Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 39

"Historical differences" in Hamilton (musical)

regarding: Hamilton_(musical)#Historical_differences: There are numerous statements in this section, supported not by reference to reviews or critiques of the play, but by references to history. e.g "However, Hamilton remained close friends with Washington and highly influential in the political sphere.[116]", where the ref is to an article about the historical person, not a review of the musical. This is synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The editor does exactly that: compares the play with history and concludes that the play is inaccurate. Editors are not allowed to critique, only to cite a reliable source that makes such a conclusion, not put it together yourself. The section "Criticism of historical differences" meanwhile does cite criticism, not originate it, so it is valid. "Historical differences" should all be deleted except for any parts that could be merged into "Criticism of historical differences". I put this comment on the Talk page of the article, with as yet no response. 202.81.249.207 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes pointout out the obvious from clearly known historical facts is fine (say if the musical presented Hamilton as the President of the US, that's fair to point out). But here we're talking scholarly details that require some degree of academic analysis to ascertain, and definitely is synthesis that we avoid; it is similar to noting the differences between a book and the film based on it, or the like, even if it seems clear to resolve. If secondary sources make note of the differences, then it can be included to avoid the OR, but to simply use historical details to show the differences isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

it is unacceptable synthesis. We know that there are differences: the Founding Fathers did not sing and dance through the late 18th century. Differences should only be mentioned if critics mention them and should be sourced to their articles. TFD (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we use sources that don't discuss British Israelism to make arguments about genetics?

The section British Israelism#Lack of consistency with modern genetic findings is sourced, but the sources do not discuss British Israelism (and the source for Khazars fails WP:RS but that's another issue. I'm having a pretty fruitless discussion on Talk:British Israelism with a new editor, a supporter of BI, about original research but not getting very far. I don't believe we should be making arguments using sources that don't directly discuss the subject of the article. On the other hand, I've at least once had an editor tell me this sort of use of sources (not at this article) is ok. See also Talk:British Israelism#Assessment comment. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they make a clear link between Jews and the Anglo-Saxons. What we canot do is say

"group A is related to group B, Group B comes form area A as does group C thus group A and C are related". that is Synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, we can only use reliable secondary sources that discuss British Israelism. If we present arguments that do not exist in these sources, then we are advocating either for or against the theory, which is contrary to synthesis. If one editor wants to add his or her personal arguments about how science does not support their theories, then there is nothing to prevent another editor from providing arguments that they do. TFD (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As the 'new editor' in question, (and green regarding the methods used on Wikipedia, but learning :), my argument would be that the term "British-Israel' is simply one title used to describe the movement, where 'Anglo-Israel' would be another of many. Ideally the term should be British/Israel as it summarizes the main tenet of a connection between the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic peoples with the ancient tribes of the sons of Jacob originating in Palestine. You're going to find very few references that use those terms, but plenty that, for example regarding DNA, refer to 'Northwestern Europeans' and 'Jews' or 'Irish' and 'Arab'. Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should only use reliable secondary sources directly discussing British/Anglo Israelism. The article is not the place to thrash out genetic relationships anymore than it should be used to discuss all the arguments about the Ten Lost Tribes from whom this belief says the people of Great Britain descend. Sure, Doug Weller talk 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

British Israelism is, by it's own admission, a 'religious movement', and falls under the WP:NPOV section on Religion, which states;

"In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources."

As such, the adherents draw upon all sorts of 'archaeological, historical and scientific sources' as a) basis for their belief, b) how such beliefs and practices developed and c) What motivates them. If these sources are denied, then all that's left is what some academic critic has to say about British Israelism. It's like the Catholicism article not being allowed to use the Bible as a source because the term 'Catholic' or 'Pope' are not found in the Bible. It's utterly ridiculous. Wilfred Brown (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Catholicism does not use the Bible as a source. That's because it is not up to editors to determine the extent to which the Bible influenced the religion or where they deviated from it, but requires analysis that can only be provided if it is sourced to experts. Otherwise we could have arguments about whether Catholicism is the one true Christian religion or heresy. TFD (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Brocard's problem

See recent history of Brocard's problem. An IP has repeatedly been adding an unpublished preprint (by someone whom I can't identify as a professional mathematician, so not a "recognized expert" in the sense of WP:SPS) with some computational claims. The claims look plausible, but my feeling is that unless/until they are actually published they are original research. Additional opinions welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Herrenknecht

Two related editors keep reintroducing a criticism section into the article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herrenknecht&diff=779271067&oldid=779148657. The source is a New York times article that mentions Herrenknecht in an article on the Iranian nuclear program. The article makes no connection between Herrenknecht and the Iranian program and certainly does not speculate, as the two editors do, that "Herrenknecht's involvement is not known". Following this logic, maybe an article on the Disney corporation should also state that "Disney's involvement in the Iranian nuclear program is not known". Not sure why the editors keep reintroducing this paragraph, but I guess some editors are all to willing to remove IP edits on sight. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:859A:89E8:28A7:B99D (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Permanent deletion of edit from public view

Recommend scrubbing of defamatory and dangerously over the top edit (see [1]). Quis separabit? 19:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks. Quis separabit? 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Climate of Clearwater Beach

Recently, I came across the Clearwater Beach article and noticed an unsourced sentence regarding the climate: Clearwater Beach is officially classified as having a humid subtropical climate, however, the area is actually has more similarities with a tropical climate, resulting in hot, humid summers with frequent thunderstorms, and mild, dry winters. Although it's entirely unsourced, I assumed the first half of the sentence was correct, but the second half "however, the area is actually has more similarities with a tropical climate, resulting in hot, humid summers with frequent thunderstorms, and mild, dry winters" strikes me a WP:OR, so I removed it. Another editor disagrees with my removal and explanation of OR, but then added a source to back up his claim. I'm not aruging that his source is reliable, but despite it being called "U.S. Climate Atlas" is only a map and says nothing about climate, but temperatures in the US, nothing specific about Clearwater Beach. See the talk page for our "discussion". Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

ron popeil

Mr. Ron Popeil received the award from the Electronic Retail Association (ERA) in 2001. I know, because I was having dinner with him and his staff/family at the Paris hotel in Las Vegas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.160.46 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2017‎ (UTC)

I checked the ERA's website and Ron Popeil did indeed receive the Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001, not 2013 as stated in the article. It has been corrected and the ERA's website is cited.Roches (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

David Clarke (sheriff)

The article David Clarke (sheriff) needs rigorous monitoring, since the subject has been in the news lately. A editor has recently been inserting unsourced content (cautioned here), and has not responded to posts on his user talk. The same user has deleted and changed captions seemingly at random, but at times with some WP:NPOV concerns as well (example 1, example 2). Neutrality^talk 19:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

More eyeballs would be greatly appreciated. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The subsection header title changes at [2] are hilarious. Sagecandor (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Christian Contemplation

The rewriting and re-organizing of the Christian contemplation article have made it a set of incorrect broad generalizations and ascertains that the editor whom made them refuses to source. Some of these changes appear to be based and speculation and conjecture. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Deus vult

Some OR/SYNTH has been popping up in this article, added by a new editor. It's apparently based on an "alt-right" Internet meme. More eyes/watchlisting would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Religion and sexuality

This is about an editor crying WP:OR at [3] while himself/herself doing at [4] and [5] the very thing he/she claims to abhor. Please chime in. He/she cannot eat his/her cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources because original research is prohibited inside Wikipedia. It is prohibited any use of the Bible, as a WP:PRIMARY source, in order to make points which are not immediately obvious, but rely instead upon interpretation (exegesis). E.g. "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold" can safely be verified to the Bible. But "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold, which is bad, because 666 is Devil's number" is not allowed to be verified to the Bible, but its inclusion could only be based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. See WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of a primary source can take various forms. It can be going beyond the literal meaning, as in your example. It can also involve making judgments about significance of a particular passage, for example judging that it is pertinent to the topic of the article, when there is room for disagreement, or deciding which passages to select from a wider range of options. For example, if an editor decided that Bible should consist of quotes about stoning and putting cities to the sword, that would be OR. It can also involve synthetic statements which require generalization. If there's disagreement about use of a primary source, it should ideally be resolved by citing a non-primary source. Eperoton (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to quibble with your Bible example, Eperoton. Just including quotes about stoning and putting cities to the sword is problematic ... but the policy it violates is NPOV, not NOR. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It violates NPOV inasmuch as it does not reflect how the subject is treated in RSs, and it violates NOR inasmuch as it reflects the editor's own framing of the primary source. The connection to NOR is more than a formal question in cases of primary sources for which no secondary sources exist, and so a NPOV treatment is impossible to verify. A common case is BLPs where someone wants to compile a list of objectionable things said or written by the subject directly from the primary sources. This is a policy violation even if there are no RSs to establish an NPOV perspective on those quotes. Eperoton (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Chera dynasty synthesis

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

---

An argument is being made over at Talk:Chera dynasty to support the statement, "Early Cheras ruled over territories with Malayalam speakers".

Once again I have to break this down for you. That the Cheras ruled over large parts of Kerala and some regions of Tamil Nadu is clear and undisputed. If you are disputing this, then I would like to point out that you would be completely in error. Not only that it once again exhibits the clear extent of your biases and POVs. The next question is to provide the languages that are in use in these regions. And this detail is provided in the sources outlined who are providing expertise in historical linguistics. This is directly addressed in Govindankutty (1972). Here, Govindankutty clearly states that the linguistic branch is that of the geographic area of the Western coast of South India. In fact, he explicitly calls it 'West coast' dialects and that is the title of the paper! And secondary verification of this paper is provided by Asher & Kumari (1997) and Shanmugam (1976).

Isn't this synthesis/OR? None of the sources cited actually mentions the Cheras (Early or Later) or specifies any dates besides "prehistoric". IOW, other sources have established that the Early Cheras ruled over modern-day Kerala at some point in time. Here's a source that states that Malayalam (now spoken in Kerala) evolved in a prehistoric period. Therefore, it follows that the Early Cheras ruled over regions with Malayalam speakers.

There's also an ongoing DRN on the origin of Malayalam as there are two distinct theories on the language's antiquity, the more widely held of which supports a divergence from Tamil well after the era of the Early Cheras. The Asher & Kumari excerpt is available here (with all the emphasis being mine).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:20, 22 June 2017 (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.

Synth?

Is a table like this one synth? No source connects all these quotes to each other. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem so. Might be better to stick to what secondary sources say about it, in paragraph form. Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Many secondary sources connect these quotes together. For example, this book [6] threads most of these sources together. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy, Sagecandor, and Oncenawhile: Has the issue been resolved? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo "Total Lifetime Worldwide Gross" - "Production Budget" > 0 = "commercial success"?

Resolved

 – The objectionable sentence has been removed. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ctrl+F the Peter Dinklage article for "Prince Caspian".

Our article on the film itself says marketing for the film cost $175 million, which would mean its net profit was less than 20 million, or only around 5% of cost. Given that Disney's investors probably had a certain expectation going in, I would think a $420 million return on a $400 million dollar investment would be anything but a "success".

I can remove the word "success" from the article in question just fine, but I'm wondering if this kind of questionable math regarding film (etc.) profits has come up before with some consensus not to do it in general?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's classic WP:OR and should be removed, unless the citation itself contains the phrase "commercial success". Not to mention the fact that the success or lack thereof of a film an actor is in is irrelevant when the sole comment is on their performance. (All of that said, if a film's first-run U.S. gross box-office returns exceed its budget, it is conceivably a success because those returns do not include international box office, home video, TV broadcasts, streaming, second-run screenings, etc.) Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Simple math calculations are not considered OR but saying something made a net profit is not a simple calculation. See here [7] [8] [9] for info on why. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A film's budget doesn't account for all expenses (marketing, for one) and BOM "worldwide" gross often doesn't include the entire profit from ticket sales, let alone all income (DVD sales, streaming, merchandise etc.). And in the end, there is the question of who needs to make money to call the film profitable, which is also more complicated than it looks. Hollywood accounting didn't become famous for no reason... Daß Wölf 03:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88, Softlavender, Nil Einne, and Daß Wölf: Has the issue been resolved successfully? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, which was WP:OR and not in the citation. Hopefully no one tries to add it back in. Softlavender (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've marked it as resolved for now. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

SYNTH issue

I think we have a WP:SYNTH issue going on over at Alternative Facts. The material in question is: "According to rapid transit ridership data and photographic evidence Spicer's claims and allegations were false."

After I removed the material in question [10], user Volunteer Marek promptly reverted it [11], summarizing his edit with "they say it. It's called paraphrasing." As none of the sources say anything about "Spicer's claims and allegations" being "false," this appears to be textbook SYNTH (which VM refers to as "paraphrasing"). He defended his position on the talk page with similar reasoning[12]. The other issue of course, is that the material states that the conclusion of the "claims and allegations" was made by the ridership data, rather than the sources. Since a person (VM in this case) would have to do some math and determine if the numbers match up, that would be WP:OR. Although even if the material stated "According to the New York Times and CNN," it would still be original research since the sources do not say (or paraphrase) what VM's material is claiming. The opinions of uninvolved third parties on this dispute would be most welcome. Thanks!

Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what "original research" means. If I had collected ridership data myself and made this conclusion myself that would be original research. But I didn't. It's actually the reliable secondary sources given in the article - which you are removing - which come to this conclusion based on ridership data. So in fact this is like a perfect illustration of what original research is NOT. The sources do in fact say what the material is claiming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, since you're active on the Sean Spicer page, you're also well aware that there are plenty of other sources (not that they're necessary here) to back up these claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I'm very clear on WP:SYNTH, and there's nothing in the sources that say anything about "false" statements. That's your own opinion, which you synthesized yourself from two sources. But let's just let some uninvolved third parties weigh in instead of rehashing the same disagreement here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Volunteer Marek. These are secondary sources. The CNN source, cited above, verifies the ridership info. Sagecandor (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The text accurately reflects the sources. Here's what the CNN article says,

[Spicer's] comment came after a long digression about how many people had shown up to watch Trump be sworn in as president.

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said, contradicting all available data....

And Spicer said, "We know that 420,000 people used the D.C, Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 for president Obama's last inaugural."

Spicer's number for ridership on Friday was actually low -- the correct number, according to Metro itself, was 570,557. But there were actually 782,000 trips taken for Obama's second inaugural in 2013.

The clear implication of the article is that spicer misrepresented the ridership numbers in order to support the false claim that more people attended the inaugaral.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's implied, maybe it's not. As editors, we don't get to infer information from sources - the source either says the statement is false or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't. Note: It'd be great if we could have someone weigh in besides "the usual suspects," so to speak. Nothing personal against anyone here, but I think we need some fresh eyes on this that don't usually venture into the political areas. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There are myriad RS which explicitly say that Spicer's (and Trump's) claim was false, and some of them provide the ridership numbers as evidence. Fact checking sites did this quite a bit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If that's true, you're more than welcome to add them yourself to the article, but the existing sources did not support the material. And again, even if they did, the material states "According to ridership data," when it would need to state "According to the New York Times/WaPo/CNN/Mother Jones," etc. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It certainly is implied. The writer says that Spicer made false statements, then contrasts his crowd comparison with the facts. No reasonable reader would question whether the implication was that his statement about the number of transit riders was false. It's not synthesis, it's basic reading comprehension. TFD (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The source quotes Spicer and then contrasts his claims with what "actually" happened, and it does this in the midst of a passage on "several specific misstatements of fact." To say that Spicer's statements were false is a straightforward summary. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You changed your thesis a few times here, TFD. First you say it's "implied," then you say that a writer said the statement is false (rather than implied), then you say that anyone who doesn't share your inference that the statement is false is "unreasonable." So which is it? Does the writer say the statement is false or does the writer imply that the statement is false? If you think it's implied, then that's SYNTH. In nearly every WaPo and NYT story involving Spicer, the "news"room is implying that Spicer is all sorts of terrible things. That doesn't mean we look at the story of CNN not being invited to a press briefing and say, "Oh well WaPo is clearly implying that Spicer doesn't care about the first amendment and wants to shut down free speech so we need to put that in the article." If the sources say the statement is false, the reader does not need "basic reading comprehension" to understand that the source is saying the statement is false - the reader only needs to know how to read. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The writer "said" that Spicer made false statements, he "implied" that the transit ridership statement was one of them and it is "unreasonable" to read the article in any other way. Your argument sounds like one Trump would make. The difference is that it only works for him. TFD (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ouch! That was a good one. But let's stay on the content and not go after editors - nobody wants to go down that road. Which source stated that his statement was false? Could you copy-paste the line on this page, please? I want to see this explicit statement that you believe any other interpretation of would be "unreasonable." Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have answered you. At this point you are being disruptive and are engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer, I am discussing an OR/SYNTH issue on the OR noticeboard. By definition, discussion not regarding the material (your little remark, just now) is the only type of edit that can be disruptive. If you can find the statement that TFD is referencing, please post it here. Otherwise, I will ask you to kindly let the issue resolve itself naturally. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoting number of Google News hits

Is it original research to state "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" using a Google News url? Eg using this link to support "PolitiFact has been quoted 185 thousand times". Stickee (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Google's result counting is too variable to quote exact figures, but a statement such as "PolitiFact has been quoted thousands of times" would conform to WP:Primary as

1. a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and
2. free of interpretation.

Batternut (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an RS question at least in part. Many of those hits will be to the actual news site, others to who knows what, but meaningless. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 9 April 2017 (

No as your search results also comes upon with pages from PolitiFact, google will search for instances of the term, not how they are used.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: incorrect, the search term "-site:politifact.com" in the example given removes those hits. Batternut (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apart fro this, self referencing [13]Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That page quotes Politifact without linking to it. I don't see the problem...? Batternut (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course as with all Goggle hits, what they sau they gave found and the number of hits you get on the last page differs, the last pages says "Page 82 of about 158,000 results"Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This used to confuse me, though now I realise that Google gives at most 1000 results, and usually less, but it doesn't mean they have given you all possible hits. I haven't seen a full explanation from Google, I'd think it would probably be horribly technical - I suspect they start with the first 1000 contenders from the index, subsequent filters leave the 820 that you actually want, but thousands more contenders remain un-returned. Batternut (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

maybe, but it does not alter the fact that we cannot be sure that all the results are relevant (as you say "what we were looking "). This makes it hard to think of this as meeting verifiabilty, it may change based upon some random factor of googles (in fact it has it now returners "Page 82 of about 303,000 results".Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

But "quoted thousands of times" was still verified by your query - true for about 303,000, about 185,000, or and about 158,000 results. For figures over 1000, whenever Google says "about x results", I would only describe as "quoted for hundreds / thousands / maybe tens or hundreds of thousands / millions of times". Batternut (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If we could actually verify 303,000 or 158,000, "thousands" would work just the same. But if Google only shows 810-820, that's all we're sure of, and that sure isn't one thousand. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a bias in mentioning how many times something has been cited, because it implies the source is important. But we don't know that from the cite count, so it is implied synthesis. If a source has been cited x number of times is significant, then that should be found in reliable sources in a reliable secondary source. TFD (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Because "Google News are more likely to return reliable sources" (per WP:GOOGLEHITS) I think such cite counts do give a rough indicator of importance, especially in the arena of modern news media where being heard and being echoed is more important than being right. Alas perhaps, but the importance is not implied, it is measured even if only to an approximate order of magnitude. Batternut (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You have just written a justification for synthesis. But the policy remains against it and would have to be changed to allow the observation. I don't know what you mean by "the importance is not implied, it is measured." You just said, "Google News are more likely to return reliable sources." In other words a higher count implies greater importance, which is the only reason to include the count in the first place. TFD (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I see it like giving book or record sales figures, eg 100 million copies of the Bible sell each year, The Doors sold 4,190,457 albums, or even California Girls reached No. 3 etc. Do these claims synthetically imply success, or are they a measure of it? Batternut (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bible figure is attributed to reliable secondary sources: The Economist and Russell Ash. Stickee (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but primary/secondary source is not actually pertinent to TFD's synthesis argument above. Batternut (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The prohibition is against synthesis by editors, not in reliable sources. We expect secondary sources to perform synthesis. If secondary sources consistently mention that the Bible sells 100 million copies per year, then we include it per "Balancing aspects." Reporters, historians and social scientists have their own criteria in deciding that is or is not significant. Our criteria is whatever they consider to be significant and we do not second guess their judgment. That is of value to readers because they want articles to present what is found in reliable secondary sources, not information that reliable secondary sources omit. If they want to know how many hits a news site has on Google, then they can do a Google search. TFD (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

An odd thing I've found about cite counts is that sometimes as you click through you'll find the count reduces dramatically. I did miss the bit in the search that eliminated the site, useful that, but Google News will still throw up some odd sources. Google Scholar is much worse. From the name you'd expect scholarly sources, but it also throws up woowoo. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The second click eliminates duplications, but it will ask you if you want to include them. Some of the sources are of course better than others, which is probably why it is a poor guide. I notice in the PolitiFact enquiry, the first page shows it has been quoted in PJ Media, the Daily Caller and NewsBusters, and they all trash it. You need expertise in journalism to interpret this or save time and just accept that it is synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So where in WP:SYNTH is there distinction between primary and secondary source? Does it really matter which reliable source gives us "The Doors sold 4,190,457" or "100 mill Bibles sold", so long as we are satisfied with its likely truth? Reliability is important, which is why it is specified in WP:Synth, but primary/secondary is not, which is why primary/secondary is not mentioned in WP:Synth. Batternut (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---
It seems to me that the synthesis issues above do not have any policy basis, at least as far as stated in WP:SYNTH. For the following reasons:

(a) primary source is good enough - WP:SYNTH does not require secondary source,

(b) WP:SYNTH only talks about combining material; this claim is supported by a single part of one source,

(c) the claim is a statistic of a type found all over wikipedia, and "SYNTH is not ubiquitous", per WP:What_SYNTH_is_not.

Either of (b) or (c) above would mean, independent of all other factors, that the claim does not fall foul of WP:SYNTH, and I submit that both are true. IMHO. Batternut (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"of a type found all over wikipedia" I can't say I've seen anyone use Google News cite counts attributed to a search page before. Stickee (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that not an RS concern, rather than OR/synthesis? Batternut (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---
The discussion so far seems to me to amount to:

1. Synthesis does not apply.
2. Claim "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" is not verifiable given the approximate and variable nature of the source.
3. Claim "News site X has been quoted hundreds (or thousands) of times" is verifiable if Google News is considered reliable.

So, is this discussion the place to consider the reliability question, or should that go to WP:RSN? Or have I missed something? Batternut (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be both an OR and RS concern, since when you're performing OR there's no way concrete way to judge reliability of what you've conducted. Stickee (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Happily anybody can hit Google with the same query and get a result that justifies the claim. That's a primary source for you! Batternut (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Batternut, sorry for my late reply. The synthesis is implicit. As you said, "I think such cite counts do give a rough indicator of importance." Inclusion of the numbers implies that PolitiFact is important. That's what you are trying to convey whether you say it explicitly or merely imply it, by combining two facts: the number of hits and the implicit fact that a high number of hits is an indication of importance. TFD (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The second "implicit fact" of your argument is not a fact, it is an interpretation. Most statistics are subject to interpretations such as "more is better" (eg record sales), "less is better" (crime rates), it's what makes them interesting. Your view means the quoting of most statistics produces synthesis - quite possibly, but we do generally allow statistics! @The Four Deuces: Batternut (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is implicit synthesis in which facts we choose to report, which is why "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The prohibition is against synthesis by editors, not in reliable sources. Note the following article on VDARE's website: "Whites Down To 10% Of World Population By 2060— Does It Matter?" Citing stats has implicit synthesis so we don't cite stats we would not expect to find in reliable sources about the subject. We're not here to provide our personal takes on things, just to report what is in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The extreme VDARE page is an ad absurdum case - a closer example is the Fox News article claim "94,700,000 US households ... receive the Fox News Channel". That would count as "implicit synthesis" by the definition proposed above, but I think it's acceptable - because the proposed "implicit synthesis" does not correspond to policy in wp:Synth. The Fox News claim is actually covered by SYNTH is not ubiquitous. Regarding NPOV/Balancing aspects (WP:BALASP), that can only be decided in the context of a whole article - I don't think it helps evaluate whether a specific claim is OR. Batternut (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are missing my point. The statement that Fox News has 94M viewers is taken from a secondary source that ranks the networks.[14] Indeed it is implicit synthesis, but that's okay, because it is synthesis by editors that is prohibited. Obviously we need writers of secondary sources to determine what is important.

The significance of VDARE is that they are also presenting stats with implicit synthesis. It is not a reductio ad absurdum. If editors are free to choose which stats to add based on their personal assessment of their importance then they can use them to promote their personal views of topics. TFD (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That VDARE page combines badly-referenced long-term forecasts with highly tendentious interpretations - neither "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", nor free of interpretation as required by WP:Primary. Which particular VDARE statement(s) are actually relevant here? Batternut (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Time to close this discussion! When closing, please bare in mind:

• The OP's claim "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" got no support.
• The topic discussed was claim "PolitiFact has been quoted thousands of times".
  • arguments against it were: it's WP:SYNTH because giving a cite count implies importance; Google estimates are considered not verifiable, making an RS concern.
  • arguments for it were: WP:Primary is allowable; there's no combining of A and B to imply C; "implied synthesis" is a novel concept outside WP:SYNTH; stats are ubiquitous; only the magnitude of Google's estimate is being used, which is stable.

Batternut (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Images from Celestia as sources

An editor, User:NelsonWins, recently added a "View from this system" section on many articles about stars. As you can see in an example here, such edits are unsourced. When asked about it, NelsonWins replied that his/her only source is Celestia, an open-source software, and that he/she soon will provide pictures in order to providing sources. I believe that using Celestia, NelsonWins simply centered on a star and visually deduced the sky view from here; I think it falls under original research, yet I am not completely certain of it. Could someone confirm/reject my thought? Khruner (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a bit questionable both in method and whether this is a quality addition to the articles. On one hand I don't believe that reporting something a reliable primary source clearly depicts is original research. However, if NelsonWins is comparing two different pieces of output and making characterizations about the differences and similarities that would probably be WP:SYNTH since neither of the primary sources nor any secondary source are providing those characterizations. I think the questions are whether Celestia is a reliable primary source and how obviously the output supports what NelsonWins is describing. I'm just a newbie though. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OR-push at the talkpage of the Balloon boy hoax article

This is just a heads up that multiple new accounts have arrived at the talkpage of Balloon boy hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) trying to push a junk source from youtube, which aims to disprove the hoax by using heavy doses of original research. Just have a look at the latest wall of text by a new account. The article had to be protected due to relentless edit-warring by IPs. The new accounts have been posting walls of text at the talkpage for days where I have tried to explain to them why that source is junk, only to be met by stiff resistance and PAs. Somehow, noone from the article regulars has shown up to support my arguments and pick up the slack. I am not going to waste my time further on this hopeless task. The protection of the article expires on 15 July. So I would appreciate if at that time some editors check what is going on at that article. I have thought of bringing this report to RSN, BLPN, and even ANI, but, for now, I decided to bring it here. Any assistance/advice would also be welcome. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's less OR and more "I want to reference an internet conspiracy theorist", only when told that wasn't a good reference did they fall back to arguing the conspiracy theory on its merits. ApLundell (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There has only been one user which has discussed the "theory" and tried to convince others of it. I also responded to this user explaining Wikipedia is not in the business of giving weight to one side or the other of a legal case, and therefore is not i the business of declaring the event "not a hoax". What is being proposed, at least by me, is not that the allegations the subject makes be included and supported in the article; rather that the fact the subject made those allegations in that video be mentioned. Whether or not they are true is moot and trying to convince others about it as user "Anon" did is unnecessary. Bekeke1 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't be done. I have said this multiple times, but here is the latest: Everytime a youtuber or a blogger adds a video or a post to their channel or blog, we don't have to go after them and add it to Wikipedia. See WP:NOTBLOG. Dr. K. 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K, I appreciate you commitment to the integrity of this beautiful site. I agree with your claim that the video is not usable in the article under WP:RELIABLESOURCES, and that the repeated edit attempts have been unhelpful in resolving the issue. However, I also agree with user Bekeke1 in that the information presented within the video in question is very important, and should not be dismissed as a simple "fringe conspiracy theory", though the medium through which it is presented certainly makes it seem as such. The information and evidence Richard Heene presented is still new, despite the event having taken place years ago. If Heene was able to get his case presented through a different medium, such as an online article from a reputable source or a newspaper, would the information then be reliably presented enough to be considered for addition in the article? Thanks! --DiphthongHere (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Clearly this conspiracy theory won't fly, aha. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

God and Sex

This is about [15]. I do not feel like reverting it, but I would like advice from third parties upon whether this is OK. As far I understand it, no third-party quotations are required for the abstract, see e.g. Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman). I treated the book as a primary source. It is not a review or a critical commentary and passes no value judgments upon the book. The book itself is being quoted, and the views expressed therein are literal readings of the book (no other form of interpretation involved). I only mentioned stuff which is (a) interesting (as in producing surprise to those who have not studied the Bible) and (b) can be easily rendered in a few words. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember my thought process because that was awhile ago. But I think my first concern about a potential copyright violation was that it's an excessively long quote. Even with proper attribution, you can only use small portions. I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but it's pretty close to this example that was subject to a lawsuit. #2. Even if it's not a copyright violation, lengthy excerpts from a book don't belong in its encyclopedia entry (see WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT). —PermStrump(talk) 05:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu: just in case. —PermStrump(talk)

@Permstrump: I have read the reply. I am still waiting for other opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Median wage

This article is the matter of a dispute Is calculating median wages from the OECD data considered original research, or not? And is using tax calculators for deriving net wages considered as OR rule violation? It was calculated, because more complex calculation were done and nobody called it original reseacrhes. Like here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1_to_106_J reference 72: "Kinetic energy at start of jump = potential energy at high point of jump. Using a mass of 70 kg and a high point of 40 cm => energy = m*g*h = 70 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 40e-2 m = 274 J" Jeune091 (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear the user calculated after tax income by using tax calculators found online and posting the results. As for the derivation of median wages, the ratio found was multiplied against average wages---the ratio itself is derived from a different set of data vs what underlies the average wage figure (which stems from the national accounts). Therefore it's purely a guesstimate, which is not analagous to the mathematical example posted above (which is certainly not a guess). Therefore the user is inferring a conclusion that is nowhere in the source. Lneal001 (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to clarify myself as well.

I used statistics from OECD, particulary these two tables.

For example, if we want to calculate gross median wage, we use certain numbers:

1)80,070 is average annual salary for Australia in AUD. We take it from this source. By going there, you can see that average gross annual wage for Australia is 80,070 AUD

2)0.53 means that minimum wage equals 53% of median wage. To get those numbers, we go here If you will look at the left, you will see that both tables for average wages and for ratios are in the same section, therefore the source still the same.

3)0.44 means that minimum wage equals 44% of median wage. To get those numbers, we go here again, so we're still using the same source as before. As in, we use the source which provides ratio twice. The same source. Twice.

4)Now mathematics begins. To calculate median/average wage ratio, we divide 0.44 by 0.53. The number we'll get is a ratio of median wage in relation to average, which we recieved by using information from the same source. We used it twice. This source. Twice.

5)The number we've got, particulary 0.83 means, that median wage equals 83% of median wage.

6)Then, to get gross median salary, we mulpily 80,070 by 0.83. 80,070*0.83=66,458. To recieve this number, we used two sources from the same section. This one and that one. The latter we used twice, when we used ratio of minimum to average and minum to median.

7)66,458 AUD is median gross wage. And to quote the source: "

For cross-country comparisons, data on minimum wage levels are further supplemented with another measure of minimum wages relative to average wages, that is, the ratio of minimum wages to median earnings of full-time employees. Median rather than mean earnings provide a better basis for international comparisons as it accounts for differences in earnings dispersion across countries. However, while median of basic earnings of full-time workers - i.e. excluding overtime and bonus payments - are, ideally, the preferred measure of average wages for international comparisons of minimum-to-median earnings, they are not available for a large number of countries.

Minimum relative to mean earnings of full-time workers are also provided.

Here's the link to that note and an image just in case.

So, I really fail to see pure guess in here. And I'm waiting for the verdict. Jeune091 (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are using different methods for different states (for istance tax calcuctors of different sources and others).I just checked for Italy by "Calcolo stipendio netto" site(Italian tax calculator,not the one you posted).First of all the net changes by region and second the net is around 1500€(not 1374€ as you wrote).You did the same mistakes for other countries.Your article is very original since the beginning (like similar ones of the same sector).Wikipedia left too much space to original reserach in wages related articles till now.Benniejets (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Badger culling in the United Kingdom

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

---

Hi, Wikipedians. I'd like to update our article on Badger culling in the United Kingdom, and I'm pleased to see that we have some actual numbers. I'd like to say that more than 10,000 badgers were culled in 2016, based on this source; and to say that in 2015 we slaughtered more than 28,000 cattle to control bovine tuberculosis, based on this source. Then I'd like to say that we're killing nearly three times as many cows as badgers. I don't have a source for that last bit but I think it's okay under WP:CALC? (Source for both figures is Defra.)—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would leave it out. WP:CALC is not the problem here. This sort of comparative statement implies an equivalence between the two events (in this example, between culling a badger and culling a cow) that is not necessarily correct and is certain original research to assume. CIreland (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right to say that I should use wording that doesn't imply equivalence. There's no assumption going on here ---- both sources are from the same British government agency and the context of both is culling to control bovine tuberculosis.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't WP:CALC from two different years' numbers to come up with an overall rate. They are not like figures. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2017 (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.

Can a Wikipedia user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ?

Looking for previously un-involved, third-party respondents to please help answer this question:

At Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject, discussion about whether The Economist can be cited, and a blog by the same author, to show what a Wikipedia editor feels is "first documented usage of a word" DIFF.

Secondary sources disprove this and state it was not the first documented usage of the word.

(1). The Economist source itself, by author Edward Lucas, himself says in that very article that it is NOT the first usage of the word:

• Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.

(2). We also know this assertion to be outright false from a prior source from 1994:

• Austin, Joe (1994). "The obdurate and the obstinate". In Parker, Tony (ed.). May the Lord in His Mercy be Kind to Belfast. Henry Holt and Company. p. 136. ISBN 978-0805030532. And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' - you know, people who said 'Yes, but what about what's been done to us? ... That had nothing to do with it, and if you got into it you were defending the indefensible.

Despite this, can a Wikipedia user cite a 2007 and 2008 source as first usage of a word, when that is a primary source and not a secondary source?

As the 2007 and 2008 source themselves explicitly state they themselves are NOT the first usage of the word ?

Is this original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Many words, probably most, have nobody keeping track of their origin, nobody to speak for when they were first used occurred. And so it seems utterly well-reason for a person to be able to look at the plethora of records modernly available via the Internet, and state from that that one embodies the earliest occurrence of a word. And for any other person to present a finding earlier still. To me, it would seem, then, that the solution would be to describe all of the several earliest uses. Give their context, and so let them speak for themselves. Pandeist (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation correctly, the Economist is being used as a primary source and the linked diff introduces a synthetic statement about this source and other primary sources, which violates WP:PRIMARY and hence constitutes OR. Eperoton (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with analysis by Eperoton, you understand this correctly. Does that mean it also violates WP:SYNTHESIS ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, synthetic claims which are not explicitly stated in RSs can also be viewed as violations of WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We should only use secondary sources and avoid original research. I came across this issue a few years ago when an editor found a use of the term "socialist" in a book from the 1700s, while secondary sources said the word was coined in the 1800s. Turns out they were using a Google books copy of a 19th century reprint which retained the original publication date. The original used the obsolete word "scoliast," and a typesetter had inadvertently changed it. Fortunately, some editors were knowledgeable about both religious terminology and publication practices in the 18th and 19th centuries, and had access to the original book. But at the end of the day it was a waste of everyone's time and had it not been for the attention of some highly knowledgeable editors, the article would have included false information. TFD (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I have restored the material documenting use of the word by Lucas but removing the assertion that it was first use.[16] Please also note that no prior use has been demonstrated by editors who nevertheless insist that the term was in wide use pre-2007 and even in "Soviet times", i.e. pre-1991. I agree with Pandeist that we should simply show the various documented uses in the written record, subsequent claims of prior use (attributed), dictionary entries or lack thereof, in order to provide the most complete overview of possible etymology for our readers. The can make up their mind based on all facts available. — JFG ^talk 09:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with [17] by BullRangifer. Sagecandor (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly ok with JFG's latest edit, though I'm not sure what's the point of mentioning that the term doesn't appear in OED. Via my subscription to Oxford Reference I can also tell you that the cited entry from Oxford Living Dictionaries appears in the Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) [18]. By the way, it's odd that the related term whataboutery (Oxford Collins) redirects to the article under the discussion, but the article makes no mention of it. Eperoton (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Thank you for mentioning that the cited entry from Oxford Living Dictionaries appears in the Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) [19]. Can you provide the full citation and full entry for that please ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The bibliographical info is available this side of the paywall: Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.), Edited by Angus Stevenson, Publisher: Oxford University Press, Print Publication Date: 2010, Print ISBN-13: 9780199571123, Published online: 2010, Current Online Version: 2015, eISBN: 9780191727665. Eperoton (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Thank you. Can you elaborate, please, on your comment "though I'm not sure what's the point of mentioning that the term doesn't appear in OED." ??? Sagecandor (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just literally, I'm not sure. I'm not particularly concerned about it, since it doesn't convey to me any particular unsourced conclusion, and so doesn't obviously qualify as WP:SYN, but it doesn't seem obviously pertinent either. Eperoton (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:The absence of an entry in the OED is being used on talk:Whataboutism to make claims about what this may or may not mean. I'm afraid the same will be added into the article body text, if the mention is allowed to remain. Can you elaborate here on whether it is appropriate to draw conclusions from why or why not there isn't an entry in the OED, but there is an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of English ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not specific enough for me to comment on. Eperoton (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton, here's my understanding: Editors are not free to state in Wikipedia's voice something not explicitly stated in a RS. They must not use an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, partially (there could be myriad other reasons) because that "absence of evidence" is based on their own inability to "find" (OR!!!) some evidence. Failing in that OR mission, they should not say anything. To add unsourced commentary on their failure is OR editorializing.

We do have RS which say that whataboutism was practiced, obviously before the term itself came into use. Our article covers the concept and the word. Whether or not the term was included in some dictionary is another matter. Dictionaries, like Wikipedia, are always behind the curve. We must not conflate the two issues. The only thing we can say about the origins or first usages of the word itself is what RS actually say. Saying more can be OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: In this case OED is being used a primary source. We can make factual statements about it, but not interpretive or synthetic statements. I don't see interpretation or synthesis in its current use, and that's why I'm only questioning its pertinence. Eperoton (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Back to The Economist, can this be cited as a primary source [20], to advance a point about when the user feels is the first usage of the term? Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes this is completely WP:OR. This is a perennial hard problem (how do you cite the lack of finding something) but what we need do in those cases, is just cite the earliest thing we can find as the article does currently with: "British journalist Edward Lucas used the word whataboutism In a blog post of October 29, 2007"....

But there are much more fundamental problems with this article, which is not being grappled with directly - namely the whole article is wrongly footed. Whataboutery/whataboutism are just a british term for the general pot/kettle argument, widely used in UK politics going back at least to the 1970s. It is not a specialized term for Soviet/Russian propaganda, like the article makes it out to be. I think this is JFG's point, being made in completely the wrong way - a policy violating way - in this article. As discussed at its Talk page at Talk:Whataboutism#Problematic -- Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are oh so right! The scope of the article should be expanded. There is nothing in the way of adding more content. The basic idea is no doubt thousands of years old. Even children use this basic logical fallacy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, when I looked at the article, I had the exact same concern. I've requested this WSJ article, which I believe discusses the history of use of these two terms, through Resource Exchange so I can help fixing this issue. Eperoton (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In terms of an article on this logical fallacy, we should bear in mind there is already an article on the tu quoque fallacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Defamatory allegations in a biographical article

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

---

Hello, could someone please look at Talk:Carl Joachim Hambro (philologist)? A user has made slanderous remarks about this individual, with no reliable sources to back them up. They allege that they are related to the subject, and that the injurious statements are well-known "facts" in social circles in Oslo. Would be grateful if someone could look into this. --81.166.16.244 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (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.

Is it original research to cite a source as evidence for the absence of something ?

Looking for previously un-involved, third-party respondents to please help answer this question:

At Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject, discussion about whether Oxford English Dictionary can be cited after Wikipedia editors consulted it to find the absence of an entry.

Does that constitute original research ?

Specifically, to add wording to article mainspace, The last print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) does not include this word; neither do the latest electronic updates as of June 2017.

Is that Wikipedia editors doing their own original research and reporting on what they've found to be the absence of an entry, as opposed to citing a specific entry itself ?

Sagecandor (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It is original research. What is wrong with this approach is that it implies a word has declined in usage when there could be other reasons for the exclusion. Also, the OED is not the only dictionary and it could be that others have included the word. And per weight, the facts we present should be in accordance with their presence in reliable sources. If no reliable sources have noted the omission then we should not either. TFD (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Agree with everything you said, thank you. Please see [21]. Perhaps you can explain it there, better than I can ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Now in main article text, at [22]. Sagecandor (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Is it original research to include this source in this way [23], to advance a point by the user about what they feel it may or may not mean for a particular source to not mention something? Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you sum up the issue VERY well. Editors are not free to state in Wikipedia's voice something not explicitly stated in a RS. They must not use an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, partially (there could be myriad other reasons) because that "absence of evidence" is based on their own inability to "find" (OR!!!) some evidence. Failing in that OR mission, they should not say anything. To add unsourced commentary on their failure is OR editorializing.

We do have RS which say that whataboutism was practiced, obviously before the term itself came into use. Our article covers the concept and the word. Whether or not the term was included in some dictionary is another matter. Dictionaries, like Wikipedia, are always behind the curve. We must not conflate the two issues. The only thing we can say about the origins or first usages of the word itself is what RS actually say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes it is absolutely OR. The citation is asking the reader to perform the same OR act. This is now what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how citing a dictionary is OR, and I don't think a dictionary is a primary source. The Oxford English Dictionary proclaims itself the definitive record of the English language. Simply stating that "whataboutism" is not in the OED is simply stating a fact that can easily be checked. It is not just any dictionary; it is the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (outside of the USA, at least). The 1989 print edition runs to 20 volumes and aimed to record every word in English usage. If it is OK to cite the inclusion of a word in a dictionary, it should be OK to cite the non-inclusion. Otherwise the process is biased towards editors who say that "whataboutism" was prevalent during the Cold War. They can gather together every stray mention, most of which lead back to Edward Lucas in the Economist in 2007-2008, and cite that as proof. Reference to the OED, however, indicates that "whataboutism" was not a prominently used term. To omit this is to give misleading information to our readers, and runs the risk of citogenesis. More and more writers will read this Wikipedia article and accept that the term was common currency in the Cold War. They will then mention this fact in articles, and these articles will be cited in this Wikipedia article as further proof. I don't think the article should say that Lucas was wrong, or anything like that. I just think we should be able to cite the OED to establish the level of usage of this term historically.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What is OR is stating that there is no entry. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you can't prove a negative, I think it should be considered OR to state the absence of something. If an RS notes the absence, that's fine, but we can't make that jump. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You can prove it. Anyone can check by accessing the dictionary themselves. I don't see why it's not OR to cite an entry, but OR to cite the absence of an entry. The actions involved are the same: checking a page or querying a database...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's more synthesis than OR. The argument seems to be "Oxford doesn't have an entry for the word (fact), so the word is of questionable validity (synthesis)", even if the last part is unstated. Why bring it up? The only reason seems to question the validity of the term as a WP editor, which is synthesis without a secondary source making that judgement. Same would be true to try to justify that a term is used just because there is an entry in OED; that's synthesis without the secondary source. And as others have said, OED is not the only dictionary we have access to as an RS, just perhaps the oldest and most reliable. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Elaborating on what I said about this in another thread here: in this case OED is being used as a primary source. We can make descriptive statements about it as long as they don't involve interpretation or synthesis, which depends on specific context. In this particular case, the statement did not convey any synthetic or interpretive claim (though I see that it did to other editors), and I only questioned its pertinence. However, similar uses of OED could be valid in a different context, and we don't want to renounce our ability to cite primary sources when secondary sources make false statements about primary sources, and there are no secondary sources which directly contradict them. For example, if a secondary source falsely states that some edition of OED contains a certain entry, we can cite the primary source to indicate otherwise. More realistically, if some secondary source states that a certain word was used in a certain sense during some period and OED does not include this sense in the relevant section, we can make that descriptive statement about OED. Eperoton (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to Masem, the point in citing the OED from 1989 is not to "question the validity of the term", but rather to show that it was not in widespread currency during the Cold War. Citing the current OED to say it still isn't included would give the reader some indication of its currency today and its acceptability in English usage. I think that's pretty important when discussing terminology. I agree it would be synthesis to put the OED together with other sources and come to some conclusion, but I don't think that citing an absence purely and simply is either original research or synthesis. If it was cited in the OED, no doubt the other side of the debate would cite that entry with much fanfare. It is biased to say that absence can't be cited.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller/Jim Acosta debate

We have a few editors trying to add content to Stephen Miller (political advisor) without going through the hassle of getting consensus on the talk page. The content in question is: "Miller attacked his American critics for a deficit of nationalism, accusing them of a "cosmopolitan bias". Supposedly this content is supported by an op-ed in Politico[24] and a New York Times[25] piece, but there is nothing that says anything about "attacked" or "deficit of nationalism." This is possibly BLP-violating material also that is being repeatedly inserted, so I have no qualms if an admin would care to slide this over to that noticeboard instead. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The above analysis by Mr.Mx. Tempo claims that Mr. Stephen Miller neither "attacked" his critics nor accused said critics of a "deficit of nationalism", both claims are startlingly incorrect. Addressing the former claim, the New York Times states that Mr. Miller, quote "ripped into a reporter" [26], while the Politico [27] source goes at length to detail the history of the "cosmopolitan" insult, and notes that it is "a clear implication that there is something less patriotic, less loyal", i.e saying such things to a person is clearly an attack. Addressing the latter claim, the phrase "deficit of nationalism" directed at a person simply means that the speaker believes the target to be lacking in nationalism or pride in one's country, that one is (in this case, less American. Again, the Politico source speaks precisely to the context of Mr. Miller's "cosmopolitan bias", and how it has been used by Stalin to justify the Soviet Purge, and cites noted white nationalist Richard Spencer's cheering of Mr. Miller's attack of Mr. Acosta.

In conclusion, I feel the complaints levied by Mr.Mx. Tempo to be without merit. TheValeyard (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interpretations of the op-ed. It served as a nice summary/breakdown of what "original research" is. Please stop calling me "Mr. Tempo", though. It sounds absurd. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Miller accused a specific reporter of having a "cosmopolitan bias". He may have had in mind the whole of "fake media" but we don't know that. Wikipedia article should stick to facts not interpretations, that close to events. Interpretations can come later, when someone writes a book or a scholarly article on Miller's career, including this particular incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The term "cosmopolitan" is a code word used by the far right for Jews. It was a statement that Jews were not citizens of the countries where they lived. However, we do not know whether Miller was aware of that and we have no reliable sources on it. The way the text is phrased implies that he is anti-Semitic without any reliable sources that report that opinion. If actual news stories cover the matter, then we could report on it, because then we would know the weight of the accusation and his response. TFD (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the sources address whether he knew or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I agree with your reasoning, and appreciate your neutrality in interpreting the sources. However, I have no idea what source you are using for the supposed "code word" meaning of "cosmopolitan." I see no dictionary that echoes this sentiment, and can only find a few op-eds penned by fierce critics of Donald Trump, Republicans, and opinions with which they do not agree in general. As I see it, Miller was using the dictionary definition of "cosmopolitan," not the definition of some Politico blogger who used it to smear a Trump advisor. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Politico citation goes into a great deal of history behind the term. You can't make excuses for someone who plainly and demonstrably uses a historically bigoted code-word. That would be original research. TheValeyard (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You still aren't fully grasping the meaning of original research. It doesn't matter if Jeff over at Politico agrees with you about the meaning of "cosmopolitan." You can't use an op-ed to make a statement of fact. Period. I have explained this to you numerous times, but you instead choose to eschew the advice of far more experienced editors and soldier onward with your BLP violating material without gaining consensus. And that is why you have now found yourself the subject of an AN/I report. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully welcome an ANI report; at the very least I will able to be judged fairly and honestly by editors who have no prior involvement in this, rather than by your repeated condescending attempts. I am grasping the concept of original research just fine; in fact let me point out an example of it, Mr.Mx. Tempo. Look above where you said "As I see it, Miller was using the dictionary definition of "cosmopolitan...". Those 4 words at the beginning demonstrate that you are basing your editing choices on your personal opinion rather than on reliable sources. TheValeyard (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

HT, you're the one who started it with the "adding content without hassle of getting consensus on the talk page". I then added additional content on the same topic and backed it with reliable sources. At that point you realized that the way reliable sources covered the material wasn't in line with your pov so you switched to trying to remove it. Then Lambden jumped in because... well, because he stalks my edits. Other users tweaked the wording to have a "compromise" version and it looked for a second like the matter was settled. But that wasn't good enough for you so you restarted the edit warring basically saying "it's my way or the highway". Of course Lambden supported you in this, but everyone else (multiple editors) opposed. Along the way, both you and Lambden have failed to discuss the matter productively and have instead resorted to personal attacks (including making false derogatory accusations about other editors - to be fair, that was mostly Lambden, although HiddenTempo also played his part). Other editors came to the discussion and the page and objected to you two guys' WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. At that point you realized consensus was against you. So you did what any seasoned WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior would do, you came running here and Lambden went to the drama boards (ANI). The whole episode is one sorry example of WHAT NOT TO DO ON WIKIPEDIA. You two have done the POV, you have done the EDIT WAR, you did the PERSONAL ATTACK, you did the BATTLEGROUND and now you're doing the WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer, please do not shout and personally attack folks on this noticeboard. This is a place to resolve content disputes, not attack other editors or raise user conduct issues. In short, the addition of contentious, BLP-violating material that was not represented in the sources was repeatedly added without consensus, which I (and others) removed. Reinstating contentious material without consensus is not permitted on the project. Please direct the subject of your future edits here on the content, not on individual editors. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I am neither shouting nor am I "personally attacking" anyone. I use caps sparingly, for emphasis, which is how us adults used to do it back in the day. And I am not attacking anyone, I am ... CRITICIZING. Because there's plenty worthy of criticism. And I see you've switched to that faux-civil passive-aggressive approach, rather than the outright incivility you've displayed on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As to that "cosmopolitan" thing. Here:

• 'Cosmopolitan' is a dog whistle word once used in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia
• Loaded word of the week: Cosmopolitan
• Stephen Miller’s strange insult of a reporter is very familiar to white supremacists. "Cosmopolitan" is a deeply loaded epithet.
• ""The way Miller leaned into the word 'cosmopolitan' while answering Acosta has a long and ignoble history in 20th century authoritarianism, especially the anti-Semitic variety"]
• And then basically other outlets re-reporting this.

And this makes sense too. "Cosmopolitan" is a very strange word to use in this context. There's plenty of other words, without the ugly history, that Miller could've used in the exchange. But. He chose this particular one. Of course it's gonna raise eyebrows.

BTW, I think we're missing the information that Miller "found himself apologizing to Acosta" in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Three op-eds from random blogs and an op-ed from CNN does nothing for your argument that you (or any other editor) has the right to implement contentious BLPVIO material post-reversion and skip the "D" in WP:BRD. You need to gain consensus for the contested material, which you either forgot to do, or remembered and just didn't feel like doing. The material misrepresents the sources. Straight up. In regards to the apology, Miller apologized to Acosta "if things got heated," not for accusing him of harboring a "cosmopolitan bias." Nobody "missed" anything - that was just your own person interpretation/analysis of what really happened. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, those aren't "random blogs". Nice try though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Public Radio International - not a "random blog".

CNN - not a "random blog"

Thinkprogress - leftward leaning (obviously), but not a "random blog".

Ha'aretz - Not a "random blog".

When someone is deliberately insulting sources and doing so in a 100% false way, it's a sign that their argument has zero merit. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that your userpage is using the "Retired" template, Morty. And yet, you still continue editing the encyclopedia. Anyway, whatever op-eds those blogs are printing not enough to make a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. This is the definition of original research, and that is what the editors who are skipping the consensus-building process are attempting to make the case against on this noticeboard. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can safely discount the opinion of anyone so rankly dishonest that they continue to dismiss legitimate journalism with a false and insulting claim that the articles are "blogs". Morty C-137 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Has everybody forgotten the key argument that Acosta was trying to extract from Miller? That somehow asking for immigration candidates to speak English was a sneaky way to limit them to people from Great Britain and Australia? Given that a good billion people use English as a native language, and another billion as a second language, Miller's outrage was quite on point. Perhaps Miller should have said "Have you heard of India, Mr. Acosta? What about Nigerians? Ghanaians? Singaporeans?" On the face of it, Acosta's remark was way more bigoted and condescending than any "code word" that Miller used in his rebuttal. (Maybe I read too many women's magazines, but I never heard "cosmopolitan" in a racial context.) — JFG ^talk 22:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Miller should have said "Have you heard of India, Mr. Acosta? What about Nigerians? Ghanaians? Singaporeans?" - but he didn't, which is sort of the point! Instead he chose to use a code word used among white supremacists. You're basically saying "well, if he had something else, we wouldn't be having this discussion", you know that, right? I mean, yeah, no shit, but, so? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, no shit, but, so? Dude! YOLO! Seriously, it's fascinating to watch how both sides think the other guy is extremely prejudiced… Sad! — JFG ^talk 06:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, but your misinterpretations of questions, your original-research (if the term "research" is even appropriate) opinions, and your lack of education/knowledge regarding white supremacist epithets really don't have any bearing on the discussion. Miller used a word with a history of being an anti-jewish epithet, and he did so in the context of being an individual with known white supremacist ties. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Morty, you can believe whatever you want to believe about the word "cosmopolitan," but the dictionary is really quite clear on this. The hate-Trump blogosphere does not get to redefine certain words and attempt to predict what people are thinking. Your poorly sourced (a fashion mag??) smear of Miller as having "white supremacist ties" is a BLP violation. Please strike immediately. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The source is considered WP:RS enough to be a recommended link at Stephen Miller (political advisor). He does have white supremacist ties, as reported by reliable journalistic reporting; as such, the comment shall not be struck as it is highly relevant. Similarly, reliable journalistic reporting and historical researchers have shown that the word has history of being used as a racist code word. Hyper-strict reliance on "the dictionary" has, however, proven to be a time-honored tactic of those blowing a dog whistle. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even going to address your absurd race-baiting argument from "Affinity Magazine". It's offensive that you would even try to justify your smears and BLP violations with trash like that. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, "race baiting", another common signaling device from those who are blowing a dog whistle. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your condescension is noted. My dog wishes you a nice day! — JFG ^talk 06:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering: "Lady Liberty has also become a fixation for the more extreme elements of the right, individuals less interested in correct symbolism than using the poem — and its Jewish author — as convenient targets for ugly anger and anti-Semitism. The same month Limbaugh spoke about Lazarus, alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer also took aim at the statue’s poem...David Duke, former Klu Klux Klan leader and current Trump supporter, spent an entire chapter in one of his books weaving anti-Semitic conspiracy involving the monument and Lazarus....Lazarus is also a frequent topic on Stormfront, one of the Web’s largest white supremacist hubs. One typical post on Lazarus is “Give Me Your Huddled Masses — The Jewess who tried to destroy the US!” And today, Stormfront’s forums were buzzing about Miller (who was raised in a Jewish home in Southern California). “Miller really did destroy them. It’s pretty much a badge of honour for a jew to jew another jew,” one Stormfront commenter wrote. “And those damn (((journalists))) are insufferable. I say free helicopter rides for them.” “That cnn jew reporter asked ‘Are we only going to allow immigrants from Great Britian Australia in?'”another said. “It would have been great if Stephen Miller responded with YES! and every other White Country also.”"
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/03/acosta-versus-miller-a-lurking-ideological-conflict-about-the-statue-of-liberty/ Morty C-137 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And of course, The Telegraph has similar coverage to Vanity Fair (which actually has a very good journalistic reputation, nevermind the WP:IDONTLIKEIT smears from the alt-right commenters here): "His views caught the attention of white supremacist Richard Spencer – a Duke graduate and the man who organised the “Heil Trump” gathering in Washington DC. Mr Spencer said he became friendly with Mr Miller through the Duke Conservative Union in the autumn of 2006, and last year told the Daily Beast that he was a “mentor” to Mr Miller " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/12/stephen-miller-31-year-old-senior-adviser-behind-donald-trumps/ Morty C-137 (talk)

I guess I need to mention that Hidden Tempo just decided to tag my talk page with an unfortunate diatribe, accusing me of "disrupting" this discussion by posting well sourced (Washington Post,The Telegraph) coverage that is relevant to the discussion and threatening to complain about me on a different board. I think I have to side with Volunteer Marek here, their behavior is very much uncivil. Morty C-137 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski manifesto

Outside opinions needed at Talk:Ted Kaczynski#RfC regarding Original Research  czar 05:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

CIvil conflict infobox at 2017 Unite the Right Rally

At 2017 Unite the Right Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Don1183 (talk · contribs) persists in adding a "civil conflict" infobox despite lack of consensus at the talk page pointing out that there are no sources calling this a civil conflict. It's been removed twice and he's restored it each time. He's a new editor but I did explain this to him on his talk page. He thinks that because it seems that a car deliberately rammed people that makes it a civil conflict. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And it names groups on each "side" which of course mahpkes it look as though they are all fighting each other. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly undue. A similar discussion came up at 2017 Berkeley protests; there was even an RfC about it, which closed with a clear consensus against such an infobox: RfC about adding an infobox (permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Prime Number Distribution Series

I have also requested a look at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. Is this new article original research? It appears to me that the author is referring to his own works, and that they have not been peer-reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2020‎

The rules in use at United States presidential election, 2020‎, while reasonable for a state-level campaign with a short window of candidate uncertainty, are producing an absurd result right now. The page is almost entirely original research as to who is "likely" to run. I'm not sure how to fix the page, I have proposed several options but the editors-in-residence on that page (many of whom have edited this type of page for many years) are resistant to even entertaining the idea of change. Any suggestions on how to improve that page? Power~enwiki (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What is Texas's age of consent?

This is actually a question that's been discussed for some time at: Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas (under "Indiana section now outdated"). It's a tough subject because Texas has two laws that may affect the age of consent:

• section 21.11 of title 5: "Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:[...]"
• section 43.25(b): "Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section: (1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age." inducement of sexual conduct and for sexual activity involving "visual representation or employment" at 18

There had been two convictions under 43.25 John Perry Dornbusch and Todd William Baker which did not involve commercial performances nor visual representation, with only incitement to do a sexual act.

Situation from published reliable sources:

• Texas newspapers say that the age of consent is 17 (I haven't seen an article from a Texas newspaper citing Dornbusch or stating that it's in fact 18)
  • Houston Chronicle: "The case illustrates the gray area of criminal responsibility for teens having sex before they are legally able to consent at the age of 17."
  • Dallas Morning News: "The age of consent in Texas is 17."
• Stephen L. Carter (Yale University professor) argued on the basis of John Perry Dornbusch and Todd William Baker that in fact the AOC is 18 even though some defense lawyers didn't believe so (one example of a defense lawyer that he cited)
• Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post considered Stephen Carter's arguments: "As best I can tell, 30 states set the general age of consent at sixteen; 8 set it at seventeen; and 12 set it at eighteen (though it’s possible that the last there are actually 7 at seventeen and 13 at eighteen, because of an odd twist with Texas law). [...] Over 60 percent of the population lives in the states that set the age of consent at 16 or 17, regardless of how one counts Texas." - He didn't definitely decide whether Texas AOC should be set at 17 or 18

Currently on the U.S. age of consent map Texas is colored gray for other/unknown instead of a specified age

User:Fabrickator argued that because the Texas Jurisprudence®, 3d (this requires a payment to view) recently published a statement in the section "20 Tex. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Offenses Against Public Order" saying: "The language of this provision [Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.25(b)] criminalizes the inducement of a child's sexual conduct regardless of whether it amounts to a sexual performance, and it applies to nonpornographic, noncommercial sexual conduct by children." (and because of other explanations in Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas in regards to how incitement of sexual conduct was criminalized), Wikipedia ought to say that 18 is definitely the age of consent in Texas, arguing that any statements saying that the age of consent are 17 are not true.

I argue that because at this time secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) haven't come to a consensus that 18 should be considered the age of consent, and the Texas state government and major newspapers have never made an announcement (in a medium read by the "ordinary Joe") explicitly clarifying that 18 and not 17 is the age of consent on the basis of Dornbusch and Baker, the article should not definitely state which age is Texas's age of consent and instead summarize the various views by columnists and present the exact quote from the source Fabrickator found.

Lastly I will say that in regards to my proposal to ask the Texas state government and/or major newspapers to make a public announcement to clarify what the "age of consent" is in the state (my suggestion to Fabrickator to get this matter cleared up), this is a perfectly reasonable request on the grounds of:

• Prosecutors do prosecute on the grounds of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse", so clarity on the law is warranted
• It is the job of government officials to explain the laws they write, interpret, and enforce
• The vast majority of ordinary people don't even think of reading Texas Jurisprudence®, 3d, let alone paying for it, nor will they think of searching for legal cases that get scant coverage in the media (I don't think any Texas outlets have ever published any articles saying that Dornbusch and Baker have changed/affected the state age of consent - such articles would be warranted!) - therefore government officials should publish "plain speech" and/or "TL/DR" summaries of the realities/interpretations of such laws.

@Fabrickator: WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify: What part in all of this relates to the issue of Original Research? Blueboar (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I fear that if one, based on the above presented, says the age of consent is certainly 18, it may be counted as original research due to ambiguities over the wording "inducement of a child's sexual conduct" (what forms of inducement? what does that mean?) in the 18+ law, as well as due to the lack of agreement between the secondary sources (note that while "Texas newspapers say that" lists two examples, there are many other newspaper articles which say the age of consent is 17). WhisperToMe (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

OK... here is my take: we have one statute that says 17, and another that says 18... thus Wikipedia can not say that one or the other is the definitive age of consent. Instead we need to note both ages, and the statutes that apply. Don't interpret the statutes ... just neutrally present what they say. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. Above I suggested not definitely stating an age of consent. I don't see a problem including interpretations from other secondary sources as long as they're presented as such, such as Stephen Carter's, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#What_is_Texas.27s_age_of_consent.3F a user e-mailed me the Texas Jurisprudence article. He read the Baker v. Texas link which stated "the plain language of section 43.25(b) authorizes the prosecution of those who induce persons younger than eighteen years old to, among other things, have sexual intercourse." and based on that believes the age of consent is unambiguously 18; the Wikipedian believes that (his words): "It scarcely matters that there is also a different criminal provision with a minimum age of 17." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm the editor just quoted. I didn't realize that this was about an OR issue.

The OR issues here are a bit tricky. None of the secondary sources cited above are reliable sources: lay newspapers are not RS for legal conclusions, and neither are unedited blog posts. So can we simply say that the Texas age of consent is 18, or is that WP:SYN? I think this is a fairly close issue on the WP:SYN issue, but what carries the day for me is that a Texas court, in the course of discussing these two statutes, actually said that the Texas age of consent is 17. Ex parte Fujisaka, 472 S.W.3d 792, 800, 801 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

On the other hand, we can't just say that the age of consent is 17, either. The Texas Department of Public Safety has taken the position that the Texas age of consent is 18. Appellant's Brief, Texas Department of Public Safety v. Garcia, 2010 WL 1366961, at 8 (Tex. Ct. App. filed Feb. 1, 2010). And this is clearly a reasonable position for the department to take. So for us to choose one age over the other would be WP:SYN. We need to say that there are two different statutes that have been characterized as age of consent statutes in Texas, with two different ages (17 and 18), with perhaps a brief discussion of each.

If anyone wants a copy of any of the documents I've cited, email me and I can reply with a PDF. The Fujisaka case may be available on the web, I haven't checked. John M Baker (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your research! It's really helpful and answers a lot of questions.

As for lay newspapers being unreliable sources for law, it may help to put that in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) if there's a consensus for that position among Wikipedia:WikiProject Law editors. However "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)" is currently just an essay.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

To switch gears a bit, would anybody care to speculate why Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header (click on the "show" link) defines special rules pertaining to the quality of the "age of consent" pages? Fabrickator (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Thanks for bringing that up! Do you remember where the discussions which determined this discussion header are located? I am aware that there is a general principle on WP that a small group of editors in a particular place can come up with a consensus, but that a larger consensus determined by the whole community can override that. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I think we can reasonably assume that the guidance provided in the "discussion header" came about from challenges encountered as the "age of consent" pages evolved, and (I presume) particularly as different "reliable sources" provided conflicting information. My recollection, when I previously raised the issue of the special rules that apply to the "age of consent" pages, was that somebody had determined that the discussion was "misplaced" and was moved to a different article. I have been unable to locate that discussion.

I am unaware of other pages that have a similar set of special rules. The editors involved felt strongly that these rules were needed, which suggests to me that we should not dismiss them lightly. I'd also point out that in addition to the issue about appropriate references, the "discussion header" calls for highlighting a specifically-defined age of consent. I would advocate that we think carefully before ignoring this advice. Fabrickator (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Blueboar: @John M Baker: @WhisperToMe: I am not sure this is the proper forum for this discussion, but as long as we're here ...

It has been stated that there is one statute saying the age of consent is 17 and another saying it's 18, but this is not really accurate. Neither of these laws authorizes consensual sex with a person over a stated age. Rather, each of these criminalizes consensual sex (under specified conditions) with a person under a stated age.

Arguably, there may be some ambiguity about what these "conditions" are, but more plausibly, the D.A.'s office determines there is a crime to be prosecuted, and then based on what they feel they can prove, they decide what statutes to charge.

Last but not least, if there's some kind of vague condition, the intention of having a "highlighted" age of consent is to indicate the age of consent that doesn't require further explanation (i.e. an approximation to an "unfettered" age of consent). So what I mean by this is, if I tell you that the age of consent is thus and such, then a person should not be subject to prosecution, if the other party is of the specified age. Maybe there are conditions when sex with someone under that age may not be subject to prosecution, but that's going to require further clarification. Our focus needs to be on the age that doesn't need this further clarification. Fabrickator (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Fabrickator, that's not really what an age of consent statute does; it's pretty rare for a statute affirmatively to state that a person over a specified age is authorized to consent to sex. Instead, rape and other statutes provide that a person under a certain age is deemed unable to consent to sex. The intro to Age of consent explains this pretty well. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@John M Baker: But of course. The point, however, is that these two laws do not contradict each other, they apply concurrently, and this distinction is important, because to say there are two different age of consent statutes would mislead the casual reader.

Our only concern is determining how old the other person has to be, so that an actor having consensual sex with that person is not thereby committing a criminal act, without making any assumptions about the actor's age. There cannot be two answers, because there's only one set of factual circumstances (granting, notwithstanding, the additional condition of 43.25(b), and that there could, in principle, be different ages of consent for different sexual acts).

Setting aside specific limitations or exceptions to the statute is how we arrive at this notion of the "unfettered" age of consent. This saves us from confusing the issue, for instance, by saying that as long as you don't induce the person, sex with a 17-year-old is legal, leaving the reader to erroneously infer that inducement means providing compensation. There's one set of factual circumstances, there can only be one "bold" age of consent for Texas, and there's no reason to make it appear that there's some ambiguity about this. Fabrickator (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I actually do think that that's the right answer. I've spelled out the factual situation above, so I'll let others decide whether that's an OR problem. John M Baker (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@John M Baker: To be clear, I am continuing to advocate that the "unfettered" age of consent for Texas is 18. I am not sure what your statement about "factual situation" means. To clarify, I'll offer the following as an example set of "factual circumstances":

A 72-year-old retired person comes into contact with a high school senior. They talk briefly and decide to grab some food. While eating, they have a discussion about some things of common interest, e.g. sex. The adult suggests to the student that he has a "library" that may be of interest to the student. So they go back to his place, one thing leads to another, and they have consensual oral, vaginal, and anal sex. The adult has not previously been convicted of any crime, there was no promise of payment for sex, no pictures were taken, no other parties were present, nor was there anything that constituted a "performance".

Based on these factual circumstances, how old would the student have to be such that the 72-year-old did not commit a crime under the applicable statutes? Considering "factual circumstances" such as this one should inform us as to the appropriate "unfettered" age of consent for Texas. Fabrickator (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The student would have to be 18 for there to be no crime. This is not a point on which there is ambiguity. The ambiguity, if there is any, derives from the meaning of "age of consent." Under the definition in our age of consent article, the age of consent in Texas is 18. However, "age of consent" is often taken as the age at which consent can be given to intercourse under a rape statute, and for this purpose the age of consent in Texas is 17. John M Baker (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And I believe that's why the ages of consent of Ohio and Pennsylvania are defined as "16" even though someone may still be prosecuted for corruption of a minor until the younger party is 18 (the respective "corruption of minor statutes" are classified differently. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Blueboar: @John M Baker: @WhisperToMe: Would there be consensus to "close" the discussion on this page, and copy the discussion from here over to Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas where we can resume the discussion (perhaps including a summary of the "findings" of this discussion)? (oops, we either need a new section on Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States or rename one of the existing sections named "Texas") Fabrickator (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur. John M Baker (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've said everything I wanted to say... so do what you want. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: The discussion may be moved :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about references and airport articles

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Estimate the year of birth...

Copied from here (permalink)

Is it considered original research to… estimate the year of birth, by subtracting the age at death stated in a reference, from the date of death stated in the same (or different) reference? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Simple math(s) is ok. But beware of synthesising sources and, in the circumstances you are referring to (which is rugby league biographies), do not use websites unless you can be 100 per cent sure they have not mirrored the original research that you already introduced into those bios. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this should be at WP:NORN. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also note that this is a non-trivial calculation, unless you also know the birthday of the person. Example: Person X died 12 September 2017 at the age of 100. The simple estimate would be "Year of birth = 1917" (ie 2017-100). However, if this person would have been born on 24 December 1916 the person would still be 100 in September 2017 and the estimated year of birth would be obviously wrong. (and if we know the birthday, chances high are we already know year of birth as well) Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We have a template {{Birth date based on age at death}} that takes this into account and covers the 2016/17 issue. As long as people acknowledge that without the date of birth there is the one year variation and don't make a definite statement about the year of birth and use the range or c.2016/17 then simple maths is ok. Nthep (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

^^ Agree. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

End copy

I agree with Sitush and Nthep here. WP:CALC would seem to apply and as long as you indicate the "circa", that's good enough imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

FreeBMD

Copied from here (permalink)

A typed transcription of a scan of hard copy index is NOT a primary source. The primary source is the certificate of birth/marriage/death, or the registrars entry into the register. If while researching at University if someone had ask me what original research I had dome, and I had said "FreeBMD", I'd have been laughed out of the fucking building. Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A copy of a primary source is still the same primary source.

As I explained at User talk:Sitush, the births, marriages and death registers (which comprise the indexes and the individual entries) are the primary sources. Making a copy of a primary source into a different medium (which is all FreeBMD is, just a computer typed-up copy of the indexes without any individual interpretation or analysis allowed - I know, because I helped do some of it), is still the same primary source.

Searching those indexes and identifying the correct records for yourself is blatant original research, and it's frought with error - any genealogist worth their salt knows that there are masses of problems if you rely on index entries, some of which I have also explained at User talk:Sitush

Wikipedia requires secondary sources and I have also explained to you what that means, and I'll quote again here from WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In this case, I went on to suggest that a suitable source might be, for example, something by someone who had done the BMD research properly and had published it in what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's Johnny… A few points… 1. The Indexes are typed after the birth/marriage/death certificate is issued (sometimes years after the certificate is issued), and so are at least one step removed from the event, 2. The person creating the index is not the person that issued the birth/marriage/death certificate, and so are there is evaluation, and interpretation in the creation of the index, and 3. The index shows just the quarter of the year in which the birth/marriage/death was registered, not the actual birth/marriage/death registration date, and so the information is not the same as the primary source, i.e. the birth/marriage/death certificate. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion on my talk page that is referred to above, and in which you stood alone in your opinion, is here. Nothing has changed. Drop it, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion should be at WP:NORN. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:Secondary sources is quite clear, and I'll repeat what I copied for you above...

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."

The BMD indexes are just that, indexes, and carry no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, and no analytic or evaluative claims (and the fact that the indexes are not typed by the same person who typed the register entry (not the "certficates" - a certificate is a copy of the register entry) does not change that). The indexes are simply partial copies of some of the information that's in the BMD registers themselves, filed under quarter. They are most definitely not secondary sources. For genealogical material, you would need to find someone who has done the research properly, verified that they have all the correct entries, etc, and published the results in a reliable source. Searching the indexes to try to find the correct entries yourself and adding the results of that to Wikipedia articles is clear original research (as per WP:OR). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• To expand with an example. A Tom Askin is born, an entry is made in the birth register for him, and a certificate is copied from that entry for his parents. Then, sometime later, someone else goes through all the register entries, quarter by quarter, and types out the index. All they're doing is making a one-line entry in the index for each birth contained in the register, and that is still a primary source - the primary/secondary question is not about who who creates the document or when it is created chronologically, but is about the nature of its content. What the transcriber is not doing, obviously, is saying "This is the baby who will go on to be a cricketer" (or, in the case of a death index, "This is the cricketer") - they are not identifying which Tom Askin they're typing up an index entry for. Someone identifying the index entries as relating to a specific Tom Askin would be creating a secondary source, as they are analysing the primary source, consulting with other documentary evidence, and synthesising new information based on their primary sources - and if they publish it in a reliable source, we can use it. But you and I, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to do it ourselves, as it is Original research. We are not allowed to search the indexes and decide for ourselves which ones correspond to the people we are writing about - several of us have given examples of how badly wrong that can go, but even if it might seem conclusive in some cases, it's still prohibited by WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an "interesting" scenario… secondary sources have identified that Tom Askin married A. Stephenson of Whitley Bridge at Kellington Parish Church on 16 August 1933… FreeBMD has the marriage of Thomas C. Askin to Aubuary (née Stephenson) registered during July→September 1933 in Pontefract district… are we saying this FreeBMD can/cannot be used to augment other secondary references? Also, as it stands, I don't believe that asking questions on talk pages is a Wiki-crime just yet, so I dont believe that comments such as… "If you are going to keep using this crap, I will get you topic banned", and this "is quite likely to end badly for you" are actually appropriate. DynamoDegsy (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is OR. There are even instances - more common than I think you realise - where two children of the same parents have been given the same name, and registration districts were often huge (eg: the one for Sculcoates). There are also gaps in the FreeBMD data, which the site acknowledges and which actually applies to the example you give. The general issue has been explained to you previously and WP:IDHT alone is grounds for blocking etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'd agree that FreeBMD record can not be used. No matter how close it appears (and even if it is the correct one), using it is still WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In general I agree with Situch (including that this discussion should be at NORN and not here). There is no blanket rule against use of primary sources, and it is commonplace to quote from primary sources in illustration of material from a reliable secondary source that refers to the primary document. However, the problem with BMD records is the identification of the primary record. In the examples given here, the possibility of mis-identification is sufficiently high that I don't think we can use the primary source at all. I know from my own knowledge of BMD records that people of the same name doing similar things around the same time in nearby places is a common occurrence. It would be fine if there was a reliable secondary source which identified a particular primary record as belonging to a particular person, but making such identifications ourselves is not allowed. I could be persuaded of an exception if the details were extremely precise, but I don't remember seeing any examples of that in the encyclopedia. Zero^talk 03:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

End copy

Historically, when I believed there was a possibility of mis-identification I have not used the reference in the article, but I would usually add a query section to the article's Talk page, e.g. Talk:Arthur_Higgins_(rugby_league)#Birth?, which seemed non-controversial to me. I don't intend to create (or add to) any further articles with FreeBMD references, but I'm still not sure why it took 9-years for FreeBMD references to be identified as obviously problematic, it would have saved me an awful lot of time if the problem had been identified earlier. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that surprised me too. And, as I've said elsewhere, I do feel for you after you've done so much work using it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And me. Someone on the rugby league project did tell me recently that it comprises a very small core group of people, so perhaps that contributed to the issue. Still, it has happened now and, unfortunately given the amount of time you have spent on it, it will need to be fixed. For what it's worth, you're not alone; for example, there was a great deal of use of British Raj sources in caste articles which were added by people (many by just one person) who meant well but which simply do not meet our guidelines etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue has to do with two sentences taken from seperate paragraphs describing two different incidents more than 10 years appart in David Carradine#Reports of arrests and prosecutions being placed one after another in Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State in a manner which seems like WP:SYN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What does ATA stand for?

Came across the Parallel ATA article and noticed two of the three initials in the term ("AT") were not explained in the lead. The WP:BEGIN/specialised term/context seemed pretty straight forward and there were voluminous reliable secondary sources[28][29][30][31][32] for a basic definition, re: it was "AT-Attachment" with the AT part coming from IBM's "Advanced Technology". I added this and was met with a wall of WP:OWN (with some WP:NPA thrown in) and reverts where two editors put forward they had read many primary source "standards docs" (which they REFBLOATed for good measure) and since "Advanced Technology" never shows in those docs it should not be used in the lead description and any secondary source that gives that as a description is wrong, "we don't need a secondary source" (said twice), "It was never written out as "Advanced Technology Attachment", except in error." (hidden note at article top).

The up and up being "Advanced Technology" is only mentioned in a WP:SYNTH statement under "History and terminology" "The "AT" in "IBM PC/AT" refers to "Advanced Technology",[6] but the ATA specifications published by the several standards committees simply use the name "AT Attachment" with no reference to "advanced technology."[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]" - reaching or implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Asking for reliable secondary sources proving any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error" has gone nowhere. This refusing to explain 2 letters out of a 3 letter abbreviation in an article title seems to be a lack of understanding or unwillingness to follow MOS:BEGIN re: include variations, included synonyms, giving context to specialised terms, adding relevant information in the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that while the article does make it adequately apparent by repeatedly associating ATA with the PC/AT's bus that there is possibly some connection in the names, the reader might be left asking that question. Clearly explicit explanation of whether or not it was the intent of the standard that this refer (directly or obliquely) to the PC/AT requires a secondary source, since the primary source doesn't mention it. I agree that The "AT" in "IBM PC/AT" refers to "Advanced Technology", but the ATA specifications published by the several standards committees simply use the name "AT Attachment" with no reference to "advanced technology", and the proposed ATA is frequently called Advanced Technology Attachment but such a definition does not appear in any ATA standard, both have the same WP:SYNTH problem: rather than being based on a secondary source, they combine statements from different sources to say something not said in either, linking them with the word "but" which is the exact example given at SYNTH. It's not the first time I've seen a stubborn reluctance to accept the implications of SYNTH. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The current phrasing doesn't claim that any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error". We don't need a secondary source to directly quote the "horse's mouth" standards documents as using the term "AT Attachment", nor to note that the phrase "advanced technology" doesn't appear in any of eight different versions of them. Nor do we need a secondary source for conclusions a reader might draw from an article. The current phrasing is simply pointing out that the difference in interpretation exists and doesn't claim that one interpretation or the other is correct. It seems to me that FoBM and DIYe are claiming that there is no way within WP policy to point to two different interpretations of the name, one that expands "AT" and one that does not. Really? Is hiding that information the best way to improve the article? Jeh (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an old issue raised a number of times in the past and settled by consensus among a number of editors. FoBM has recieved no support for his edits to the lede but insists upon his WP:POV reaching WP:TE. The language of the many published standards is clear and consistent; "definition" ... "ATA (AT Attachment)." A lot of tertiary sources and FoBM have made the sythesis that ATA is consists of three initials, that is simply not true and should not be in the lede. Tom94022 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

PC, XT, AT (and a number of other acronyms) - all became "words" which were then added onto. AT-Attachment is correct - as one can see from the sources. The origins of AT, as a term, are irrelevant for ATA (a term which lived on long after the death of the IBM Personal Computer/AT, its clones, other buses, and also when the AT wasn't quite so "advanced").Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"The current phrasing doesn't claim that any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error"", that is still stated in the editors note at top (unverified) and implied in the cited WP:SYNTH statement. settled by consensus among a number of editors - when claiming consensus its is helpful to link it, I did not see any consensus discussions on the wording of the lead. A lot of tertiary sources and FoBM have made the sythesis - well, secondary and tertiary have made that sythesis and that is their job, its not our job, and we seem to have a claim, again, that reliable secondary sources, and any editor who cites them, are wrong.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here between the needs of a textbook and the needs of an encyclopedia. a textbook sets nomenclature and instructs a reader on usage, an encyclopedia does not - it simple reports what is in secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a very widespread misunderstanding on Wikipedia - that we're not allowed to use primary sources at all. There is no such P or G. In fact WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Nothing in the text disputed by FoBM is outside of those boundaries. Jeh (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The main problem I see is with using conjunctions or conjunctive adverbs to relate statements from separate sources that don't directly address the same topic. "But" implies that it is significant and contrary that the specifications refer only to AT and don't mention "Advanced Technology" when the source being relied upon doesn't take a stance on whether this relates to the meaning of ATA or not. By WP:SYNTH you can't counter a statement from one source with a statement from another that doesn't directly refute the statement. It's possible that the writers of the standard fully meant AT to refer to Advanced Technology (I don't personally think that's the case) but simply did not mention it. Attributing some significance to that omission is synthesis - i.e. using "but" to contrast with the other half of the sentence. In this case I think it also matters that the source is primary and is not offering any analysis or conclusions of its own which otherwise might be contrasted if directly on the same subject. From WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Using "but" to contrast is an interpretation that there is a contrast. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that with the latest edit FoBM has corrected this issue. I think the current wording looks good. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the contrast would be (and now is) quite apparent without the word "but". However I can live with the current edit. Jeh (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you read an entire policy (instead of cherry-picking it) there is no "misunderstanding". WP:PRIMARY---> "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Noting the words in a primary source is fine. Saying "I can't see any other words in a primary source and that means X" is WP:OR. Citing a secondary source and then citing your own OR about the words you could not see in the same sentence is WP:SYNTH. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section SAITM

Is the Controversies Section on this article OR? I reviewed one part of it 'Dr Nandalal Gunaratne-Competence' the source makes no mention of the subject of the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 10:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which part you think might be OR? It looks sourced. What does "it" refer to, "Nandalal" and "Gunaratne" don't occur anywhere in the article. I think if you want to challenge the section you're going to have to do the work of reviewing it rather than expect someone else to. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to SAITM which what the article is about. BTW that section was removed, see the talk page for the part i'm referring to.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

British Sri Lankan Tamil article

I have removed quite a lot of original research from the British Sri Lankan Tamil article, largely consisting of material sourced to sources that do not mention British Sri Lankan Tamils. An example is "The second generation have received little attention from scholars, but a lot of information can be gleamed from similar diaspora groups in other racial communities. The Economist noted how westernisation had affected Muslims...", which Lankandude2017 is insisting on restoring to the article. I have started a discussion at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil and would appreciate further input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that Iryna Harpy has previously expressed similar concerns about this editor's additions to the British Tamil article, and so I've been looking into some of their contributions. I have deleted some unsourced material from Indian diaspora in France. I'd appreciate help looking into their other contributions to see if this is a general problem with their editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Update: Health in Sri Lanka: I've already found WP:OFFTOPIC additions such as the one here, as well as content from promotional sites that do not meet with WP:RS, as well as completely unsourced content here. Considering how few contributions the user has made, all of them smack of WP:NOTHERE. The user's objective is WP:SPA beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've removed the contentious material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The editor was blocked as a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible OR at Climate change denial

I've objected a couple of times to a contributors insertions in Climate change denial pm the basis of OR. The discussions are at Talk:Climate_change_denial#Center_for_American_Progress.23Center_for_American_Progress_Action_Fund and Talk:Climate_change_denial#Clarify_Obama_on_climate_change. I don't think we're on the same wavelength at all - anyone like to look and comment? Dmcq (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your response to the second point, about including Obama's statement, is right on track - it is a bit of coatracking/POV to use the quote to give a severity of the climate change issue and then to subsequently talk about climate change deniers.

First point I think you're response has the right reasons - we shouldn't include a think tank's analysis unless it has been noted by independent RSes. A point I bring up but do not attempt to resolve is that thinkprogress.org (the independent site, it seems) is used 160-some times on WP, frequently on BLP pages (including Michelle Obama) so there may be crossed wires if it is an RS. It might be worth establishing this at the RSN. Do note the same report has been added by the same editor at Climate change policy of the United States so you may want to check other contributions. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

ThinkProgress might be okay for some things but I definitely have reservations in this instance because it is reporting on the Center for American Progress which set it up, and as the article on ThinkProgress says 'In 2011, Smith and Kenneth Vogel wrote in Politico that the ThinkProgress reporting staff "isn’t exactly walled off from the Center for American Progress Action Fund message machine, nor does it necessarily keep its distance from liberal groups organizing advocacy campaigns targeting conservatives." ThinkProgress editor Legum said ThinkProgress "is editorially independent of CAP."' I think an independent source is required here. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

True enough. But interesting just trying to see if other sources exist I came across this (done by Vice's own survey), and [33] Mother Jones also points to the CAP study. Just searching news, there is clearly a thread that there is concern that some subsection of Congressmembers have made statements that would categorize them as climate change deniers, and in such a case, we then could say the results of the separate studies. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

They say there are climate change deniers in the Senate and could be used for something like that, but they don't back up the list of characteristics of climate change deniers in the senate that CAP had and don't seem to me to be very relevant to what was being put in. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus. The nonpartisan policy institute and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in a 2017 study of climate change denial in the United States Congress based on Senators' and Representatives' public statements, found 180 Senators and Representatives who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans.

References

Contended content in bold. The contended content has no OR issues. The proposed content updates the article with recent developments in the relationship between climate change denial and major US political party, since the Luntz conversion in 2007. Here ThinkProgress is in the role of publisher of the report, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund is in the role of author of the report, or "agency" - this relationship is clearly explained in the two sources, a ThinkProgress article and a Center for American Progress Action Fund press release. The study is a reliable source for its own content with in-text attribution. The contended content is attributed in-text. The content is not in Wikipedia voice; Wikipedia is not saying that all the climate deniers in Congress are Republicans, we are saying that a recent report says so. The article lead already covers organized climate change denial as an American phenomenon; it seems appropriate that Wikipedia's article on climate change denial might be able to point out the significant correlation of the subject with major US political party. Sources need not be neutral; many sources in this article are not neutral on the subject. ECarlisle (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep putting this stuff in the talk pages instead of actually checking it against the criteria in the policy pages? The Newsweek article does not mention CAP at all, neither does the Lutz interview and the last two are the Center and a strongly linked party of it. So there is no grounds in all that for including what the Center says. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The above proposed one-sentence update is to a paragraph on the origins of the relationship between climate change denial and the Republican Party. The current text leaves off at 2006. The proposed addition updates the article to inform readers that the relationship persisted beyond Luntz' personal conversion. Without this update, a reader unfamiliar with the relationship between climate change denial and the Republican Party might take away the impression the Republican Party distanced itself from climate change denial in 2006. What specific policy do you believe is violated by the above proposed update? ECarlisle (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That needs somebody from outside Wikipedia to say it in an article that is relevant to climate change denial and that is in a reliable source. If you were writing a paper then of course you should do what you say in your paper, but Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable outside sources and reflect what they have said about a topic. Just try answering the original question I put to you, what would stop some Heartland person sticking in their Institute's idea into that article that no work to mitigate climate change should be done as that would be harmful to the economy?, they could use the exact same type arguments you have used. Sometimes the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater. This is what the WP:OR policy does and why Wikipedia is generally regarded as a trustworthy encyclopedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Try also some totally different topic like floor cleaning to see this in action. I think that artiicle really could do with improving. Floor cleaning is one of the larges if not the larges occupation in the world so it is extremely important - but people just don't seem to write about it in reliable sources. So the article is quite small. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that when looking through a google news search "'climate change denier' congress" is that there is definitely a perception/accusation that we can source that many Congresspeople are CCDs or at least have said statements that would made them CCDs, and specifically towards how these views tend to impact what legislation gets passed or not. Just that we don't have headcounts or the like from that. But if en.wiki's article includes mention of the general concern of some Congresspeople being CCDs, then at that point the CAP study would be completely fine to include to show what one think tank can to as part of its conclusion. Certainly if it was only CAP and ThinkProgress suggesting this idea that some Congresspeople are CCDs, then yeah, we're in FRINGE territory and shouldn't include, but this is definitely not the case. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why should we include them if no reliable source references them? That's the basis of the problem. I've not objections to the references you provided, the Mother Jones one in particular looks good, but I've explained above why none of the ones supplied by ECarlsisle are okay for inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

With in-text attribution a brief summarization in this article of the Heartland Institute POV on climate change denial may be appropriate, as it is a category leader in the subject of the article; you may propose something if you wish. Similarly, CAP may be used with in-text attribution. Sources need not be neutral. Many sources already in this article are not neutral on the topic. In the US the subject of the article is associated with a major political party, but the article does not say that yet. The CAP report is an perfectly acceptable source with in-text attribution for the conclusion of their own study. If I understand your objection it reads to me as having more to do with RS than OR. ECarlisle (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that something like that could be done if the citations follow Wikipedia's policies. However I was asking about do you think it would be okay to just include a quote cited to the Heartland Institute without any citation to a reliable source showing interest in it? If it was cited properly we could see what an independent party said. Or to include other bits about the Heartland Institute which are cited okay but don't say anything about climate change denial? I'm talking about the Original Research policy here, not about the Neutrality policy. We can't include original research to counter a perceived lack of neutrality. The OR policy plus the WP:Verifiability policy are the ones that requires us to use reliable sources, WP:RS is a guideline on how to select suitable reliable sources. If you really feel that CAP is a reliable source you could ask at WP:RSN but I'm pretty certain they'd agree with me and besides many of the same editors would be here. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course the Center for American Progress is a reliable source, for its own statements, with in-text attribution! CAP is the best source for questions of climate denial in the US Congress. The Center for American Progress and ThinkProgress are both widely used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS. If you have read anything about the number of climate deniers in Congress you have read the Center for American Progress or ThinkProgress or a source that cites them. As I better understand your objection to the proposed content it seems you may be raising RS issues at NORN. Or do you believe it is original research for Wikipedia's article on Climate change denial to mention the noteworthy relationship to major political party in the US? ECarlisle (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If it has been used by newspapers like you say why don't you cite such a newspaper together with its attribution to ThinkProgress? And then ThinkProgress can also be given as a primary source. Original Research means an editor goes around searching for information in non-reliable sources rather than it being shown to the public in a reliable source first. The article is not about ThinkProgress, and even if it were we couldn't mine it without secondary sources. Have a look at Conservapedia for instance, the organization proclaims about loads of stupid things but the article only talks about the stuff that people have noted in secondary sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better to use books and journal articles, rather than media sources, if we want accuracy and weight. They of course will quote think tanks and presidents and talk show hosts, so it's not like we would lose that, just that we could explain how their views are perceived. TFD (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeeez. Could you just get a reliable source or give up please. Daily Kos is a blog website without editorial control. If it doesn't make it to a newspaper or some website with editorial oversight it just doesn't work as a reliable source. This is covered by WP:UGC. Please just stop scrabbling around taking any rubbish source as confirmation that what you want to stick in is a good idea. We're supposed to have a neutral point of view and however much we think things are important they shouldn't be put in unless a reputable site has noticed it and commented on it. That was not just a blogger site it is also specially set up to promote the Democratic Party and we have to be especially careful with partisan sources trying to discredit their opponents. You put in something with decent sourcing yesterday, that's the sort of thing that's needed. Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully appreciate why there's concern in OR for inclusion but think there are ways this can be used under certain conditions. If we had no other sources stating that there are CCDs in Congress, pulling in this report clearly is a problem if no other RSes recognize it.

But we can uses established RSes to state that there are analysts/journalists that believe there are some Congrsspeople that are CCD (google news on "congress "climate change deniers"" gives NYTimes and WaPost hits, among other). So the idea that there may be CCDs in Congress can be made without engaging in OR. However, none of these attempt to give a scale or number of these, so if this CAP report was mentioned after these RSes and with clear attribution, this would give at least one recognized (if not biased) estimate of the number without introducing any new OR or RS problems - at least, IMO. I can see counterarguments to this, so I think this can use more discussion as long as we are keeping in mind that this has to depend on the above RSes that I mention being present already in the article. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

He put in a good citation asserting that and I was happy with that and thought for a moment he had finally got the message about OR and RS. We can't then go trawling around and stick in sites that are not mentioned in them. That is WP:OR. Why is he so desperate to put in some think tanks findings which are only noted in its own mouthpiece and a political blog? Wikipedia has standards which we should keep to about reliable sources and original research - especially in contentious areas like this. Wikipedia is not a blog for people to stick in their own ideas of what's important based on their own research in some political echo chambers. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Plus what I find especially annoying is they keep sticking the stuff back into the article even knowing about all this and being directed to WP:BRD. If they think they have found a decent source at last why not use BRD and say I think I have finally found a reliable source for this stuff? This edit warring is really annoying. They haven't removed the stuff from other places they've put it but I don't normally look at, I'm just being treated as an obstacle to them sticking into Wikipedia what they think is important rather than them actually taking the policies to heart. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The venue for article content issues is the article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your editor conduct concerns. ECarlisle (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You were inserting the same stuff without a reliable source yet again. I hardly think that requires another discussion to be started. You seem to have used reliable sources for the recent edits you've just done elsewhere in the article for which I am heartily grateful. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Report myself, OR (?)

Brief background I've earlier asked for better guidance when it comes to plots of motion pictures, novels, etc - at the Village Pump as well as elsewhere. As I was looking for information about Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews series, did I notice that the article in question contained very little information. Someone had began at a Summary, which must be the counterpart to a Plot within fiction - film/novels etc. And we are then to use the film/interview or novel as a primary source. Any contributor must take especially documentaries like this one very serious. And report what's observed, without making any own conclusions. Otherwise it would be OR, obviously.

Having said that, am I hereby reporting myself to AN/I, in order to try to find out if I possibly have been guilty of any OR in the summary part of that article or not.

If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, then changes subject, and instead makes (for the put Question, in question), a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question." Which can be observed (there was no cut in the interview there, and please note our current guidelines on plots and summaries) I would like to say, from a normal human perspective, is a change of subject a very well-known way to avoid a question. In this case, did Putin avoid to answer at least one of Stone's questions. Some other user, is of a very different opinion, and accuses me of having drawn OR conclusions. And appear to make the argument that "Putin never actually said I avoid that question". While I mean, that I have observed that Putin avoids a question from Stone. And hence have I not been guilty of OR. Not to my knowledge, anyhow. If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, change subject, and instead makes, for the put question, a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question" which can be observed (there was not cut in the interview, there, which is essential)

I have suggested to that user to make a complaint to AN/I , but it's just possibly might be so, that endless argumentation over "the Pope's beard - or the Beard's beard" is something he/she prefer. But really don't know. And as no such complaint has been made here, do I feel obliged to do this myself.

And I think an AN/I verdict would be to prefer, in this special case, ahead of endless time wasted at talk-pages over nothings (not just for me here and now, but in general and for the future). In a nutshell - isn't changing subject exactly the same as avoiding a question, normally ? And I really mean e-x-a-c-t-l-y the same, in this case.

And if AN/I find me guilty of intentional OR violation, do I expect some kind of proper punishment, although I have reported myself. If AN/I find me guilty of unintentional OR, would some comments be nice (aside of a possible punishment), something that I could take to heart for the future. And if AN/I find that I haven't been guilty of OR violation, then would this matter still be decided. As well as for other obvious observations related to Plots / Summaries

I will notify "myself" as well as the contributor who's got a very different opinion, but as he hasn't brought it up, do I leave it up to himself, if he feels like participate in this complaint against my self. Boeing720 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally. I haven't reported myself to AN/I for fun. I still think we need a rather long (bullet) list of examples, of what's OR and not, in the context of plots / summaries. Boeing720 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's include a more complete list of things you've "observed" at The Putin Interviews (emphasis on "avoids" is mine):

"Stone is very polite and it seems like Putin enjoys talking with him."

"As Stone then asks, "What about if an FSB employee had done something similar?", does Putin avoid the specific question, with the reply "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty.""

"It cannot entirely be ruled out, that Oliver Stone's work have prevented a future Nuclear Holocaust by making "Russia-fobics" more relaxed about Putin and Russia."

Those are perfect examples of NPOV violations/opinions/OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"But as Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", does Putin avoid this question, by just state "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty". Putin has never has watched Stanley Kubrick's 1963 black comedy satire about the Cold War, Dr. Strangelove with (among others) Peter Sellers in three roles. Later they watch the film together, but if it was funny in Putin's taste, is never really revealed."

• and

"Not so few of Stones political and military-related questions begin with some kind of smaller apology, like - "I really must ask this question.." , "People at home expects me to ask if.." etc. Stone is very polite and it seems like Putin enjoys talking with him."

So the parts below are taken out of their context. And is anyways not what I have put to ANI - Stick to the matter, or make an own AN/I report, DIYeditor ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

THIS was a WP:BOLD attempt, and isn't included in my report - nor is it about primary sources. The statement above has nothing to do with the Summary. It was a WP:BOLD part in the lead, which aimed to get more contributors to contribute. Boeing720 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Running the risk that you will think I am avoiding the question ... but.... what you are describing is really too detailed for a plot summary. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a very tiny summary of 4 hours of interviews.
  • The full sentence is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing720 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI this isn't WP:ANI this is WP:NORN. Don't cut up other people's posts to reply to individual points especially when you can't WP:INDENT properly and, to be as polite as possible, make a disjointed mess of things. Further, you don't get to dictate what I bring up, and certainly would not if this were actually ANI. It's worth pointing out all three stunning examples of your work on that article that clearly constitute opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And you are right, it is worth noting that the original sentence before me fixing parts of it was: "But as Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", does Putin avoid this question, by just state "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty"." (emphasis original). Who says Stone turns the question around, you? Who says Putin avoids the question, you? You really think those are facts rather than opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DIYeditor ! You are free to put another complaint to AN/I. But THIS Complaint is solely about a simple enough question. Don't CONFUSE it (and other contributers) by bringing up WP:BOLD matters, settled a long time ago, which were related to the lead. This is a matter related to Plots/Summaries, which (other than I) have made guidelines for. And the lead isn't based on any primary sources. A deliberate attempt in order to case confusion. My initial aim was to get more contributors interested. And is beside this point, or scope. But my AN/I complaint was (again) - what we could agree to disagree about at my talk-page.

1. "But as Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", does Putin avoid this question, by just state "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty".

And the more dry, you may prefer

1. "Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", Putin changes subject, and states "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty".

And the simple enough question is whether- if asked a question, and instead of receiving a reply, is the other person changing subject instead of giving a reply to the initial question. I think, believe and feel "changimg subject" it's a very common, and also human nature, to avoid a question! I don't see any difference, from either OR, NPOV or common sense. The significance of the observation is exactly the same. Not something that my mind "has made up". DIYeditor ! Stick to the issue here, or make a complaint of your own please. Boeing720 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Who says Stone turns the question around ? No one at all says that, just like Putin doesn't say "I'm avoiding that question". According to you must we also quetion if Putin really chaned subjest, or perhaps was mute during the entire interviews ??But Stone does turn the question ! Simple enough. And besides, do you think journalist's never turn questions around ? That's what he did - in the primary source. I haven't added anything. And there is no cut during that discussion. It may show a trouble we have regarding Plots and Summaries. You cling to extremely hypothetical possibilities. Putin listened to Stone's question, and after this question was put to him, did he change subject. Or do you believe a rational answer to a question put like this "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?" (regarding Edward Snowden), is "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty !" It's as simple as that. Putin didn't want to give a rational answer (not there and then, at least) so he changed subject. This can be verified by anyone who watch the interview series. But now have we heard your hypothetical theoretical possibilities in absurdum. I would very much appreciate constructive inputs. Boeing720 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And therein lies the crux of the situation. As Wikipedians we record what the reliable sources say. We do not interpret. Find a reliable source that says Putin avoided the question and you're fine, but you absolutely are not allowed to draw that conclusion yourself. It does not matter how obvious you think it is.

Furthermore, frankly your comments here and elsewhere on this subject are almost incoherent. It is obvious you struggle with the finer points of English (and often the not so fine points), despite your expressed self assessment. (Do you even begin to understand the irony of your statement on your talk page that your English is at such a level you could "study the English language at an academical level, at a British university"? I'm left to wonder whether this really is the place for you. Remember, competence is required. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Instead of self-reporting, I suggest to wait until someone else reports you. Meanwhile, you can, like everyone, try to improve. If this long thread was at ANI, it could be construed as trolling, which could result in sanctions for unnecessarily wasting everyone's time (but is more likely to be hastily closed). Nick's advice about summarizing sources is right. —PaleoNeonate – 07:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be already at ANI as WP:ANI#Possible behavioral OR problems by myself in The Putin Interviews (?), but your suggestion about trying to improve is a very good one and hopefully the OP will decide to do just that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

To PaleoNeonate - I did first suggest to another contributor to go to AN/I. Boeing720 (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - this was all along meant for AN/I. I have only one earlier experience of that. It's entirely my fault that this complaint was posted here. And for that am I sorry. Please continue at AN/I. For those who just want to pick on my grammar, please make another complaint at AN/I. My self-complaint is about any possible OR violation and whether obvious matters can be observed without outspoken statements or not, related to our Plots and Summaries of film/motion pictures, TV-documentaries , novels etc. Or in other words, parts of articles where we are using primary sources. Naturally can such sources not be interpreted by us. Not under any circumstances. What can be observed or not, is however a different matter. In absurdum, can we for instance not write "...then Oliver Stone asks..." , unless Oliver Stone in his interview actually states that he is asking a question, as he just possibly may give a statement, without any intention of asking a question. (While my position is, that we are allowed to observe, listening in this example. Hence can we, without any interpretation, write what's obvious observations. I believe that the border between interpretation and observation goes where we begin to think actively. If a person doesn't reply to a question, but changes the subject, is this an example of how to avoid a question, and such matters do we observe without thinking actively) Boeing720 (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This actually belongs here not ANI. ANI is for behavioral issues not content disputes as people tried repeatedly to tell you there. You would have been better served with a one sentence question and let people answer: "Is it OR to state that someone is avoiding a question in a summary of an interview?" - maybe with a link to the diff of the edits. All the wall of (often bold) text and moaning and groaning only obscures the question and any answers. Nobody wants to wade through all that. Anyway, I haven't seen anyone say anything other than yes it is OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question (Boeing720), no. We cannot write what we think are obvious observation. This is one of the many problems with using primary sources. Fine, if you want to quote what someone actually said. Not fine if you want to describe the plot, or some other factor that you observe in the source. If you want to include something about a video or movie, go and find a secondary or tertiary source that has the content you wish to include and quote that. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well... not quite... you can cite the film itself for a simple plot summary (For example: "In the film, Putin is asked to comment on X,Y and Z. He answers the questions on X and Y, but does not answer the question on Z." would be fine if cited to the film)... The problem is that to say he avoided the question requires an analysis. It gets into intent and motivation beyond simple observation ... and for that for that we need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's very difficult to fairly summarize an interview between two very controversial people and it is better to rely on secondary sources. Furthermore, if there are no secondary sources for what you have observed, it lacks weight for inclusion in the article. Any one standard of a good summary is the reader is unable to tell what the writers' opinion of the characters was. I would go further than some editors and say that even observing that Putin did not answer a question injects OR into the article. In this case, it may be that Putin had answered the question. He said that it would be very dirty, in other words would not meet his approval. Presumably there are consequences when Russian government employees act contrary to what Putin expects. TFD (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Algerian war

There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the result parameter in the Infobox. Some constructive commentary by some more experienced editors would be very much appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Klemme Community School

The article Klemme Community School was written by Mcclure1976/Janemcclure based on her own research. Some of the content was subsequently published at http://klemmehomesteadmuseum.com/school_history.HTML (see discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 655#a thank you). My question is, can we use that source to support the material in the article, using it to replace existing references such as "Amelia Lenz Arnold interview, 1968" and "Author's research", or does it not meet our criteria for reliable sources given that it doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The source is an almost exact copy of the wikipedia article, either the article is a copyvio, or the source is a user-generated wikipedia mirror. as this site is both a near primary source and unreliable (effectively a blog) there is no chance of it meeting WP:RS. Dysklyver 23:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing OR or an edit war?

Flyer22 Reborn proclaims my quotation from a published source (Volkmar Sigusch. "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten". Campus Verlag , 2013) to be WP:OR. A full quotation from the scientist's book can be found here. Flyer22 asserts that a quotation translated from one language to another is OR, for example:

The first asexual websites arose in the 1990s etc. (German: In den 1990er Jahren waren im Internet die ersten privaten Seiten zu bestaunen, auf denen Menschen bekannten, kein sexuelles Verlangen zu haben... etc.) // Volkmar Sigusch. "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten". Campus Verlag, 2013. S. 485.

According to the definition, "the phrase "original research" (OR) is ... any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." But everybody can see that Volkmar Sigusch unambiguously writes what I attribute to him in the above quotation. My translation from German into English does not contain any conclusions of my own. Everybody can see that my addition (i.e. a translation of a published source) is neither analysis nor synthesis of the words written by Volkmar Sigusch. Hence it follows that Flyer22's removing my quotation is nothing but WP:Vandalism or an WP:edit war. Can someone stop her destructive actions? It is clear from the quotation (in German) that Sigusch does speak about such asexual forums as The Haven for the Human Amoeba, "Leather Spinsters" and Geraldin van Vilsteren's website. He mentions them in order to confirm his conclusion that asexual communities emerged at the turn of the century. My link to the "Leather Spinsters Newsletter" is not used other than to show that this society really exists. Such a link has nothing to do with WP:OR which presupposes employing a forum as a WP:reliable source of information or theoretical conclusions and generalisations. --Englike (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly told Englike on the article talk page, Englike has been in engaging in WP:Original research. With this revert, we can see that the editor added a quote without WP:In-text attribution (in the "Sexual orientation, mental health and cause" section) and a quote without quote marks (at the beginning of the "Community" section), which is a WP:Copyvio issue. The editor also added "The first online asexual community may be the comments section of an article" material using this dispatches.azstarnet.com source, which does not count as a WP:Reliable source. I noted that Englike engaged in WP:Original research, more specifically the WP:Synthesis portion of that policy, because WP:Synthesis means adding things not explicitly supported by the sources. Englike added "The first online asexual community may be the comments section of an article" material based on the dispatches.azstarnet.com source, but this source does not state that. Instead, Englike was using that source to speculate. Englike also pointed to the comments section of the source, as if that counts as reliable in any way. Comments on a forum are not WP:Reliable sources. I told Englike this. Englike argued, "As for WP:OR, I didn't say 'the first community WAS.' I said: 'the first community MAY BE.' Well, we can re-formulate: 'On-line asexual communities were already arising at the dawn of the Internet.' Ok? Such an assertion is not OR because it is simply a statement of a real fact and can be substantiated by the existence of the Leather Spinster movement, HHA, and Vilsteren's website. It is well known that forums are not WP:Reliable sources, but here these websites are drawn to express the evidence available and are therefore only empirical facts rather than reliable sources of information. In other words, I'm merely pointing out that these websites (asexual communities) really existed. This fact warns the reader against a deceptive impression of AVEN as the sole asexual community that has ever existed in history. To my mind, your article (I know that it is you who has converted this article into a good one) has the disadvantage that it does not take into account the prehistory of AVEN. Your survey of on-line asexual communities is reduced to a description of AVEN. The reader is given the impression that there were no other asexual communities at all. It is an oversimplification distorting David Jay's real place in the moulding of the world asexual community."

I told Englike even stating "the first community may be" with the sources Englike included is WP:Synthesis. As for his proposed wording of "On-line asexual communities were already arising at the dawn of the Internet," I stated that I would change that wording to be more encyclopedic, but, per WP:OR, I wouldn't add it without a reliable source directly supporting it. Englike added WP:OR again. The statement that "The first asexual websites arose in the 1990s." is not supported by this leatherspinsters.com source. And leatherspinsters.com is not a WP:Reliable source. Englike called the following line in the article OR: "A community of self-identified asexuals coalesced in the early 21st century, aided by the popularity of online communities." I easily supported it with two scholarly book sources. And as one can see, those sources use the words "at the cusp of the twenty-first century," "at the dawn of the twenty-first century," "in the early 21st century" when it comes to the formation of the asexual community. Englike has yet to provide WP:Reliable sources stating that the asexual community formed before that point, or specifically in the 1990s.

And as for quoting French material, I told Englike that I am unlikely to trust what he is adding in that regard since he has been engaging in WP:OR: I stated that per WP:Non-English sources, he should be translating it into English for me if he wants me to trust his material. Not the whole thing, but parts that specifically support whatever wording he wants to add. If the sources do not have text that supports his wording, it is WP:OR and will not be added. Also note that Englike didn't translate the above until bringing the dispute here, and that Englike keeps pointing to Wikipedia articles, including this non-English one, to support his argument. That Wikipedia article also uses the leatherspinsters.com source for the 1990s line; it's obviously WP:Synthesis there as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"The statement that "The first asexual websites arose in the 1990s." is not supported by this leatherspinsters.com source. And leatherspinsters.com is not a WP:Reliable source" (Flyer22 Reborn). Now meanings are ascribed to my words that do not belong to them. I say in the revision (removed by Flyer22) that the above-mentioned statement is supported by Volkmar Sigusch (not by leatherspinsters.com):

In the original (German): In den 1990er Jahren waren im Internet die ersten privaten Seiten zu bestaunen, auf denen Menschen bekannten, kein sexuelles Verlangen zu haben oder nur ein sehr geringes. Gruppen wie die Leather Spinsters (Lederne Jungfern) setzten sich gegen den kulturellen Druck für ein sexloses Leben ein. In den Niederlanden gründete Geraldin van Vilsteren das »Nonlibidoism«-Forum, und Yahoo offerierte das Forum »The Haven for the Human Amoeba« // Volkmar Sigusch. "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten". Campus Verlag, 2013. S. 485.

The same statements in English: The first asexual websites arose in the 1990s. Various groups like "Leather Spinsters" defended asexual way of life against the pressure of contemporary culture imbued with sex. Yahoo offered a group for asexuals, Haven for the Human Amoeba (HHA). Geraldin van Vilsteren created the “Nonlibidoism Society” in the Netherlands. (Volkmar Sigusch. "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten". Campus Verlag, 2013, page 485.)

Where is WP:OR? Of course, I had to change wording a little just as German editors had substituted the non-encyclopaedic verb "(die ersten privaten Seiten) zu bestaunen" by the verb "zu finden" (de:Asexualität#Gemeinschaft). But the sense of the quotation remained untouched. As everybody can see, I don't add information that is lacking in Volkmar Sigusch's words. After my removing French sources (at Flyer22's request), she began strugglung against a German one. This is nationalistic discrimination, in addition to WP:Vandalism.

"Englike keeps pointing to Wikipedia articles, including this non-English one, to support his argument. That Wikipedia article also uses the leatherspinsters.com source for the 1990s line; it's obviously WP:Synthesis" (User:Flyer22 Reborn). No, this is distortion of my words, too. I say here that the section "Gemeinschaft" (community) in the German article is WP:Copivio, because the above quotation from Volkmar Sigusch's book is presented in Wikipedia's voice, without quote marks, as though it is the Wikipedia editor's own words. In contrast to the editors of the German article, I clearly point out that I don't speak in my voice and adduce statemets made by Sigusch. --Englike (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering that there were almost no websites in 1990, and an incredibly large number in 2000, I would assume that a statement "The first FOO websites arose in the 1990s" to be true for almost any FOO. I wouldn't consider that statement to be evidence of anything, and am not sure what the benefit of including it on Wikipedia would be. If its accuracy is disputed, I definitely wouldn't include it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Englike, no need to WP:Ping me. I am watching this page. I have not distorted your words. You are engaged in WP:Synthesis, pure and simple, and I've already noted why. For the statement that "The first asexual websites arose in the 1990s.", it is easy to see that you used the leatherspinsters.com source to support the material. Unless you were using it to support the "Various groups like 'Leather Spinsters'" part only. But then that leaves the 1990s part without a citation right up against it. The revert you pointed to shows this clearly. The source does not explicitly support the 1990s statement. You also cited "Rle Eng. 'Leather Spinsters and Their Degrees of Asexuality' St.Mary Pub. Co. of Houston, 1998." without a URL. I do not see why I should trust that the latter supports the statement when the former does not. And either way, I doubt that it supports the 1990s statement. The aforementioned foreign Wikipedia uses that same leatherspinsters.com site in an effort to support the material. As seen with the aforementioned revert, The "Volkmar Sigusch. "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten" source is not used for the 1990s statement; it is used for the "defended asexual way of life against the pressure of contemporary culture imbued with sex" and "Yahoo offered a group for asexuals, Haven for the Human Amoeba (HHA). Geraldin van Vilsteren created the 'Nonlibidoism Society' in the Netherlands." parts you added. Look at how you stringed together a narrative using different sources. Your text states "Various groups like 'Leather Spinsters'," with the leatherspinsters.com source right up against it, and then goes on to state "defended asexual way of life against the pressure of contemporary culture imbued with sex" using the Sigusch source, but it's not clear that the Sigusch source actually supports mention of Leather Spinsters.

Furthermore, your Volkmar Sigusch source is WP:Primary while the two sources I added are not. The two sources I added very clearly note that it was "at the cusp of the twenty-first century," "at the dawn of the twenty-first century," and "in the early 21st century" that formation of the asexual community truly began. And I can add more stating the same thing. If your 1990s material is correct, you should be able to find some WP:Tertiary and WP:Secondary sources to support it.

I am not interested in your invalid WP:Vandalism claims. You obviously need to read WP:Vandalism. I am not interested in your "struggling" claims. "Struggling" applies to you, since you are not understanding our rules. I am not interested in your "nationalistic discrimination" claims. This is not about nationalistic discrimination; it's about you engaging in WP:OR, and stating things like "I didn't say 'the first community WAS.' I said: 'the first community MAY BE.'" You have given me no reason to trust anything you add. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Per this 2008 "Dictionary of neologisms. Innovations in the vocabulary of the English language of the beginning of the XXI century: English-Ukrainian" source, we can add information about the "Leather Spinsters and Their Degrees of Asexuality" book. Looking at the 2013 "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten" source via Google Translate, it tells me that the source states, "In the 1990s, the first private sites were found on the Internet, where people were known to have no sexual desire or very little. Groups such as the Leather Spinsters (Leather Maidens) fought against the cultural pressures for a sexless life." Looking at this source on Google Books, it appears to be tertiary rather than primary. Either way, we can add this material to the article. But with the question of WP:OR out of the way, it needs to be given WP:Due weight. By this, I mean that most sources on asexuality state that the formation of the asexual community began online in the 21st century. WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." So, in this case, we should state: "Although [so and so] says that the first private sites were found in the 1990s on the Internet, where people were known to have no sexual desire or very little, other scholars [such as so and so] state that a community of self-identified asexuals coalesced in the early 21st century, aided by the popularity of online communities." We should state something like that. Note that private sites for asexual people, with some likely being personal sites where only one person relayed their thoughts, is not the same thing as an asexual community. It takes more to form a community than just a few private sites. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn:

"But with the question of WP:OR out of the way, it needs to be given WP:Due weight". I agree now (template:re shows a user whom an answer is devoted to; no "ping"). Because the quotation comprised several sentences, I used 1 "ref" to support all of them at once. It does not require much time to peep into Sigusch's book (page 485) and ascertain that all the statements proceed from the book. I added the link to the Leather Spinsters Newsletter only because he does not indicate their address on the Web. Frankly speaking, I thought you were in a position to read German texts because you had told me about your ignorance of French. I thought that every Englishman learned either German or French at a university or school. So I was convinced that you understood the German (BTW, very easy) text I had submitted to you and your removing of the correct quotation from a reliable source was deliberate destructiveness. Pardon. It seems you use Google Translator to translate the text from dewiki, because the sentence "In the 1990s, the first private sites were found on the Internet" is the English for "In den 1990er Jahren waren im Internet die ersten privaten Seiten zu finden". Volkmar Sigusch uses the (non-encyclopaedic) verb "bestaunen" instead of "zu finden" (to find). But your machine translation is correct. I hope you see now that there was a quotation rather than WP:OR. Besides, I think that Sigusch does not express precisely the same he bears in mind. He shoud say "(websites were found) in the late 1990s" or "at the turn of the century" instead of "in the 1990s". It is clear from his examples. The Leather Spinsters Newsletter and Eng's book about them appeared in 1997-98. The website HHA and the Nonlibidoism Society were founded in 2000. So there is no contradiction between your sources and my quotation from Sigusch's monograph. I have to observe that a point of view is sometimes expressed that "In the early and mid 90s, people would occasionally post on sexuality-related newsgroups expressing their identification with asexuality or their lack of sexual attraction" (not a WP:Reliable source, of cource). And yet it is not my aim to demonstrate that the on-line asexual community took shape in the early 1990s. It would be an obvious error to assume that. As you have rightly remarked, a private site where only one person displayed asexual thoughts, is not the same thing as an asexual community. I only wanted to trace the history of the moulding of the asexual community and add information which is well-known: HHA and the Nonlibidoism Society historically preceded AVEN. Many asexuals including the members of AVEN speak about this websites. As an example, take the article "Asexual history" in AVENwiki. So I was surprised to see that Wikipedia does not even mention them. The idea to create an asexual community is ascribed to David Jay. The fact that this idea had already been expressed by Geraldin van Vilsteren, and to some extent by the Leather Spinster Newsletter, too, is passed over in silence. It is enough for me to include these prominent forerunners into the section about the asexual community. Besides, I've already pointed out that Geraldin van Vilsteren's English book (Nonlibidoism: Short Facts) is cited in scholarly literature. To my mind, this Dutch asexual woman is worth mentioning in your article about asexuality. She's not only a prominent feagure in the history of asexual communities but also a proponent of an alternative, more rigorous ("nonlibidoist") view of asexuality. There are important ideological discrepancies between David Jay and Geraldin van Vilsteren. These differences in understanding asexuality and alternative forms of the asexual movement connected with them merit special examination, without which our view of the asexual communities will be oversimplified. Unfortunately, Vilsteren's book in English is not available in Google Books. Eng's book can be found there. Although it's not a scholary publication, it's merely an interesting book for everyone who is interested in asexuality. If you don't mind I'd like to add her book to the section "Further reading" or "External links." --Englike (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you did begin with WP:OR. I already noted why. Starting off by stating "The first online asexual community may be the comments section of an article titled 'My life as an amoeba' by Zoe O'Reilly published by StarNet Dispatches on May 30, 1997." and using this source for it was WP:OR. It was the WP:Synthesis form of WP:OR. If ones does not understand what WP:OR is, that is a problem. When it comes to the latest text, anyone would think you are engaging in WP:OR because the 1990s text is not supported by the leatherspinsters.com source, nor by the "Leather Spinsters and Their Degrees of Asexuality" source, and those are those are the two sources you used beside that sentence. See WP:INTEGRITY. Per WP:INTEGRITY, "When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment, but adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, of violations of the sourcing policy, and even of plagiarism." You did not use the "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten" source until the "defended asexual way of life against the pressure of contemporary culture imbued with sex" and " Yahoo offered a group for asexuals, Haven for the Human Amoeba (HHA). Geraldin van Vilsteren created the 'Nonlibidoism Society' in the Netherlands" lines.

You stated that you "think that Sigusch does not express precisely the same he bears in mind. He shoud say '(websites were found) in the late 1990s' or 'at the turn of the century' instead of 'in the 1990s'. It is clear from his examples. The Leather Spinsters Newsletter and Eng's book about them appeared in 1997-98. The website HHA and the Nonlibidoism Society were founded in 2000. So there is no contradiction between your sources and my quotation from Sigusch's monograph." But we can only go by what the sources state. We cannot add material based on our own observations in contrast to what the sources state. If the sources state "1990s," then so must we. And in this case, the Sigusch source states "1990s," while the sources I added state "at the cusp of the twenty-first century," "at the dawn of the twenty-first century," "in the early 21st century." And like Power~enwiki stated above, there were significantly fewer websites in the 1990s compared to the many by the 2000s. CNN recently had a special on the evolution of the Internet (as part of their "The Nineties" series), and it highlighted this fact. Also see this 2005 "The Internet transforms modern life" CNN article, which states, "According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, fewer than one in seven Americans were online in 1995. Today, the majority of Americans are surfing the Web, exchanging e-mail, reading bank statements and ball scores, checking the weather. Today, Pew says, two out of every three Americans spend time online." This is one reason why the 1990s statement you added seems dubious. The other is that I'm not seeing any other sources supporting it. And this is where WP:Due weight weight comes in. So, really, if we are to allow the 1990s comment at all, the text for the Asexuality article should state, "Although a few private sites for people with little or no sexual desire existed on the Internet in the 1990s, scholars [such as so and so] state that a community of self-identified asexuals coalesced in the early 21st century, aided by the popularity of online communities." This would be following the sources with WP:Due weight. Some would even argue that, per WP:Due weight, the 1990s bit should not be mentioned at all. Power~enwiki has already argued that.

So you are okay with adding that, it seems? There is also the following material you added: "Various groups like 'Leather Spinsters' defended asexual way of life against the pressure of contemporary culture imbued with sex. Yahoo offered a group for asexuals, Haven for the Human Amoeba (HHA). Geraldin van Vilsteren created the 'Nonlibidoism Society' in the Netherlands." I am only okay with this being added if it is directly supported by the Sigusch you added source. I already know that part if it is supported by that source. If the source does not state "various groups," neither should you. You should simply state "The group Leather Spinsters." Per WP:Red link, I also wouldn't link the groups and societies unless sure that they are WP:Notable enough for Wikipedia articles. There is no need to add the leatherspinsters.com source or "Leather Spinsters and Their Degrees of Asexuality" source for this material; as seen before, it only confuses matters and appears to be WP:OR. I am fine with you adding a book or two to the "Further reading" section.

As for me not knowing French or German, you will find that many Americans and many people of other countries do not know it. In America (the United States), which is where I live, we have the option of learning French in school. I had the option and took it, but I did not stay with it. So, no, my French is not very good. And I never learned German. It's not about ignorance. We have WP:Non-English specifically for cases like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the template you used did ping me again. You don't need to use a template for me in this case or ping me at all; this is because, to reiterate, I am watching this page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 (without ping), please bear in mind that English is not my first language. The same is also true of German. So I can be mistaken when I look for the English equivalents of Sigusch's (German) words. But if you want me to insert literal translation in your article, I have to note that I explained the sense of Sigusch's words rather than their translation. After you had written "per WP:Copyvio, you probably should have changed the wording", I changed Sigusch's words a little. If you are not happy with my purely stylistic additions, then we are to remove them: "various groups" --> "groups"; "asexual way of life" --> "asexual life", "the pressure of contemporary culture imbued with sex" --> "the pressure of culture or cultural pressure" (German: der kulturelle Druck)" etc., because Sigusch wrights "asexual life" (German: ein sexloses Leben) instead of "asexual way of life" (eine sexlose Lebensweise), "stun" (or astonish) instead of "arose" or "find" etc. Your translation "the first private sites were found on the Internet, where..." should be improved, too. The matter is the German verb "warren" does not mean "were" in the Sigusch's phrase "die ersten privaten Seiten warren zu bestaunen." The matter is he uses "die Infinitivkonstruktion mit sein": sein + zu + Infinitiv. So far as I know your native language, we are to express this meaning using a passive voice construction with the modal verb “can:” "In the nineties, one could be stunned (astonished) by sites where etc." To my mind, your words "fought against" should be replaced by "defended" because "sich einsetzen für Akkusativ" is the German for "defend smth" (not "fight" or "struggle"). Does this exact quotation suit you? And could you please add links to Google Books? The matter is Google Books present materials in the language of the country which I live in. As I don't live in an English-speaking country, you'll see a text in a foreign language if I add a link to Google Books. --Englike (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This and this edit you made were fine. This edit was not because the WP:Blockquote was WP:Undue and didn't use WP:In-text attribution. I changed it to this. I will change the reference format you added at a later date. This means adding a link to Google Books as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As for "found," my second suggestion doesn't include it, and you went with my second second suggestion, which states, in part, "Although a few private sites for people with little or no sexual desire existed on the Internet in the 1990s." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you are quoting someone with a blockquote or quotation marks, you should be be using their exact words (usually). See MOS:QUOTE. You should not change their words unless you are summarizing the matter in your own words and are trying to avoid a WP:Copyvio issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

Would it be OR to write that this group were founded in summer 2016 based on this article from 2017, "Gibson got his start in politics last summer in the streets outside the Republican National Convention in Cleveland; “There, the leader of the Patriot Prayer online community-slash-movement" [34] I'd rather not use the groups Facebook page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Classifying critical reviews for film articles

I currently have an editor threatening to block me on NOR claims regarding the classing of critical responses to films, and I want some clarification/input from other editors on this. Their assertion is that it is W:Synthesis to brand a critical review of a work as either positive or negative, and I frankly do not understand the position or how that fits into the consensus of what synthesis is here.

The issue is twofold as there is a dispute regarding the classing of reviews as either "positive" or "negative" on a micro level, and then the macro issue of whether or not a film was received with positive or negative critical reception in general. In regard to the former, I can somewhat understand how this qualifies as synth, but at the same time, more often than not, sources such as Rotten Tomatoes or metaCritic are referenced, so to say the editor is synthesizing seems wrong to me, as it is not the editor drawing that conclusion.

I've based a lot of my knowledge and methods here on what Featured articles look like, which is perhaps wrong (I know, rulebooks exist for a reason), but as a reader of Wikipedia, virtually all of the FA articles on films do this, both in a generalized ("X received positive acclaim") and localized ("John Doe gave X a positive review") sense. Mulholland Drive, The Getaway, Prometheus, Evita, and countless others are examples. Basically, I am wanting some input on this from people outside of the discussion, especially given the blocking threats, as I use Wikipedia often and enjoy doing work on here, and I truly cannot make sense of where this is falling out of bounds. --Drown Soda (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response says The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. The use of the word overall should be considered with regards to "in general". With regards to W:Synthesis what matters is if OR has occurred and if there is text source integrity. Any encyclopedia is itself synthesis. (Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Original research about box office and reception, and the MOS itself may be updated on this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Are opinion pieces and editorials published in newspapers primary sources?

There’s currently a dispute at Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#Non-primary_source_needed as to whether opinion pieces authored by experts, and then published in reliable sources like reputable newspapers, are primary sources or secondary sources. I tagged them with the inline tag {{Primary source inline|date=October 2017}} but this caused some controversy at the article’s talk page, where I pointed out the language of WP:OR: “Further examples of primary sources include...editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces....” I have no objection to including such opinions as long as they are also reported or noted by independent secondary sources, and in extraordinarily unusual cases an exception might be okay (of course with inline attribution). But an opinion piece alone seems to be merely a primary source about what the author’s opinion is, regardless of where it’s published. Am I wrong or right about that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

They are secondary sources for the topic (as they provide analysis and opinion about the topic), primary for the writer's opinion. The problem is that trying to determine what opinions to include this close to an event like this is going to be highly subject to both system and editor bias, per WP:RECENTISM. It is much better to wait until a longer-term picture is known, what the weight of the respect sides in the long term are, and then go and include those. Otherwise, such articles are highly subject to include every possible notable commentator. In other words, we should wait for secondary sources, relative to the discussion of how the topic was received broadly, to determine which opinions to feature. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

To the extent an opinion piece is a secondary source for the topic, its opinions don’t seem particularly reliable, whereas they do seem reliable as a primary source about what the author thinks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this mirrors a similar discussion at WT:FILM recently: a movie review is likely secondary for the film, but in trying to write a reception section, it is primarily for that reviewer's opinions so one has to be careful of how to summarize and collect the reviews for a film not to introduce OR about the overall reception of the film from those primary sources. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, that footnote in NOR is written poorly. It should say blogs etc written by an involved party. An opinion piece written by someone uninvolved is probably a secondary source. They might not be the best sources to use, but that's a separate issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Masem seems correct that they are at least partly a primary source, because an opinion writer is involved in his own opining, even if he’s not involved in what he’s opining about. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• When it comes to opinion pieces and editorials... never treat opinion as fact.... it is best to treat opinion as being primary, even when it might be technically secondary... this means we should include in text attribution so the reader knows who's opinion we are discussing. The reliability of the opinion depends on the reputation of the author, and whether they are discussing something within their field of expertise. Reputation also affects the determination of DUE WEIGHT (not all opinions are equal). Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• What Blueboar said, editorials and opinion pieces need attribution Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know they need inline attribution, but don’t they also usually need a secondary source that recognizes or reports about the opinion piece or editorial? That seems to be the whole point of Template:Primary source inline, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not quite sure what the "purpose" of that template is. It appears to be a way to flag the improper use of primary sources... but as a tag, it isn't very informative. Using it does not explain why the specific primary source is being used improperly (Is it an NOR issue? Is it a DUE WEIGHT issue? Is it a reliability issue?). I think it would be more helpful to use other tags... tags that more clearly explain what the specific issue is. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is where there is a balance between true synthesis that is violating NOR, and the allowed synthesis needed to summarize a work. Identifying whose opinions are important enough to include straddles both. There are likely very well known political pundits and analysts that have a very high weight given to their opinions from the past, ( in much the same way that for movie reviews we'd put more weight on certain critics) that their inclusion is reasonable in the en.wiki article. But when you start going past that, then that becomes a question of who is really providing appropriate opinions, and that's where we should be looking to what secondary sources about the reactions/analysis say (eg one step removed from the political analysts). So random inclusion of opinions, primary sources for those opinions, can be a synthesis issue. (This is a large reason why reaction sections on current events should be avoided until the long-term big picture is known, as to actually justify which opinions are best summarizing the rest). This also leads to WP:QUOTEFARM issues too. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are always the "primary" opinion of the author, but that has nothing to do with the primary/secondary/tertiary "source" issue here. They should usually be attributed, especially if controversial.

Here are the steps from primary source to tertiary source for author XXX's opinions:

1. XXX writes an opinion in source AAA, such as their own blog, website, or self-published book. This is a primary source. None of these have independent editorial control from others. They can (and often should) be used at Wikipedia when documenting author XXX's opinions, especially in their own Wikipedia biography. Naturally the quotes must not be unduly self-serving. Care should be exercised.
2. XXX writes an opinion in source BBB, such as a magazine, newspaper, or official column on their website. It may even be called a blog there, since magazines and newspapers now often use the blog format for columns. The comments are totally off-base for us, but the column can be used. This is a secondary source. Editorial control usually occurs, so this is a secondary source, even though it will always be the author's opinion. Care should be exercised.
3. Another author, writing in source CCC, quotes author XXX's article from source BBB. This is a tertiary source. It's nice to have these, because they help to establish weight, but they are not required for our purposes. We can still use the secondary and tertiary sources.

That's my understanding, and I welcome more insight and correction. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. The designation of PST is always based on what the topic is. A work can be primary for one topic and secondary for a different topic. In this case, your first and 2nd cases are effectively the same: they are both secondary on the event being opined about, but primary for the author's opinions. The biggest difference is your first case is a Self-published source and may not be necessarily reliable if the person is not an established expect. Your last case is likely where the work CCC is tertiary to both the event, and XXX's opinion on the event. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the primary/secondary distinction hinges on the closeness to the matter at hand. So if a commentator writes "Comey's letter was delivered in a white envelope with just his name hand-written on its front" (and assuming the commentator wasn't there) this is an assertion of fact and the source is secondary to it (whether it's reliable is another question). If the same commentator writes "In my view this runs counter to the American spirit" then the commentator is close to that view (it's their own) and the source is primary for that. To take another example, in medicine if scientists run an experiment and publish it, the published source is primary for that experiment. They (or others) commenting on experiments that did not run are secondary. Sometimes these things aren't clear-cut and it can be hard to decide to decide the "closeness" of a source to its topic; err on the side of caution I'd say. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hrm, there's a bit of issue with the first piece: recapping something about a topic without providing any type of knowledge transformation keeps the source primary to that topic. This is why most rote daily news reporting (not on op-ed pages) is generally primary. Even if that writer that was not present at the event, is re-stating what a reporter who was actually there and witnessed it, the writer's statement still is primary to that event. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Newspapers are almost always primary sources. Look at it this way - if you were researching Kansas in 1872 and you used newspapers, they would be primary sources. And they are primary sources for current events as well. They do not have the same processes for writing as the academic sources that we consider "secondary sources" - they do not analyze primary sources. While they provide quotes from certain sources like the government, their primary purpose is to inform the public about certain things. (The government said x, Joe commented as Y, on the other hand Bill's comment was z.) They are written according to completely different standards from academic secondary sources. Our policies indicate a strong preference for producing high quality articles by using secondary sources that are written by experts/specialists and ANALYZE primary sources, and preferring these sources whenever they are available. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is actually a really good point, particularly using the Comey article as a basis. Most of the opinions and op-eds included are not actually analyzing sources about the event, but the event itself. It's not that we can't use those sources, but it goes back to the point that we should be waiting to see what sources that are both secondary to the event and to the opinions say, rather than trying to compose that ourselves and potentially run into OR/POV problems. We can use those initial opinions that aren't transforming other sources, just that absolutely needs careful trending and adherance to WEIGHT and RECENTISM. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, this probably isn't the place for this: OR cautions that novel interpretations of primary sources should have support from secondary sources (e.g. I can't cobble together a bunch of disparate biological research to offer a new theory for the origins of life), but the interpretation offered here isn't remotely controversial. As to notability: you might have a case, but some opinions are inherently notable because of the person who shared them: Roger Ebert called Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo "completely beneath contempt". That's a notable opinion because Roger Ebert himself is a notable film critic. I really doubt we will find any secondary sources will attest to its importance, but we don't need to. Nblund ^talk 03:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Deuce Bigalow, there are several secondary sources that quote this statement by Ebert: "Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks." But there are apparently no secondary sources that quote Ebert's opinion that it's "completely beneath contempt". So I would be inclined to use the first quote and not the second in the Wikipedia article about the movie. That goes double for opinions about recent events. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally back, and I see there's been activity here. That's great. Now, how does this all relate to the basic Primary/Secondary/Tertiary (I/You/They) concept, as illustrated here?:

1. I say something. (I am Primary)
2. You quote or refer to my statement. (You are Secondary)
3. Someone quotes or refers to your reference to my statement. (They are Tertiary)

It has to do with distance to the original source, or, put another way, how many generations and transformations (degrees of separation) the original source goes through.

(Hmmm,... not sure I expressed that very clearly, but letting it sit there anyway, just hoping others can articulate it better. ) -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue came up because policy requires that weight be provided to opinions according to their prominence in reliable sources. In my interpretation, if an opinion piece attracts no attention in reliable sources then it lacks weight. While that may sound legalistic, there is no reason why Wikipedia articles should give space to opinions that are not mentioned in similar articles in news media, textbooks and other encyclopedias. If we do that we are unduly promoting views and creating bias. TFD (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No, our use of PSTS is not based on distance from the source, but how the source is transformed by the new author. That's what causes a lot of problems. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

TFD, and Anythingyouwant: it sounds like you're arguing due weight here, but that's more of an NPOV issue, and so this is probably not the best place for this discussion. Regarding due weight: if it's mentioned in a secondary source already, there's no reason to refer to a primary source in the first place - this would seem to amount to a blanket prohibition on using primary sources for any meaningful purpose. This isn't a plausible interpretation of WP:DUE. It's clearly not enough to start tagging every opinion piece as a primary source.

I think you might be conflating the requirement for weighting "significant viewpoints" with a requirement for weighting all opinion articles. The opinion tagged in this edit is that Trump may have committed obstruction of justice if he fired Comey in order to undermine the Russia investigation. This is a significant viewpoint held by a number of prominent adherents. This specific opinion piece may not have been widely cited, but it's reasonable to offer examples of a prominent adherents of a widely held view. I think there's probably a better opinion piece to include, but due weight questions require more nuance than you're applying here. Nblund ^talk 20:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If a subject is mentioned in secondary sources, and the secondary sources mention the opinions of some people but not others regarding that subject, then for us to add some other primary source opinion into a Wikipedia article seems inappropriate. Whether that’s a WP:OR issue or falls more under some other policy is unclear. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Except , it depends on timing. If the event happens, the next day there's umpteen opinion columns, and the next day there is a source that selects some of those to publish, I would not consider that source sufficiently far from the event to really have a good grasp of the viewpoint skew to be useful. On the other hand, a similar source a year later or even 20 years out, where the event is well and truly over, then that source is more likely to be able to demonstrate the weight of viewpoints better, so that's fine. This is a core principle of WP:RECENTISM which is generally more about NPOV.

However there are many events that that secondary summarizing opinions on an event never materializes. And this is where OR can come into play, by editors selecting which opinions to use. As time progresses well past an event, I would agree that editors can have a been sense of what UNDUE weight is just by looking at all sources available since that point, and thus can figure out the most representative views. But so close to an event (as often occurs too much) people are pulling in any type of view, where it is impossible to judge what is UNDUE with everyone speaking their mind. This is where OR very much likely will occur. It's why its better to not flood news articles with reactions to breaking news about political aspects, simply because OR and POV can easily be broken. It is better to write these when the event is a distant memory to have the best judge of UNDUE without violating OR. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• The short answer is that opinion pieces (and blog posts, when allowed under the WP:SPS exceptions) fall under WP:RSOPINION, which essentially says we can only use them as a source for the opinions of the author, not for statements of fact - and used in that manner, they're always going to be WP:PRIMARY. In other words, WP:RSOPINION mostly forbids us from using an opinion piece in any non-primary way. That said, if you're arguing over the inclusion of an opinion piece, the primary / secondary divide probably isn't the real point of contention, since what you're really raising is a WP:DUE issue along the lines of "nobody cares what this person says, so we shouldn't include it" (see below.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's especially ambiguous in this particular case, but regardless: neither OR nor NPOV provides a blanket prohibition on the use of primary sources, and the tag clearly isn't intended to be thrown on every instance of a primary source and left there until the source is replaced. It's intended to prompt a discussion about whether the use is appropriate. I went ahead and added a secondary source for Goodman and removed that tag. As for Goldsmith: maybe someone could say what source would be preferable, or explain why opinions from Goldsmith or Lawfareblog shouldn't be considered worth mentioning here. Nblund ^talk 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

We have secondary sources that survey opinions of experts, including Bui, Quoctrung; Miller, Claire Cain; Quealy, Kevin (May 10, 2017). "How Abnormal Was Comey's Firing? Experts Weigh In". The New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2017. So, I object to us picking and choosing further primary source opinions because we think the secondary sources have done an inadequate job. It’s kind of amazing to see people pushing so hard to include primary sources when they won’t even allow secondary sources regarding calls for Comey’s ouster prior to the dismissal (see RFC). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a different question. Opinion pieces can be included under WP:RSOPINION, but whether they should be and the amount of weight they should be given is a question for WP:DUE and WP:NPOV more generally rather than a question of whether they're primary or secondary. (Although secondary sources can be useful for demonstrating that a particular opinion piece is noteworthy and relevant - eg. if it got substantial news coverage.) In this case, glancing at the dispute, it's a quote to a Harvard Law professor with obviously relevant expertise (former assistant attorney general), but it's also self-published, which means you probably also want to hash out if WP:SPS and its exemptions apply. I think they probably could apply, since he's an established expert in the field and a former assistant attorney general, but that's always a hard thing to hash out and relies a lot on context and what other sources are available. Anyway, if you object to the quote those are going to be more useful things to follow up on then the WP:PRIMARY / WP:SECONDARY divide. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are incredibly numerous and scattered. It’s too much work for me as an editor to try to survey them to see if other Wikipedia editors have surveyed them properly. And there’s absolutely no need, if secondary sources have surveyed them for us. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians survey primary sources on a regular basis. I agree with Aquillion that there are potential issues with this specific quote related to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. I think it might be reasonable to discuss using an alternate quote, and/or bring this issue up at WP:NPOV or the article talk page. However, if your only objection is that this is a primary source, then that's not sufficient to justify this tag. Nblund ^talk 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, “Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source....” Here we have secondary sources that mention some primary sources and not others, so BLP seems to imply that we not use those others. This is common sense; if secondary sources survey primary sources and decide which ones are suitable or adequate, we should not second-guess the secondary sources. Doing so is original research, IMO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that implication, and the NY Times piece does not purport to be an exhaustive list of the suitable or interesting opinions on this issue, so we aren't second guessing anything. I understand that you believe this is an OR matter, but it doesn't look like this line of argument is getting us any closer to resolving the problem. Rather than continue going in circles, I think it's time to have a discussion about this specific citation at a different venue such as the NPOV noticeboard or an RfC on the article talk page. Nblund ^talk 20:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. You complained that I was raising an NPOV issue, but of course that is the main issue, not rs. Any article is rs for a writer's opinion. If the NYT article summarizes various opinions and explains their degree of support, then it is a secondary source. TFD (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not following you, is this addressed to me? I didn't mention rs. By "that is the main issue" do you mean that NPOV is the main issue? Because I agree. Nblund ^talk 14:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion thread asks, "Are opinion pieces and editorials published in newspapers primary sources?" The reason it was raised was to determine what weight should be provided to them. If they are secondary sources then we could say the opinions have been reported in secondary sources therefore they have weight and should be included in the article. OTOH if they are primary sources then they would lack weight. So despite the fact that question was raised here, the concern is one of weight. TFD (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• The question of the Primary/Secondary nature of opinion and editorial pieces is, I think< a read herring. What is important is 1) that we should always attribute opinions and never present them as unattributed fact, and 2) we should give those opinion's DUE WEIGHT (which can mean giving it no weight at all). Unfortunately, this means that we can not make a "rule" for the inclusion/exclusion of all opinions... because not all opinions are equal. We must look at the specifics for each case and make a judgement. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Since this hasn't gained much traction here, I went ahead and posted the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard here.Nblund ^talk 16:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan supremacism

I have created an RfC on an article talk page, largely translated from Spanish language wikipedia which has created a lot of aggro, in context of current political tensions in Catalonia because it is about the history of racial supremacist thought in early and late Catalan nationalism. I am doing my best to resolve issue of article which I created and is very extensively sourced. The debate currently pertains to the title and lead. I would request editors to comment after reading body of article extensively and judging on whether the sourcing supports the name and content of lead of the article. This is a complex matter so would suggest thorough review of body of article and discussions on talk page before providing comment. It is a new article and I'm a relatively new wikipedian and the more editors involved the better, to guide us on policy.Sonrisas1 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)