen10 claims "false info stayed in the article for 6 months", but he never produced a source to support it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone have to provide a source not to include content? You were the one would included content in an article without any source correctly supporting it, which was explained to you by multiple users and yet still continued your ways and still continue to refuse to admit you were wrong despite no-one agreeing with you.Tvx1 16:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone have to provide a source not to include content?

If content in an article is supported by a reliable source, but things change such that it is no longer applicable, then a source should be provided to show why its removal is necessary. The source that Pelmeen10 provided in this instance failed both WP:RS and WP:VER. It was a screencap of a Twitter post, but with nothing to identify the author or what they were basing the claim on. Ultimately the claims were proven to be correct, but that doesn't make his source valid.

You were the one would included content in an article without any source correctly supporting it

You were saying? You didn't provide any source to support this. In fact, the actual source needed to verify this—the entry list—was not made available for another three days. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And as explained to you endlessly by anyone involved in the discussion, the sources supporting the content were insuficient to satisfy WP:VERIFY and thus the content should have been removed straight away.Tvx1 17:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation of scientific papers for a neuroscience topic

My edits to a page concerning the scientific validity of a published book were rejected by Matt18224 based on the no original research and inappropriate synthesis standard. Here is the link to the original text of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Berenson&diff=prev&oldid=938805711 As I have published quite a bit in scientific journals,accuracy of sourcing is very familiar to me. Nothing that I presented was original research in my edit, though all of it was original research on the part of the authors cited. The assertions I make about their work are assertions they present themselves in their published paper. It is unbelievable to me that Matt18224 would have read the links I provided in the space of two hours and determined that my description of the work went beyond what was published therein. The meaning of synthesis I am less clear on, as any bringing together of scientific facts to construct a useful scientific page on Wiki involves the act of bringing the facts together to educate.

What is most alarming is that the current posting relevant to the science of the book in question (Tell Your Children) is completely one sided and relies on journalists who have quoted one set of scientists, some of whom have a vested financial interest in the topic at hand (are members of cannabis company advisory boards).

I think discussion of Tell Your Children should evolve into a pro-con format, wherein all posts are allowed that provide good sourcing and are not defamatory, etc. If nothing were to be edited out (except by the poster) then the public would benefit from being exposed to the disparate views.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MomwithaPhD (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Genetic maps using modern political boundaries

Several maps have been raised for deletion discussion on Commons which appear to be entirely original research. These are used in multiple articles and presented as if they are published maps from peer-reviewed research. At best, they appear to have been generated from open forum discussions and 'creatively' interpreting data sets which would never have provided sufficient detail to draw fine zoning lines. Raising here for the general principle, as such user creations might end up being hosted on Commons, but using them in any Wikipedia article seems to break WP:OR and they probably should be systematically removed.

Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) distribution

The Haplogroup R1b map, shows detailed map zoning which does not seem to be based on any declared dataset (correction, 11 sources were vaguely quoted, along with "etc"). This map is currently illustrating:

1. Bashkirs
2. Romanians
3. Haplogroup R1b
4. Genetic studies on Serbs
5. Genetic studies on Bulgarians

--Fæ (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

---

R1b map

This R1b map is the single illustration for Haplogroup R-L151, and there is no indication of why the zones are marked exactly in the way they are. This is apparently the views of the map uploader, not because any source defines data this way. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Haplogrupo N

This is the infobox illustration for Haplogroup N-M231. No sources have been produced to show how it was created. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of a source at Lebor Gabála Érenn

This is a case where the source is reliable but I think is being interpreted in an original way. The edit[6] is:

Recent research by John Koch describes Ireland as a "fully paid member of the Atlantic Late Bronze age with south-west Iberia". John Kochs recent research also calls into question the dismissal, "as an invention", that the Gaels (Milesians) originated in the Iberian Peninsula.

The source states: On the other hand, both Ireland and south-west Iberia had been ‘fully paid-up members’ of the Atlantic Late Bronze Age. It has long been recognised that the V-notched shields, leaf-shaped swords and ogival-headed spears of the Iberian warrior stelae have close counterparts among actual artefacts of the Irish late Bronze Age. Therefore, if we can reorientate our thinking away from Hallstatt and La Tène to look instead at Ireland’s overseas affinities during its spectacularly wealthy late Bronze Age, the fact that Tartessos should now be giving up some of its mysteries in a language comparable to Irish may not be so surprising. It will not be the first or the last ironic twist of intellectual history for a Celtic Tartessos to appear on the horizon after the Spanish provenance of the Gaels (as per the Book of Invasions) has lost its last shred of credibility."

I can't see what "fully paid member..." adds to the article(I'm guessing the editor sees this as an argument for something) or where Koch's research (or his last sentence) "calls into question the dismissal, "as an invention", that the Gaels (Milesians) originated in the Iberian Peninsula.". Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

References

I have pointed this out before. the page is unable to be edited with any new sources unless revolves around apaper by Carey in 1994. there is currenlty 17 citations of that work on the page with more hidden in collections of Celtic works.. using the small stable of acceptable sources one being Koch , who earlier in his career was dismissive of the Link between Ireland and Spain, has now changed his mind, Doug has issues with this update in Kochs research.. dna and archaeology has confirmed the link between Ireland, Iberia and Spain based on language, dna in cairns or burial sites.

what Koch says here cant be clearer..

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gv4sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT840&lpg=PT840&dq=john koch cunliffe ireland book of invasions&source=bl&ots=5uGOWv3g4t&sig=ACfU3U1CGe8xKH-VBL4aHJZz2J56_yEvXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi62oKz58HnAhWaRhUIHeS5DhcQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=john koch cunliffe ireland book of invasions&f=false

however i had little time to include other sources today as Doug took issue and reverted back before i had time to include.

the page has a very biased POV based on the insistence of using careys old work.. feel free to read the "talk" to get a better undertsanding of the issues. Gemmathegael (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an example of why I came here. Geemathegael says "Koch , who earlier in his career was dismissive of the Link between Ireland and Spain, has now changed his mind, Doug has issues with this update in Kochs research.. dna and archaeology has confirmed the link between Ireland, Iberia and Spain based on language, dna in cairns or burial sites." Such a link doesn't belong in Lebor/The Book of Invasions unless discussed, and it is: " No one has taken the possibility of Celtic coming from Hispania to the other Celtic countries seriously since we stopped taking Lebar Gabala £renn (the 11th-century Irish ‘Book of Invasions’) seriously, but it is now at least worth pausing to review what it is that we think we know that makes that impossible. (Koch 2010, 294f)" but I don't think that comment about the Book of Invasions is what User:Gemmathegael wants to add. If she does, she should say so. Note that although it's true I reverted a copyright violation, GemmatheGael replaced it with the text I brought here. She's been blocked for edit-warring recently on the same page. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC) @Gemmathegael:. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Koch is the source that was on the page when i first started editing, Doug Weller does not like new sources, even newer work from the same person. Most researchers change their minds faced with new evidence, in this case language, metalwork and DNA . I think Doug Weller wants to keep a POV on the document and is unwilling to let me edit, hence the edit war. which is quite frankly off for a " mod" who has been using wiki for so long. I am a new user. The problem even today is he reverted again today without waiting until i added more citations or feedback. Conditions i was placed under... see talk page by Doug Weller was " all my sources must fit a certain criteria he decided" , even when I edit, as today, with sources that fit this narrow criteria he has issues.. as of today I have 3 messages from him on my talk page with more requirements, a reversion, chasing up some issue he has with a source here, accusations of something else I'm not quite sure of with " by text he brought here" its a she btw..

Maybe if i had time to include sources instead of responding on the talk page against what i find was extremly discriminatory remarks,including on Christian writers and had to remind him of the code of ethics wiki should uphold.

btw not quite sure what he means by "text he brought here".. can he elaborate on that one.. the time stamp in the editing of the page and the history notes show i edited prior to him posting here.. me @ 16:01. I am at a loss what he means, maybe someone can explain what it is

to sum it up... i added the link to clarify Kochs point and to correct what was seen to be a copyright issue.its hard to keep up. I feel he reverted as he didnt like the new source as it contradicts his POV. I am new to wiki and it will take me a few days to get up to speed with things, in the meantime i would prefer not to be messaged multiple times a day over small edits, or some other issue that can be dealt with in a civil manner. I would prefer to have a little time to edit before everything is reverted on minor issues.

to clarify the two sources i provided clarify the new position of Koch..Gemmathegael (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

btw as a new user i am still trying to work out how to edit references so as not to infringe copyright and maybe then, and given the space I can add more of what Koch wrote... this hounding in relentless Gemmathegael (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gemmaethegael: it's not an issue of copyright, it's an issue of what is appropriate in an article and of learning about what is original research. And about good faith - warning editors that they are discriminating against you on religious or ethnic grounds and what could be seen as chilling comments about the code of ethics (aimed evidently not just at me) isn't helping you either. I always prefer newer sources particularly when it comes to archaeology and genetics. But newer sources are not automatically better. I don't see any evidence that Koch has changed his mind about the Lebor, nor that DNA or metalwork are relevant. What I think I see is a misunderstanding - we can't use DNA or archaeology to prove (or disprove, but I think you are trying to prove something) about the Lebor without explicit statements that certain findings show certain things about the Lebor. And I'm not hounding. Nor am I the only editor to be concerned about your edits. You were reverted by User:Cuchullain and User:Nicknack009, were blocked for editwarring and stating you were going to continue, and the article had to be protected from IP editing. Nicknack009 also brought up some of the concerns I have at Talk:Lebor Gabála Érenn#Discussion of recent edit war.

I see Nicknack009 doesn't see any benefit in trying to work on the article, see User talk:Doug Weller#Lebor Gabála Érenn. I'm tempted to take his comment that I've no responsibility to fix it to heart, as this has wasted far too much of my tome. Doug Weller talk 21:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal (American game show)

User AldezD has been adding seemingly WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS material onto Deal or No Deal (American game show), showing no signs of stopping after multiple warnings. I've tried to give warnings about the original research, instead getting a, "Knock it off and don't template me." on my talk page.

In regards to the problem itself, as I've just pointed out in a reply on my talk page, the tweet in question states nothing about the show's cancellation. All the tweet is saying is that the account is not active, and to follow @CNBCPrimeTV, which as I also stated, says, "Home of #BackintheGame, #CashPad, @dealnodealcnbc, @LenosGarage, @TheProfitCNBC, @AmericanGreedTV & more!" in the bio. There is nothing said about the show's cancellation and no WP:RS (apart from the tweet) about the show's cancellation, leading this to be complete original research.

However, the user continues to ignore any/all warnings, reverting back to the WP:OR every time. What should be done here? A tweet about the account no longer being active does not equate to the show being cancelled, especially with no other source for it. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Tying a message from the show's twitter account that says the account is no longer active, to the claim that the show is cancelled, is definitely OR, ignoring any other piece of evidence given. We'd actually need a source from an RS that uses the word "cancelled". Given how NBC has handled that show in the past, with some hiatuses, it is definitely not appropriate to consider the twitter message proof of cancellation. --Masem (t) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they taped episodes in 2020. My apologies. https://www.nbcumv.com/programming/cnbc/deal-or-no-deal/episodes-schedule?network=33135

@AldezD: Uh, those are not new episodes taped. That is the listing guide, showing the airings on TV. Those three episodes listed for January 2020 are all episodes that premiered last year. (All three of those episodes actually premiered in January 2020.) AFAIK, no new episodes have taped especially considering the audience ticket page is currently hidden, still able to access from the direct link.

However, the fact remains that one tweet saying an account is no longer active is not a source for the show's cancellation when it doesn't explicitly state anything regarding that. Magitroopa (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Uh" you can cut out the attitude. The episodes are aired in 2020 so the end date of 2019 can be removed. I'll undo my edit. AldezD (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@AldezD: I'm not using any attitude, just trying to help you understand. And no, that is not how it works. The dates in infoboxes, etc are for episode premieres, not reruns. Those three episodes listed for 2020 are simply reruns, so once cancellation is confirmed, it would be "2018–19", not "2018–20". Reruns aren't used to determine if a show is 'present' or not. The Fairly OddParents still airs episodes on TV in 2020, but the end date is still 2017/July 26, 2017, as that was when the final new episode premiered. Magitroopa (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok do whatever you need. AldezD (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian Blood Wedding

Good afternoon, I am here to report what I suspect to be a case of original research on the article Macedonian Blood Wedding. Please note that I am new to Wikipedia so I am not entirely sure if it would classify as such. It namely has to do with the following edits [7] and [8]. First of all, all three of the sources cited to support the fact that Macedonian was considered a Bulgarian dialect do not even mention the play in question. In my opinion, that topic is how the Macedonian language was viewed at the time, which is more pertinent to articles like Macedonian language, Macedonian language naming dispute and Political views on the Macedonian language. One of my other concerns with those sources is that they contain super lengthy excerpts which are again completely unrelated to the article. The same applies to sources six and seven which again do not even mention Macedonian Blood Wedding. Secondly, another one of the sources the editor uses to support his claim , namely this one does not seem as the most reliable material to me; it is from a website called promacedonia.org and again, it does not even mention the play nor its author (it is in Bulgarian so someone else who speaks the language can confirm that). So it seems to me that User: Jingiby tries to add a very biased, personal view of the language of the book. I agree that if there are any reliable and academic sources which mention the language used specifically related to the book, they should be mentioned in the article, however this user does not seem to provide them. Thank you very much in advance for considering this entry. P.S He also reverted my reverts to his edits so that is why I am taking the issue here. DD1997DD (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

[9] [10] Update: he keeps on adding more and more. DD1997DD (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Many other contributions by this user also seem to follow similar patterns of making claims by using sources that do not even mention the article for which they are used. I explained his very biased way of writing articles on Talk:Macedonian Blood Wedding with a few examples. DD1997DD (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Promoting Request for Comment

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

For the coronavirus outbreak, should we utilize the graph that shows "cases deaths and recoveries", the "case fatality rate" in a graph, both, or none, or an "epidemic curve" per WP:MEDRS WP:OR and WP:CALC --Almaty (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Habesha peoples

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/June#Synthesis, POV. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH and OR

Art Deco article appears to have large amount of original research and synthesis. For example, let us start with first paragraph in Cubist influence. It says Cubism appeared between 1907 and 1912 influencing development of Art Deco, source quoted makes no mention of Art Deco. Third paragraph in same section explains what Art Deco will be in future, but quotes source from 1912. There is no chance that source could know what Art Deco will be. Moving on to the Influence section, again entire paragraph quotes source from 1905. I think there is considerable number of sources that make no mention of Art Deco at all and are used in the article with original research and synthesis, considerable number of text has no source at all. Sauvahge (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rfc for Markovian Parallax Denigrate

I recently created a RfC for Markovian Parallax Denigrate. Please give your input. Veverve (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Does including the Book Cover on a book that Ezra Taft Benson wrote the foreword to constitute OR? Epachamo (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH and OR March 18

@Newslack: has added a large “Controversy” section to Taiwan News which is almost entirely synthesis and OR. I have tried to address the concerns on the talk page in good faith but I’ve been accused of being disruptive by the other editor including for adding citation needed tags to unsourced material they introduced into the article so I thought I’d bring it here as its going nowhere there. There was one relevant article among the ones they cited and I attempted to accurately summarize just that article [11] but I was reverted and they went back to hyperbole and synth. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

See prior discussion at Talk:Taiwan_News. A explicit debunking of fake news most of which directly linked taiwannews is not WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH, when no debunking is synthesized by two or more sources or implied something the source didn't say... I was even being very conservative when using those sources, sticking very close to their wording.

It comes down to 3 examples of fake news items that was so wide spread by Taiwan News, that fact checkers came out to debunk them. "Death toll fabrication", "Sulfur dioxide satellite image hoax", "Live cremation". The first item seems to have concensus as acceptable, but the other editor wanted to a watered down version of it with almost no detail, and their preferred version seems to be protective of the interest of a particular prolific writer K. Everington of Taiwan News, who have edited multiple times on the page [12] before.

"Death toll fabrication" and "Sulfur dioxide satellite image hoax" news items were both explicitly referenced and debunked by new bloom magazine with an extra source from Ponyter on the latter item, and the contention is that Ponyter did not explicitly reference TaiwanNews when they debunked this fake news item, "so it is OR and SYNTH to use them as a source". Fact checkers target information but not an exhaustive list of platforms that carried them. Also, "Live cremation" had Politifact explicitly mentioning taiwannews as a source of misinformation and debunked it, so I failed to see how citing it is OR or SYNTH.

I said the editor is disruptive, because over the past week, this editor followed me over multiple wiki articles (almost every single one I edited on) to revert my edits, which is a big wiki violation IIRC, engaging in edit wars/instant undos against my edits, examples: [13][14][15] and engaged it excessive "citation needed" tags when it was in the middle of my editing process[16]... Looking at the editor's talk page, the accusation of disruption, mass blanking and edit warring seems to be a common complaint with many other users.Newslack (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page you cited Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a rigid rule as justification, is that no longer your argument? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That was never my only argument, nor was it my main one. I also cited multiple items on WP:SYNTHNOT. You seem to be ignoring all of my points and fail to get them.Newslack (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I was just asking for clarification, since I’ve addressed your arguments on the talk page I don’t think its necessary to clutter up this space. Thank you for clarifying, lets wait for other editors to chime in before we continue our discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the page as it exists right now, there is indeed original research in the controversy section. The first example is Taiwan News is known for sensationalism and unreliable reporting, which was particularly egregious during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.[6] While the cited source calls out Taiwan News for specific examples egregious, unreliable and sensational reporting regarding the pandemic, it does not state that the news source is "known for" this type of reporting. That statement is clearly the conclusion of a Wikipedia editor based on the source, rather than the conclusion of the source itself.

The second example of original research is in the paragraph regarding sulfur dioxide levels in Wuhan. While one of the cited sources explicitly refutes a Taiwan News article on this claim, the other source does not. Neither of the two sources refer to one another, either. It is therefore a Wikipedia editor's conclusion that the second source refutes the claims made by Taiwan News, which is not something we are allowed to do. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The first example I agree and I will rectify. How can we fix the 2nd example on "sulfur dioxide hoax"? If the contention is that one of the source directly refutes the Taiwan News article, but the other one doesn't directly mention Taiwan news, but both are citing the exact same image, the exact same claim and the exact same piece of misinformation, are we to delete that source? This would seem like an overly rigid enforcement of WP:SYNTH, because if so, then for example many items on Veracity of statements by Donald Trump or Alex Jones#School shootings or Fake news websites in the United States or Antisemitic canard would be cleared out, which I don't think would be an improvement to the wiki project. A direct refutation of a piece of obviously false information, have to mention explicitly every platform that carried it by name before we can use it. The overly rigid enforcement seems to be against the spirit of the rule WP:SYNTH as seen on WP:SYNTHNOT.

Ok, but if deleting one of two debunking sources would allow us all to move on and not come back, using up even more time, then I can do so.Newslack (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it OR to state that novel Coronavirus can be transmitted by common communion cup?

• Article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Greece
• Talk Page: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Greece#"Viral or bacterial infectious diseases can be transmitter from a common communion cup."
• Claim: "Viral or bacterial infectious diseases can be transmitted from a common communion cup."
• Source: Manangan, Lilia P.; Sehulster, Lynne M.; Chiarello, Linda; Simonds, Dawn N.; Jarvis, William R. (1998). "Risk of Infectious Disease Transmission from a Common Communion Cup". American Journal of Infection Control. 26 (5). Elsevier BV: 538–539. doi:10.1016/s0196-6553(98)70029-x. ISSN 0196-6553.

Note that the debate came into light in Greece recently, when Church decided to carry on with Eucharist amidst the Coronovirus pandemic. Thanks, Cinadon36 15:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not OR... just overly specific to the point of irrelevance. The virus can be transmitted by sharing ANY drinking vessel. There is nothing unique about chalices in this regard. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is precisely the point, Blueboar. I would agree with your point, but in this case we have POV-pushing masked by the reference to the religious cup, to make a point that the cup used in the holy communion is unsafe, thus to insert an editor's POV that the Church of Greece engages in unsafe practices, without any RS making this specific connection. It is SYNTH, because the OP wants to add that to the religious debate section of the article to make a WP:POINT by using his own research about the cup in the holy communion that the practices of the Church of Greece are unsafe when using the cup during holy communion, without other RS making this specific reference. This is OR, SYNTH and POV-pushing all in one. Dr. K. 16:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Blueboar: the point was that the alcohol in the communion cup does not protect you, not the (yes, so obvious it's irrelevant) point that sharing cups shares germs. But Cinadon36 while I appreciate this, especially in light of the erm... statement... above, frankly continuing to reason about this point is just not worth it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hey @Cinadon36:, why do not you use the source I posted on the article's talk page? I know you want to improve the article further, in similar fashion as you have improved many other articles. But in this case I agree with Calthinus that wasting time with a small detail is not worth it. After all, the article already makes it obvious that the said religious practices are dangerous in the context of the current pandemic, and that is made even more obvious by the source I posted. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. This fixation with the cup is baffling. To make matters worse, we also have the spoon of the holy communion, the gold plating of the cup and the spoon, the bread, the hands of the priest etc.. It would be madness to add a source attesting to the viral transmission properties of each object of the holy communion. Why stop at the cup? Dr. K. 20:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess. But I'm trying to think of other ocassions where large numbers of strangers share a cup (or spoon, or whatever) or all touch the hands of some dude or whatever. I mean intimates will share a cup -- like a couple at restaurant or home etc. -- but these people are intimates; they have many points where they can transmit a disease. I'm sure that some large families share cups etc. without washing, but again: intimates. I don't think that cups are shared between strangers or acquaintences at wine or food tastings. Correct me if I'm wrong. I guess meet-n-greets where a politician goes thru a crowd shaking hands... but aren't these things being cut way back or cancelled?

So, I'm just saying, isn't this kind of an unusual behavior? If there was, let's say, a competitive league where people competed to see how many strangers' hands they could shake in an hour, and that wasn't cancelled, would that not be noteworthy? Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is and it has been condemned and it is covered in the article. What we are discussing here is an unusual fixation on the cup as a means of transmission although all the other modes like the hands of the priest, the spoon, the gold plating of the cup and the spoon etc. are not covered. Just the cup, and even then the cup is covered in an unrelated paper to covid19. Dr. K. 21:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The fixation on the cup is not "unusual", it is because the GOC statement literally said "there is absolutely no possibility of contracting the disease from the holy cup", and the spoon is because health experts have specifically criticized that aspect as well (i.e. see this piece from four hours ago [[17]] concerning the same controversy arising in the GOC in Australia). Religious authorities afaik have not talked about the gold plating, but inasmuch as the communion cup contains the theoretically infallible "blood and body of Christ"... there is a conflict. And no the paper is not going to protect you from all the minuscule respiratory droplets, no "staying home if you're sick" does not suffice for protecting others when we're dealing with a virus with an asymptomatic but contagious period not uncommonly lasting as long as 14 days.--Calthinus (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Some users are incapable of supporting their opinion, without attacking other users. Dr.K. above, constructed a strawman. He thinks my POV is to attack Greek Church and thus he resists my edits with various excuses. He is misrepresenting my argument. But regardless my POV or his POV (to support Greek Church) the matter is whether the claim that "Coronavirus can be transmitted by common communion cup" is an Original Thought. If it is, maybe I deserve a medical award for my Original Thinking in such a crucial domain. Dr.K. also claims that the addition is an unusual fixation, which is not, it is crystal clear that viruses can be transmitted through common cup per academic source given. If there are other pathways of transmission (through bread etc) it is irrelevant to the discussion, since at the article we are discussing the debate on common cup. Ktrimi991, I am not very willing to use your source, since it is not the very best available. I prefer academic sources than newspapers. But I think it is a last line solution. Cinadon36 08:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Some users are incapable of supporting their opinion, without attacking other users. And then in typical weasel fashion you obliviously attack me repeatedly in you statement repeating the points I have discredited multiple times before. I will not repeat them again to rebut you useless argument. You cannot be prosecutor of the cup argument by bringing a source from 1998 to a recent 2020 coronavirus pandemic article, WP:CHERRYPICKING from that paper from 1998 while ignoring its flaws, to present a point that other editors here told you is irrelevant, since all cups are transmitters, not only the holy cup, as Blueboar told you, and, as Ktrimi told you, his source says an equivalent thing without the stench of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK. WP:POINT, and WP:POV. I repeat again: if others follow your POV, COATRACK etc., methodology, they will be bringing into this specialist article about Greece rebuttals from unrelated sources not only for the holy cup but also for the bread of the holy communion, the gold-plated spoon and its antiviral properties and/or transmissibility problems, the hands of the priest, etc.. It will be a COATRACKING SYNTH OR party. Also, your peculiar POV that newspapers are not RS but any flawed and irrelevant paper from 1998 making a useless argument against the holy cup, rather than all cups, is better, is something you have done multiple times before and you were successfully rebutted before on wiki. This is an ongoing problem but it is yours and not mine. Ktrimi's source is both relevant and excellent. You should learn from him. And make no mistake: Ktrimi's source is not mere RS. It also carries the verdict of professional medical bodies in Greece expressing their concerns regarding the stance of the GOC. The opinion of these bodies is both expert and relevant to the present crisis in Greece, unlike your homemade OR SYNTH CHERRYPICK POV job using the irrelevant 1998 source. Dr. K. 12:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Wikilawering as well. Not that it was not expected. Trying to initiate a battle among users so no third users jump in. Happened many times before, I wont bite the above nonsense and fallacious arguments. As for " flawed and irrelevant paper from 1998" --> just for laughs. Highlights that you are unfamiliar with RS. As for Ktrimi991, I have learned a lot from him, as he opposed many POV edits of yours, but this time it is different. His source fails WP:MEDRS, so it can not support the claim that "viruses can be transmitted through the common cup". It can only yield an attributed statement that wont be WP VOICE, as needed. Respecting someone, does not mean that I have to share the same opinion. Cinadon36 14:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that you have revealed yourself as having no WP:CLUE or reading skills, since you have not addressed any of the valid points that I raised and also managed to misread or misrepresent what I wrote about Ktrimi, I can finally rest my case. As far as your silly WP:NPA of wikilawyering, just talking to you has been a monumental WP:WASTEOFTIME as usual. Finally, your comment Highlights that you are unfamiliar with RS., is a base WP:NPA that crosses over to rank stupidity. I have nothing to prove to you about RS. Dr. K. 14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It s you that you are totally Clueless, saying that the article by CDC is flawned. If my comment crossed the rank of stupidity, it might match yours. You have to prove that the article is "flawed and irrelevant", as you, incorrectly and hilariously, claimed. Cinadon36 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You have resorted to copying my arguments and adopting them as your replies. I guess you have put your own mind in a state of suspension. Please try to think on your own. Dr. K. 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You failed to explain why the sentence is RS or irrelevant to the topic.Cinadon36 17:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The only failure here is yours. You have persistently failed to listen to multiple editors on this thread, including me. Dr. K. 18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to reply when the proposed text in the article is not provided and neither is the source. It appears the information is intended to be use as part of an implicit criticism of a church. However any criticism must be sourced and cannot be implied, otherwise it violates OR. We can't say for example that Donald Trump was born in New York, the home of Son of Sam. While it is true, we would be making an implicit statement not supported by sources. TFD (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces From an editorial standpoint, I can get what you're trying to say (a single hanging sentence to say that was not great, there were other sources that would have been better... etc.), but the criticism was outright and explicit in the main part of the section. Cinadon's version: Despite the coronavirus outbreak, the Church of Greece announced that the Holy Communion, in which churchgoers eat pieces of bread soaked in wine from the same chalice, will continue as a practice.[30] The Holy Synod stated that the Holy Communion "cannot be the cause of the spread of illness", with Metropolitan Seraphim saying that the wine was without blemish because it represented the blood and body of Christ, and that "whoever attends Holy Communion is approaching God, who has the power to heal".[30] Attendance is especially high in the coming holiday season among the most elderly Greeks.[31] <PARA> The Church's stance prompted bitter criticism from the opposition Syriza party, with former health minister Pavlos Polakis asking "How can we halt gatherings such as the carnival, and allow people in churches to drink out of the same spoon?" and former leftist prime minister Alexis Tsipras blasting the church stance as "anti-scientific, anachronistic and a threat to public health".[32] ... Viral or bacterial infectious diseases can be transmitter from a common communion cup.[34]. There are better ways to say that, but that was the result of the ongoing fight about the section ........ Annnnnnnnd while we're talking "implicit" criticism, what about the implicit "praise"/"defence"? We have In a statement in early March 2020, the governing Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece encouraged sick worshippers to "temporarily stay away from mass gatherings and avoid kisses and embraces."[41] -- well I did not remove this because it would be seen as POV-pushing but note that although this is indeed a case of the Church doing the right thing (placed in a section of criticism so as to mitigate it) this is also straying from the crux of the issue: which is criticism of the specific Church policy of proceeding with the Holy Communion as traditionally done (one priest, wine from same cup, same spoon) and issuing statements about the cup/wine being safe because it's Jesus blood/body, which are condemned as irresponsible by lefty politicians/medical professionals/scientists (the topic is not if people who already know they are sick should kiss/embrace/come to church -- no one has disputed they should not). now waiting to be attacked, meep --Calthinus (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether this section was weight for inclusion, but if it did this is how I would enter it. Start by mentioning the criticism by Tsipras, mentioning who he is, i.e., the former left-wing PM. Then provide the church's response. Paraphrase rather than use direct quotes. Mention the church response. Don't juxtapose different statements by them to imply they are being hypocritical. If Tsipras says they are of course then you can mention that. But if he didn't remember that Tsipras is a skilled politician who doesn't need our help in defending his positions. TFD (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting idea but I'm not sure it's DUE to elevate the critique by Tsipras above that of Polakis, or OENGE, or "scientists and doctors", or the right-wing-you-know-national-leader-boss-guy Mitsotakis as you see here [[18]]. Although I think I might have been the one to originally introduce Tsipras as a lefty, I'm not sure that his left-ness is even relevant here especially after Mitsotakis' statement.--Calthinus (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, there is a recent article at Efsyn, (Efsyn is a RS greek newspaper), that tells that coronavirus can be transmitted through the common cup. That article cites the 1998 academic article. So there is someone that tells "Donald Trump was born in New York, the home of Son of Sam." Cinadon36 06:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion has gone beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I think we are all agreed that it is NOT original research to mention that the virus can be transmitted via the communion cup (plenty of sources have noted this... both in Greek and in English). The question is whether it is Due weight to mention it... and there is a separate noticeboard for discussing that issue. May I suggest that you take it to the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's not the issue, Blueboar. If there are sources about the cup in Greek or in English mentioning the cup in conjunction with the 2020 pandemic it is ok to mention this in the article. The issue here is if a source from 1998 can be used to add this to the 2020 pandemic article in the absence of any modern sources making that connection specifically about the Greek church. Dr. K. 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be WP:SYNTH. Khirurg (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The text as it was with the source that was used is unquestionably original research / synthesis. This is a very straightforward call. As mentioned, there are many aspects to communion in which an infection could hypothetically be transmitted. The details of the risk are going to vary by practice, by the specific disease in question, and by the demographics of the congregation. This sounds complicated, and one might wonder how to know what matters most, and how great the risk is. But the proper approach for Wikipedia editors is very simple: let the sources do that part, and simply report what they say. Fishing for information from 22 years ago to rebut a claim made today about a disease that didn't exist two years ago is completely inappropriate. When an editor writes "infectious diseases can be transmitted from a common communion cup.[34]" in an article about covid19, they are implying that source [34] is relevant to covid19. If it is not, then it is the editor drawing a conclusion, not the source. And finally, what makes this whole debate ridiculous to begin with is that there is no absence of sources that are about covid19 and make similar points. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is utterly unacceptable to use a 1998 article as a reference regarding a novel coronavirus discovered in December, 2019. Focusing on a specific religious ritual seems like undue weight to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Why is it unacceptable to use a 1998 article? Note that the discussion sparked from the novel coranavirus, but it is not about Coronaviruses, the debate is whether viruses or bacteria can be transmitted through the Cup. Church's opinion is that no bacteria/viruses can be transmitted, while 1998 article states something different.Cinadon36 15:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Someguy1221 Coronaviruses did existed 22 years ago, and we as wikipedians can not dismiss a study that has been published. Moreover, when the author is not presenting his work, but the work of other scientists. As I have said earlier, there is a newspaper article that makes the connection [19] between COVID19 and CCC, and it is citing the 1998 American Journal of Infection Control's article Cinadon36 07:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is original research for any editor to write that this novel virus is the same in this specific regard as the earlier viruses described in the literature, and therefore sources published before December, 2019 should be excluded from this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The author of the newspaper article made the conclusion. You get to cite the newspaper. You don't get to cite the newspaper's sources if they would not be allowed otherwise. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I have also read the 1998 article and it practically says the same thing, which is also, Common Sense. Anyway, I will wait for a while to see if there are no objections, and I will add the sentence citing the newspaper article. Cinadon36 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No, "common sense" is that time works in only one direction in this particular universe. I assume that it's the same where you are? --Calton | Talk 09:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328, especially after I saw the proposal to use the article on the Greek newspaper efsyn as a trojan to refer to the cup. Focusing on the cup to the exclusion of the many other components of the holy communion would be UNDUE, especially in this case, because the proposed source in the newspaper article by efsyn is actually criticising the 1998 research paper in several aspects. We cannot use that article and focus on the cup without also mentioning the extensive criticism of the paper for that 1998 article and its comments viz. the cup transmissibility. Doing so will overwhelm the religious section of the Greek pandemic article on wiki and it will defacto convert it to a controversy section about the cup, making it confusing and very much WP:UNDUE. This is the link to the proposed source about the cup sentence. You can use Google translate to evaluate its findings. Dr. K. 12:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Heh. Well this paragraph is pretty impressively non-neutral. "Prompted bitter criticism," "blasting the church stance"...? I mean really? Are we writing for an encyclopedia or for TMZ? GMG^talk 13:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent find GMG. It actually shows the OP adding the CREDENTIAL intensifier "medical doctor" to a critic of the Greek Church so as to enhance his criticism against GOC. The intensifier did not exist in the source. Dr. K. 13:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• For your convenience, I add here, in quote form, the findings of the Greek newspaper as translated by Google:

Specifically, the bibliography referred to is a 480-word public letter from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), written in 1998. The publication is not a product of a research process, but the adoption of earlier studies. It even contains bibliographical references of 1943 and 1967 1 . Its main reference is based on earlier research, in which a sample of 681 people of various ages was examined as to whether or not they attended church meetings and whether or not they received a "divine congregation" 2 .

Although the results are clear regarding the transport of germs through the sacred vessels, the researchers did not find an increased risk of transmission to the population using the implements of the holly communion. But this study has a number of methodological problems.

Initially, the period of sampling is not clearly stated. Viruses also have seasonal characteristics, with winter living conditions favoring transmission due to closer contact indoors and their poor ventilation. Still, personal hygiene becomes more neglected than in the summer months.

Researchers also did not study how rituals take place. The Catholics do not associate with the forceps from the common glass / mug and the priest places the unleavened unleavened bread, Ostia, in the mouth of the faithful, thereby reducing exposure to saliva. Finally, the investigation was conducted at a time when there was no outbreak or epidemic in the US. Even the spread of "bird flu" was then limited to Asia, Africa and Europe.

.

To me, it looks like a very flawed paper to base any short of conclusions about the cup, especially in this Greece-related article and about the Greek Church rituals. Dr. K. 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You as a Wikipedian can not disqualify a scientific document, based on your reasoning. You ought to refer to another scientific publication in order to dismiss it. Cinadon36 15:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is statements like this that make me question your ability to understand what I wrote. Dr. K. 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems that there is a lack of understanding of scientific papers.Cinadon36 15:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's worse than that. You don't seem able to understand what people are telling you. Dr. K. 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the blue link a link to your personal user page? Because the claim reflects your comments. Calthinus explained many times why you are super wrong. You should watch his words, you might learn something Cinadon36 16:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You failed to read even Calthinus's words just below. He said to you he is involved in this as you are. Why do you choose to listen only to an involved editor, and not to many uninvolved editors who disagree with you? Dr. K. 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You failed once more to understand the comment you are citing. Calthinus is clear that it is not Synth, but yet, you still point at his comment! Cinadon36 16:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You just verified that you are unable to understand the written word. Dr. K. 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cinadon36 As I said before -- this isn't worth it. Yes the 1998 article is RS but others are right that using it for the 2020 epidemic is not really correct (is it SYNTH? No, juxtaposition, but that doesn't make it good to use). Blueboar is also correct that the better place would have been the NPOV board, though frankly it is better st this point if all four invested parties-- me, you, Khi, DK -- simply disengage from the section. News about the matter is all over the place now that Mitsotakis stepped in and then the same issue cropped up in Australia -- eventually others may rewrite the section, and if so that rewrite will be done without being poisoned by independent editor conflicts, which are disruptive. It is what it is. --Calthinus (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Calthinus, gland to hear that is not SYNTH. The term Synth was used as a a part of wikilawyerism, I suppose. Cinadon36 15:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you see the comments of the other editors telling you it is blatant OR and SYNTH? Dr. K. 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have seen users explaining that it is not SYNTH, did you missed that? Cinadon36 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You are deep in WP:IDHT and WP:HORSE territory at this point. Drop the stick. Enough already. Khirurg (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

after having read through this, I would agree w/ Khirurg--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems.
It's as much about NOR as NPoV matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Map/Satellite Imagery consultation

If a governmental source describes that a feature is at a specific location and is of particular character (a lake, a village, or whatever) and it does not appear on a map consulted at that location (whether map is printed or a google maps), is it OR to conclude the source is in error? If the satellite imagery shows no water (if it's a lake) or buildings (if it's a settlement), is it OR to conclude the source is in error? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that great care must be taken here and in general I would think its OR to conclude that the source is in error. Thee are just too many possibilities other than source error which would be hard to rule out. Settlements may be historical or in the case of heavily forested or underdeveloped regions indiscernible in satellite imagery. Likewise waterbodies may be seasonal so for example so some imagery will have a lake and some will have a meadow. There is also the possibility of errors in the imagery/coordinate synch itself, especially for mountainous and/or high latitude regions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Using quotes from religious texts in articles as examples without reliable sources

I'm in a dispute at Kafir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with new editor TomReagan90. Souniel Yadav inserted a quote from the Quran[20] which I reverted with the edit summary "editors shouldn't cherry-pick quotes from religious texts but find reliable sources discussing them and use the source, not the quote". TomReagan90, who I've only encountered before at Talk:Grace Blakeley, showed up and reverted me[21] with an edit summary "disagree. quote is illustrative and precisely in context". Knowing this editor has only just over 20 edits I assumed that they didn't understand our policies and guidelines saying "Sorry, but you are new and don't yet understand our policies and guidelines" and they replaced the quote saying "in my reading, it refer exactly to the secondary sources above and below it. what "policies and guidelines" are you referring to???". Given the discussion at the Grace Blakeley talk page I don't think this editor is interested in my opinion, so I'm bringing this here for uninvolved editors to comment. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. We should not be pulling in quotes from any religious text without stated relevance from third-party sources. I would call the inclusion without a reliable source backing up its use directly as WP:SYNTH. It's like leading off our article on WWII with a quote like George Santayana's "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." without any other attribution. --Masem (t) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that User:Jmcgnh mentioned MOS:ISLAMOR at User talk:Souniel Yadav#Reliable source? and that relates to this edit I believe. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd think that would apply across the board for any religious text. But that absolutely applies too. --Masem (t) 15:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Some guidance at WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes Doug Weller that is how I got the idea (I thought the verse from the Quran was self explanatory - the previous sentence mentioned Hell). Now please let me know how to quote that text in a way that is acceptable (I am sure you will help me avoid repeating the mistake). Thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's the wrong question. The correct question would be to ask what secondary reliable sources say about the topic, and what quotes do they consider to be representative and possibly warranted for inclusion in an article here. The whole point of an editor choosing a quote is that would allow quote mining aka cherry picking aka original research. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

So Johnuniq, what do secondary reliable sources say about the topic, and what quotes do they consider to be representative and possibly warranted for inclusion in the Kafir article? I did not revert Doug Weller and do not want any edit war either!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In this section of the article, there is a sentence, Most passages in the Quran referring to unbelievers in general talk about their fate on the day of judgement and destination in hell and I just want to add this quotation from the Quran after that:

"Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."^{[Quran 98:6]}

—Souniel Yadav (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

So how should it be done RegentsPark?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The easy answer is "don't quote". If you absolutely must for your sanity, then find a reliable source that says "blah blah does blah blah and we can see this in the quote blah blah blah". If you can't find a source that makes that explicit connection, just say no. I noticed a few more places where you've been throwing in quranic quotes and you probably want to remove them before you get into trouble. Directly quoting religious texts to support your own point of view is a definite no-no. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Original Research Allegations by Jeff6045

Jeff6045 has been using original research allegations to revert my edits, which I do not think is original research. I cited academic books and peer-reviewed journals for my edits, but they were reverted by Jeff6045, who claims that these edits are original research. I would like some informed advice and opinion on whether these original research allegations made by Jeff6045 are in compliance with WP:OR.

Edit 1. [22] Revert 1 based on OR allegation. [23]

Edit 2. [24] Revert 2 based on OR allegation. [25]

Edit 3. [26] Revert 3 based on OR allegation. [27]

Excuse me, you have deleted well sourced items due to your own view, this is a completly original research. Also you have used same sources to describe the hankyoreh and chosunilbo's political alignmnet which I think it has no relevant. I suggest you to read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV better. Thank you.

ps: Please don't forget to sign your comment. Jeff6045 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Contents of a background section is OR?

Specific case is the Background section of Christchurch mosque shootings, which goes into the issues of white supremacy and Muslim population of New Zealand at the time before the attack. There have been a few people on the talk page that believe that this section is very much original research because it is not material specifically discussed in conjunction with the attack and is being used to created a narrative, as well as a reliance on primary sources (as is seen by the current tags). Fresh pairs of eyes to judge if there's an issue here would help. --Masem (t) 14:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The way it is presented is OR because it implies this information is relevant to the case. It would be better to have an analysis section which directly cites opinion that it is relevant. TFD (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump

Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs more eyes — article is packed with off-topic material in the OR/SYNTH/PRIMARY vein, including material on the 1970s oil crisis, the Paris Agreement, the Obama administration, etc., including citations to many sources that make little or no mention of Trump. Neutrality^talk 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, I'd have thought that article should be really short. He doesn't seem to have any discernible policy on anything other than his wall and undoing Obama's legacy. Guy (help!) 21:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG: I certainly agree that we need some editors to take a weedwacker to the article to make some appropriate cuts... Neutrality^talk 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: That's what I thought, too, before I started researching the topic to write the article. If this is something that interests you, please read it in full. Nerd271 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Juneau County Wisconsin COVID-19 inaccuracies

It is being reported that Juneau County, Wisconsin has 265 positive COVID-19. Juneau County currently has 7 positive and 223 have been tested as of 4/16/20.

"Is being reported" where? In the article on COVID-19 in Wisconsin, the table of this writing states Juneau County has seen seven positive tests with one death, which matches the numbers from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. If you mean there's an error elsewhere, please specify where. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition of genetics in 2 articles appears to be OR

Canaan (son of Ham)[28], Hamites[29]. I've been reverted and my attempt to explain the issue to User:7Lybia7 seems to have failed. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• The userr was blocked on the 24th as a sock puppet of HansFüller (talk · contribs). Nothing more to do here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Page: Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is a disagreement about how to interpret the following:

"At this point in time, Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls." The author provides a chart comparing percentage of news stories "mentioning Sanders" and his percentage in the polls. So for example when he was polling at 25% he was mentioned in 25% of news articles. (Identity Crisis, p. 105)[30]

Are the authors implying that this comparison this is how we determine if a candidate has been sufficiently covered or are they merely observing that as Sanders climbed in to polls, he was mentioned more often?

I am surprised that the mentions of Sanders was not higher. I don't know how someone could write about the Democratic primaries, which became a two person race between Clinton and Sanders, without mentioning both candidates.

TFD (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no disagreement about interpretation. The authors' findings are near-verbatim stated in the Wikipedia article, so the article just reflects RS. What this is about is you insisting that you know better than a peer-reviewed Princeton University Press book (PUP is the top academic press in political science) by John Sides (of Vanderbilt University), Lynn Vavreck (of UCLA) and Michael Tesler (of UC Irvine), all of whom are recognized experts. It's beyond me why you're bringing this to this noticeboard, as the book itself can't violate WP:NOR. Snooganssnoogans (talk)

To me this seems very similar to several other arguments on the content of this article, where one side is raising concerns about how the content will be interpreted by the reader, and (correct me if I'm wrong) the other side counters that they are literal quotes (from respectable sources), and therefore reader interpretation of it is implicitly a non-issue. Following an initial AFD, the article has been plagued with arm-wrestling over what constitues NPOV, in which the editors who advocated for deletion are currently dominant.

Regarding this issue, I think TFD makes a salient point – to me it automatically reads like "25% in polling merits coverage in 25% of presidential race news," which quite obviously isn't reasonable since multiple candidates can be mentioned in the same segment. Selvydra (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I didn't question the source, I questioned its use. Using it to imply a conclusion that the authors did not make is implicit OR. The issue of reliability is a red herring. TFD (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

When I first read the article, I indeed interpreted the statement "Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls" as meaning he received more coverage than his share in the national polls would apparently warrant. In light of TFD's elaboration that share of coverage apparently refers to a certain number of mentions of Sanders in news coverage when he was one of two contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2016, I doubt that interpretation was correct. The authors may make this statement verbatim, yet the meaning of "share of news coverage" may be unclear. Are the authors actually telling us Bernie Sanders' share of news coverage was disproportionately greater than his poll numbers warranted? Unfortunately I don't have access to the book. If yes, the statement is fine. If no, then it seems obviously problematic to reproduce the statement without any context. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the authors say he was the beneficiary of disproportionately much media coverage, given where he stood in the polls. See also this Monkey Cage post by one of the authors of the book[31] if you can't access the book. TFD is not a political scientist and has no idea what he's talking about. There's absolutely nothing that supports his argument that the data is flawed and measures nothing of importance (the fact that the data fluctuates over time on its own disproves his argument). It would be lunacy to add TFD's "context" to the Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, based on the Monkey Cage post, I believe the author is explicitly comparing the proportion of Sanders' media coverage to his "chances of winning" the primary, not the poll numbers directly. For example, he compares Sanders' proportion of news coverage with his chances of winning, which he says at one point were about 1 in 12. It seems his view is something like if Sanders has a 1/12 chance of winning, he deserves 1/12 the coverage. To be frank, I'm not a political scientist but I find that strange. Still, if that's what the book says and it's a reliable source, fine. But perhaps the phrasing used should be clearer: above we see people reading the sentence as "25% in polling merits coverage in 25% of presidential race news" whereas the author's argument seems to be 25% in polling, with 1/12 chance of winning, deserves 1/12 of the news coverage. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the logic is that the media gives coverage of the candidates based on how likely they are to win, and polling is the primary way to gauge that. It is aberrational to expect that the media give equal amounts of coverage to Joe Biden and Deval Patrick when one candidate was obviously more likely to win the Democratic nomination. The analysis by Sides et al. in the book is that Sanders's coverage far exceeded his standing in the polls in 2015, but was generally linked to his polling for the entire campaign. It would be an example of media bias if Sanders' polling (and chances to win the nomination) would increase but the media would not similarly increase coverage of him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is you're directly identifying polling with chances of winning in a way that the author does not: for example above you write it "would be an example of media bias if Sanders' polling (and chances to win the nomination) would increase but the media would not similarly increase coverage of him." But Sanders' polling numbers went up as his chances of winning went down (he became much more popular but Hillary had already won most of the primaries as the contest dragged on so his chances went down; that's obvious from the actual polling numbers for 2015 and 2016: see RealClearPolitics polls). That's why I think it makes more sense to talk about the author's comparison of media coverage to Sanders' chances of winning, rather than his polling; the author's argument is less straightforward than might be assumed otherwise. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I know what you're getting and I agree that your take on the implications of Sides' analysis is correct but in both the book and in that op-ed, the connection is most clearly to the polling. If we were to explicitly link it to chances of winning, it'd be WP:OR, in part because we'd be piecing together that Sides op-ed with the peer-reviewed book's analysis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please quote the section in your journalism 100 class that says that if someone polls 40% that they have a 40% chance of winning and should be mentioned in 40% of the articles about the primary election? does that mean that the front-runner scoring 60% in the polls only has a 60% chance of winning and should only be mentioned in 60% of the stories? Was Hillary Clinton really only mentioned 60% of the time in articles about the primary that she was leading? If so, I'll learn something I didn't know. TFD (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cory Booker has a 0% chance of winning the election, but there he is. Kamala Harris, slightly above zero. Pete Buttigieg, the flightless bird, "just wants to be useful". Clearly something fishy with this premise. As a former journalist, I don't recall even learning math in college. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I try to compare and contrast DVD/liner-note narrative on "Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon"

I've attempted repeatedly in my article to draw attention to discrepancies between the DVD film narrative and what the liner notes say about it. I originally--and stupidly--failed to reference my 2 sources, and overtly asserted that the liner notes disagreed in key areas with the narrative as laid out in the film. After repeated arguments over whether saying the obvious constituted "original research", I changed tactics. I made a point of referencing my sources (It's been a long while since my last major article edit, so I was a little rusty on the rules about documentation), and, instead of asserting a difference, I instead explicitly compared and contrasted key points in the liner notes with info mentioned in the earlier "Narrative" section. I was simply showing what each "source" said, side by side, and letting readers do any inferring. That's OK, right? I've seen other articles "compare and contrast" sources and versions of stories without explicitly inferring a "difference" and those things haven't been erased.

Why is my text still being reverted? Is the mere intention of highlighting the differences unacceptable? Or is it simply that those differences unimportant or irrelevant? If it's the latter, I can accept that and move on. I do not accept, that simply doing a compare-and-contrast of referenced sources constitutes OR.

(Personally, I don't think that when a source, figuratively, says "2, and 2 more", then I can't say "4". Simple intellectual "arithmetic" (not to be confused with literal arithmetic) isn't OR. (??) Making an inference when there's a reasonable case for a different conclusion clearly IS, though. But I don't run this show. Maybe there's no room for "common sense" here.)(The previous aside isn't that important; bottom line: Can I use compare-and-contrast to implicitly make a case without saying so? I think readers have a right to know if the liner notes are "accurate".)

PS. I'd like to personally SHOW you what I said that was reverted, but I haven't mastered getting to recent previous article versions, so I can't. If you're not willing to check the article history itself, then at least address the theoretical issue raised here. ("Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon"; I keep trying to spell it right but I can't directly link to the article myself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the article: The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon. RG has made a number of edits to the article, not only adding the liner notes comparison; this is an early version (also including the addition of a plot summary, which is not what is under discussion), this is what I think RG refers to as the "referenced" version (correct me if I am wrong – and note that RG also made some minor edits following this one), and this is another version of the same, the most recent one, and I think the revert of that one is what directly caused this NORN report. There are a couple of other versions of the "compare and contrast" bullet points that have been added and removed, as well, so for the full context you may have to look at the edit history for today. Three different editors have reverted the content, per WP:OR. There is also quite a bit of discussion at Talk:The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon, some of it quite repetitive in nature. I have been involved in the discussion, and in reverting/rewriting some of RG's edits. --bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The "...and this is what I think RG..." link above refers to my "preferred" version (only with the second ref name="liner note"/ tag syntax-corrected and the "cite error" replaced with a proper ref name="dvd" tag)! As you can see, it makes no explicit "arguments" about the reliability of the liner notes; it just presents what the notes say and what the film says. Readers can infer whatever they want. That seems perfectly legitimate under the OR guidelines. (I see no need for an "outside" source's commentary on the liner-note content, which as sourced speaks for itself.) If there's a non-OR argument for why readers' aren't served by knowing about key differences, that's another game--and I'm flexible. In any case, the "Disclaimer" section should be restored, as it concerns the film, not the liner notes.RobertGustafson (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment There have now been ten separate topics initiated today at Talk:The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon by this editor, all seemingly revolving around whether one editor can nitpic (I dare not say 'split hairs') over their desire to include in Wikipedia a curious fact that they have spotted a discrepancy between their copy of a DVD's liner notes and the actual plot of a film. Who is to say that they had a very early imprint, and many tens of thousands subsequently circulated are all perfectly correct? Who is to say that the discrepancy is in every single DVD copy ever produced? The answer to both these questions is RELIABLE and SECONDARY sources, and not this editor! Whilst applauding all editors' desires to improve articles, Wikipedia doesn't need people who spot trivial errors to list them in articles unless the world at large had taken note of them. Similarly, mentioning disclaimers about 'no animals were hurt in the making of this film' were totally unnecessary unless there was previously a public outcry and accusations that this film wascruel to animals. If independent film and video journalists have discussed these and other issues at length, then clearly they might then be relevant to the article. But what seems to be under discussion here is whether what RobertGustafson wants to insert into this film article is, or is not, WP:OR. I think it most definitely is, and also that it is WP:UNDUE and potentially damaging to an otherwise straightforward encyclopaedia article. The inclusion of this type of content should not be encouraged. Bonadea and Marchjuly have both tried to tell them this already. I am now adding my voice to concur. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not OR to simply list what 2 sources say side by side and let readers draw their own conclusions about their consistency. Nevertheless, a valid point is raised about whether the differences are consequential, as it has occurred to me that there may be many DVDs whose liner notes don't perfectly match what's in the film, for a variety of reasons. Noting the discrepancies, unless they're extreme or particularly unusual, might create a sense of "sinisterness" on the part of the film producers or distributors, and I don't want to imply that. There is also raised a valid point about the disclaimer, as almost all films using live animal actors have similar disclaimers. I only thought it worthy of inclusion because they made a point of mentioning the "realism" in the fight and interaction scenes in their disclaimer. I will let all of this go, in the light on Nick Moyes' comments. I still maintain that my most recent contensted edits, which contained no explicit assertions or unsourced material, did not constitute "original research", as that requires making an explicit conclusion or assertion. It's possible that my original edits--which clearly were in improper style--tainted the discussion, but it is possible to implicity make a point without saying so in an encyclopedia article, so long as the "evidence" is reliable and complete. It's like being a lawyer examining a witness; the lawyer (editor) can only ask questions, and the witness (source) must do the assertions. An editor is a journalist, not a detective--and I believed that while I initially played the latter, I since successfully moved to the former. The issue at hand at this time should be the most recent contested edits, not the earlier ones. All the same, Nick Moyes' raised valid non-OR reasons--particularly the issue of "undue weight" with relatively "trivial" items--for omitting liner-note references and the disclaimer, and I will not attempt to restore them. It is possible that a drive to be "accurate" can lead to saying too much, as readers don't need to know everything--particular that which they can figure out for themselves. I consider the matter closed.RobertGustafson (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

PS. I take it that some of my critics believe that if article content ostensibly conforms to the rules, but its intent does not, then it's equally illegitimate. That if sourced material--even when reliable and complete--is presented so as to imply a conclusion, it's inappropriate even when the conclusion is unstated. I can see how that might violate NPOV, but to say that it's OR when no unsourced claims are explicitly made is a very slippery slope. I also see how simply referring to a primary source's contents when there's no external commentary about them, might render them trivial and therefore unworthy of inclusion. Valid point. But to argue that merely implying an inference without saying it constitutes "synthesis" is debatable. You all have raised legitimate reasons for omitting the disclaimer and discussion of the liner notes (I won't edit them back in), but I believe that the original complaint (OR) has been neutralized by my subsequent edits, even if the result still didn't pass Wiki muster for other reasons. Thank you, Nick Moyes, for raising other issues to my attention; they certainly have merit. (Maybe "Verifiability, not truth" really means "Separate confirmation, not truth"--as anything relying on a PRIMARY source is arguably "verifiable"?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs)

A gentle reminder from a passerby: Wiki editors are not journalists. Also, what Nick Moyes and others are saying is that positioning one referenced source next to another in a way obvious enough for readers to make your desired inference, even if its not explicit, is absolutely synthesis and not merely juxtaposition: if these statements were instead inserted into the article an arbitrary distance apart, would readers come to the exact same conclusion? The second issue, which you have acknowledged, relates to why you haven't been able to find an independent source that points out the discrepancy: it is just not notable (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTE) enough to be covered. I think the best way to broadcast what you have found is to make an IMDB account and note it there. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR Thank you for agreeing not to reinsert this material, RobertGustafson. Might I also note your inappropriate use of quotation marks in your posts above? This matters not one jot in talk pages, but their use is quite unacceptable in mainspace articles unless used for a direct and clear quotation. I have already corrected your misuse of double quotation from this article, but I see in today's edits you have put them all back in again. Please read our manual of style (MOS:QUOTEMARKS), remove them again, and adjust your future article-editing habits accordingly.  (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is standard English--in both US and UK--to use the same kind of quotation marks for direct quotation, and ironic "so-called" phrases as used here. Are you saying that Wikipedia has its own rules of grammar, which are different than those of contemporary literature? BTW, many of the "corrected" uses are direct quotations, even if minor ones. (Upon further reading, I found that Wiki frowns on "scare quotes"--quotes for irregular contextualization--even though they're ubiquitous in books. I don't think the "Plot" section includes any [all I remember as being used in the film]. I did use it in the "Cast" section to indicate the the "live dog 'actors'" are actual canines, not humans [as "actor" implies] or CGI characters.)RobertGustafson (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. I am saying that Wikipedia has one style guide, with multiple subsections in order to iron out individual's personal preferences for writing around the globe. You should read it. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS for the relevant bit. I have had to change quite a few things here that go completely against what I learned at school and university in order to help create an encyclopaedia with one universal style across all its pages. Unless you're quoting something with a citation, please don't treat it as if it were a quotation, as the reader will simply not 'know'. Also: different publishing organisations have slightly different style guides they expect editors to follow; we have one too. See WP:MOS. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished descents

A descent, in this sense, is a chronological list of the owners of a piece of property, particularly a manor or large estate. In England the published Victoria County Histories (VCH) contain many descents, and these form the basis of some of our articles on the subject, e.g. Manor of Totteridge (see ref no 1); Hawkwood, London (see ref no 1). Descents are also published elsewhere, in historical journals etc., and these would obviously also be good reliable sources.

Most estates have passed through several families over the centuries and the details are often complicated by imperfect records, legal disputes etc., so that a correct descent can be difficult to work out (that's why people still write papers on them). My question, then, is - should we be publishing the descent of a manor/estate when one has not already been published by a reliable source?

Although many English counties have volumes of the VCH containing descents that can form the basis of content in our articles, Devon is one that does not (see Victoria County History#Dormant counties). Wikipedia does, however, have many articles that include detailed descents of manors and estates in Devon. Rather than these being based on other reliable sources that describe an entire descent, they have been pieced together from various sources such as the family pedigrees published by J.L Vivian in 1895 (see John Lambrick Vivian#Visitations of Devon); 300-year-old sources such as William Pole (antiquary)'s Collections... and Tristram Risdon's Survey...; Debrett's, Burke's, etc.; and various websites, newspapers, magazine articles and similar. For examples, see Manor of Bicton, Spridleston, Painsford, Ashprington. More are in Category:Former manors in Devon and Category:Historic estates in Devon.

Is this original research/synthesis?  —SMALLJIM  19:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I should point of that I recall having disagreements with Lobster at Holnicote Estate and The Grange, Broadhembury some years ago. I don't intend to go over these other articles with a fine-toothed comb (which is what they need, because I am sure any problems are complex and mixed in with valuable content), so I will offer a few cursory remarks.

Having just looked over Spridleston, it seems in better shape than the Holnicote and Broadhembury articles did in their day, but I notice that there is no bibliography; it is therefore impossible to know what some footnotes refer to. What is "Thorne, R.G.", for instance? What is Vivian? (I mean this rhetorically; I am not directing this at you Smalljim). We only use abbreviated footnotes if we have a separate bibliography with all the books cited. It is not difficult to write out a book name in full, and we owe it to our readers to provide this. A good amount of material is uncited as well: every fact should be referenced to a scholarly, reliable source.

To the question of OR and synthesis, I notice that a translation of the 13th-century Feudal Aids has been used to cite one of the holders of the manor; this is a primary source. In addition, Pole is used a lot. I have serious reservations about whether a 17th-century source can be a secondary source for our purposes; using them requires care and becomes an act of critical scholarship which is not appropriate for Wikipedia; that should not be happening here and we probably should not be citing those sources as facts either. Similarly, is Vivian's work a transcription of the herald's visitations (of the 16th and 17th centuries)? I am doubtful about whether Wikipedia is the place for material like that; we should really only report on descents if they have been traced by a modern scholar and published in a secondary source of some sort.

Additionally, the lack of scholarly treatment given elsewhere to the whole descent of (e.g.) Spridleston means that the descents in these articles are (a) partial and (b) synthetic. How useful is a potted history of a manor? Can they be called notable under WP:N?

There is also a lot of extraneous detail which, along with the structure and layout, makes these articles feel unencyclopedic. Material should be prosified; this should summarise information; there is no need to mention wives or their fathers unless they had a direct bearing on the manor itself (the VCH doesn't do this and they will be more detailed than we are? This is not an article about the families, but the ownership of the manor); do we need the heraldry, the map of other possessions? We certainly don't need block quotes of Latin. Do we need headings for every family? (IMO, descents should look and read like this, which is much more encyclopedic).

To round off, the lack of a VCH project for Devon is a real shame (I feel the equivalent absence in Lincolnshire, one of my editing areas), but Wikipedia is not a place to build a substitute. It will be interesting to hear whether anyone else offers comments here. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. You've highlighted other problems with these articles: very poor referencing, inappropriate use of ancient sources, excessive off-topic content (tending towards coatrackiness), and WP:MOS issues. I agree with all of them and it's a shame that wikignomes always have to clean up the mess. But overlaying all this is the question of original research.

As WP:SYN states "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. For Spridleston (which is nothing more than a descent of the manor), we have Thorn cited for 'Domesday book' and part of 'Ferrers'; Feudal Aids for 'Ferrers'; Pole for 'de Spridleston' and some of 'Fortescue'; Risdon for some of 'Fortescue', 'Inglett-Fortescue' and some of 'Lane'; Vivian and Burke for other parts of 'Fortescue'; Thorne R.G.(?) for 'Inglett-Fortescue'; Burke for other bits of 'Lane', and also Lysons for 'Lane'... Well tl;dr, I guess - but the important fact is that no reliable source has tied all these sources into one published descent. It's not just "A and B, therefore C" here, but "A and B and C and D ... therefore Z". We are the first place to publish a descent of Spridleston (and many other manors/estates too) and we should not be.

Like you, I'd love to hear some more opinions.  —SMALLJIM  20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, in that case, that is easily verifiable with overlaps on multiple generations, so that you could cite such that Family generations A1 to A19 on K1 kinship line --ref--, family generations A5 to A38 on K1 kinship line --ref--, family generations B1 to B13:A37 on K2 kinship line --ref--. Erkin Alp Güney 20:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC) updated 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that, but doesn't doing so stray into original research territory? - especially when as here, most of the sources being used are over 100 and up to 400 years old. I think Noswall59's comment above that the use of 17th-century sources "requires care and becomes an act of critical scholarship which is not appropriate for Wikipedia" is particularly relevant.  —SMALLJIM  22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR is intended so you cannot do :

1. invent something solely to be written into an encyclopedia (which would be absurd thing to do in the beginning)
2. make up a fact that did not happen as if it happened.

However, uncovering published, but not widely known parts of already published facts is fine for an encyclopedia, as long as we do not invent or make up a fact. Erkin Alp Güney 06:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Except that we also have to consider the reliability of the published sources and their status (primary, secondary...). We must also ensure that we don't analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source (WP:PRIMARY). All these are part of WP:NOR and are particularly relevant to this question.  —SMALLJIM  12:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph that I wrote above ("As WP:SYN states...") is nonsense, isn't it? That process is how we write all our articles and we have no problem with, say, a biography that hasn't already been published.  —SMALLJIM  09:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Lobster's work reminds me of the genealogical approach adopted by the chronicler of my home county, Joseph Bradney. John Newman described his methodology as "out-of-date in its own day", and Bradney was writing in 1904! For me, there are definitely issues around verifiability, notability, reliable sourcing - in particular a reliance on primary sources, our requirement for a summary style and, almost certainly, original research. That said, there's also good stuff in them. What to do about it, if anything, is another question entirely. KJP1 (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there's a definite odour of 19th-century verbosity in many of Devon's articles. I've browsed some of your work, and it's a breath of fresh air - you don't fancy moving down here? The OR is rarely obvious at first glance which is why it's such a problem in obscure little-reviewed articles. It's always been a feature of Lobsterthermidor's editing though and it does get spotted when he edits higher profile articles - he was advised about it by Agricolae as long ago as 2010 (see Talk:Harold Godwinson/Archive 1#Death on Tapestry (again)) and by many other editors since, most recently this from Ealdgyth earlier this month. It's surprising that an editor of ten years standing who's created over 600 articles and has 41,000 edits under his belt should still need to have this explained to him.

I don't know what to do about it either. The only means we have of dealing en-masse with a mixture of good and bad like we have here are WP:CIR and WP:DE - both really heavy processes of last resort. It would help if he would take advice! The existing work will have to be cleaned up by others because he shows no inclination to fix his own problems (or even admit that they exist). But we do need to find some way to ensure that he doesn't continue to create unnecessary work for others and damage the integrity of WP by ignoring its rules.

Returning to my original query, though, it seems that you don't see much of a problem with the creation of descents where they haven't already been published?  —SMALLJIM  23:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Smalljim - Sorry, should have been clearer. I do also agree that unpublished descents, in effect newly-written descents, don't belong on here, in my view. Work of that kind is more akin to investigations/recordings on a genealogy site, which I think this specifically excludes, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, second numbered point, Genealogical entries. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1 - the 'not genealogy' aspect is one that I hadn't thought of and the wording of point 2 of WP:NOTDIR also brings us back to another point you already raised, that of notability. I've been focusing on a different aspect: that manorial descents are subjects deemed worthy of scholarly papers - one on Bagtor (see its Further reading) was published by the Devonshire Association in 2003, for instance. It seems obvious to me that if no-one reliable source has yet written in depth about a topic that would be suitable for a scholarly paper (as descents appear to be), then Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place to publish that information - at least not in greater depth than anything that's already been published on the topic itself - i.e. not on the separate elements (people, families) that make up the topic. Painsford, Ashprington is an example - I don't think there's any full published descent (or history) of that place to base this article on. And look at the original research in some of that article's references (e.g. refs 8, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 35, 38 in the current version) - these are the sort of issues that a scholar should consider. A Wikipedia article is supposed to summarise what's already been written about a topic, not publish it for the first time.  —SMALLJIM  15:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

And I think this answers my moment of doubt above (24 May): the difference from a biography is that the reliable secondary sources used to write a biography are about the topic itself (i.e. the person). Whereas for an unpublished descent, there are no reliable secondary sources for the topic (i.e. the descent), only for elements of it (i.e. the people and families), to which the descent is an incidental aspect, not the main focus.  —SMALLJIM  15:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking for arguments against, the whole of that section reads, "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." If the whole article is in fact just a family tree, I'm not sure what "notable topic" it's supporting. KJP1 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That it is a famous family? It is not Wikipedia's job to make some people more famous than they need be, though. Erkin Alp Güney 07:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

erkinalp9035 - But if you look at them, hardly any are so notable such that they have a standalone article. For example, Spridleston. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

OR maps/flag/coat of arms in multiple articles

An editor is attempting to include a flag, map and coat of arms to the info box of Majeerteen Sultanate and Sultanate of Hobyo that are not published by any reliable source. The editor failed to provide any published reliable source that included these files, and instead provided:

• a user-generated site [32] for the coat of arms,
• a vague text description of a "red flag" in colonial sources [33],
• no published reliable source for the user-generated maps [34] [35]

The editor was requested multiple times in the talk page to provide reliable sources that published the said files or remove them but they insist on inclusion despite failing to provide the sources. Any opinions? Koodbuur (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Coats of arms can be user generated as long as they follow the heraldry descriptions as appropriate. (but that description should be sourced) Flags and maps, not so much. --Masem (t) 14:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no heraldry descriptions of the coat of arms in either the Majeerteen Sultanate or Sultanate of Hobyo articles, nor are they published in any reliable source, academic or otherwise. The only source provided is a user-generated site Ethnia for both coat of arms [36] [37]. Koodbuur (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if they generated a coat of arms, they had to have done it from a blazon, and the blazon had to have come from somewhere, which means they should be able to say where they got it from. If they got it from this user-generated site, someone had to put it there, and that someone had to have gotten it from somewhere. If I were the editor, I would simply trace the information to its source, and then add it to the article. { $\mathbb {JPG}$ } 05:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sectivnbelow

Certain tetms and condom

• Bugrit millennium hand an' shrimp. -- Foul Ole' Ron 09:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What? { $\mathbb {JPG}$ } 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Shooting of David Dorn

On the page "Shooting of David Dorn", several editors have added a description of the accused shooter as African-American ([38] [39] [40] [41] [42]). This description is not used in the source provided and appears to be original research. Even if the description is accurate it is still inappropriate to use without providing a reliable source that considers it noteworthy. CowHouse (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree. Plenty of stories show the suspect and name him, and while it is pretty clear what race he is, none of the stories state this or use any synonymous terms (even in the original stories when they found Dorn dead and the Facebook footage). It should be removed until the media deems it relevant. --Masem (t) 18:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. It's still there though. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, according to this peer reviewed study, there is no racial disparity in officer involved fatal shootings, yet when a white police officer shoots a black man, we include the race of the police officer. Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings I do think it's notable that a black person shot Dorn because the shooting took place during the timeline of the protests surrounding the killing of George Floyd, that makes it notable, whether it's newsworthy or not, it is certainly notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The question is whether reliable sources consider it notable, not Wikipedia editors. CowHouse (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is research into the psychology of conspiracy believers OR for Murder of Seth Rich?

This.[43] It looks ok for general articles on the subject, but not for every article that involves a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It was also added (and removed) at QAnon[44].

Doug Weller, it's not OR as such, I think, but is it included in conspiracy theory? I think including it on individual conspiracy theories without being in the main article would likely trigger concerns of WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If the source does not mention the topic of the article, then it fails weight for inclusion. There are a lot of other problems with using this source, including relying on the popular press for medical information or giving undue weight to a recent conclusion. I note too that the text inserted is inaccurate. It's not psychologists but some psychologists who made the conclusion and they have not categorized it as a mental illness.

It is OR, more specifically WP:SYN, because it implies that people who support Seth Rich conspiracy theories are mentally ill, although the paper does not mention them.

TFD (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Early 21st-century civil rights movement

See my concerns here: Talk:Early_21st-century_civil_rights_movement I think this very recently created and lengthy article is synthesizing current events into a narrative. I thought about nominating it for AfD, but thought I'd seek advice or input here first, given the sensitive nature of this topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone else nominated it for deletion. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Solution to the problem in the 3D tic-tac-toe

Quasistellarprimate (talk · contribs)

The 3x3x3 version of the game cannot end in a draw and is easily won by the first player unless a rule is adopted that prevents the first player from taking the center cell. In that case, the game is easily won by the second player. By banning the use of the center cell altogether, the game is easily won by the first player. By including a 3rd player, the perfect game will be played out to a draw. By including stochasticity in the choosing of the side the player must use, the game becomes fair and winnable by all players but is subject to chance. By making the choice of the player piece (x or o) subject to chance, the game becomes fair and winnable by all players.

This problem can be solved by forbidding the players from making two consecutive moves in the same layer.

References

1. The edit was saved.
2. The edit was reverted; they were warned for original research
3. The edit was reinstated.

And at that point, they just didn't learn from the general note. Bringing the concern here since 2 reverts is edit warring. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 17:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

They reverted you once, it's not edit warring. Not following BRD isn't automatically edit warring. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown drama

Lockdown drama contains virtually no sourcing other than to a link to a newspaper article that quotes this very article's definition of a lockdown drama! It also has myriad other problems such a lack of context, no intro, and what attracted my attention is the wording has me concerned about possible copyvio as it reads like something taken from a textbook. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the copyvio part: not unambiguous copyright infringement imo. Likely doesn't meet the threshold of originality anyway. CVDetector shows up one flag, and that's The Guardian who are quoting Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Judaism

The following passage has been repeatedly restored, or its 'citation needed' markup eliminated by vague allusions to the Enc.Britannica.

Within Judaism there are a variety of movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism, which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. <ref name="What is the oral Torah?" /> Historically, all or part of this assertion was challenged by various groups such as the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period

• The Enc.Brit has two articles, one on (a) Judaism, the other on (b) Rabbinic Judaism. The former encompasses the latter, rabbinic Judaism being a subset of Judaism, for a simple reason: Judaism began several hundred years before rabbinic Judaism, which, yes, became overwhelmingly the dominant form of Judaism. Neither of those articles supports the incoherent synthesis we have here. So what we have is a numbskulled piece of WP:OR posing as reliably sourced. I.e.

Rabbinic Judaism, the normative form of Judaism that developed after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem (ad 70). Originating in the work of the Pharisaic rabbis, it was based on the legal and commentative literature in the Talmud, and it set up a mode of worship and a life discipline that were to be practiced by Jews worldwide down to modern times.

Even today the various Jewish groups—whether Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform—all claim direct spiritual descent from the Pharisees and the rabbinic sages. In fact, however, many developments have occurred within so-called normative or Rabbinic Judaism. In any event, the history of Judaism can be divided into the following major periods: biblical Judaism (c. 20th–4th century bce), Hellenistic Judaism (4th century bce–2nd century ce), Rabbinic Judaism (2nd–18th century ce), and modern Judaism (c. 1750 to the present).

In my reading, there is nothing to warrant the unhistorical assertion that a movement that arose in the Ist century ce was challenged by two movements that predate it by some centuries, and which expired before Rabbinic Judaism was formed.Nishidani (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well I read that as 'challenged' in the sense of 'disagreed with', rather than the 'upstart/fringe/newcomer challenging existing authority' which is I think how you are reading it (and can easily be read that way)? I dont think its intentional, just bad wording. I agree completely its a sentence construction that should be worded less ambiguously and in line with the timeline. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it intentional either, but the phrasing does illustrate that the article on Judaism is being written from the viewpoint of its dominant form, as is also shown by the non-RS link to Torah.org (the page linked tells you nothing about the Oral Law, you have to go and explore it. There are hundreds of academic works on all of this, why such an atrocious partisan link? It's a bit like a fervent Catholic writing the history of Christian sects by citing canon law, conflict of interest. My point from the beginning is that it is clumsy, and I gave the citation needed notes (agains eliminated) to ask editors to fix it. No deal.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

ps. I could fix it with several scholarly notes, but everything I add to this area is reverted automatically, with zero talk page explanation. So I'm not going to waste my time working notes up, only to have them chucked down the memory hole.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

And again, note that the Brit Enc. dates the beginning of Judaism to 2000 BCE, giving the fundamentalist viewpoint as factual, once more. No scholarly work exists which would underwrite that notion. Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch that article, but for heavens sake Aish Hatorah aren't reliable for the time of day. Torah.org is a religious site, not a proper source for a neutral encyclopedia. Same with chabad.org. Then we have an argumentative essay by Gil Student, and even a dead link to a defunct Usenet newsgroup FAQ. Britannica is an OK tertiary source but we should only have recourse to such sources when no suitable secondary sources are available, which is not the case here. Zero^talk 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've no problem with the EC when the article is signed by an known expert. There are, on this topic, literally several hundred of them the reverter's justification for his addition of this source shows that they are unfamiliar with the relevant scholarship ('Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. This website is reliable for what the Torah says, at least from an Orthodox Jewish point of view.') The bolded part is sheer ignorance. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me reframe this query which arose from examining a sentence that combines synthetically two articles from the EB to make a generalization (poorly written).

Let's focus on method and how core policy asks us to source articles. We have several hundred books and articles published each year on Judaism and its ancient history etc. Most are readily available, in libraries or on the net. In this context, is (a) https://torah.org/ Torah.org appropriate as a resource and (b) Should we use snippety articles on the Encyclopedia Britannica online version when, with equal rapidity, one can access up to date recent scholarly articles on everything here?

My view to (a) is no. I'd erase on sight any use of a website on Catholicism as an historical source, and the same should apply here.

As to (b) the default encyclopedia for this specific area is the magnificent Encyclopaedia Judaica which anyone can download, is written by experts, and, unlike the Britannica, is not interfered with by online anonymous contributors. If one is unfamiliar with the scholarship, then that is the encyclopedia to use.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Namaste Trump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved through editing. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Whole issue revolves around this modification. The word "criticised" is not supported by any reference. Obviously because Criticism is different than that.

Main question is, on Wikipedia, should we describe a statement which is predictable and a part of regular attack against opposition political party as "criticism"? Or just say what source said. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame you chose to bring this argument here, especially given that we have a consensus on the talk page for leaving the edit as it is. However, I'll make the following points. Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) made the point pretty well here when s/he said, "The usage of "criticised" is hardly qualifies as a loaded term and is semantically consistent with "raising objections" and "accusing" in the context. Replacing that with a "described" as you have done on the other hand is inconsistent with the source".

Ironically, the one who has engaged in original research is you, when you said, "these remarks ultimately shown their own poor understanding of the event.".

Finally, it's worth pointing out that this IP has been reported to WP:AN3. — Czello 07:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: You appear to be having a gross misunderstanding about what constitutes WP:OR and what is WP:DR. Argument on talk page is exempted from WP:OR but the IP was basing his view on the party's misunderstanding that who organised the show. Ultimately, bringing the query here was a good step to resolve content dispute and this page isn't for complaining about user's conduct.

As for the original question by the IP, I think he is ultimately correct that "criticism" needs to be sourced. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious how you feel this is a "gross misunderstanding" of OR. The IP appears to be altering the phrasing because he believes the party has misunderstood something (unless I've misunderstood his edit?). This would appear to be his own interpretation of events finding its way into the article (again, unless I've misunderstood here). I would back the use of the word "criticism", however -- as for the reasoning given by Tayi above. — Czello 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." It doesn't matter how you want to twist the people's personal views, but the requirement of WP:VERIFY has been clearly upheld by the IP, which contrasts with your non-policy based reasoning so far. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I meant by this is that the talk page comments were being used as justification for main page edits (basically, like an edit summary). — Czello 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Czello are you poisoning the well because you know you are wrong? I was altering the phrase to reflect the source. Whinning by an opposition party does not qualify as "Criticism" unless the source supported the phrase. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have asked in the past for you to assume good faith, which you seem to struggle with doing, so I'll as you again. This isn't "poisoning the well", it's disagreeing with edits. That's why we're discussing this. — Czello 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Then why you are the one who completely dodged the question I asked here but instead focused on making unubstianted complaint about me? Read WP:FOC and comment only on content. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What question do you believe I have dodged, and what unsubstantiated complaint do you feel I've made? — Czello 11:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@IP user, Aman.kumar.goel, the Times Now source in question described in great detail how the opposition party had multiple doubts about the whole issue. The title of the article itself says "Congress fumes over extravaganza". I don't see how it is not an accurate summary of the source to describe it as "criticism". In any case, I have added a new source now. Next time please WP:DOITYOURSELF. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2020 (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.

Unpublished memoir material

I have a copy of a memoir written by a member of a WWII combat unit. It was printed and distributed to other unit members in 1972. The memoir adds details to events during and after the war in Europe. I can provide a PDF of the work. Is this type of firsthand source material acceptable? If so, how does one establish its authenticity for other editors to review and accept?NileCity (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be seen as a primary source and hence could have only limited value even if it were reliable. But ask yourself, are you confident that every date, place name, person's name, regiment name, etc. is accurate? If you were a military historian, you could check the information and use your judgment to determine how reliable the narrative was. Then your paper would be considered a reliable source. But Wikipedia editors are not assumed to have the expertise to do that, so we cannot use it as a source. TFD (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:League of Legends champion

There are concerns that have been raised about whether the article as a whole inappropriately synthesizes information from its sources. Looking for some insight on how to improve the draft.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

OSM Location maps

A user has been repeatedly removing an OSM location map that I have created at Dhola Post. I have recreated it in my sandbox so that you can actually see it. (OSM location maps don't show when viewing old versions in history.) Despite citing a reliable source and making adjustments as per the source, his objection persists. He says:

There is no "old" or "new" objection. There is only the same objection: the map was created by you and hence violates WP:NOR. Despite your penchant for technicalities, you admit that it was you who marked the locations on the map. You admit that it is you who "interprets old sketch maps." Therefore, the map created by you is WP:OR. The fact that we are arguing whether a map created by you constitutes "original" research is yet another example of the extreme dishonesty and bad faith discussion that you have repeatedly engaged in.

What would you say to that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As you admit, you created the map. Your excuse that this isn't original research is that your created map is based on a cited, reliable source. Then why not use the map from the reliable source directly?Erik-the-red (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For reference, I have taken a screenshot of the source map on page 139 of Hoffmann (1990) that @Kautilya3: cites here: https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png The differences between the source map and the map created by Kautilya3 are obvious.Erik-the-red (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

State the differences please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The "corrected" map of your creation, which relies on user-sourced location "data," places Khinzemane in India. The actual source map https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png on page 139 of Hoffmann (1990) does not.Erik-the-red (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The source map does not have any India–China border, whereas OpenStreetMap essentially puts it. So that is not something we can do anything about.

If you are contesting the location of Khinzemane, then that is what you should discuss. Let me remind you that you thanked me for it.

The reason for the change is that it is at the end of a foot path in the source. So that is where I placed it on OSM. It is possible that footpath goes longer. Things are not really visible on satellite maps because of the shadow of the mountains. If you would like, we can measure distance (1.5 miles as stated in the source) and place it there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, I did thank you for the edit you made. To repeat what I wrote there, your decision to "correct" your own previously marked location of Khinzemane from being clearly in China 27.80295°N 91.7457°E / 27.80295; 91.7457 to just inside India 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E / 27.7848997; 91.7349505 perfectly demonstrates why the map of your own creation violates WP:NOR.

Furthermore, you admit that the source map from Hoffmann (1990) does not have any India-China border. Therefore, your own created map violates WP:SYNTH because your own created map "implies a conclusion (Khinzemane is in India) not explicitly stated by any of the sources."Erik-the-red (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which side of the border it is on. I will be quite happy for you to give me the coordinates for Khinzemane, which I will use as long as it doesn't contradict anything on the page. We are here to get outside input on what constitutes WP:OR in this context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: If you don't particularly care which side of the border it is on, then why not use the original source map from Hoffmann (1990) which does not have any India-China border? No WP:OR violation, no WP:SYNTH violation.Erik-the-red (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, this user appears to believe that you can copy and paste maps published in books. Can you tell us what we are allowed to do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa Speaking for myself, my position is that if @Kautilya3: is relying on one (singular) map from a reliable source of his own choosing, then the article should use that one (singular) map instead of a map that he created by himself and by his own admission, relies on his "interpretations."Erik-the-red (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the copyright question, it's not okay to upload scans of maps from copyright books. — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: One map does not qualify as fair use?Erik-the-red (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No, because freely licensed alternatives are available.— Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: To clarify, the singular map in question refers to a disputed area between two countries. It's not clear to me that there are freely licensed alternatives in this case (or that there would always be freely licensed alternatives in this type of case).Erik-the-red (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The details could be copied over to an open source map.— Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: That's the problem: the singular map in question doesn't have longitude/latitude coordinates. So it's not a matter of copying the details to an open source map; instead, it's a matter of guessing the coordinates from the details. For example, @Kautilya3: originally guessed that a certain location was at 27.80295°N 91.7457°E / 27.80295; 91.7457 and subsequently "corrected" his guess to 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E / 27.7848997; 91.7349505. However, neither of these coordinates are on the actual source map https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png ; and it just so happens that Kautilya3's "correction" places the location from one side of the disputed border to the other side, a conclusion which is not explicitly stated by the source.

That is why I'm asking whether including that one, singular map from the actual source constitutes fair use. There are no freely licensed alternatives to my knowledge, and the actual source map does not contain any coordinate details to copy over to an open source map.Erik-the-red (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Visually copying details (e.g. coordinates or precise locations) from a published map onto open-source maps is naturally guesswork, especially when the locations are in areas with governmental geographic data restrictions (Chinese nation-wide GPS data restrictions and Indian restrictions on areas within 50km of its borders). Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR. Using it for broad imprecise information is fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment As Diannaa said, since the map in the source is not open sourced, copying the details to OSM while maintaining as much accuracy as possible should be fine. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: This is the original map in the source. It has no coordinates and the bottom right has a disclaimer, "sketch not to scale." What details can be accurately copied to OSM? Erik-the-red (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Erik-the-red, the user has admitted to interpreting the map to the best of their abilities. You do not seem to be assuming good faith in his edits. If anything, if you claim to have knowledge of the topic, you should help him to improve upon his work, instead of dismissing it completely as WP:OR. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: As I showed you, the original map has no coordinates and is disclaimed with "sketch not to scale." So you say copying the details to OSM while maintaining as much accuracy as possible should be fine. I asked you, What details can be accurately copied to OSM? Respectfully, you didn't answer.

Instead, you said I didn't seem to assume good faith in Kautilya3's edits. That's your opinion, and I won't argue with you on that. But I will ask you, if the original map has no coordinates and is disclaimed with "sketch not to scale," then how exactly can anyone get coordinates precise to 7 decimal places like 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E / 27.7848997; 91.7349505 from such a map?

Of course, you don't have to answer that either. Either way, I echo MarkH21's comment: Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR. You may not agree with that in every case, but it must apply in this case when the original map has no coordinates and is not to scale. Erik-the-red (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Frank Ocean - Birth Name

There are multiple reference to Frank Ocean's possible birth name that came from original research by 1 user and this is not cited anywhere else, where there are articles that show his name to be "Christopher Edwin Breaux".

Further, in his songs he uses his legal name for writing credits - "Christopher Breaux.

The name Christopher Breaux was used for the songs "Cayendo" and "Dear April" which were released in 2020.

While there may be confusion about his birth name, it is clear he still uses "Christopher Breaux" as his legal name. Thus, shouldn't we only being his legal name, if we can't prove his birth name from a reliable source?

Doublebside (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doublebside:, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC at A.C.A.B.

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Popular castles of Scotland

I'm in disagreement with QuakerIlK over whether the methodology and sourcing of Popular castles of Scotland constitutes original research. As far as I can tell, all the sources are primary, and their listings are tallied to arrive at a conclusion that is not in made in any source. I think that matches ours description of synthesis: to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Before I take it to AfD, I'd appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I will add in my two cents' worth.

1) I admit that I am not as experienced a Wikipedian as Vexations is. I'm not sure that should matter, though.

2) To start off with, yes, perhaps my work on the article in question is a synthesis of sorts. Let's look at that a little more closely. As the Synthesis of published material rule currently states, it begins with "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Well, to start off with, nearly all of the sources are in agreement on what constitutes the very top of the list. There is general consensus in the sources. Also, as I stated in one of my responses towards vexations in the discussion he/she and I have had on the talk page for the article in question, all anybody has to do to verify the reliability of the list is to take a mere fraction of the sources and tally them up to see if there is a general agreement with the overall list. Moreover, in addition to merely applying the suggestion on synthesization as it currently stands, I think that an underlying question of why the rule currently stands should be considered. Doesn't the rule exist so as to help combat bias in articles published on Wikipedia? I should think so. If that is part of the reason the rule stands, then I think that my article should be judged by - can any bias be proven? In answer to that, I can merely state that I found as many lists as I could at the time. The only ones I didn't use were a handful of ones that were made on Youtube for which no external re-directing source could be found.

3) In addition, I also already stated on the talk page for the article in question that I had other types of information, other than the tallying done there, that could be added to show the general agreement of the tallying with other sources of information, just that such information is old (a decade old), and yesterday evening, in fact, I sent a query to the publisher of such information to see if I could obtain more recent figures. I received an e-mail today from said publisher as a follow-up. Terms of agreement are currently being agreed upon as far as that situation is concerned. As I also already stated in the discussion between Vexations and I on the talk page of the article in question, I stated that even when such information is added (as I intend for it to be, and which I shall do as soon as is practicable as possible after I receive said information), there is a bias in that information because, for reasons I stated on the article's talk page and that are easily explainable, financial matters influence that information, and that is a bias.

4) If any other experienced Wikipedian has any doubts as to the reliability of the tallying done, perhaps they can suggest to me an easy way to display the results of the tally? Maybe it would help if I constructed a table showing the nominations for each list and providing the citation for each list, so as to add transparency to the article? Also, if anybody has any more such pre-existing sources as the ones I have used that could be added to the information to make it even more inclusive than it already is, they can either add them, themselves, or send me the link/source, and I will be glad to add them. Edited to add Again, I have no problem creating any such table or document, such as what I am suggesting, that would provide transparency to the article, but I can say that it would become so large that it would grossly interfere with the presentation of the article. It would need to be a file of its own that could be displayed or linked-to on the page. In that case, I would need guidance in creating that file. I don't think that the article should be taken down just because of the technical superiority of whatever detractors it might have. I think that it should be the responsibility of more senior editors to provide guidance rather than just strike something down without anywhere near the effort and consideration that a creator demonstrates.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

QuakerIlK (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that I have made updates to the article. It has been reorganized/restructured, and some wording has been changed. Also, visitor statistics have been added. If anybody has any more questions or comments, please don't hesitate to share them. 2601:6C1:C100:5B70:F88C:D9D2:A9D2:49BA (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. That was me. I forgot to log in. QuakerIlK (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd still appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Thanks Vexations (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My uninvolved perspective: this is all original research. None of the grounds cited by QuakerIlK have any basis in policy but point #4 gives the game away: Asking other editors to verify your tallying of these mostly non-reliable website's rankings shows that this is your tally. That is definitely and unambiguously synthesis, not "a synthesis of sorts". I'm trying to come up with some IAR way of saving at least part of this but I cannot identify any. There are other places that this can be published, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, Eggishorn. To address what you bring up, for one, I recently added the section on visitor statistics, so that is definitely not original research. Also, the tallying done confirms the main observation of the tally - the top 3 are the same, albeit in different order. So, even if one were to say that the tallying is OR, at least it reaches a conclusion re-affirmed by the visitor statistics that were added. There are also other similarities. I also have to question that this is "my tally" - ? It is a tallying that I have done, but it is a tallying that I have done of *all* the *possible* such lists that I could find. There is no bias, and if anybody wants to mount a challenge of bias, I am more than happy to entertain and address that. I also addressed remedies to possible objections to this: 1) If anybody can find any lists/sources that were not included, they can either add them, themselves, or send me the link to the source so that I can add them, myself; and 2) I would really like the *assistance* of somebody on here who has more experience with the technical side of Wikipedia (specifically, creating tables) so that, if there are concerns with *transparency*, I can address them by creating a table that *shows* the tally and how that 100% accurately corresponds with the reporting of the tally.QuakerIlK (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As it stands right now, in the top paragraph of the article for Wikipedia:No original research, the following is stated. " 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. " By adding the visitor statistics information, which corresponds to there being a "top 3" in the tallying to the top 3 in the visitor statistics, itself, that, alone should show the general reliability of the tallying. This has been accomplished. QuakerIlK (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@QuakerIlK:, that is an, well, let's call it "idiosyncratic" reading of the policy you quote. You're going with: "There is sort of sourcing for a top three in some order but those don't agree so I picked an order and I can then count up all the others in my own personal way and say it is not OR"? No. That makes no headway. My advice to you is to first read WP:OWN, WP:BLUDGEON, and Law of holes before you make any other replies. Your position is already well-stated and thoroughly documented and doesn't need any further explication. Every time you refer to "...the general reliability of the tallying..." or similar you further prove that this is your original work that is ineligible for inclusion. You have an obvious and understandable desire to protect and propagate your work but that is the wrong mental model for Wikipedia. This isn't "our" work. It's a dispersed and decentralized community and the work belongs to that community. (Technically, we license every word to the Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of this website, but that's neither here nor there.) Frankly, I'm not sure how it is supposed to contribute to the store of human knowledge to know which castles in Scotland are most frequently mentioned on a sample of websites that have little to no value as references but I do know that this is not the place for it. If you want to tally your own list of castles mentioned on popular websites, you need to create your own website or blog. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a fine article for somewhere else, QuakerIlK, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's all original research, just as Eggishorn explains. I have proposed it for deletion. Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

I will comment more, later. But for now I have a question I have repeatedly been posing (that I'm now going to be more specific about) that I would like to have answered by somebody. Is there *any* table, or coding that can be added to a table, on Wikipedia that will do summations over a column or any kind of math? QuakerIlK (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert on tables, @QuakerIlK: so I can't answer this specific question. There's a larger issue here which is fundamental that you're just not understanding. It doesn't matter how these results are tallied, it matters that these results are tallied. No-one is stating this is OR because you added 1 1 and got 3. This is OR because you're doing the calculation at all. You decided this was a question that needed answering, you decided what the ranking criteria were, you selected the corpus from which the data was pulled, you selected the data points, and you analyzed the data. Those actions make this your original research. If it sounds like I broke that down just to emphasize through repetition, well, I did. Those are the same steps that any original research paper goes through (hypothesis, methods, results, analysis). The mechanics of the calculation are immaterial and there is no way to "save" this just by tweaking the tables. In trying to claim this article can squeak through loopholes in the WP:OR policy, you've lost sight of the Core Content Policies: No original research (WP:NOR) – Wikipedia does not publish original thought... the policy should apply to any editor trying to introduce his or her own views into an article. This might not be per se as disruptive as trying to introduce an idiosyncratic new version of physics (which is why the policy was created) but nevertheless Wikipedia has determined that it is not the place where new ideas should be published. This "objective" ranking of castles based on website mentions is a new idea. I hope I've explained the policy more thoroughly and its application to this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's OR. The article provides an implicit weighting to the lists used as sourced: They are weighted equally. But it is a reasonable guess that they are not of equal weight and furthermore that even if they are there is a subjective element. How can we say that because the average rating of a castle is say #10, that it should be number ten on our list?

In similar articles, we generally use one list as a source, which avoids OR, but the list itself must be notable. I'm thinking of things such as the AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars.

TFD (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Conceivably, this might skate by if it avoided inventing a ranking system. I could imagine a List of castles in Scotland considered among the best which perhaps included any castle in a reliable source's top ten list, or, more simply List of castles in Scotland considered the best, which only includes castles ranked #1 on some reliable list. There's some precedent for this at List of films considered the best and List of music considered the worst. pburka (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• The creator, QuakerIlK, had already put a lot of work into the article, I'm sure, and after I PRODded it, they worked some more and have now removed my PROD. Unfortunately, I can't agree with them that the latest additions stop the article from being OR, so I've taken it to AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular castles of Scotland. Bishonen | tålk 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC).

RfC at Falkland Islanders

More comments are requested at Talk:Falkland_Islanders#Request_for_comment_on_whether_the_claim_"Falklanders_can_claim_Argentine_citizenship"_is_OR_and_violates_NPOV. Thanks.

Boynamedsue (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Petfinder

I work for Nestlé Purina PetCare, which owns Petfinder, a pet adoption website. Recently, @TruthInAdverts: inserted a paragraph in the lead of Petfinder alleging the website has banned and regulated small charities in favor of "wealthy" ones. The paragraph goes on to describe a specific situation where Petfinder revoked the account of a long-time user and asked for more documentation. Under the circumstances (no citations, SPA, etc.), I suspect the paragraph represents the personal observations and opinions of the user. As I have a conflict of interest, I would like to kindly request impartial, un-involved editors take a look. The paragraph in question is as follows:

Extended content

In 2020, Petfinder began strictly regulating how 501c3 animal welfare organizations can offer adoptable animals on its website. Courtesy listings--the practice of helping find homes for pets in need without physically intaking them into a shelter or other rescue environment, thereby lowering the animals' risk factors--were banned so that these charities could no longer implement best practices of Intake Diversion by helping the public find good homes for pets in need without having to leave them in a shelter. In 2020, Petfinder also began attempting to regulate animal welfare organizations' internal policies and procedures by restricting what kinds of policies 501c3 rescues and animal welfare organizations could create and implement; for example Petfinder placed in its Terms of Service that these organizations are not allowed to charge an "application fee". This resulted in some disadvantaged charities no longer being able to cover the costs of their expenses involved in processing applications, resulting in less time and resources available to spend on applications and marginalizing smaller, non-wealthy charities in favor of larger, wealthy ones. In one documented incident, Petfinder "deactivated" one 501c3 charity's longtime membership over a false accusation, and refused to reinstate it even after Petfinder acknowledged via email no evidence to substantiate the accusation. The charity filed a complaint with the parent company, Nestle Purina, and Petfinder responded by again emailing the charity, notifying it that Petfinder was aware that a complaint call had been made, and then instead of working with the charity amicably to resolve the situation, Petfinder added additional accusations and demands of more documents of the member organization, including a demand to see a copy of the charity's adoption contract in order to prove a name change. The charity pointed out that IRS determination letters, not adoption contracts, are how name changes are confirmed, but Petfinder did not respond and instead left the charity's membership deactivated.https://pro.petfinder.com/tos/

Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. Laurasprecklee (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Gah, that bloated prose should be nuked on aesthetic grounds alone. I did nuke it, but because it doesn't have a reliable source: due weight issues also applies. --Calton | Talk 00:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the content being warred back and forth here qualify as cruft?

The content that is being mass removed in these three edits and being resotored in these two due to the content being contested as “unverifiable”, “original research”, “synthesis”, and “fancruft”, despite attempts to verify it on the talk page being ignored by the removing editors. From what I understand of what these mean, they mean anything that is not explicitly stated by source material, which most of the content is from what I’ve seen of this series. I recently discovered this noticeboard, and I want to verify on whether the edits being mass removed here qualify as what Drmies and Serial Number 54129 (who I do not want to ping based on threatening comments) are saying they are. Unnamed anon (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon:, please read WP:FORUMSHOP. You currently involved in a discussion about this on the talk page and have already discussed this at the Teahouse and at the relevant Wikiproject and you even brought it to both Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Enforcement (despite there being no arbitration decision to enforce). You are running around the project to try to get some-one to endorse your view of the article. It doesn't work that way. You have gotten an answer to your question - you just don't like the answer. The bottom line is that articles on any fiction are not fandom articles. Hero Academia Wiki already exists and you can add fancruft (which, yes, these edits are) there to your heart's content. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Dog whistle (politics)

A user keeps trying to insert material that deviates from the given source into the article Dog whistle (politics). This is after it was rejected by RfC as part of a much more extensive set of original research. I'm fine with more perspectives and discussion of false accusations but this just seems like a flagrant violation of policy to me. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Said user should, of course, be notified so that they can provide their own account. See big red notice at the top. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not "insert material that deviates from the given source". I inserted a claim with a source backing it up -- a claim that it appears that ReconditeRodent does not like (but that's a discussion for the NPOV noticeboard; we only discuss whether a claim is original research here) and added an academic source to a previously unsourced claim.

Consider the following claims, with sources and quotes from said sources. ReconditeRodent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to like the first claim but not the second. I like both. This being the no original research noticeboard, the question is whether any of the following three claims is OR.

Claim #1:

"One example may be use of the phrase 'family values' to signal to Christians that a candidate would support policies promoting Christian values, without alienating non-Christian supporters"

Source for claim #1:

Albertson, Bethany. "Dog-Whistle Politics: Multivocal Communication and Religious Appeals" (PDF). Research Gate. Retrieved June 10, 2020.

Claim #2:

"One example may be the use of the phrase 'international banks' to signal to racists that a candidate is antisemetic without alienating non-racist supporters"

Source for claim #2:

Olasov, Ian (November 7, 2016). "Offensive political dog whistles: you know them when you hear them. Or do you?". Vox. Retrieved July 1, 2020. While many people might hear 'international banks' quite literally... anti-Semites hear something very different. After all, the supposed existence of a cabal of international Jewish bankers working to undermine US democracy is a recurring theme in American anti-Semitism.

In addition I added a source for the following unsourced claim (ReconditeRodent left the added source in):

Claim #3:

"Some argue that the concept is too vague and prone to false accusations."

Source for claim #3:

Liberman, Mark (September 26, 2006). "The comma was really a dog whistle". University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 28, 2020. We all constantly litter our speech and writing with messages that will be fully received only by those who share our verbal and conceptual associations. But we don't usually do this in order to create a Straussian double message, an esoteric wolf in an exoteric sheepskin. We do this because we can't help it, it's how language works, and also how thought works. New ideas and new discourses are built out of fragments of old ones. As a result, almost everything that we say or write is a 'dog whistle': even if the basic meaning is clear to everyone, some people will pick up on implications that are lost to others.

Finally, ReconditeRodent's ediit[45] changed "hard to prove" to "hard to prove and usually denied". If you read the source[46] (search for "Every now and again, a politician might, in a moment of candor, fess up." you will see that there is a lot more nuance an subtlety to the source. Crunching several paragraphs down "and usually denied" makes it look like the sort of thing discussed in Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies.

I believe that all three claims are supported by citations to reliable sources, and that none of the three claims is original research. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed the source for Claim #1, which ReconditeRodent specifically supported in the RfC: It turns out that the claim "One example may be use of the phrase 'family values'" is unsourced. The source does not contain the phrase "family values". What the source says is this:

"In the 2002 State of the Union, George Bush declared 'there’s power, wonderworking power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.' The way this language was interpreted varied. For some, the phrase 'wonderworking power' had no particular meaning, but those who had been exposed to a popular evangelical hymn recognized the line as a refrain in ‘‘There is Power in the Blood.’’ Candidates and politicians frequently invoke religious language...."

Same basic idea, but the example given is unsourced and the actual example used in the source is not mentioned. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any original research from the accused Guy Macon. Rather, there is an existing OR problem in the article with "family values" remaining unreferenced. (A possible source: The Nation connects dog-whistle in politics to "family breakdown" and "traditional family values".[47]. Another possible source: This paper talks about "family value politics" and a "racial dog whistle". ) Someone should source the family values stuff. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Claim #1" was added by a separate user years ago and was left in in Guy Macon's version of the intro as well. I have not "specifically" supported it beyond not taking it out. Though the additional source is appreciated, "Claim #3" was not unverified; the original source states "Some commentators [...] have even concluded that the concept of the dog whistle is often too vague and open to abuse". The source I cited saying accusations are "usually denied" states elsewhere that "accusations of dog whistling are generally met with exasperated denials". As this isn't the page's talk page, please create a separate discussion either there or here to discuss these or other points further.

Guy Macon's summary ("Claim #2") of the issue I wished to raise leaves out the previous sentence(s). In his edit, the article reads:

"[Dog whistles] are generally used to convey messages on issues likely to provoke controversy without attracting negative attention. One example may be use of the phrase 'family values' to signal to Christians that a candidate would support policies promoting Christian values, without alienating non-Christian supporters. Accusations of dog whistling are, by their nature, hard to prove and may be false. One example may be the use of the phrase 'international banks' to signal to racists that a candidate is antisemetic without alienating non-racist supporters."

In the source, a claim that a politician is "meet[ing] in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty" is, regardless of what either of us think, treated as a credible example of a possible dog whistle, whereas Guy Macon clearly implies it is an example of a false one, which is WP:SYNTH. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I wrote "hard to prove and may be false" and not "is false". And I believe that "hard to prove and may be false" is well-supported by the source:

"While many people might hear 'international banks' quite literally, or maybe as an allusion to Clinton’s ties to foreign financial interests in general, anti-Semites hear something very different. After all, the supposed existence of a cabal of international Jewish bankers working to undermine US democracy is a recurring theme in American anti-Semitism, from Henry Ford’s The International Jew to Reddit troll-conventions. Trump’s choice of language serves as a signal that he is one of them. Or at least, that’s what many commentators have alleged. The problem is that it’s hard to establish whether a piece of speech or writing is a dog whistle. Indeed, it’s not obvious what evidence could, in principle, settle a dispute over whether some expression is or isn’t one. They are, by their nature, sneaky things."

I suspect that there is an agenda here; to suppress any material that does not support the position -- a position that many people hold -- that pretty much every accusation of dog whistling is automatically true and doesn't need evidence. This appears to be related to the similar position -- again held by many people -- that all accusations of rape are automatically true and don't need evidence.[48][49]

I said it implies it's false. Since a general example has already been given, listing another can only serve to specifically illustrate the previous sentence which says they may be false, implying it’s false, which the source doesn't support. I can’t assume good faith past explaining the Gricean maxims so per WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and the RfC, please find consensus among other users for inclusion of the material or simply find a source which gives a different example of an accusation and states or clearly suggests that it is generally considered false. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Dog-whistle (politics)#Food stamps, verification, and the 2014 United States Senate election in Mississippi article. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to reject both the "the person making the accusation is always lying" and the "the person making the accusation is always telling the truth" positions as obviously motivated by a desire to paint someone (usually an opposition politician) as guilty or (usually one of your own politicians) as innocent without examining the evidence.

BTW, when you present a paragraph as an option in an RfC and then support that paragraph, you can't wash your hands of a part of the same paragraph by saying that it was added by a separate user years ago. You shouldn't have included that part if you don't support it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have to question whether it is NECESSARY to include this specific example of a political dog whistle in the article. Surely, there are many others we can use to explain the topic. I would simply omit it and use another. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Finding another example would be easy. Finding another example that also says that such accusations are hard to prove and may be false would be a bit more difficult but most likely doable. Finding another source that says all of that and also comes from a high quality academic source such as the University of Pennsylvania would be very difficult; there aren't that many academic sources that cover dog whistling. If I broaden the search to include opinion pieces in the popular press it once again becomes easy to find other examples that also mention that such accusations are hard to prove and may be false. But why should I have to? What is wrong with the UPenn source?

The real question is whether ReconditeRodent would accept any source that supports a claim that accusations of dog whistling are hard to prove and may be false. I strongly suspect that he doesn't believe that it is possible for an accusation of dog whistling to be a false accusation. I may be wrong, though. ReconditeRodent is free to explicitly state his position, which of course would trump my guesses. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Dog whistle (politics): call for close

I believe that the above discussion makes it abundantly clear that there is no original research involved, and the discussion has degraded into arguing about a content dispute. I suggest closing this discussion and directing the participants to the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

There are currently discussion in the article talk page could be sources discussing dhimmi used in Dhimmitude. In my opinion it two diffent concepts one is muslim term the other is neologism though derived from it is different.Opening such door would open various WP:OR about the neologism --Shrike (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dhimmitude is just the state of being a dhimmi, no more and no less. The fact that it wasn't used as a word in English until the 1980s doesn't make it worthy of an article of its own. The real purpose of the article dhimmitude is to advertise the theories of activist Bat Ye'or who features the word repeatedly in her virulent attacks on Islam. I don't think that is a proper reason for an article. Bat Ye'or already gets her own article and articles on at least five of her books; that's more than she is worth. Dhimmitude should be merged into dhimmi or Bat Ye'or. Alternatively (I don't believe this), if the article is not just more advertising of Bat Ye'or, a source must only address the concept to be relevant; it does not need to the use the exact word. Zero^talk 14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, And who decide when concept is relevant? What you say goes against WP:OR policy.Probably WP:RFC people needed.But maybe some uninvolved people will respond Shrike (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said this has nothing to do with WP:OR which you don't understand apparently. If you can't source an article on dhimmitude from references that use only dhimmi, then you can't source the article on slavery from sources that refer to slaves, but not the abstract noun slavery. This is is patently silly.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The answer to the question "who decide when concept is relevant" (as I interpret this peculiar English) is that editors always have to decide whether a source is relevant to the topic of an article. Nothing is different here. Nothing in policy requires that sources use the exact same words as appear in the title of an article. Zero^talk 03:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Dhimmitude article seems exemplary for handling a neologism. If there is a WP:OR issue here I think it should be concretized. I agree with Zero0000 & Nishidani's comments, or at least that an OR-issue is not obvious. Sechinsic (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussion, and the source mentioned. It seems Feldmann does support the synthesis, on p.96. Sechinsic (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Feldman does not mention Dhimmitude at all on that page. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Just from skimming "Dhimmitude" and "Bat Ye'or#Dhimmitude" it seems clear that it is Bat Ye'or that provides the neologism. Feldmann on the other hand describe the medieval Marmonides' response to the socio-politic term 'dhimmi'. The discussion of WP:OR caused by associating Feldman's description to 'dhimmitude' must refer to the plain understanding of Bat Ye'or's neologism - according to @Zero0000, obviously or evidently presenting "the state of being dhimmi". If that be the case, that 'dhimmitude' evidently refer to "the state of being dhimmi", then it is just as obvious that both Marmonides and Bat Ye'or give their verbalized response to this socio-politic term - ie. there is no WP:OR. If the neologism is more squarely posed, and does not accomodate variate interpretations of "the state of being dhimmi", then the reference to Feldmann and the association to Marmonides is WP:OR. Sechinsic (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We have clear policy on that per WP:OR "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" as the source doesn't mention the topic of the article its WP:OR.The two options you gave its classic example of WP:OR its not our role as editors to decide what the source means.If it mention the term then its OK if its not then its WP:OR --Shrike (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your phrasing. The article topic is a neologism. I also have to add that I have made a blunder. In my above two options-sketch I disregard the nuancy of the term 'dhimmi' and especially the 800-year time-gap between Marmonides and Bat Ye'or, and I realise how easy it is to express one-dimensional views. Excepting the aspects of participation and sharing I think my views here should be ignored. Sechinsic (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The temporal distance between Maimonides and Bat Ye'or is immaterial here. Dhimmi is a classical Arab term regarding the status of people of the book. Bat Ye'or writes the history of the practice in dour terms, from the year dot to today, and essentializes Islam is enslavement or humiliation of Jews and Christians by coining an abstract noun dhimmitude. Maimonides has almost canonical authority in orthodox Judaism even today. So one can say that the temporal reach of dhimmi status and Maimonides's ruling overlap. What Bat Ye'or skewers as something uniquely and disgracefully 'Arab' (and the hidden reason why the world should ignore human rights abuses in Israel and focus on them in her enemies' (Arab) societies) is something advocated by Judaism's foremost philosopher and halakhic authority. There lies the politics of her polemical screed and its hypocrisy: what upsets her in her targeting of the Arab world exists in the heart of the religious thinking whose political expression she defends.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I am not qualified to discuss these matters. But I have to object to your notion that a socio-politic term in use over a time-span of 800 years is trivially consistent (if that was your point?). Sechinsic (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that wasn't my point.Nishidani (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree with Zero0000 on merging the Dhimmitude article into Bat Ye'or. There's not much this article has that Bat_Ye'or#Dhimmitude doesn't already contain.VR _talk 20:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That is also my view. I don't know how to go about merge proposals.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that this article should be merged into Bat_Yeor#Dhimmitude. This neologism was apparently invented by her and there is no reason that a separate article should exist on it. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Music of Polynesia

Here's a link to the page I'll be discussing: Music of Polynesia

I am brand new to editing Wikipedia pages - as in, I have never done it before - but when I saw this page I knew I needed to do something about it. I'm posting it here because of the subjective and unverified assertions at the top, which is what I saw first, but on closer inspection the page is flawed in many ways. I really think this page is important and I want it to be improved but since I don't know what I'm doing I'm going to post this here and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction. I don't particularly want to research this topic myself, I just want the page to be flagged for editing, for those disclaimers to appear on the page (which ones would fit, by the way?) and for a discussion about it to be started somewhere. Let me know if this is the wrong place to put this and I will move it. Here's what's wrong

Original Research

This section is copied from the introduction: "Internationally, Polynesian music is mostly associated with twinkling guitars, grass skirts and beautiful relaxing sounds, Hawaiian Hula and other tourist-friendly forms of music.[citation needed] While these elements are justifiably a part of Polynesian history and Polynesian culture, there is actually a wide variety of music made in the far-flung reaches of Polynesia." There is a "citation needed" thingy, but I think until someone finds a source to cite, it needs to be taken down! I understand the sentiment and I agree with it, but I don't come to Wikipedia to see this kind of original discourse.

Worldwide View

I don't have much to say about this because it already has a disclaimer thingy, but the most egregious violation of this is of course the "far-flung reaches of Polynesia" that is also in the introduction. The whole intro should just be scrapped imo. Can I just do that, or is that not allowed? The rest of the article also frequently mentions Hawaii, which seems slightly indicative of a less-than-worldwide view, but I don't mind that very much at all because there is so little information about anything here.

Lack of citations

This ties in with the original research but there are other parts of the article that need inline citations too. This could be a simple enough fix but to be honest, I don't really want to bother, especially because....

Stub

It's a stub. Here's everything the article actually includes:

• a short description of what Polynesia is
• an unverified claim about popular opinion of Polynesian music
• a statement about the diversity of Polynesia
• a pretty decent description about the impact of Christian colonization and influence that is probably backed up by one of the sources, but should have an inline citation in my opinion
• the assertion that three specific islands have developed a "casette industry" with no further information about what that means or the implications on Polynesian music or the music of those three islands. This also seems to have more to do with the music industry than any musical style or culture.
• two seemingly random Fijian singers, including no description of their musical style or significance on Polynesian music
• two "Hawaiian-inspired" steel guitarists. There is no description of their musical style or significance on Polynesian music, and there is no description of the steel guitar or its significance to Polynesian music either.

Most of the pages for the different islands of Polynesia are in this category and contain way more information than this one. That could be summarized and included here under different headings for different islands! And also this category here has lots of information that could be included. Oh, and the two links I put in this paragraph weren't working as internal links so I formatted them as external links. ~figayda~ (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

~figayda~, that's a 17-year-old stub and I agree it needs work. Pinging IdiotSavant who appears to be the main editor active on WP:WikiProject Polynesia, perhaps they have some ideas. Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm mostly focused on WP:WikiProject Cook Islands (because no-one else is), and actively avoiding wider topics like this (not least because I'm Pākehā and recognise my lack of cultural knowledge; political bios and geography articles are easy, but I'm wary of social stuff). Obviously, the article needs improvement, but I'm really not the person to do it. But maybe someone on WP:WPNZ might be able to help? --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Getting help... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles of Unity

This is a relatively new article that could use some extra eyes: Weinstein is a somewhat well-known figure who has done a number of interviews about this campaign, but I have found very little reliable secondary sourcing on it. The closest I can find is this brief discussion of the campaign on Reason.com.

Barring additional sources, it might make sense to just merge everything in to Bret Weinstein's bio page, since he appears to be the main public figure associated with the project. Any other ideas would be welcome. Nblund ^talk 02:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX Merlin (Gas Generator section)

I'm looking for some assistance in reviewing SpaceX_Merlin#Gas_Generator for original research and synthesis. My interpretation is that almost all of the section is OR. As of this writing, the section reads:

Extended content

The LOX/RP-1 turbopump on each Merlin engine is powered by a fuel-rich open-cycle gas generator similar to that used in the Apollo-era Rocketdyne F-1 engine.[39] During tests of that engine (ca. 1966), Rocketdyne showed[40] that open-cycle RP-1 gas generators of this type yield 20 - 200 pounds of class-1 carcinogens, such as benzene and butadiene,[41][42][43][44] per ton of RP-1 fuel. Note that by the current date, the thermal-cracking/condensation-polymerization chemistry of fuel-rich aliphatic hydrocarbon combustion has been well-understood for decades.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Due to their toxicity, these combustion products are now legally regulated within the US, providing community and worker health protections which did not exist during the Apollo era.[57][58][59][60][61] During free-flight of the Falcon launch vehicle in the lower troposphere, the extremely hot main-engine exhaust and substantial partial pressure of atmospheric oxygen are observed to ignite and burn off the gas generator exhaust. However, during the test-stand and launch-stand (pre-lift-off) water deluges, as well as in-flight at altitudes above the mid-stratosphere,[62][63][64] this post-combustion is extinguished, and these chemicals, tars,[65] and soot are released to the atmospheric and space environments.[66] Rocket engine thrust chemistry models and mechanisms exclude large toxic molecules such as benzene and butadiene,[67][68][69] and SpaceX Environmental Assessments[70][71][72][73][74] provide no data on this important chemistry for environment, community, and worker protection.[75][76]

I've had some conversations with the editor (User:67.61.89.32) on the talk page that has gone nowhere, and I'm not sure what the next step is. Quoting from my last post to the talk page: Taken together, the chain of logic [in this section] reads to me to be something like: "This gas generator of this old engine produced output which we now know to be potentially harmful. The gas generator used in this engine shares some design features with this old one. SpaceX should know that this harm is possible. They haven't done anything to prove that the harm isn't occurring. Therefore, communities and workers are threatened and should be worried about the Merlin engine." If this argument were made in a reliable secondary source, I would be happy to have it included here. If components of this discussion were included in more general pages, I would be happy to see them. But I don't see a way to include this specific chain of logic without violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

I really don't want to get into an edit war here -- I've deleted the content a couple of times over the past couple of weeks and the other editor has restored it. Am I way off base here? Any help in figuring out next steps? Themillofkeytone (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Themillofkeytone has correctly described the WP:OR by 67.61.89.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is now edit warring against consensus, and has started insulting other editors.[50] Alas, this looks like a case that will have to be dealt with at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#67.61.89.32 --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#67.61.89.32 again --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

...and he is blocked for a week. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo commentary in 2020 Belarusian protests

At least two users have restored this commentary on a photo used in the article; despite the recent additions inclusion of a source (a primary source that's not specifically about the photo), it still looks unambiguously WP:SYNTH to me; bringing here for additional opnions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not our place to interpret weapon configuration nor to draw conclusions from such configuration. pburka (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. If there were a secondary source making that comment about the photo, then it could be included. Themillofkeytone (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Margaret, Maid of Norway

In the article intro, we've got Margaret described as Queen-designate. That description appears to be original research, to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This forum shopping is becoming obstructive and quite annoying. Since January you have been posting this on noticeboards and talk pages; I count at least six. It has been demonstrated to you that the term is not original research because it is used in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography by the leading expert on the topic. Time to move on, perhaps? Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Who made you the boss of Wikipedia? I find this attitude of yours, that your edits or views on content can 'never' be challenged, quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You challenged it. I explained it and cited a source. Another user chimed in and cited another source. 8 months later you again go around raising OR alarm despite having been shown sources. That is not challenging an edit. That is just obstructive obstinacy. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather converse with Blueboar, or is that also not allowed. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Annoying or not... Surtsicna is correct in saying it isn’t Original Research. The term “Queen-designate” is indeed used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to describe Margaret. (@Surtsicna, while we usually don’t put citations in the lead, in this case I would suggest doing so... since the term isn’t mentioned later in the body text where it would normally be cited). Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we do something then with how it differs from the infobox heading or visa versa? At the moment, the article appears quite confusing, with the latter showing Queen of Scots, then disputed reign. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a question that is beyond the remit of this noticeboard. The question here was simply “is it OR?”, and the answer is “no”. What to put on the infobox should be discussed at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

I would like to get feedback from uninvolved editors in a discussion[51] at the BLP Noticeboard about Ariel Fernandez that involves SYNTH concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent

I would like to get some assistance on original research edits being done on Sanskrit page by Fowler&fowler. The editor is changing about 19 references to "Indian Subcontinent" on the basis of google search results on google books. The talk page here [talk page] has the discussions on these changes.

The editor uses the following original research on google books as a support to replace "Indian Subcontinent" with "South Asia":

• A The total number of scholarly books that reference only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (i.e. not the other countries such as Sri Lanka or the Maldives) is 174,000. Click on "Tools" to see the number.
• B The total number that are in A and also reference "South Asia" is 37,700 Click on Tools to see the number
• C The total number that are in A and also reference "Indian subcontinent" are: 3,290

Analysis:

• The ratio B : A is 1 to 4.6. This means less than one in four books that reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh," call is "South Asia."
• The ratio C : A is 1 to 52.89. This means less than one in 52 books that reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh," call it "Indian subcontinent."

Implication:

More than 11 times as many scholarly books which reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh" prefer "South Asia" as a descriptor to "Indian subcontinent"

In doing so, the editor does WP:SYNTH synthesis on several sentences:

The first line of the lead section was previous this way:

Sanskrit (/ˈsænskrɪt/;Sanskrit: संस्कृतम्, romanized: saṃskṛtam) IPA: [ˈsɐ̃skr̩tɐm] ) is an Indo-Aryan or Indic language of the ancient Indian subcontinent with a 3,500-year history.

The cited references mention about Indian subcontinent:

Although Vedic documents represent the dialects then found in the northern midlands of the Indian subcontinent and areas immediately east thereof, the very earliest texts—including the Rigveda (“The Veda Composed in Verses”), which scholars generally ascribe to approximately 1500 bce—stem from the northwestern part of the subcontinent - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language

For 3500 years Sanskrit was the language of religion, philosophy, medicine, math, astronomy and literature of every branch of learning not only in India, but also in every other region influenced by the Indian culture. -- Murray, T. (2007). Milestones in archaeology : a chronological encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif. ; Oxford: Abc-Clio.

References

The references to "Indian Subcontinent" are being replaced with "South Asia" based on the above original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs) 7 october 2020 (UTC)

"South Asia" references a region by identifying its location within a larger well-defined continent, just as West Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia do. "Indian subcontinent" references the old India, i.e. of the British Raj, not the much reduced modern Republic of India. It confuses a reader unfamiliar with the term. The article originally had "South Asia." Editors replaced it with "Indian subcontinent," primarily a geophysical term. Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Sri Lankan, Bhutanese readers and editors are also South Asian. A choice of words that can be seen as laying an Indian claim to their shared "subcontinent" (a mostly obsolete term anyway) is not NPOV. The expression "Indian subcontinent" was found to occur 19 times in the article, in some instances quite gratuitously! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Potentially inappropriate use of personal communication

There is a policy application discussion over at Talk:List of largest empires#Empire of Japan. The question is whether a particular instance of using personal communication with an author to assess the reliability of a source for a specific piece of information found within is appropriate. Complicating the matter is the fact that the source in question is not the original source of that particular piece of information; an earlier source which is not reliable when it comes to this particular subject matter per WP:RSCONTEXT has been found, and it contains the same piece of information while citing an even earlier source which we have been unable to locate (and thus may or may not be reliable).

The discussion on the talk page has stagnated, and I would like input from more editors weighing in on this. I was unsure if WP:RSN or WP:NORN was the more appropriate place for this, so I posted it to both. TompaDompa (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights

There is a new editor on this page who does not like it that the article states that ECHR is the most effective international human rights court in the world, even though it is cited in line and several sources are quoted on the talk page to support this statement. The editor has not cited any sources that have a different assessment, but keep changing it based on their subjective opinion that this is not the case. Since they refuse to engage on the talk page, I am at my wits' end dealing with this editor. Any help is appreciated. (t · c) buidhe 17:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

MfD of possible interest

This template seemed like original research to me, but you may have information that shows otherwise. Please comment.

jps (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Confucius Institute‎

I would appreciate input at Talk:Confucius Institute‎ regarding material recently added to the article by GrandmasterLiuHu. Specifically, one of the references that he or she added was written in the late 19th century but the article is about an institute founded in the 21st century. Another reference that was added is to a general philosophical encyclopedia article that makes no mention of the subject of the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello ElKevbo! In regards to your first question, as I've repeatedly pointed out on the Talk page, the citation is on the topic of mass surveillance and not specifically Confucius Institutes. The source material discusses the use of mass surveillance and it's psychological effects regardless of their context, but especially in the context where the observed is aware of the observation. It is not currently in dispute that the Confucius Institutes are accused of mass surveillance, and in the fields of ethics and psychology it is also not in dispute that well known mass surveillance automatically generates intimidation. It is also only one of several sources provided, all of which are independent sources not related to each other. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States presidential election WP:SYNTH/WP:CALC

I started a discussion at Talk:2020 United States presidential election to try to achieve a consensus well before the election about how we are going to update the map and infobox. Most of the !votes at that discussion are in favor of waiting until 3 reliable news sources project a state before adding that state to the map and infobox. I demonstrated that even under this proposal, it would be possible for us to call the race for a candidate as the winner (projected president-elect) even before any reliable news organization projects that a candidate has won. Due to this, another user said that this specifically would be a WP:SYNTH violation. I said that it would likely be fine due to WP:CALC, but they disagreed. I pointed out that if WP:CALC does not apply with regards to calling the race before the media does- then WP:CALC probably still wouldn't allow us to say a candidate has for example "266 electoral votes" based on combining projections from news organizations, when no news organization's tally has the candidate at 266 electoral votes. I suggested an Associated Press only infobox/map (since many news organizations rely on the AP) as a possible alternative that could alleviate WP:SYNTH concerns, but so far there hasn't been much support for that suggestion. If any experienced users here could help us determine to what degree WP:SYNTH applies vs. WP:CALC, that would be most helpful. Thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

See also wp:NOTNEWS and wp: CRYSTAL: why are you even trying? Surely you should wait until we can record the reality rather than the prediction? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• @John Maynard Friedman: Can you please elaborate on what you mean by that? When a state or the race as a whole is projected for a candidate, it is not just a prediction. A projection means there is mounds of evidence that a candidate will win that race, and it's very uncommon for a candidate to lose a race once it's projected for them. You are welcome to bring up WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL at the talk page, but I specifically came to this noticeboard for WP:SYNTH and WP:CALC concerns, so it would be helpful if you could address that in addition to other concerns you have with the proposals. Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• My challenge is this: why are you even here asking this question? I repeat, wp:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is just about arguable that we may report the consensus of the Reliable Sources' projections as projections. But if you start adding those up to 'calculate' your own projection of the outcome, then you are definitely in a SYNTH vio. It would be far more sensible to back off, let events take their course and, when you have solid facts to report, then and only then should you report them. To summarize, you are asking yourself (and us) the wrong question at the wrong time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • These projections have important lasting historical significance, especially a projection that a candidate has won the election. I do think that election projections are notable enough for WP:NOTNEWS & WP:CRYSTAL to not necessarily apply. While a 3 source criteria may be WP:SYNTH, an AP only infobox fixes that concern. And AP projections tend to have a significant amount of weight. So, since I don't think WP:NOTNEWS & WP:CRYSTAL apply, I do think that this discussion belongs here, so we can hash out the WP:SYNTH concerns of the discussion at the talk. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What concerns me is that if we pick and choose which projections to use, then we may have a different set of projections, which would be OR. I understand that waiting until all the individual races are certified will take weeks, since there are lots of mail in ballots to open and count. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it would not make sense to not report the results for weeks after the election. I propose that we agree on a single source, such as AP, for projections.

Also, see 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida#Background. Based on information from an AP organization, the networks declared Al Gore the winner in Florida, then changed it to too close to call, then declared George W. Bush the winner, then reverted to too close to call for the next few weeks. Whoever won Florida would win the election. I believe it was Fox that first declared Bush the winner. I would rather say "according to AP, this is the result in Florida" than "Wikipedia editors have examined the calls made by various sources and in our opinion these are the results."

TFD (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with John Maynard Friedman en.wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If the news predictions could be called into question on election night rather wait until official figures are released. Don't even waste time trying to synthesise the result for a given state from multiple news agencies. Surely it is a well established practice on en.wikipedia to not release election results until their official announcement by this point. The internet will be full of media websites detailing predictive estimates for each state's result on election night and in the week/weeks thereafter, en.wikipedia is not required to follow this herd. If it takes weeks for any official data then it just takes weeks, readers are not going to die if en.wikipedia does not have detailed election results for the entire US on day 1. There are plenty of other places for that. We operate with accurately sourced information. Now for the presumptive victor of the election, once the RS's become clear and are in agreement in designating one candidate or the other for the victory then we may report it as such (with citations, naturally), but this designation does not necessarily need to broken down into individual data values here from the moment the first estimates and announcements occur in the news. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. To underline the risk of en.wiki rushing into this minefield where reliable sources fear to tread, Here be dragons. I recommend 'Red mirage': the 'insidious' scenario if Trump declares an early victory: we don't want to become part of that, however it plays out. People don't visit Wikipedia for rolling news, but for a summary of the dispassionate analyses of RSs after the event – long enough after the event to be dispassionate. But I accept that it does seem reasonable to say that x, y and z weeks before the election, AP was forecasting result X, Y and Z provided we do it with no further comment. (and maybe even α, β and γ days after election day, results Α, Β and Γ! Heaven forefend!) -John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• If you really want Wikipedia to be NOTNEWS, fully protect 2020 United States presidential election and related pages for 24 hours starting one hour before the first poll closes, and add a notice at the top of the page indicating this. Yes there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth from editors but the readers will simply go to a source that is news. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I already brought the WP:NOTNEWS concerns up at the article's talk page. But I think per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, there is nothing wrong with having an infobox with projected results. And an AP only infobox takes care of the WP:SYNTH concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I like Guy Macon's suggestion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with their suggestion. But I have a question about what exactly they are proposing.. What would we do once the 24 hours are up? Would we be able to update the infobox then? Or would we still have to wait until the electors have actually voted and/or until all major media organizations unanimously agree on every states' and districts' projections? Prcc27 (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)