Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 47

The Hunt (2020 film)

This is also a likely NPOV issue, but I'm posting here because the OR issue with the content is the most objective one. The OR comes in this sentence from the lead: "The studio announced the delay in the days after the film received criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump and right-wing media outlets for its perceived bias." The false and vague claim is sourced to a poor quality source (BuzzFeed), which says nothing about "bias," perceived or otherwise.

I've suggested to the editor supporting the text (Wallyfromdilbert) that we replace the BuzzFeed post with an article from the New York Times, which provides a far more accurate description of the reason for the delay and changing the text accordingly to: "The studio announced the delay in the days after conservative media pundits and U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the film's premise." which coincides with other Reliable Sources. Unfortunately we still aren't getting anywhere, even after a Third Opinion from Pyrrho_the_Skeptic, and I've been unsuccessful in my attempts to remove the OR or come to a compromise with Wally. Some assistance to resolve this NPOV/OR dispute would be appreciated. Thank you. Incerto501 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So, while Buzzfeed News may not be the best, I don't think I'd call it poor quality. And I tend to agree with Pyrrho's brief thought that "...the film's premise" is so vague as to perhaps be misleading. While the term "bias" does not appear in either source, it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable paraphrase. I am not married to the language as it currently stands, but I personally don't believe it runs afoul of either WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is adequate, NYT is better. In either case I don't see it criticized for "bias" but for glorifying and possibly inciting violence. Sennalen (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the input - can I ask what the next step in the process is? Do administrators work with us to establish the new text or should I just change the source and update the lead accordingly? Incerto501 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why Incerto501 is falsely presenting this as having to do with original research as a source using the exact language from the lead was provided long ago on the talk page. Incerto501 seems to be repeatedly ignoring talk page comments, including the explanation on the article's talk page that lead is supposed to summarize the main body and that a citation in the lead is not necessary. Incerto501 has also repeatedly rejected any attempts to improve the main body. However, if Incerto501 was actually concerned about the lead cite, they could add the Indiewire source that directly describes the film's delay as occurring after "right-wing backlash over its perceived bias". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• There is a subtle issue that we want to avoid stating causation without correlation. All above sources seem to be doing this, giving an implication that the delay was purposely done by the studio in response to conservatives' criticism, but absent a statement to this degree from the studio, it is a bit of putting words in the studio's mouth. Their observations are fine, but there is probably some wording to make it distinct that the timing was just an observation, and factually not an assured reason for the delay in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 21:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wally, I would ask you again to please Assume Good Faith and try to avoid personalizing the dispute. We're all adults here. I would refer you back to my last talk page reply on Christmas Day[1], where I asked you which specific language you would like to use. You declined to reply, and that was over two weeks ago. If you'd like to add your IndieWire source, you can, but right now we have OR in the lead and it needs to go. Masem - I agree. What do you make of my proposed revision above? Incerto501 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Assignment of original North American area codes

In the current (as of 11 January 2022) revision of Original North American area code#Assignment plan (see especially the last paragraph), kbrose (talk · contribs) has included extensive content concerning the assignment of area codes which had fewer "clicks" and thus which could be dialed faster. He goes on to explain that it has frequently been claimed (in various publications, most recently Atlantic) that such area codes were preferred to area codes with more "clicks" and thus were assigned to areas which were more populous.

He then asserts that this is not a satisfactory explanation, pointing out that the "fast" area codes were assigned to regional centers, the rest were evidently assigned arbitrarily.

The most contemporary source that has been found which addresses this issue is a memo from 1970 by a Bell engineer which supported the "assignment based on population" theory, but he objects due to the fact that the memo was written over 20 years after the 1947 area code design was introduced. Further objections are that customers were not dialing long distance calls in 1947, and operators would enter the codes through a mechanism that used tones instead of pulses.

My position is that, if one doubts the population-based theory, then the best resolution is to avoid raising this in the article at all, while he has chosen to present the claim of population-based assignment (e.g. by reference to published articles), and then present his analysis in an effort to discredit the population-based assignment.

While I have other objections (excessive emphasis on what is just not that important), it seems to me that what he has done is precisely what WP:OR prohibits, while kbrose (talk · contribs) claims he's just presenting the facts so that people can decide for themselves. Fabrickator (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoops! Corrected link to the revision of the article at issue. The issue is mostly with the last pargraph of the section titled Assignment plan. Fabrickator (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) ... now I have corrected the date of the revision in question to be 11 January 2022. The paragraph at issue begins "The history of assignment of the original area codes...". Fabrickator (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible OR / difference of opinion at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Attempt to summarize this source (p. 343):

Some fascists even pointed to the influence of Marxism, or 'cultural Bolshevism'. According to a BUF writer, it was the task of 'cultural Marxism' to plant the seed of cultural disintegration. because a climate of national and cultural decay aided the goal of revolutionary communism. Thus when vice is pandered to and 'unhealthy tastes and tendencies are excited by suggestion', it was certain that the 'hidden hand' of Bolshevik cultural subversion was actively at work.

at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory currently reads as follows: (edit: the passage below has now been moved to the "Scholarly analysis" section of the article  Tewdar  (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC))

In Fascism and Culture (2003), professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism), with which the Nazis claimed that Jewish cultural influence caused German social degeneration under the liberal régime of the Weimar Republic (1918–1933) and was the cause of social degeneration in the West.

I do not believe this to be an accurate summary, and it appears to be original research and synth. Opinions?  Tewdar  (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, the main point of dispute here is the part that claims, "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)"  Tewdar  (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, see this discussion if you want to read what people have already said about this.  Tewdar  (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Tewdar for the discussion. My favorite proposed summary of the quoted pasage is "professor Matthew Feldman argues that the term Cultural Marxism is is reminiscent of the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)" --Mvbaron (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated 'is is' in that one, @Mvbaron:. And I do not think we can conclude that Feldman is even arguing that the two terms are reminiscent of one another without original research.  Tewdar  (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Stems from" then? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I can only see here that the new trope "cultural Marxism" (cited from a "BUF writer") apparently reminds Feldman of the familiar old trope "cultural Bolshevism". However, this is something that we as readers can perceive (with little exegetic imagination), but not what Feldman explicitly states. –Austronesier (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I see I misread, I took the green article text above as source text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: would you mind striking your suggestion, assuming it is based on a misreading and therefore no longer applicable? If I misunderstood you, please ignore.  Tewdar  (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Austronesier: Feldman (first quote in green) is referring to a BUF journal of 1938 here, where the phrase "cultural Marxism" is used, perhaps for the first verifiable time in English. 😁  Tewdar  (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Ow... so it's two old tropes. But still, it doesn't really affect my point. –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Add: ...my point about reading between the lines of reliable sources not quite being a principle of encyclopedic citation... –Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No, but it might affect other people's points at some point in the future...  Tewdar  (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Here is the compromise summary that I suggested (rejected by Mvbaron), which I still don't think is really justifiable, based on the source: "In Fascism and Culture (2003), professor Matthew Feldman uses the term Cultural Marxism synonymously with the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism), with which the Nazis claimed that Jewish cultural influence caused German social degeneration under the liberal régime of the Weimar Republic (1918–1933) and was the cause of social degeneration in the West."  Tewdar  (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Feldman isn't using the terms synonymously. He's saying fascists in the 1930s used both terms. He doesn't specify the relationship between them, which is what causes us problems, but the implication is they have the same meaning. 09:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)BobFromBrockley (talk)

• I don't think the source given supports any of the proposed content. Feldman doesn't mention Kulturbolschewismus or anti-Semitism at all in that passage; if you read on you'll see he deals with the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories separately from the anti-marxist ones. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  The article is full of that sort of thing.  Tewdar  (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we just quote Feldman rather than argue over the best summary? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we might be better off just removing the entire section. Feldman is writing about British Fascists during the 1920s and '30s, whereas the the article is about the conspiracy theory that was created in America in the '90s. No doubt there's some connection there, but Feldman doesn't seem to discuss it and without that link we're stuck with synth. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I was waiting for somebody to point that out. Well done! 😁  Tewdar  (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Tewdar, could you please stop using wikipedia as some sort of chatroom? If you have a suggestion, just make it - and everyone can discuss your suggestion. If there is a consensus to remove it, so be it, if there is no consenus, just open an RFC on the talk page. We can easily add a structured talk page section and vote on the options (1) leave it, (2) remove it (rewrite it)... Mvbaron (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and removed the problematic passage. The link between "Cultural Marxism" and "Jewish Bolshevism" is already mentioned elsewhere in the article (with what appears to be better sources), so I don't think removing Feldman is a big issue. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  @RaiderAspect: You were reverted, but I reverted the reversion. Looks like this is going to be another interminable RfC...  Tewdar  (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've started an RfC. Fingers crossed that I didn't mess up he formatting. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Preludes (poem) by TS Eliot

All paragraphs of the article save the first consist of apparently original synopsis/analysis/commentary, all unsourced.

• I should think that, if someone is so inclined, sources like Dr Oliver Tearle's blog, "Interesting Literature" should be used to flesh out the article and provide sources. [2] Although it is a blog, Tearle is a previously published subject-matter expert, so it would qualify as a reliable source. I note that it is used as a reference in a number of Wikipedia poetry articles. Banks Irk (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Kariyil Schism

Syro-Malabar Catholic Major Archeparchy of Ernakulam–Angamaly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hannah K John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hannah K John has added a section at Syro-Malabar Catholic Major Archeparchy of Ernakulam–Angamaly titled "Kariyil Schism" in which is presented a ton (13,965 bytes to be exact) of content claiming that there exists a schism between the Arheparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly (or more specifically, between its archbishop, Mar Antony Karayil) and the Papal See of Rome. As evidence of this schism, HKJ has added the text of several communications between Rome and Karayil, as well as the text of relevant sections of Canon Law. None of the communications between Rome and Karayil accuse him of being in a state of schism, nor does there appear to be a single reliable source to verify that any actual schism has been declared, only HKJ's conclusion that, in the presence of such communications, one must naturally conclude that a state of schism exists. However, as we at this noticeboard know well, we Wikipedians don't get to draw those types of conclusions, we must rely on the reporting of reliable sources. This matter has been much discussed, both at HKJ's user talk page as well as at the article talk page. In each instance, HKJ declares that they don't understand why we can't see what superb sources have been offered, without understanding or accepting the advice of other editors that this content is inappropriate. HKJ has also created a draft specifically regarding this perceived schism.

I ask for administrative action to prevent the continued campaign of original research in this topic area. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hunger Games map of Panem

On the page for the Fictional World of the Hunger Games, a fan made map was added. Collins (the author) has never published a map of the fictional country, only said that it takes place in the future in North America and that the coastlines have significantly changed from their current state. The map is of North America with its current coastlines. I say it does not belong, however other editors disagree. Can you please clarify? Afheather (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)afheather

Seems like WP:OR to me, according to [3] partly based on sources we don't use. Assumed by whom? As a comparison, Marvel has published maps with the countries they made up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we get someone with authority (not saying you're not an authority, Gråbergs Gråa Sång) to weigh in on the page in question, please? Afheather (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Pity but I'll let it go. Don't want to bring a "three revert rule" board on top of the article, nor annoying Afheater who seem a nice contributor. 22:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You might be more likely to get feedback if you link to the page and image being discussed. pburka (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

100% original research. It would be one thing if it was establishing the novels that "this region was the former states of Oregon and California" or the like, but this is very much subjection intepretation and not appropriate to WP. --Masem (t) 01:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean Fictional world of The Hunger Games? That article is nothing but plot and is potentially deletable.

I also removed an instance of this image at List of fictional states of the United States#Other collections of independent states, citing this thread. But that article has OR problems in its own right, including questionable scope. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Afd might be the way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I had already brought Fictional world of The Hunger Games to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional world of The Hunger Games. Do you want me to bring List of fictional states of the United States to AfD as well? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you think best, it's not well cited and it seems Category:Fictional North American countries can do the job. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that Lionsgate, which produced the films, produced a Panem map. That should be about as close to "official" as could be. Find a licensable copy of that, avoiding copyright violation, and use that in the article instead.

List of Sinhala words of Tamil origin

This article List of Sinhala words of Tamil origin does not cite any sources. People keep adding content to the article without providing any sources. What can be done to resolve this matter? JohnWiki159 (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged with a "citation needed" template. I would wait a few months to give people time to find references, and then remove any that remain unsourced. BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Village Pump proposals regarding sourcing required for athlete biographies and presumption of notability

Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community. Some of these would affect whether athlete articles can be sourced strictly to a single statistical database.

Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered.

Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left."

Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."

Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."

Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?"

Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"."

Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What to do when OR conclusively debunks RS?

I would like to draw attention from more editors to the article Fred Bonine. As discussed on its talk-page, many of the (reliably sourced!) factual claims in the article are almost certainly false. At present, however, the evidence of this is basically limited to a single blog-post. I hope that some further experienced editors will take a look and help figure out what to do about the situation. Thanks. (Not watching this page, feel free to ping.) --JBL (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

We know WP:CITOGENESIS occurs, and if a consensus of editors reasonably agree that all RSes on a topic have either pulled information from one bad source and/or from WP using that one bad source, we should strive to eliminate that. But that should be a major discussion and evaluation by editors. In the case where the information is only coming from a single blog post and not corroborated from other RSes, that's an easy case to consider the blog source tainted and work to eliminate content from it. --Masem (t) 13:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, and this thread is my attempt to bring more editors to the article, to have that more major discussion. (The good information is in the non-RS blog-post; the false information is in various RS used in the article.) --JBL (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

When we say a source is generally reliable we don't assume it's always reliable or correct. If an unreliable source or OR makes a clear and convincing argument why the RS is wrong then we should treat that specific article/reference as unreliable for that fact/claim. I agree with Masem that the argument needs to be strong enough to convince a consensus of editors. This would be best in cases where there is a logical flaw in the RS claim (say a claim that Abraham Lincoln traveled from Springfield to NYC in 12 hours, something not possible in Lincoln's time). It would be much harder to show if we have to rely on a non-RS for fundamental facts (RS says Lincoln was in NYC on 1 May, blog says he was in Springfield on that day). Springee (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping that, rather than giving superficial 30,000-ft responses, a few experienced editors will be interested in digging into the particular details of this situation, in order to help form a consensus of what to do. The relevant talk-page is Talk:Fred Bonine. --JBL (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest creating discussion regarding what facts are in question either on the article page or perhaps RSN. I briefly looked at the talk page and aside from a run time I'm not sure I really get the specific issue. Springee (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Belatedly, thanks Springee for the further feedback. Subsequent editing has somewhat patched up the situation (now a bunch of dubious claims are attributed as claims, rather than stated as fact) but I will try to put together a short summary on the talk-page. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Enochian

I need someone to review the situation at Enochian. Another editor keeps adding stronger statements than the sources actually support. For example, a source reconstructs the possible Elizabethan pronunciation of this language. The editor titles the corresponding table "Dee's pronunciation" when the source never actually makes that claim, but rather the weaker claim that the table probably represents what the language sounded like to Dee. He is also repeatedly adding the category 'constructed languages', but when asked to back that up, cannot provide a source that makes that statement, instead providing definitions of the term, and claiming that is enough to support the category. Any eyes and editors willing to point out his error in understanding what synthesis is would be appreciated. Skyerise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I will look, but when posting to this Noticeboard, kindly let us know if you've already reached an impasse on the talk page of the article in question. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I took a glance at the talk page, and I found this sample of your work: "What we don't need is aggressive and sloppy editors like yourself. It's you who don't belong on WP. Why don't you go back into semi-retirement? Better yet, make it full retirement." I'm afraid I don't care to get much past that. Sorry I can't help. Best of luck in getting somebody else to assist in improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Mythology of Benjamin Banneker

This article could use some serious attention. See e.g. the section Mythology of Benjamin Banneker#Seventeen-year cicada. Certainly there is enough well sourced material for an article, but there seems to have been a substantial expansion here based on copious original research. I would prefer that any efforts to trim this article be a community effort rather than mine alone, since I expect there will be pushback from those who have put so much effort into adding this original research in the first place. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, I now see that the editor responsible for the vast majority of this content was recently indeffed (Special:Contributions/Corker1), so perhaps there is hope that an overhaul can be accomplished without too much unpleasantness. Generalrelative (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Olympedia

Is Olympedia, a site containing statistical data that has not been subject to analysis, a primary source? My assumption is yes, but additional input would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, it is not a primary source. The site says that the information summarized was complied from primary sources by the panel that runs the site. The panel's membership is published on the site, and a number of them are profiled on Wikipedia. The head of the panel Bill_Mallon is a widely-published expert on Olympics history, and so I think that this site would qualify as a reliable, secondary source. Banks Irk (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • One caveat to the above comment. It is, however, a self-published source, even if by an subject-matter expert, so it should not be used as a source in a WP:BLP.Banks Irk (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll open a discussion at WP:RSN about whether it is a self-published source in a few days, as that seems to be an important question. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: I am struggling to see how it is secondary; they've grouped a number of primary sources together in a single database, they've attempted to confirm that these sources are correct, but they haven't done any further work on them. It seems to suggest that it is still a primary source, although a reasonably reliable one.

It would seem to suggest that combining multiple primary sources together makes them a secondary source, or verifying the accuracy of a primary source makes it a secondary source, but neither of these are true; two primary sources placed together are still primary sources, while a witness account that has been verified as correct is still a primary source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've got to disagree, and I think it is a mischaracterization of the source to describe it as simply consisting of compiled data not subject to analysis by the authors. Clearly, there are biographies which contain commentary and analysis of the athletes' accomplishments, and information that has been indexed and cross indexed and compiled in ways that would not be included in primary sources. It is clearly a secondary source to my reading. Perhaps others will opine, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of traffic on this Noticeboard, so maybe not. Banks Irk (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

True, I had forgotten there were some that received a brief commentary and analysis; I would agree that the commentary and analysis is a secondary source. However, for the ones that did not receive commentary and analysis, and for the statistics itself within those that did, I would it a primary source. Perhaps a better classification would be that the commentary and analysis is secondary, but the rest of the site is primary? BilledMammal (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it might also be appropriate to open an RFC on this question, given the lack of traffic on this board and the fact that I believe we would benefit from more than two opinions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, would be good to get opinions from experienced users on this issue. It recently came up for me too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a primary source. It has been subject to no secondary analysis at all. It is raw data. For the record I also think US census data reports are primary sources. They should never be the only point on an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war at DNA history of Egypt over possible OR

Here.[4] The original text was: In 2012 a few autosomal and Y DNA markers of the 20th dynasty mummies of Ramesses III and another mummy "Unknown Man E" believed to be Ramesses III's son Pentawer were analyzed by Albert Zink, Yehia Z Gad and a team of researchers under Zahi Hawass, then Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt. Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies. using the Whit Athey's haplogroup predictor, the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a (E-M2) was predicted.

The IP added: However, entering Ramesses III's STR markers into nevgen Haplogroup predictor predicts E1b1b. This certainly looks like OR to me. If others agree, I'll ask for protection.

References

Doug Weller talk 13:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, entering Ramesses III's STR markers into nevgen Haplogroup predictor is clearly a report on original research. Generalrelative (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree likewise.WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Sacrifice (Oates novel)

I'm working on The Sacrifice (Oates novel) after a failed GA nomination. I have a few questions about OR and SYNTH in articles about novels.

• Is it improper synthesis to include a "Setting" section with information about the novel's historical setting, if the sources used for that section don't mention the novel?
• Is it improper synthesis to summarize the critical reception of a novel, e.g. It received mixed to negative reviews from professional critics?

-- Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The second question is very interesting. I would say it is OR under a strict reading. In practice it's done very widely, and is relatively harmless, but it's not a crazy thing to nitpick in the course of a GA review. Ideally we would be able to cite a secondary source that summarizes the overall critical reception of a work, but these often aren't easy to find (especially for recent works, where you might have to wait until later for people to write retrospective accounts of the work or author). A lot of articles about movies, television, and video games get around this by leading with aggregate scores from a site like Metacritic (which is sort of a primary source, but which is fine to cite with in-text attribution). FWIW, I actually had one of these synth-y summaries in an article I wrote about a novel, which I ended up removing in the course of having it reviewed for GA - and I think the article was better for it. Colin M (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

NYC express bus reduced fare

I'm trying to provide a source for the amount of the reduced fare for New York City express buses, for New York City transit fares#Base fares, without violating WP:PRIMARY.

The MTA website states:

• The base fare for local transit is $2.75; for express buses, $6.75. https://new.mta.info/fares
• Reduced fares are half of the base fares: for example, the reduced fare for local transit is $1.35. https://new.mta.info/fares/reduced-fare

So one might think that the reduced fare for express buses is $3.35, as the article currently states:

• Half of $6.75 is $3.375, but that fare amount doesn't make sense;
• $1.35 is not half of $2.75 either. It appears MTA rounded the fare down to the next 5-cent increment.

But that is interpreting the primary sources, prohibited by WP:PRIMARY. I can't find any good secondary sources on the fare amount either. I have no reason to doubt the fare amount the article currently shows, but as it stands it's not properly sourced, so I slapped a Template:Failed verification tag for the time being (because https://new.mta.info/fares is cited for express fares).

My question is: Is my thinking correct, and is using the MTA website as the source in this way impermissible? Can the fare amount nevertheless stand as it is, unsourced? And a purely academic (for now) question: If the base fare for express buses were $8.00, would the MTA website support a conclusion that the reduced fare is $4.00? TroyVan (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Peng Shuai: 'Suspicion of forced disappearance' in intro

Keepers of RfC did not address the issue of WP:SYN. Even sources advanced by supporters for the most part do not link (A) Peng Shuai with (B) forced disappearance per its definition. Editors have interpreted sources that write about A and B without associating them as RS for linking A and B, amounting to WP:OR in the intro of a WP:BLP. CurryCity (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The RfC concluded as follows: There is clear consensus among participants that the words "suspected forced disappearance" should remain in the lede. Most of the support comes from WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, with the article dedicating several paragraphs to the topic. Another point raised was whether this should be said in Wikipedia's WP:VOICE, and those supporting the sentence said there are more than enough reliable sources that agree with the statement to justify the lack of attribution. Also note that one of the disagreeing editors, User:Hans Otto Kroeger, was banned for WP:NOTHERE. FobTown (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue of WP:SYNTH was never addressed. Almost no RS offered linked Peng with "forced disappearance". In general, most sources do not. Even where they might have discussed disapperances of other people, but they don't link the two nor attribute anyone who did. It's this added association by WP editors that's OR and problematic. CurryCity (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

J. T. Edson's "female fight fetish"

I think that the "Female fight fetish" from J. T. Edson's page violates Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't cite any sources, and it implies that Edson was a sexual pervert or something. I actually deleted this section yesterday, on a different IP address, but it got reverted by User:Emir Shane. 192.107.137.243 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just opened an RfC in the talk page for the article. 192.107.137.243 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yee, that entire section is crap, tbh. IF it can be reliably sourced that it was a consistent theme in the subject's novels, sure, a section would be justified, but don't need a laundry list of every single pievce of work that contains it. Just a prose description of the topic, with 2-3 examples. The whole "fetish" angle is a no-go, absent strong sourcing. The IP is correct here. Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@User talk: 192.107.137.243 I see you've started a discussion here. I didn't revert you edit without any reason, your section blanking was looking fairly suspicious on my radar. I agree that IP users partake in constructive edits, but clearing a whole section and not justifying it in form of a edit summary like you did is a red flag. That's why I reverted it. Anyways, at this point I agree that you were right in deleting that section, but I'll give you one suggestion, from next on, please justify your edits in form of an edit summary. And why don't you create an account? That way your edits will be saved and it will be easier for Patrollers to distinguish from vandalism. Emir Shane (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Backrooms

This article is a somewhat of a specific subtopic of Creepypasta; as you would imagine with such a topic, there's a lot of questionable sourcing verging on WP:OR. Quite a bit of the article is based on this article, from a blog. There's currently a discussion on Talk:The Backrooms regarding images sourced from a Backrooms wiki; my contention is that sourcing images from a user-created wiki verges into WP:OR territory, but it would be good to get more input. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Just so you know, I don't object to the removal of the image, I'm just trying to understand the policy you're citing behind it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sourcing, and it's pretty much all blogs and personal newsletters. Is there any actual sourcing to show this is notable? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a little borderline. I think there's a mention in Newsweek, and BoingBoing has an aricle with a bit more depth, but a large part of the article relies on sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS. I've just tagged them for now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and the "logo" is definitely WP:OR. The image of an artist's depiction is fine, since it matches the actual description, and the images used in the sources, but the logo is just made up by a wiki user. Using that would be like using this image in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Also, that article has plenty of OR in it too. I hate how we handle coverage of fiction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: As the creator of the article, the Backrooms IS a notable subject. Except for WP:ABOUTSELF, sources here do have proper editorial supervision (paragraphs on RPS, Dazed, Screen Rant just to name the notable ones). Plus, the article itself is at 39th place on WP:WPIC/PP, so even if it wasn't notable someone would create an article about it. As for the OR, I thought it'd be fine to include the Backrooms Wiki logo, given that SCP Foundation is a good article and does the same thing (but I guess that article talks about the Wiki itself, so it's fine). Wetrorave (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Philip Johnson's legacy

Architect Philip Johnson, director and trustee of the Museum of Modern Art and a former journalist, had a history of advocating for Nazi Germany and excluding non-white artists from exhibitions and collections. His article contains OR, synthesis and just plain errors that are directed at criticisms of his work and legacy. This has been previously noted by Lockley at Talk:Philip Johnson#Categories, and I now join their observations:

• WP:SYNTHESIS of sources twenty years apart: [5]
• Synthesis, WP:OR and usage of unverifiable source, meant to contradict a statement on Johnson's legacy (which I've removed as too broad [6]): [7][8][9][10][11]
• False attribution: [12]

These and other changes keep getting reverted. I've attempted discussion at User talk:Modernist#Philip Johnson and Talk:Philip Johnson#Non-arbitrary break, but to little avail. Community input needed. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi @François Robere: and thank you for pursuing this issue. Yes. There's a pattern of objective facts that say Philip Johnson was not only a fascist but an unmistakable, loud, active, evangelizing fascist whose activities drew the attention of law enforcement. His FBI file and Johnson's own writings make that clear. Language in the article is being persistently softened or removed to give him more credit than he deserves. This goes for small matters -- whether he was "inducted" or "drafted" for instance; he certainly did not voluntarily enlist -- and larger issues. The worst issue I see is characterizing this period as a brief youthful error, an "infatuation", when in fact Johnson promoted white-supremacist anti-Semitic fascism for about seven years, full time, as a grown-up with serious money to invest, and kept at it for years after the Nazis had marched on Poland. The article should reflect the real concerns with his legacy based on fact. --Lockley (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

It is common knowledge that several modern breeds (often referred to as pit bulls) are descendants of the fighting bull and terrier crosses dating back to the 1800s, and that evolution brings significant change. Based on the premise that "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, and Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research, are the tags claiming OR and SYNTH warranted for the following paragraph:

There are unsupported theories or opinions that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original bull and terrier rather than one of several descendants that have been standardized as modern purebreds without taking into consideration important evolutionary factors considered to be "very often misquoted and misunderstood."[27] The standard for the modern Stafford aligns with the breed's transformation from its bull and terrier ancestry as a fighting dog to a modern conformation show dog.[28]

(My italicized text and underline of the relative material in the article) Evolution Of The Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Standard:

In the UK, there existed 40 years of evolution to the standard prior to AKC acceptance. It is important to consider this history not only to have a better understanding of today’s standard, but ultimately to provide important context that will assist in our interpretation of the modern breed and our evaluation thereof. (It goes on to explain the height variations….) This is by far the most significant change to the breed standard throughout its evolution in terms of how it impacts our interpretation of the balance between bull and terrier as well as the subjective descriptors found throughout the rest of the standard. (It goes on with more info about the early dogs that came directly from fighting stock, and the wider variations in size and proportion compared to the modern show dog of today’s standards. It goes on to say…) You may hear some incorrectly state that the current heights and weights that define proper substance were derived by the fighting fancy …. (And so on…). In realty, the modern standard already takes into consideration the breed’s transformation from a fighting dog to a show dog. The argument that it’s acceptable for our modern show dogs to carry more mass than the current standard calls for is an unfounded and unfortunate misinterpretation of the breed’s history.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

As has already been stated on the article talk page on the 18th February, the quoted text is about misinterpretations of historical information to justify attempts to amend the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's breed standard in the US, it is not about the breed's history. Therefore quoting the passage "very often misquoted and misunderstood" in the current context is WP:SYNTH. Further, many sources including at least one cited in the article state all of the other breeds you mention descend from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

The comment above, "descend from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is an example of "very often misquoted and misunderstood" relative to bona fide breeds and breed standards. To say all other breeds descended from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is like saying my cousin is my ancestor - it's illogical. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier became a registered modern breed in 1935 when The Kennel Club (TKC) first recognized it as a purebred dog. That recognition came after the Bull Terrier#History (1885 by AKC), (also see UKC History), the Boston Terrier#History, and American Staffordshire Terrier#History. Perhaps the misunderstanding originates from cherrypicked statements in articles/books that referenced a strain of 1800s, non-predigreed, hybrid crosses of bull and terriers stating Staffordshire as the geographic location which the following supports: this article: However, Cairns further clarified that the pedigree inscribed on the plaque of the Crib and Rosa painting, specifically the words "the famous Staffordshire bitch", is not suggesting that it was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but that "it could be concluded that animals of that type, existed in that county before 1816." CONTEXTMATTERS. Atsme 💬 📧 17:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A number of breeds descend from the German Shepherd, no one claims that is "very often misquoted and misunderstood" or "illogical". If no sources can be presented that support this statement, it is original research. Cavalryman (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

A modest proposal. Replace all Wikipedia articles on dogs that might possibly be descended from other dogs with a redirect to Canis lupus familiaris. And add a note at the top of the article there stating that all 'breeds' of dogs are dogs, and that Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck about what their owners call them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Andy!! Atsme 💬 📧 14:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Templar Revelation"

I feel that this entire article is full of a lot of original research- for one, it doesn't cite any sources. Could someone please look this over? Lizardcreator (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hoo boy, yeah. The one reference is to Da Vinci Code analysis? Seems like AfD material to me, but happy to hear from others. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The authors claim that the Da Vinci Code was cribbed from their book. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC).

Fair point, but I don't think it really changes my analysis. J do like the website (from 2006), though. Big geocities energy! Dumuzid (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Franco-Moroccan conflicts (1765-1958)"

There is a nearly 200 year armed conflict described in the article List_of_conflicts_by_duration, however, there is no article linked in "Franco-Moroccan conflicts," casting doubt on whether historians would consider this period a single, albeit, protracted conflict. The article France–Morocco relations does not characterize this period as being a single war either. The alleged starting and ending dates correspond to the Larache expedition of 1765 and 1958, which seems to be three years after the end of the French protectorate of Morocco.--2601:646:8400:1ED0:90B9:4B57:FFEE:F69 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I, too, could not verify that this is a thing. Removed. The rest of the article, as it stands, is largely uncited WP:SYNTH — links to other Wikipedia articles are not an acceptable substitute for a reliable reference that provides a list like this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"List of Sri Lankan actors"

Similarly to List of conflicts by duration, this list doesn't cite any sources. Would this list qualify as original research? Lizardcreator (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It's the same problem with List of vigilantes in popular culture, which also doesn't cite any sources. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian fascism

Hello. The article Russian fascism (ideology) whose AfD was closed recently is still a house full ot trouble. Those troubles are:

• users buying into a narrative ("Fascist Russia invades Democratic Ukraine because Fascists are hateful") rather than following sources
• the inability to agree on or undestand what the scope of the article is (see Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Scope of the article); this creates an inability to juge which source pertains to the article and which do not
• a metastasis of the article, as the WP en article keeps being translated into other foreign languages (see wikidata:Q15975478)
• a disregard by users for having sources which support what the article says; a prime example is the "such as Moscow as the third Rome" part of the lede which is neither mentioned in the body of the article nor in the inline refs.

I feel this situation cannot continue, but do not know what is to be done. I am thinking about doing an RfC to at least define the scope of the article, which - in the hopeful case a consensus is found - would be at least a minimal basis to discuss.
Does anyone have any advice to give or intervention to make? I feel an intervention, as an exterior opinion, on the article's talk page would be useful. Feel free to have a look at the talk page discussions in general if you want to investigate further. Veverve (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Cripple punk and acceptance of mental disabilities

There's been some back-and-forth editing on the article Cripple punk, over whether the movement accepts mental disabilities or not; this has turned into a Talk page discussion, and I'm requesting some input over what constitutes synthesis and what doesn't.

The basis of this argument is a post made on Tumblr in 2014 by the movement's founder, Tyler Trewhella, about what the principles of cripple punk are. However, every other source in this article, in regards to this matter, only quotes from this post; none of them pass their own judgement. I feel it would be synthesis to state that all of these sources have the same intention as this blog post, as none of them elaborate on this point or make their own judgements. To state that just because Trewhella believed it, then by default these other sources must place that same emphasis on it, feels like rolling together sources in a very "if X says X, and Y quotes from X, then Y absolutely means X" way.

The original post states that the movement is "by the physically disabled for the physically disabled". I don't feel it would be synthesis, or in error, to write something like the following under the origins section:

The cripple punk tag was started in 2014 by a Tumblr user, Tyler Trewhella, who posted a picture standing with a cane and a lit cigarette, with the caption "cripple punk" layered over the top, and the description "i'm starting a movement."[3] The post would go on to be liked and reblogged by over 40,000 people, with the caption being used as a tag to boost other posts and images of disabled people going against the typical perception of people with disabilities.[6] In a post made in 2014, Trewhella stated that "cripple punk is exclusively by the physically disabled for the physically disabled", though they noted that "cripple punk respects intersections of race, culture, gender, sexual/romantic orientation, size, intersex status, mental illness/neuroatypical status, survivor status, etc."

– and I feel like this would carefully sidestep this problem.

At present, with the sources we have, I don't think it can be said for definite that the movement includes mental disabilities; but I don't think we have enough basis to state that all of this sources are definite on the matter, as they quote only from Trewhella, which strays into point five of WP:SOCIALMEDIA territory. (Source one does include another quotation, but this is from Urban Dictionary, which isn't a reliable source.)

My argument is that, as no source directly mentions the exclusion or inclusion of mental disabilities in their own voice, until other sources stating this can be found, the only statement that can be made is an explanation of the original principles, and nothing else. This would mean the lead would simply mention 'disabilities' for the time being, with no mention of 'physical' or 'mental', until such a time sources on the matter can be found.

I'd appreciate some input from experienced editors, as synthesis isn't a problem I've had to deal with for a while.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Original research on flag of Alabama article regarding connection to Confederate battle flag, Spanish Cross of Burgundy, and flag of Florida

Much of the flag of Alabama article does not accurately reflect reliable sources about the Confederate origins of the state flag while speculating connection to the flag of Florida and the Spanish Cross of Burgundy. Much of the article seems written to disconnect from the Confederate history while heavily downplaying it and speculating on other supposed origin stories. A significant majority of reliable sources appear to agree that the state flag is based on the Confederate battle flag. Am I correct in considering this original research and what is the best way to potentially fix the article if so? Desertambition (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

S.L.A Marshall

At the present, the article for S.L.A. Marshall contains the following two sentences:

[Leinbaugh] argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit which never saw combat, hence Marshall fabricated accounts of his active service and details such as his whereabouts on Armistice Day. However, a record produced in 1921 of the 315th Engineers from formation to the end of 1918 shows Marshall's company spent six weeks in the front-line, during which it lost nine dead and fifteen wounded out of 165 men.

Does this constitute WP:SYNTH?

In my view it does, as it is combining two sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by either source. More specifically, it uses a source which does not mention Leinbaugh to strongly imply (However) that Leinbaugh is wrong. Just as in the examples given at WP:SYNTH, a trivial hypothetical rephrasing would result in the opposite implication: ...Indeed, a record produced in 1921 of the 315th Engineers from formation to the end of 1918 shows Marshall's company spent six weeks "in the front-line", during which it lost only nine dead and fifteen wounded out of 165 men.. This altered sentence would imply that even if the unit was present in the front-line area, it's losses were so low as to not support a conclusion of it having been involved in "real" combat. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Smells like OR to me. All of it! In the first sentence, "argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit which never saw combat" is a real stretch from what the source actually says. I see you've started a talk page discussion about more wide-ranging issues, and I encourage other OR-sensitive editors to get involved. I will too, though I'll warn in advance that I get mild gut pain when I spend too much time around military history. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what OR smells like but for context; Leinbaugh was out to trash Marshall's entire reputation and in relation to this specific point says two things, both of which are directly taken from the American Heritage article.

(1) “What I was taught as a child was confirmed by my teenage experience of leading troops in combat.” Some inner FBI alarm went off. Leinbaugh was convinced that Marshall was lying.

(2) “World War One records,” says Leinbaugh, “show that Marshall’s regiment was involved in road work and building delousing stations".

Without quoting the rest of it in detail, he strongly implies two things; (a) Marshall lied about leading troops in combat and (b) his unit was building roads and delousing stations safe in the rear. If it makes you happier, I will change the wording but I strongly refute the contention that "he argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit which never saw combat" is a "stretch". Which sentences in this article do you consider to be "Original research?"

More specifically, it uses a source which does not mention Leinbaugh to strongly imply (However) that Leinbaugh is wrong. The logic of this escapes me; two accounts of the same event which come to a different conclusion are not invalidated because one of them doesn't name the opposing author.

Not even Hackworth or Spiller suggests he fabricated his WWI service record. So I've got one guy, who admits he's out for blood, making claims unsupported by anyone else.

Because I was curious, I went looking for what the 315th did and I found their unit war history, which made it clear they were under fire for most of their six weeks and suffered casualties. His grandson wrote a book which demolishes Leinbaugh's case but then I'm told "well, he would, wouldn't he".

I've read both the WP:Synth and OR guidelines; as I'm frequently told whenever I invoke the power of Wikipedia, they are "guidelines", not necessarily fit for every situation. This article has been extensively expanded and updated with numerous references added and I'm not clear why what seems a minor point has taken up quite so much time and effort.

What exactly am I being asked to remove or reword? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Your move of the second sentence from the example above solves my concern regarding synthesis. Ljleppan (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Open source license litigation

I recently reviewed this article for copyediting. I noticed it had a strange referencing style; almost all references were in the section headings (as in this version). The heading references were to the court documents themselves, which would be primary sources as I understand it. The analysis in the article seems likely to be original research. I'm not experienced in this area, so I'm posting it here for review by more experienced editors. I did move the references to court documents into an external links section where they seemed more appropriate. Thank you for your help. Popoki35 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Using court documents outside the court decisions (without additional pointers from third-party sources, like a third-party source talking about an amicus brief) is absolutely inappropriate since those do not have any verification. Court decisions can be used but they should only be for the factual results and not picked apart for analysis. Fortunately, we have HeinOnline as part of the Wikimedia library, and most significant cases will have some type of law review there which does provide the appropriate secondary source for analysis. --Masem (t) 15:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That's good to know. I'll try to dig into that and see what I can do to improve the article. Popoki35 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

I've been trying in vain to discuss my edits with SPECIFICO and Zaathras at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Four quick questions (and its main section). They've refused to explain why they want the article to say what the sources don't, rather than what the sources do (despite claiming otherwise) and I highly doubt they'll start anytime soon at my invitation. Can someone else try to get the ball rolling, on at least one of those points?

The one about Joe allegedly protecting his son rather than his son's business seems the most egregious, maybe because it's repeated three times. The needlessly vague attribution of an ODNI report to the "intelligence community" as a whole is probably the least important, but involving Hunter Biden in the underlying election meddling, however it's ascribed and whether or not Iran and China are omitted, seems like a BLP violation.

It is annoying and does seem futile, so I'll understand if nobody wants to bother, but I feel I should at least ask once here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is it called a conspiracy theory, when in fact Hunter Biden worked for a Ukrainian company? While there may be conspiracy theories about the relationship, the existence of the relationship itself is not a conspiracy theory. Does anyone question that Hunter had a relationship? TFD (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That's also a real problem, though one I figured was impossible to solve. I thought raising it again would only distract from the four plausibly easier problems. But yeah, go ahead, good luck with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is it called a conspiracy theory - That Hunter Biden "worked for a Ukrainian company" is not a contested fact. The "conspiracy theory" arose when allegations from the far-right were made regarding the undue influence Biden (senior) had on Ukrainian affairs when Vice-President concerning his son's appointment. Or the influence flowing in the other direction from Biden's (the younger) business dealings. The question is kind of silly, to be honest..

As for Mr. Hulk's...whatever this is, the claim that the article is saying things that the sources do not support is not a reality-based statement. Zaathras (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. I've explained how. All you've offered in return since the start is silence and snark. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I've happily taken worse snark (and sadly read worse OR), it's the stubborn silence this "whatever it is" finds civilly unacceptable. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Salad Fingers

How would you deal with the excessive character descriptions and plot summaries? I'm not sure if such an exhaustive list of characters is justified given that there is close to no coverage in secondary sources about individual characters, except the titular character. This reads like the sort of original research you'd read in a fan forum. The plot summaries could be significantly cut down and put in a table format, similar to Game of Thrones (season 1)#Episodes for example. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I normally just delete enormous swathes of it, [13][14][15] then see if it gets added back in. There's probably some MOS:EPISODEPLOT link someone knows that says the summaries should be less than X words, somwhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I'd delete the entire characters section because it's almost entirely unsourced and seems WP:UNDUE given the complete lack of coverage. I wanted to get some opinions first because I'm sure such an edit would be immediately contested by people emotionally invested in the series. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I tried deletion at Power Sword, didn't work. He-man's sword gets its own article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete the lot, perWP:NOTPLOT... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, are you referring to the character descriptions or the episode summaries? I agree that the characters section should be deleted but a much more cut-down version of the episodes section can stay, imo. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to both. Articles about fiction should be discussing what secondary sources say about them, and 'in-universe' material on characters, episodes etc should only form a small proportion of the article. There are dedicated Wikis for fancruft... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Molecular graphics

Molecular graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a disaster zone. Huge amounts of the content are unreferenced and likely basedon OR, and much of the content seems to be disorganized and repetitive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Issue at Russo-Ukrainian War

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War § The state of this article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Jeff Cooper

99.183.184.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently engaging in original research on Jeff Cooper, by adding that he was a "racist and a fascist" and "far-right", despite this not appearing in any of the sources.

Diffs: [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20] Loafiewa (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for repeated BLP violations EvergreenFir (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

But this guy died in 2006! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Anthem of Napoleonic France

The Wikipedia article for "Veillons au salut de l'Empire", the unofficial national anthem of Napoleonic France, has been listed as not citing any sources since January of 2015. What should we do with it? 70.124.147.243 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Locate some sources and cite them! Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There are some sources in the French-language version. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veillons_au_salut_de_l%27Empire. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wagner Group

The claimed casualties of the Wagner Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) during the Russian invasion of Ukraine are quite concerning. The estimated total is 3000, but we have a 4 killed (confirmed) using the following "references"

• Institute for War confirms Senior Lieutenant Sergey Zavadsky was killed on March 13
• Myrotvorets Research Center (see Myrotvorets) says Sharypov Oleg Anatolyevich was killed on March 3
• vgorodekirove.ru says Alexander Kiselev was killed on March 13, and makes no apparent mention of the Wagner Group
• A Telegram post says Ivan Mikheev was killed on March 20

As far as I'm concerned, this figure goes above and beyond WP:CALC since it involves searching news stories (and less reliable references) and claiming the result of that research represents some kind of casualty figure. Surely this isn't acceptable? FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at the English-language source, I have to agree. This is one of the stupidest WP:SYNTHs I've seen. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777:} Oh, you might want to check the other death tolls, as they look suspiciously low — I've already removed an entry about the Mali War as another WP:SYNTH. One of the sources mentioned that a Russian mercenary was killed, but not that he was part of the Wagner Group. The other didn't even mention the Wagner Group. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: The sources for the four deaths in Ukraine were added as a temporary measure until better sources became available. Indeed all four were described as Wagner members by the conflict tracker Necromancer who was quoted/cited by the Institute for War for that first death (Sergey Zavadsky). However, since no better sources have apparently shown up I have no problem with the removal of the "4 killed (confirmed)". Also, no need for comments like "stupid", lets be WP:Civil. As for Mali, I do not agree with the removal. First, to be clear, there are no reliable or unreliable sources confirming/reporting the presence of more than one Russian mercenary group in Mali, just the Wagner Group. Now, first source clearly states multiple times its talking about the Wagner Group which it describes as "Russian mercenaries" in several instances and states a Russian mercenary was killed. Second source also clearly states two "foreign soldiers" were killed, part of a group of "foreign soldiers – identified by several sources as Russians". Further, subsequent reports on the incident from the second source state the Russians were mercenaries and note to be Wagner members [21][22][23]. If this isn't considered verifiable enough to confirm the three deaths, then I won't argue it further. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: But is there a cumulative death toll among the Wagner Group? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

At the moment no, just the individual reports, hoping a source with an overall figure shows up at one point and keeping an eye out for that. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems there was a report late last month regarding the first officially confirmed death [24] (by two Malian officials, including one who described him as a "Wagner agent"). Based on this I think we could add just this one death, as for the other three, we could only make a mention of the two incidents (with source attribution) in the notes section, without saying directly they were Wagner members (instead Russian "mercenaries" and Russian "foreign soldiers" as per sources), since their Wagner background was only indirectly stated. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Loren L. Coleman

I believe that this addition is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The IP editor who added it said that "Loren L. Coleman is, as far as I can tell, the current owner of CGL- and was, I believe, one of two co-owners at the time of the article. The article does not name him explicitly, but refers to 'an owner' and was written to address community outrage directed *at him*, thus he is the de facto subject of the article." Opinions? BOZ (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The source is far from sufficient for such a claim, especially in the context of a WP:BLP, as it only discusses an anonymous "owner". As the reference clearly states the are multiple such owners, we can't draw a line from "one of the owners" to the article subject. The only way I could see the diff's content being included is if there was a reliable published source that explicitly states that the owner mentioned in the press release is the article subject. Ljleppan (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Flavan-3-ol has an RFC

Flavan-3-ol has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Ggux (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Persian Gulf crisis

There's a discussion over whether the so-called Persian Gulf conflict has continued. I have discussed the matter on the article talk page with other editors but no one has provided even a single source backing their claims. More specifically, the sections covering 2022 sections like January 2022 and March 2022 are not featured with reliable sources that "directly related to the topic of the article". Your feedback please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies mate, unfortunately we are discussing the critical topic over the accuracy of the height of a small hill just outside London. Hopefuly this major controversy can be recitified so we can talk about this international conflict. Barney1995 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha, just crossing my fingers so that the crisis of 'the hill height dispute' is resolved very soon, while waiting for feedbacks. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Judging by the content of the references, the January and March 2022 incidents do not need to be in the article as they do not mention the wider conflict. Additionally, the name of the article can remain as it is in my opinion. Barney1995 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Stoneleigh, Surrey

User:Barney1995 has added to Stoneleigh, Surrey, the highest and lowest elevations for the settlement, by looking at two highly detailed maps and then trying to spot the highest and lowest numbers on each map. Both maps were included as references: [25][26]. I told Barney1995 at Talk:Stoneleigh, Surrey#Elevation that I have identified locations on both maps that are higher or lower in elevation then what they had found, and that this method of determining exact elevations was inaccurate and original research. The input of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not inaccurate, and doubly referenced. I used the figures which are found in the Stoneleigh Wards (Auriol and Stoneleigh) A non controversial, cited edit on a non BLP page. Barney1995 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Spot heights on maps are just that: the height (relative to some datum) as measured at that specific position. They aren't necessarily located on the highest/lowest points on the terrain. Accordingly, this is not only WP:OR, but quite possibly wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

All true, but if you use the flood map (which uses detailed OS data, you can see that it is right. The 52m is at the summit of the hill, clearly nowhere higher to go!In theory it could be wrong, but if you look at the references in the Stoneleigh area you will see that it is clearly right. And by the way,the higher and lower areas are outside of Stoneleigh, hence why they are omitted. Barney1995 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I like that a small hill in suburban Surrey takes precedence over an international conflict. Thanks guys! Barney1995 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Strikes me as clearly original research, and when you need this much explanation, I tend to think it a bad idea to include. I would say should be taken out of the article, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, It is just the highest and lowest points in the said area of the article in a sentence, backed up by references. I could not know and provide this info without the references. I am surprised this thread is not busier, since the majority of Wikipedia is original research. Barney1995 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump and Dumuzid: I concluded there was consensus this was original research, and removed the elevations from the Stoneleigh article. However, it was reverted by User:Barney1995. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the unreferenced (although obviously correct) low-lying bit in the edit. Everything in the new edit is referenced. Have a good afternoon Barney1995 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Input requested at our article on the Jan 6 hearings

It's a relatively minor disagreement, but input from editors interested in OR issues would be welcome at article talk in this thread NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

International Chemistry Olympiad country comparison

Resolved

 – The table in question was deleted 109.171.187.63 (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The International Chemistry Olympiad page publishes a list of cumulative results of countries. The reference for this table is the http://www.icho-official.org/results/ page. One one hand summing up those results in the database constitutes original research. It is far from a simple summation. On the other hand the database explicitly prohibits the use use of the data not in line with olympiad regulations (i.e. to publish national rankings). This table should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.4.210 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the simple catalogging of all the data at the actual reference, http://www.icho-official.org/results/countries.php, is WP:SYNTH, as the data are linked from each country's entry. I cannot find any page on the site which restricts the use of this data. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The following sentence is on the main page (http://www.icho-official.org/results/): "It is prohibited to use the data not in line with IChO regulations (i.e. to publish national rankings)." 89.132.120.4 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. I'm still not convinced that it was sYNTH, but if it's againstthe organization's data policy then we can delete it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, @LaundryPizza03. Someone who did a ton of irrelevant changes has reverted your deletion of the national ranking table. That gives one a strange impression. There should not be a revert war on this. 89.132.120.4 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this SYNTH?

See this edit, in which I removed material I believed to be novel synthesis of published material, and the ensuing talk page discussion: Talk:Stephen F. Cohen#Brookings et al and NATO. Who's correct? Is that material SYNTH? Endwise (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Alfred Kinsey

This is about:

According to the Austin Institute, a conservative, right-wing institute from Texas (data published in 2014) about 20% percent of US women aged 18 to 60 years old had at least once lesbian/bisexual sex (11%) or attractions (9%)—that is without being sure about counting the 3.9% of US women who identify as lesbians or bisexuals.

Help me understand: the percentage of all those women is 20% or 23.9%? This is for Alfred Kinsey. I would incline for 23.9%, but since I'm not absolutely sure about it being the correct reading, I have submitted it here. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

More to the point, this does not seem to be a reliable source, nor do their claims seem noteworthy. This does not seem relevant to the topic of Alfred Kinsey, so using it to comment on that topic seems to be OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Mark Regnerus is not an amateur, he is a full professor of sociology at a reputable university. And the source does mention Kinsey, albeit passingly. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It's still a report from a politically biased institute, as your own source acknowledges, rather than a published paper in a journal. That source and the sources in our article on Mark Regnerus also show how controversial his work has been. That source also only mentions Kinsey as the originator of what is usually called the Kinsey Scale, which is not enough to mitigate the SYNTH issues here. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Template:Extrasolar planet counts

We have the template {{Extrasolar planet counts}}, that displays the following text inside of an article

As of 1 April 2024, there are 5,653 confirmed exoplanets in 4,161 planetary systems, with 896 systems having more than one planet.

The idea is to have a nice and centralized template with the current number of known exoplanets, so that when that number increases it is updated just once and all related articles are instantly updated, avoiding the risk of leaving one out during a manual mass update and then that article would be outdated.

The problem is the source: it is a catalog of such planets. We say that there are (as of May 31, 2022) 5017 exoplanets because that's the number of items in the catalog. Is this a valid way to reference this? Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cambalachero, the template is saying in Wikipedia's voice that there are a definite number of confirmed exoplanets. Confirmed by whom? Other sites have higher numbers. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cambalachero, it would be better to have the template say "As of 1 May 2022, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia reports 5,017 confirmed exoplanets in 3,694 planetary systems, with 822 systems having more than one planet." It is now maintained by a team mostly associated with the Paris Observatory, but still lists Jean Schneider as the author, so the reference is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

References

The question was actually if the raw number of entries in a catalog was a valid reference for a claim like this one. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cambalachero, the number of catalog entries is fine to use. That sort of thing is not considered a "raw number" which usually means data needing more processing. However the template needs to say which database the numbers come from as I suggested above. The three main exoplanet databases use different criteria for inclusion so report different numbers. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What about "lists" instead of "reports?" It is important that the encyclopedia does not claim to list all confirmed exoplanets. Since there is a delay between the confirmation of a new exoplanet and its listing in the encyclopedia, it will usually not include all of them. TFD (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Clam chowdah's discussion of "Big Pharma" at President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

Despite being reverted by three users, Clam chowdah has been waging a slow-motion edit war at President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) since January to insert a lengthy paragraph about the U.S. government "defend[ing] the patents of Big Pharma" (softened to "defend[ing] the patents of multinational drug companies" in more recent revisions), citing three sources ([27], [28], [29]) that long predate PEPFAR and consequently do not mention the program. In his edit summaries, Clam chowdah has defended the disputed content, saying it "Added very important context so people can find the true heroes." Two contributors, one of them an IP, countered that Clam chowdah's proposed addition "was clearly biased, unsourced, and didn't belong in the article" and violated "WP:OR/WP:SYNTH," sentiments that I agree with and have also expressed (e.g., "RV POV-pushing WP:OR edits about 'big pharma' using sources that do not even discuss PEPFAR"). Despite this, Clam chowdah—who has previously been warned about non-constructive editing and violations of WP:UNDUE at 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential primary campaign ([30], [31], [32]) has refused to listen to these concerns, dismissing them as the "Orwellian propaganda" of "Bush lackey" (i.e., me) and an accomplice who is "most likely affiliated with Bush fan". By my count, Clam chowdah has now reinstated this content six times since the initial edits ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). Because the PEPFAR article clearly seems to need additional eyes, and since Clam chowdah acknowledges that his sources do not address PEPFAR directly but instead provide "very important context so people can find the true heroes" (which sounds a lot like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to me), I decided to take the dispute to this noticeboard. To wit: Is this valid background information that may be useful to readers interested in PEPFAR or simply a textbook case of original research and synthesis by an inexperienced contributor? All feedback is appreciated!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This official UN report has everything I added for context AND mentions PEPFAR. Furthermore, all of this can be backed up by my original footnote links which are contemporaneous news articles. Read pages 21-23 and you will see it has the exact same facts I found in contemporaneous news articles. The first paragraph now is BS and none of it can be found in contemporaneous news articles. Fauci and Tommy Thompson visiting Africa in 2002 is the first mention of the Bush administration focusing on the crisis in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/MDG6Report_en.pdf

Here are the direct quotes from the UN officials that make clear Western governments were protecting patents and thus blocking distribution of HIV medication:

The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices. And donÕt forget this was also the time when world leaders were negotiating protection of intellectual property rights at the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Any concession could open the floodgates for exceptions. US$ 100 So when Brazil and Thailand started manufacturing generic antiretroviral medicines they did something very smart: they revealed that the pills were relatively low-cost to make. This took the wind out of industry claims, and it opened the door for UNAIDS to start negotiations with companies to bring down prices

Meanwhile, activists were getting creative, too. The Treatment Action Campaign sued the government of South Africa to force the country to make antiretroviral medicines available, and protesters were pushing for changes to patent protection to bring prices down. MICHEL: I cannot give enough credit to AIDS activists. Activists used all avenues available to keep pressure on everyone. The push on WTO to recognize the limits of patent protection in a health crisis led to TRIPS [the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] flexibilities for compulsory licensing and waivers.“ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

More on the patents and WTO: A discussion of ways to overcome this obstacle began at a WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar in November 2001. WTO ministers recognized that countries with insufficient or no pharmaceutical-manufacturing capacities could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing, and they instructed the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem before the end of 2002. WTO member nations, however, were unable to agree upon the terms under which poor countries could import generic drugs.

Progress on easing generic-drug importation restrictions was held back primarily by the US, which, under pressure from a strong pharmaceutical lobby, expressed concern about the ability of generics producers to export drugs that the pharmaceutical companies had spent millions of dollars to develop. Sale of AIDS drugs in developed countries is a multimillion-dollar industry for companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Merck and Co., and Roche Holding AG.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228482/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Great essay. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We aren't here to right great wrongs nor to conduct original research nor string together sources to make a point not found in the sources. Also we do not call people liars in edit summaries no matter how much you dislike the former President and his administration.Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

^^^Slywriter just called Jeffrey Sachs a liar. You need to read my links instead of bullying me!! Please use the Talk page!! You 3 are bullies that are trying to trip me up so you can ban me because editing Wikipedia makes you feel powerful. You 3 are no better than a middle school bully picking on a new kid. This is like the Stanford Prison Experiment and I notice it when websites allow top commenters to moderate comment sections and the power goes to their heads. You guys won’t even respond to me because you just end up showing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills…pathetic! Clam chowdah (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing in that report on those pages that call out anything close to what you are saying. That drug prices are high and that USAIDS has tried to work with companies to bring down prices is there, but that's nothing about the US Gov protecting Big Pharma. So this is 100% original research and cannot be added. --Masem (t) 02:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

^^^this guy just wrote USAIDS—it is UNAIDS!! USAIDS doesn’t exist. Here is the quote from UN—“The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices.” And here is the quote from JCI via NIH-“Progress on easing generic-drug importation restrictions was held back primarily by the US, which, under pressure from a strong pharmaceutical lobby” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not original research—those are quotes!! I didn’t write an essay!! The links are right there, how can you not see that!?! It is getting added because it is what happened in 2000-2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

So one guy thinks I wrote an essay when I copy and pasted from official UN and NIH documents…and another guy thinks he read USAIDS when it is obviously UNAIDS?? Am I on Candid Camera??? Seriously?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I apologize to Times, but I did make the changes he advised me to make. But you can see that Times wanted to get a desired outcome here because the first two people to weigh in have misread my contributions because Times wrote such a biased introduction. I want these facts included because they are important and I don’t want my bad behavior to keep them out and so I will take all of your advice to heart…but Times should also be a little more careful because he is coming off as a bully even as I admit my bad behavior and promise to keep it civil going forward. Oh, and a Quartz article I originally linked to used the term “Big Pharma” and I do believe the UN officials’ are relating that “Western hegemony” was keeping life saving medication from poor nations at the turn of the century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Quartz article I originally linked to which is backed up by multiple articles published in 2001 by the NYTimes which is what “the article” refers to:

According to the article, Cipla was offering to sell the AIDS cocktail for $350 a year per patient, or roughly $1 a day, as compared to Western prices of between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, but was being blocked by the multinational drug makers that held the patents, who were being backed by the Bush administration.

News of Big Pharma’s patent protection efforts in the face of the global pandemic and the Bush administration’s support of them sparked international outrage and stoked street protests from Philadelphia to Pretoria, even accusations of genocide.

https://qz.com/india/1666032/how-indian-pharma-giant-cipla-made-aids-drugs-affordable/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic.[5]

This is currently under History and it’s from a primary source (Decision Points which is Bush’s memoir), shouldn’t it already be deleted???Clam chowdah (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Btw, the editor that initially deleted my text edited Lee Harvey Oswald’s article to say he was “accused” of “assassinating” JFK…so that is the individual that started with deleting my work instead of working with me on the Talk page. Thanks to the more experienced editors trying to help me instead of ignoring my links that go to reputable entities and news sources.Clam chowdah (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You went to see [then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice … in early 2001. Were you talking about the Global Fund then, and what was her reaction?

I came in to the White House, the first year of the Bush administration. I came in to see Condoleezza Rice, with whom I worked in 1989 when I was advising the new post-Communist Polish government, and she was in the National Security Council. ... I went in 2001 to say, "Here's another chance for a wonderful initiative; we need to help treat people that are dying of AIDS; ... here's a $3 billion-a-year plan," and put it forward.

It was interesting, the reaction. Well, first Condoleezza Rice said, "The president is interested in this." Thank goodness. And "It's interesting to hear you discuss this, but our experts tell us that people can't be treated." And I said: "Well, that's not true. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes, but I'm lucky to have as colleagues some of the world's leading scientists and clinicians in AIDS, and they've all just agreed on the fact that treatment is feasible, and it's even feasible in the clinical conditions you would find in impoverished places." Well, there was lots of philosophical argument -- no, it's only cost-effective to do prevention, and all sorts of misunderstandings. ...

I was utterly shocked, I think, completely stunned, when the newly appointed head of USAID [United States Agency for International Development], Andrew Natsios, then made the most remarkable and chilling set of statements about all of this as he was coming into office. He said: "Well, you can't treat Africans. Africans don't know Western time. They won't know the time to take their medicines." He said: "They may know mornings; they may know noon; they may know night. But they don't know Western time." Hard to fathom, actually, how a senior American official could ever make such a statement. But that was the statement of the USAID agency -- in his early days, admittedly, but absolutely shocking. And I talked to [then-Secretary of State] Colin Powell and others, and of course Secretary Powell said: "I've been to hospitals all over Africa. This statement is not our policy." But it showed how steep the hill was going to be with this administration.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/sachs.htmlClam chowdah (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly carrying a POV and trying to justify original research to include claims not directly made by these sources. This is the classic WP:SYNTH argument that WP does not allow. --Masem (t) 02:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

How are quotes from Jeffrey Sachs via PBS “original research”?? And how are quotes from Bush’s memoir not a primary source? Does bullying people make you feel powerful??Clam chowdah (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the quotes from Bush's memoir are from a WP:PRIMARY source. Being from a primary source is not reason enough to exclude properly attributed information on an otherwise notable topic. They are certainly not lies, unless you believe Wikipedia is misrepresenting the two sources and the information is not found in those sources. Slywriter (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the Jeffrey Sachs interview from Frontline right above this!! You can’t square his recollection with Rice’s recollection. And Kofi Annan never heard Bush or Rice discuss PEPFAR prior to shortly before the 2003 State of the Union—do you believe Sachs and Annan or Bush and Rice?? And remember—Sachs and Annan’s actions were recorded by the news media in real time while Bush’s version of events was recorded in 2010 when his memoir was published. You can’t be this gullible!?!Clam chowdah (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not about being gullible, it is that we as editors cannot engages in the speculation and interpretation of sources like this. Sources have to be pretty direct to say that the US Govt is defending the patents of Big Pharma. You are trying to link many disparate pieces of factual information (what some people like Sachs have said) to create a picture that doesn't exist in the sources. That's original research.

You also have continued to try to add this at PEPFAR, which is edit warning and you should be fully aware that if you continue to do so, you will be blocked for that. Masem (t) 12:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, Cipla was offering to sell the AIDS cocktail for $350 a year per patient, or roughly $1 a day, as compared to Western prices of between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, but was being blocked by the multinational drug makers that held the patents, who were being backed by the Bush administration.

News of Big Pharma’s patent protection efforts in the face of the global pandemic and the Bush administration’s support of them sparked international outrage and stoked street protests from Philadelphia to Pretoria, even accusations of genocide.

https://qz.com/india/1666032/how-indian-pharma-giant-cipla-made-aids-drugs-affordable/amp/Clam chowdah (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So you 3 mean girls seem intent on pushing racist White Savior narrative from a primary source that is contradicted by a Nobel Peace prize winner and Harvard economist?!? You 3 are awful, I’m done trying to reason with you when you’ve gotten everything wrong here and you refuse read links and refuse to use the Talk page to come to a consensus and you follow the lead of a JFK conspiracy theorist.Clam chowdah (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As you are incapable of discussing the issue in a collegial manner, your behavior is now at WP:ANI. Civility is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Input requested at Beergate – Relationship to Partygate

At Talk:Beergate#Relationship to Partygate an effort at verifiable source based research has been dismissed by DeFacto as "total and shameless OR" on the basis of their "entirely plausible interpretation of the events, from the reading of a broad selection of RS accounts and analyses", but in response to a request for links to these other sources for verification, they said "the onus is on you to to get a policy-based consensus to support the synthesis you keep trying to add, not on me to supply sources saying that it's an OR conclusion." Input from editors interested in OR issues will be much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 17:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Transcendental number

I've noticed that the topic of transcendental numbers tends to attract OR regarding specific mathematical constants, specifically regarding their transcendance.

• At Laplace limit, a user on 23 January 2022 claimed to prove that this constant is transcendental, using the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem. The proof was correct, but no reliable source makes this claim, so I reverted it on February 5.
• Lambert W function claimed to prove transcendence for ceratin values, including that which gives the omega constant, using the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem. I was unable to find reliable sources which explicitly make this assertion, particularly for the omega constant.
• In the case of Cahen's constant, there is a reliable source that proves transcendence, but the sources used did not support the claimed calculation of the irrationality measure of Cahen's constant.

I have recovered as many references as I could fin the main list from the main article. Some more eyes are appreciated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I have fairly briefly looked at the example you give for Laplace limit. Maybe I've missed something really simple in looking so briefly, but as far as I can see the editor just pulls the equation ${\frac {x\exp({\sqrt {1+x^{2}}})}{1+{\sqrt {1+x^{2}}}}}=1$ out of the air. I agree with the proof from that point on, but I don't see where that equation comes from. Can you clarify that? JBW (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Oh dear. I did indeed miss something really obvious in looking so briefly. 😳 I saw that the edit you linked to added that equation, but I didn't notice it was just a second copy of an equation which was already in the article. However, does the article provide a citation for that equation? JBW (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, the "references" in the article aren't on line, and I can't check them, but one of the "external links" does give that equation. Sorry to have taken up your time for nothing. However, I'll reformulate that link as a reference. JBW (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Move debate could use input from ORN participants

Additional perspectives would be welcome at Talk:Timeline of violent and dangerous incidents at the United States Capitol#Requested move 4 July 2022, where I believe "dangerous" and proposed alternative words simply begs for editors to do their own subjective original research. But I don't hang out here and it would be good if experienced eds not involved in the topic might comment. Anyone else is welcome too of course NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Faulty labelling of Antanas Mackevičius in spite of what is said in the sources

In the WP:Lead of Antanas Mackevičius, there is WP:OR saying he was Polish-Lithuanian. Not a single source that is given at the end of the first sentence says so. In fact, every single one of these five sources at the end say that Antanas Mackevičius was Lithuanian. Those sources are: (The sources that the sfn point to are given here). The faulty description of Polish-Lithuanian was put in by Marcelus.

Furthermore, another two sources that are not in the article right now, both say that Mackevičius was Lithuanian.

Following WP:RS and WP:Verifiability, it is clear that the unsourced WP:OR of Polish-Lithuanian should be removed and replaced with Lithuanian.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If someone is of Polish-Lithuanian identity it doesn't mean he isn't Lithuanian, it only means that he is Lithuanian of Polish ancestry/Polish culture/Polish language. It's all really well described in the article. Marcelus (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Cukrakalnis Every single one? You didn’t list all the sources from the discussion -->[39]

How about this source:

Antoni Mackiewicz , pastor of the local parish, was executed in Kołdyczów , together with other Poles.. page 190

How about this source --> quote:

In Kaunas, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Culture and National Heritage prof. Piotr Gliński, together with the Lithuanian Deputy Minister of Culture - Albinas Vilčinskas, laid flowers at the monument to Fr. Antoni Mackiewicz - one of the leaders of the uprising in Żmudź.

and continue

"Antoni Mackiewicz (Antanas Mackevičius) was born in 1826 or 1828 in Cytowiany in Żmudź, died on December 28 or 16, 1863 in Kaunas. He was a Polish and Lithuanian Catholic clergyman."

Look Cukrakalnis, you need an RfC, not what appear to me a dishonest complaint. This is too much you know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have missed a key part of the sentence, when I said every single one of these five sources at the end (with 'at the end' meaning 'at the end of the first sentence', which is clear from the context). I could not list all the sources from the discussion, because those sources weren't even posted by 19:38, 4 July. How could I post something that wasn't there?

The main issue here that it's procedurally wrong to mis-use sources in such an egregious way, where they are used as "sources" for something they don't even say. I don't have to explain how that is wrong. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Text needs to conform to references accompanying it, it is really that simple. If all sources currently provided describe him as "Lithuanian", then the text needs also to be "Lithuanian". Changing it to "Polish-Lithuanian" requires providing sources explicitly backing it up.--Staberinde (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Text needs to conform to the references accompanying it, certainly, but this sounds less like an original research problem and more like a style problem. If there are references elsewhere in the article which support the claim, the concern could be addressed by using the same reference in the lead. And if they're not in the article, add them. pburka (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Text needs to conform to references accompanying it, it is really that simple I know, but me trying to implement that in the text is opposed by other users, of which one said: you are going alone against 3 users right now ([40]). I didn't know where to report this, so I figured that inserting things that no sources say falls under WP:OR. As for references that support the claim Polish-Lithuanian, none of the other users have demonstrated any WP:RS saying that, word for word. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory original research

The bolded part of the first paragraph, The theory claims that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory. seems to be unsupported by any of the citations (Jamin (2014) "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right" pp. 84–103, Richardson & Copsey (2015) "'Cultural-Marxism' and the British National Party: a transnational discourse" in Cultures of Post-War British Fascism, and Jeffries (2016), Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School pp. 6–11.), any source in the article, or, as far as I am aware, any source in existence anywhere. I started a discussion on the talk page a week ago, where nobody has been able to provide a source in support of this claim. Again, all we need here is a source that says "the conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics created by critical theory" or words to that effect. I cannot find such a source. Input is appreciated.  Tewdar  09:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There are definitely sources stating implicitly and explicitly that the conspiracy theory (aka a planned take over) is misrepresenting the liberal values of the 1960s.

Here for instance is Jason Wilson of the guardian:

The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think. Source

Here is Charles Mudede from The Stranger:

Anyone with a basic (and not complex) grasp of the history of French or continental intellectual developments at the end of the 20th century is very aware of the fact that the classical Marxism that crashed in the 1960s (during the Trente Glorieuses—1945 to 1975—the Keynesian response and solution to the real threats of a socialism born in the 19th century) did not take a new and altered form, a Marxism by other means. Source

Here is Joel Looper for ABC Australia:

Here Peterson, slowly pacing behind the podium, stops and moves his hands back and forth as if readying himself to give the air - and the facts that undermine Marxist ideology - a massage. "We can play the same damn game under a new guise," he said. Thus was born what the rightwing blogosphere calls "cultural Marxism." Source

Here is Dr. Joan Braune:

The conspiracy theory not only misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s intellectual project—it also perpetuates centuries-old stereotypes that dehumanize Jews, seeing a controlling hive-mind in the place of individual persons. Source

Here is Rupen Savoulian from Green Left weekly:

For all its various permutations, the basic core of this contemptuous snarl remains as follows: there exists a basic and unscrupulous alliance between feminism, socialism, mass immigration, multiculturalism, indigenous nations, Islam, identity politics, the LGBTI community — essentially anyone despised by the alt-right — to undermine the character of white, Christian nations by moving the arena of struggle from class to culture.

A series of culture wars, it is alleged, is the new tactic of the cultural Marxists, surreptitiously working their way through the educational and cultural institutions to take over the capitalist nations.

The notion that the universities are overwhelmingly staffed by radicals indoctrinating students in the tenets of Marxism is ludicrous.

If universities intended to churn out graduates ideologically committed to the goals of Marxism, then they have failed ignominiously. Capitalism has remained resilient throughout the decades since the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. Source

The lede paragraph is attempting to outline the generally accepted view of the conspiracy theory and its claims. It is a Fringe topic. As you can see, the idea that the conspiracy theory is not an accurate depiction of liberal values is a widespread and generally accepted viewpoint. Naturally, Wikipedia is putting that viewpoint into its own common language. The section in question is not intended as a direct quote, but is the generally understood definition of the conspiracy theory, and as you can see all reliable sources point towards or state explicitly that the conspiracy theory is unsurprisingly, an inaccurate representation. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not one of these sources justifies the disputed statement as far as I can tell, but I'd be interested to hear what other people think.  Tewdar  11:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's widely agreed that the Conspiracy theory is a Fringe Theory, and that's how it should be treated on Wikipedia. This has been settled many times over on the talk page, and in various notice boards. You may view the conspiracy theory as disputed, but it's not by any reliable sources. Even this random course description notes the misrepresentation:

>One often reads terms like Cultural Marxism and Neo-Marxism in right-wing tabloids to indicate a leftwing plot to take over the universities by Leftists. However, such a framework grossly misrepresents Marxist literary and cultural criticism. Source

There's really no grounds for claiming that Liberalism is somehow secretly really Marxism, or that The Frankfurt School were attempting to use Liberalism to stage a Marxist take over at all levels of culture. I'm also not sure why you've jumped straight onto the Original Research notice board rather than discussing it on the talk page. But as you say, we'll see what happens here. Maybe we'll need a be slight rewording, but as shown on the talk page today the target of the conspiracy theory is commonly Identity Politics. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

the Conspiracy theory is a Fringe Theory, and that's how it should be treated on Wikipedia. This has been settled many times over on the talk page, and in various notice boards. You may view the conspiracy theory as disputed, but it's not by any reliable sources. - perhaps you intended to type this somewhere else? It does not appear to be relevant to this discussion.  Tewdar  11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There are definitely sources stating that implicitly and explicitly that the conspiracy theory (aka a planned take over) is misrepresenting the liberal values of the 1960s - See, this is the problem. You have not read what I said correctly. Consider these three statements:

(a) Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values.

(b) Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics.

(c) Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics created by critical theory.

Do you see the difference? We need a source that supports (c), not just (a) or (b).  Tewdar  11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics created by critical theory."

Well, I mean, Identity Politics is widely acknowledged to have originated with Barbara Smith of the Combahee River Collective, which to my knowledge didn't involve any Critical Theorists. To quote the Identity Politics page:

The term identity politics may have been used in political discourse since at least the 1970s. The first known written appearance of the term is found in the April 1977 statement of the Black feminist socialist group, Combahee River Collective, which was originally printed in 1979's Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, later in Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology, edited by Barbara Smith, a founding member of the Collective, who have been credited with coining the term.

So I think there's some Wiki Lawyering going on here to get around the basic facts of the matter. To be so robotically focused on policy and the semantics of statements, is really antithetical to any pursuit of honesty on the topic. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is OR and SYNTH. And it will be another trip to ANI for you if there's any more talk about Wiki Lawyering or honesty on the topic, when I am simply asking for a source that supports a statement. So far nobody has been able to provide one.  Tewdar 

You have been provided with statements that the conspiracy theory is a misrepresentation of The Frankfurt School's intellectual project. That the conspiracy theory commonly targets identity politics, and that Identity politics was not created by Critical Theory. So perhaps the statement will have to be reworded, if this board sees fit. If that is their choice, I would like suggestions on how best to do so within the bounds of WP:OR, as the current wording has been the consensus for a few years now. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I do think the statement could be broken up with some commas. That might be the quickest solution. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Solve original research with commas, eh? And you wonder why I brought this to the noticeboard...  Tewdar  12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, alternatives aren't that hard to write, for example:

"The conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, Identity Politics and Political Correctness, claiming there's been an intentional subversion of Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with the culturally liberal values of the 1960s."

Of course, I won't be surprised if you take issue with that wording as well. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal appears to accept my argument that the current version cannot be supported by any sources. Also, please AGF. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory, but I do believe in Wikipedia's no OR policy. Why not put your proposal on the talk page and see what others think. It looks better than the current version to me.  Tewdar  12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to try a rewording, I believe the old version was sufficiently source albeit poorly worded. If rewording it finds approval I'll be happy enough with that outcome too. Anyways, I've added a new section to the talk page as per your suggestion, and wish you well. Good evening. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that, your proposed alternative looks acceptable to me, perhaps it is missing a few details that are in the current version but in general it is an improvement and does not contain original research. All the best.  Tewdar  13:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Does nobody else (preferably not the usual topic editors) want to offer an opinion on whether the original text was original research or not?  Tewdar  11:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Input invited at Talk:United_States_foreign_aid#Morality

Your comments welcome at Talk:United_States_foreign_aid#Morality NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User-generated image of Shinzo Abe assassination

Talk:Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Amateur-quality_image,_possible_original_research is the discussion that I initiated at the talk page, and would be interested in outsider perspective. A Commons user created what is appearing to be their interpretation of the assassination events in Second Life, an old video game MMO, then took a screenshot of that. IMO material included in an article should be verifiable, and this doesn't satisfy that. A sketch or map used in an actual reliable source would be usable, copyright permitting. But this is not that. Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Input requested at List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland

The article in mention would be List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland. The page is created by ErrgoProxy. Errgo created a list of universities that according to him, are unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland. In the page, it is explained that the list was made by cross-referencing data provided by State official sites Swissuniversities, Akkreditierungsrat, and Studyprogrammes. In my opinion, this violates WP:OR as cross-referencing data and then inferring or gaining conclusion from said data is original research, as there are no sources that state that the universities listed are indeed unaccredited. I will also bring Curb Safe Charmer and PierreLsn, which are also involved editors on this matter.

I have discussed this with another user, Equyl, that have similar concerns, as shown in here, where I explained that inferring information from sources are original research, and editors are not allowed to engage in that. User Errgo exhibited similar behavior with user Equyl.

In short, input is requested if methods that are used by Errgo to list universities on the article is WP:OR or not. Thank you and have a good day to all. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"Errgo created a list of universities that according to him, are unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland"

Wrong, it is a list of unaccredited higher education institutions. There is a big difference. Three webpages as sources by the Ministry of Education in Switzerland reference this;

https://www.swissuniversities.ch/en/topics/studying/accredited-swiss-higher-education-institutions

https://akkreditierungsrat.ch/akkreditierungsentscheide/institutionelle-akkreditierung/

https://studyprogrammes.ch/en

Under the guiding principle from SAC these institution do not hold the HEdA-u designation AAQ to be granted using the word University legally,and be a recognised higher education institution;

https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/sbfi/en/home/ihe/higher-education/coordination-higher-education-sector/protection-and-recognition-of-the-titles.html

https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/webshop/2016/titelschutz-hs.pdf.download.pdf/titelschutz-hs.pdf

https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/content/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/2017/12/titel-privater-institutionen.pdf

The HEdA came into effect on 1 January 2015. With HEdA, the designations “university“, “university of applied sciences” or “university of teacher education” and derived designations such as “university college” or “UAS college” can only be used by public or private institutions that have been institutionally accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Council. This also applies to designations in languages other than Swiss national languages. Other designations such as “academy”, “school”, “institute”, etc. remain unreserved and do not require accreditation.

"Private institutions based in Switzerland that are not accredited under the HEdA may only issue

private degrees. Such degrees:

- generally do not confer any entitlement upon the holder to gain direct access to a higher level

of studies within Switzerland's public higher education sector;

- generally may not be used by the holder to carry out a profession that is regulated in Switzerland;

- may be used by the holder to carry out an unregulated profession; appreciation of the value of

private degrees is left up to employers.

Generally speaking, there are no international agreements protecting the value of private degrees; in

all cases, it is up to the national authorities in the host country to decide whether to recognise foreign

qualifications.

Private institutions are able to legitimately carry out their activities in Switzerland by virtue of the principle

of economic freedom. They may also use a name that is not subject to an accreditation requirement.

However, this does not mean that the Swiss authorities recognise the studies offered, nor the

examinations passed nor the qualifications issued." ..i think at this point it is self explanatory.

Now should you need more information on legality and consequences that can rise from implying these institutions are as you claim recognised Universities i would be very much interested in seeing your sources for these claims SunDawn. Before such i would also urge you to read the Swiss law in making such implication under the UGW. That is in small notion referenced in the SBFI page for titleschutz.

I would also express claiming the tag WP:OR on the article as you did without providing what exactly your problem with it is and trying to help out as senior editor was more then welcome, but it never came to this. Also i have to notice the similar insights from users SunDawn and PierreLsn in the remarks about the page.

I've approached and ask for sources for the claims yet neither one was willing to provide or to help out. Not only that i was reported for violation and any type of communication from them to me was non existent, untill i decided to also comply and state my reasons the article is well sourced and the WP:OR tag is clashing with the WP:V and WP:RS tag's.

"In the page, it is explained that the list was made by cross-referencing data provided by State official sites Swissuniversities, Akkreditierungsrat, and Studyprogrammes. In my opinion, this violates WP:OR as cross-referencing data and then inferring or gaining conclusion from said data is original research, as there are no sources that state that the universities listed are indeed unaccredited."

There is no conclusion if a list from the Government/Ministry of education (three separated sites) clearly states providies detailed list of recognised higher education institutions and Universities. It is a simple fact checking, which wikipedia is all about.

User PierreLsn was asked to stop editing the article and express his sources for his claims (he never provided any source, the talk page for the article provides the information) In the same manner big chuncks of the article from sources in the Swiss Ministry of Education and Law providing the information were removed, and said they are not valid sources. After i asked him to stop/citated my sources and reverted back his changes he proceded on reporting me and the article, untill a second user Functionalist also said the sources and the pages have a clear design and the list is well sourced. ErrgoProxy (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@ErrgoProxy: You have reliable sources that list which institutions are accredited, but no reliable sources that list which institutions are not accredited. The list you've created is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is against Wikipedia policy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

From the link you provided ""A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article." as you said they are reliable sources. WP:SYNTHNOT

As it is also described if authors reach a consensu an article can be given approval, if it is well sourced and easy to verify. "but no reliable sources that list which institutions are not accredited" so a Government based list of all the recognised institutions by the Swiss can not be used to source educational institutions in Switzerland and a list of not recognised institutions with a clear tag private, unaccredited in higher education business. ErrgoProxy (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Functionist and DGG: pinging involved editors (Functionist has been involved on the article talk page, and DGG accepted the draft) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

At first sight this is WP:SYNTH, but it should be considered whether this falls into the same category as WP:CALC, which says that routine calculations are allowed. For this to have a chance, the government sites would have to clearly state that they are listing all accredited institutions. Also, even if "unaccredited" is SYTH, "not listed as accredited" is not SYNTH. So a rewording of the definition of the list could help. Zero^talk 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks SunDawn for the ping.

1) Title of page List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland is wrong and is a key issue (WP:NOR). Main source (Swissuniversities) states the correct title should refer to "(Un-)Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA*" (meaning that only the institutions listed on the Swissuniversities source page have the right to call themselves Swiss Universities (or Swiss University of Applied Sciences, etc..).

2) The word (Un-)Accredited used singularly as a blanket term is misleading, confusing & wrong (WP:NOR too):

• (a) an institution can be accredited ;
• (b) programs can be accredited ;
• (c) degrees/diplomas can be accredited.

Same word, different meanings. Therefore, Unaccredited or List of unaccredited higher education institutions or even as Zero puts it, Not listed as accredited is not acceptable in Switzerland as per source. Only possible formulation would be Not listed as Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA*, if the ultimate goal of this page is to list all institutions that are not Universities (is that the encyclopedic value?). Does this actually make sense (is it sustainable?) since institutions, programs and/or degrees can also be accredited cross-borders by other countries?

3) Some examples of issues with blanket usage (or WP:NOR usage maybe) of non-qualified words 'Accredited/Unaccredited'. Counting on Duck test to avoid too much wording:

• Listing IMD Business School an unaccredited higher education institution page is ridiculous. But of course it can be listed as not Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (in effect, IMD is not a Swiss University, it's a Business School).
• Webster University Geneva is a fully registered and active Swiss entity as was pointed out by Eatingsnowballs. It is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* - in effect, it is not a Swiss University. But it is delivering US state-accredited Diplomas, under a USA university umbrella. Now as to know if transferring from one year in Webster University Geneva to a next in a Swiss (public) University will work, that's another question (probably not..). This is the reason some organizations specialize in this field only: evaluating accreditations and advising about transferability and academic recognition of schools/programs/degrees that might have similar names (such as 'university' or 'masters'), but do not have the same cursus or "value". See full articles on WES, AES or ECE.
• LRG University of Applied Sciences linked with Glion Institute of Higher Education was listed at Swissuniversities as Swiss University of Applied Science, - hence the title of the Wikipedia page (which is in need of serious update btw). Until that Swiss OAQ accreditation was dropped. They now use different international/professional accreditations for their school/programs/degrees. It is one of the best Hotel/Business Schools in the world. Sure, it is not an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University), but is definitely cannot be listed as an Unaccredited Higher Education Institution in Switzerland, which it should be if we are following this page's logic.
• IMI International Management Institute Switzerland is referenced as delivering a Dual-Degree program, awarding a state-accredited degrees from Manchester Metropolitan University. So again, not a Swiss University. But a student gets awarded a recognized University Degree, because programs are accredited.
• |IFAGE delivers professionally recognized and accredited diplomas, such as the highly regarded Federal Brevet of Accounting (the Swiss CPA), highly recognized in Switzerland. Commonly, this is Higher Education (since there is no definition of what those words are exactly in Switzerland, aside from what you want to make of them). It would be a heresy to say that someone holding the Federal Accounting Brevet went to an "Unaccredited Institution" or followed an "Unaccredited Program" or received an "Unaccredited Degree".

4) Aside from the list, a very high percentage of content is original research, fully unsourced - or source doesn't state what is written.

5) Ref by SunDawn of this [interaction] with Equyl, subsequent immediate creation of similar user ErrgoProxy and many very specifics edits (this or that institution is not a "higher education institution"), it might be inferred that there is strong advocacy or WP:COI on the part of ErrgoProxy, and that a WP:SPI might be warranted. I am writing this down for proper submission in due course.

PierreLsn (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"1) Title of page List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland is wrong and is a key issue (WP:NOR). Main source (Swissuniversities) states the correct title should refer to "(Un-)Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA*" (meaning as per source that the institutions listed have the right to call themselves Swiss Universities (or Swiss University of Applied Sciences, etc..)."

The main source to go for these things is from SBFI the official ministry of education webpage, btw the link states no thing as you expressed.

What we are looking is this;

The accreditation system for the Swiss higher education sector (tertiary level A according to ISCED-

97 classification) is regulated as follows:

- The HEdA came into effect on 1 January 2015. With HEdA, the designations “university“, “university

of applied sciences” or “university of teacher education” and derived designations such

as “university college” or “UAS college” can only be used by public or private institutions that

have been institutionally accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Council. This also applies to

designations in languages other than Swiss national languages. Other designations such as

“academy”, “school”, “institute”, etc. remain unreserved and do not require accreditation. In

case where institutions do not fall within the scope of HEdA, it is up to the cantons to prepare

corresponding guidelines and establish additional rules and recognition procedures for these

institutions. The degrees of tier-one universities, universities of applied sciences and universities

of teacher education” are protected under corresponding legislation.

https://www.ge.ch/en/authorizations-open-and-operate-private-schools

According to the Federal act on the Funding and Coordination of the Higher Education Sector (HEdA), the designations "university", "university of applied Sciences" or "university of teacher education" and derived designations such as "university college" or "UAS college" can only be used by private institutions that have been institutionally accredited by the Swiss Agency for accreditation and quality assurance (AAQ). This also applies to designations in languages other than Swiss national languages. For further information : http://www.aaq.ch

So no they can not use the word University ( in 18/26 Cantonts) if they are a Swiss registered business for higher education, as was with Swiss Managmenet Center who named changed from SMC University, more so the changes to the academic law in Switzerland in 2023, will state all Institutions that who do not posses by SAC accreditation will not be any longer allowed to use these words, given the Cantons will no longer be encharge for these things.

These type of behavior are actually protected in 18 out of 26 Cantons, and on National level in Switzerland;

in the provided on top pdf file; https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/webshop/2016/titelschutz-hs.pdf.download.pdf/titelschutz-hs.pdf

"Cantonal level

It is the will of lawmakers that the titles of higher education qualifications be protected by the sponsors themselves, i.e. generally speaking, the host cantons (see explanations in Chapter 2). Each canton of-fers a very different level of protection of the titles of higher education qualifications awarded on its territory; in some cases, the titles are afforded protection under general cantonal criminal law and in other cases under special legislation. In the pages that follow, we provide a list of the various cantonal provisions that protect the titles of higher education qualifications: in cases where, multiple layers of protection exist, we shall first indicate cantonal criminal law provisions and then the corresponding provisions of special legislation on education and/or rules established by the higher education institu-tions themselves.

Along this line, we can also mention the special transitional rules applying to qualifications awarded by Swiss universities of applied sciences, where federally recognised UAS Bachelor’s, Master’s or Mas-ter of Advanced Studies (MAS) qualifications remain protected under the terms of previous legislation (as stipulated in Art. 78 para. 1 HEdA).14 In addition, UAS degrees awarded under previous legislation continue to be protected under federal law.15 With UAS qualifications no longer afforded protection under federal law, the HEdA gives the cantons the option of quickly taking action: Art. 79 HEdA stipu-lates that for a period of five years following commencement of HEdA, cantonal governments may issue ordinances for the purpose of making adjustments to their legislation on universities of applied sciences, provided these adjustments are absolutely necessary (see Art. 79 HEdA).

In individual cantonal regulations, the general concept of ‘academic degree’ is protected. This concept only covers titles of formally acquired higher education qualifications, i.e. fundamental academic de-grees such as the Lizenziate or Diplome under the previous legislative framework and the Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD degrees under the new one.16 In contrast, qualifications awarded in non-formal ad-vanced studies programmes, i.e. the Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS), the Diploma of Advanced Studies (DAS) and the Master of Advanced Studies (MAS)/Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) are not academic degrees."

As you can see academic degrees are protected by law and have institutional accreditation by the Swiss Government, while the unaccredited higher education institions do not. Now the so called profesional degrees are not protected and regulated. (from the Cantons, untill 2023)

1."Webster University Geneva" - was removed by me from the list as the referenced page/history can detest to that. Cause it should not be for the reasons you also came to conclusion. Thank you for pointing that out.

2."Listing IMD Business School " it has a special reference on the page as noted by users like Eatingsnowballs, Functionalist who also made corrections on it. Given that it awards only MBA degrees.

3."IMI International Management Institute Switzerland is referenced as delivering a Dual-Degree program, awarding a state-accredited degrees from Manchester Metropolitan University. So again, not a Swiss University. But a student gets awarded a recognized University Degree, because programs are accredited." - i am trying to see the point here? IMI is still not a recognised Institution in Switzerland and can not provide valid degrees on it's own. So it should be on the list, having proxy like partnership by the degrees being awarded by recognised Institution does not change the fact they are still not recognised in Switzerland. Hence why the score for them on the German registry page ANABIN says "not recognised" and holds the score -H.

We can go cover each case base by base i do not mind. But it seems to me some of the users do not want this page to be out and are on a witch-hunt instead of providing valid sources, and helping out new users on Wikipedia with their experience. I was nothing but reported, ignored or abused by said (two accounts) users as a new user, without any offering hand to help, cooperate or guide on the first basis. To which i am kind shocked for a fact checking website that people will go spend this much energy instead on improving the pages and new user experience. ErrgoProxy (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I will leave other users comment on this, I am having trouble following. Quick note nevertheless, you say "The main source to go for these things is from SBFI the official ministry of education webpage", please do that and find the following statement in the referenced page: "The list of currently recognised or accredited Swiss higher education institutions under the terms of HEdA can be found on the website of the Swiss Conference of Rectors of Higher Education Institutions (swissuniversities)". I am happy to discuss in a structured and sourced manner, with no WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Thanks. PierreLsn (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @ErrgoProxy:, please reply properly and make the efforts to include hyperlinks and other small things (specific references) that will help us to understand the situation better. Given your responses, it's scattered everywhere like broken glass. The English is often incomprehensible, but most importantly, your response on this page discussing original research proves a point in itself!

You need to use simple but straightforward English. You created the page, but this doesn't mean you own it. I suggest you discuss things in small paragraphs for each issue.

Also, I asked you not to remove the Original Research tag because a reader could make a wrong decision from the content given and have really bad consequences. There is no harm in having the Original Research tag. It was added by a Senior Editor – This was such a simple request! I had simply asked you to not remove the Original Research tag without discussing it on the talk page. You literally insulted me and the original adder @SunDawn: Is there a rush or a mission to complete? Once the consensus is reached, we can decide whether to remove the tag or not.

Coming to your links and messages, I believe they are simply ranting without solid reasoning. You have written vague answers and included government links/content without being specific. Even these answers are similar to Original Research. Also, when I added Webster University Geneva. There was a strong source that was enough for its inclusion. You didn't bother to research and blatantly removed my edit.

You said ""Listing IMD Business School" it has a special reference on the page as noted by users like Eatingsnowballs, Functionalist who also made corrections on it. Given that it awards only MBA degrees." – I have no clue what you are referring to. This answer is simply vague and not precise enough for me to understand what role I play here. Source, please? Eatingsnowballs (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologise if it seem to you like that. I do agree with a lot of the edits you made to the page. And as it seem there is a whole lot of ground to cover with this subject, and bouncing back from one editor user experience and the chain of events gets chaotic. ( you also pointed to me a valid concern with AACSB membership requirements, and reminded me how AACSB is not upholding their very own rules set for granting memberships, read the link on their page.) https://www.aacsb.edu/educators/membership

"An “appropriate governing body” is defined as a governmental entity (or one authorized by a governmental entity) with authority to approve degrees offered by higher educational organizations (e.g. Ministry of Education); OR The organization demonstrates approval of academic programs through recognition by one or more appropriate governmental, non-governmental, or professional organizations within the home country of operation."

PAY GOOD attention to the wording the business schools on the list do not hold any higher education recognition from the government nor any accreditation for ACADEMIC degrees in Switzerland. This was a very good catch by you. And a reminder how dire and serious situation this is in Switzerland. But nevertheless membership has been granted to a good part on the list. These things as you said are serious and a whole lot of ground is left to cover if people can follow up the discussion. Now i can not also comment of ongoing investigation in Switzerland for some things, but the authorities have been made aware on what exactly some of the listed schools are doing. Hence i was in contact/inquiring before i made the page by some of the people for now couple of months regarding these things, and explained by them what is and can be done, and changes for 2023.

Now lets take it one by one;

"Listing IMD Business School" it has a special reference on the page as noted by users like Eatingsnowballs, Functionalist who also made corrections on it. Given that it awards only MBA degrees."

..what i mean was the edition to the table and the links you provided by the school on your side of things, and the reference in the editing message of the page. Now with Functionalist i had a discusion on what exactly to do with IMD and should it even be on the page, since it is indeed controversial, the talk page is evidence to the problem as we discused. And i also still do not know if it should be on the list, in my opinion i would rather remove it for two explicit reasons.

1. It does not fit the profile of what the other Business schools on the list are doing (offering multiple degrees for undergraduate, postgraduate,dual degrees programs etc)

2. It is only in the business of offering MBA degrees in professional sense and holding triple accreditation.

Regarding Webster, it is also a special case as with IMD, Webster is an American recognised (+H) University offering explicitly to their abroad campuses American degrees, not dual type degrees as you expressed. And they do not imply or mislead in any sense, they straight out say these degrees are usable in American and the verification process actually for EU will pass on them by most of Ministries of Education in Europe (i had it checked by a Public University). So why is it different from the rest on the list you should be asking your self, it is not self awarded (lets say Geneva Business School) who is offering "private degrees", who is registered in Switzerland and does not hold any higher education accreditation to award valid degrees, but as it is called by the Swiss Government "private degrees". I do hope i have not lost you in the discussion.

In essence this is why the unaccredited tag is simple yet those who are following the wording is clear on what is going on.

Not the next concern is what to do with the hospitality and hotel type of schools on the page, my recommendation is to split the list and make special notes about them. So make two list addressing 1.Business schools and 2.Hospitality/Hotel Institution this is why i asked Functionalist to prvodie more insight since i do not know about legality of these degrees. I also asked Piere to add new paragraphs and explain it better off instead of removing sources for Scholarships/Visa for business schools.

As for the original research tag, i do not mind having it. But i also so a lot of the pages concering Switzerland are outdated, some of them are still referencing OAQ or CAMPUS type of organizations. QAQ was replaced by AAQ,BACK IN 2015!! ErrgoProxy (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@ErrgoProxy Unfortunately you are again responding fully with Original Research and no sources.

1) The one cited source, AACSB membership, is editorialized while attributing the conclusions to another user. Source says: "(...)The organization demonstrates approval of academic programs through recognition by one or more appropriate (...) professional organizations within the home country of operation." You are explaining the exact contrary over lines and lines of WP:OR.

2) IMD does not only deliver MBAs, it has an Master in Science program. It is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University). You say "It does not fit the profile". Can you point me to the source describing that profile of yours?

3) Webster University Geneva is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University). It therefore does belong in a potential list of Unaccredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* following your own criteria which you are defending edit after edit. Or are we back to WP:OR about this particular institution?

4) You are asking about legal difference between a business school and a hotel school and suggesting recommendations. Can you point to a single source mentioning a legal/educational status difference between the two?

You claim an organisation is "not upholding their very own rules", some institutions "do not imply or mislead in any sense", this or that institution "does not fit the profile". I would point you to WP:Advocacy and WP:COI, and respectfully ask you to respond point by point while following Wikipedia's community rules, starting maybe with WP:NPOV. Most of what I addressed here was covered in my initial entry in this Noticeboard, which you chose not to address in an appropriate way. Thanks. PierreLsn (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

" is editorialized while attributing the conclusions to another user."

What is the points of your's? over here

"Source says: "(...)The organization demonstrates approval of academic programs through recognition by one or more appropriate (...) professional organizations within the home country of operation." You are explaining the exact contrary over lines and lines of WP:OR."

Not sure i again follow your logic as with the swissuniversities you linked, was nothing more then a link to a list of universities that you somehow claim states some facts about naming in Switzerland and had no express wording, which is plain wrong conclusion, yet i linked you that valid sources for context. Which according to you where hard to follow.

1.Regarding the AACSB everyone can go and read the whole page entry that clearly states the guidelines for membership requirements. For which again your conclusion is wrong. As i stated these listed schools do not have higher education recognition in respected country they are open for business.

"2) IMD does not only deliver MBAs, it has an Master in Science program. It is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University). You say "It does not fit the profile". Can you point me to the source describing that profile of yours?"

As i have expressed i would remove IMD from the said list. But i could also explain it on how and why it can be. They do not award dual degree programs, but they are offering programs from recognised Institution in Switzerland for Master's. So in essence like Webster. While other type of Institutions are offering duel type of programs, and in some case long dead partnerships.

This is what i have also witnessed in the past two months, these Wiki pages are filled with wrong,misleading,outdated,selfsourced information from these business schools. As i expreseed concerns with CAMPUS OAQ pages regarding official Swiss organizations that are defunct, are used by some of these schools. A new page should be made to reference the appropriate AAQ.

"4) You are asking about legal difference between a business school and a hotel school and suggesting recommendations. Can you point to a single source mentioning a legal/educational status difference between the two?"

So in the end i get to be bullied "WP:Advocacy and WP:COI" by you instead of reading the said pages with understanding? or how it is to hard to follow. No thank you, would be a waste of my time to try and provide evidence to you. As the past attempts demonstrate.

"You claim an organisation is "not upholding their very own rules", some institutions "do not imply or mislead in any sense", this or that institution "does not fit the profile". I would point you to WP:Advocacy and WP:COI, and respectfully ask you to respond point by point while following Wikipedia's community rules, starting maybe with WP:NPOV. Most of what I addressed here was covered in my initial entry in this Noticeboard, which you chose not to address in an appropriate way. Thanks. PierreLsn (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"

Again you are doing now exactly the same thing as you accused me off. Quoting my sentences out of context. More so no evidence that states anything contrary on your end. And as i expressed my concern in 2. post ,some of the two users are on some path to rather attack me personally then to read with understanding the provided sources, and provide evidence or facts for their claims. You, reported me and the page, blocked me and for two weeks on the said page stop responding to the talk page to deal with the problems. ErrgoProxy (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Right @ErrgoProxy. When you say "No thank you, would be a waste of my time to try and provide evidence to you." it speaks volumes. PierreLsn (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC). (btw, I updated the OAQ page, it was simply renamed to AAQ. )

• Clarifying the status of Swiss higher education institutions has been a problem for years. Many of the articles on non-accredited institutions have blurred the difference between a license to operate and actual accreditation. Similarly, many of the articles have made unjustified claims for affiliation, and there have been institutions in other countries prepared to make affiliations and grant degrees without proper consideration---see University of Wales. This is not unique to switzerland--there have been institutions in the US pretending that a business license equals accreditation (some California institutions have been particularly deceptive). India is a particularly difficult situation, because some of the affiliations and degree-granting authorization are real and responsible, and some not) The discussion above has greatly clarified the situation; I now understand the details much more clearly. This is however not the ideal place for the discussion; I suggest that an explanation of the various statuses be presented properly as a WP: page. (Alternatively, an article with good sources describing the situation might be justified. ) A mere list can not do justice to the variations. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  So, do you have a suggestion on this particular case? Because there are clear differences: Some editors think that the list is wholly WP:OR and should not be removed, while some think that the list is not WP:OR. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hello @SunDawn,I have edited on the basis of @Zero's proposal: List of institutions not listed as Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA*. This is basically a list of all institutions that are not Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences or Universities of Teacher Education in Switzerland. Note the different content sections are full of original research (sources do not support claims). I agree that sourced explanations of various statuses should be properly presented as proposed by @DGG. The list in itself has been very much completed by @Eatingsnowballs but is questionable in terms of encyclopedic value. Still, happy to work on it if it stays. PierreLsn (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn:@PierreLsn:, I am trying to complete the page as much as possible. I have recently added all the missing schools on the list and will keep on improving because there is a lot of room for improvement. I will keep making Wikipedia a better place. Also, thanks for discussing the issues. Eatingsnowballs (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Input requested at Talk:Greased piglet#RfC on examples

Additional participation is requested please at this RfC which I think hinges on the interpretation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. It is trying to decide whether examples of use should require a reliable source to verify that they are notable examples, or whether editors can search the web and select any examples of its use that they find and cite those directly as examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Input requested at Harry Potter in translation

Additional participation is requested at Talk:Harry Potter in translation#Use of Potterglot as a source. The section Harry Potter in translation#Number of official translations is based almost entirely on an editor's self-published external source. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

As for OR, there are concerns about how the number of official translations is calculated, as well as commentary on specific translations. The author of the source in question is also a major contributor to the article, and repeated the OR in that SPS on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

User:LaundryPizza03, perhaps you'd like to weigh in over there? Best, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Corporate Watch

Hi everyone, a large portion of the content at Corporate Watch looks like original research. Version history shows that much of it comes from an editor who has only edited this page. I have removed some of it but I'd welcome more sets of eyes. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Treating lexical cohesion in sources

Is there any guideline that discusses how lexical cohesion in sources should be treated?

There are several ongoing debates in Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine, and the big complication seems to be caused by the sources avoiding repetition of the term "war crime" using lexical constructs such as:

1. We... solemnly condemn the abominable attack... Indiscriminate attacks on innocent victims constitute a war crime. [41]
2. drawing from a variety of sources, have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes... But a handful, including the destruction of the X, indicate N fighters are also to blame. [42]
3. a former Defense Department official and a veteran of numerous international war crime investigations, said the N forces may have violated the laws of armed conflict by not evacuating... residents and staff. [43]
4. The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I... the case of X has been emblematic in this regard. [44]

There is a disagreement amongst editors whether each of such statements in sources supports that an event mentioned in the statement was a war crime, or whether such interpretation is an original research.

An opinion that they can be interpreted to state the event as war crime, but only if another source exists that would interpret them and re-state the fact without cohesion ("X committed a war crime in Y" or "Y is a war crime") has been expressed as well.

I think a wider community input would be helpful to solve this OR debate between a few involved editors, and also would be personally interested to learn how cohesion in sources is usually treated and whether there are any precedents or guidelines to this regard. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is kind of related to the questions discussed at WT:OR. IMHO, it is not original research to logically interpret simple meanings and group related info given baseline assumptions. Andrevan@ 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Synonyms or paraphrasing are WP:NOTOR. You should not swap in a term that's more loaded or perjorative than the source uses, but if the source uses them as synonyms there seems to be no probem. Sennalen (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

agreed with this. Andrevan@ 01:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jane's Revenge § Militant, extremist

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jane's Revenge § Militant, extremist. Elizium23 (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Write the Infinite Article

For your consideration, Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article - an essay relating to original research. Sennalen (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia original research request

The List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia article has a section describing the succession of seats after 1895. The section includes a table for each of the seven seats listing the chain of justices who succeeded each other in that seat.

In 2022, two justices (Mims and Lemons) retired, creating overlapping vacancies. (Mims retired in April; Lemons retired in February). The General Assembly of Virginia elected two new justices (Mann and Russell) to fill the seats, but not until June. The General Assembly did not indicate which of the two new justices was filling which vacant seat.

When a similar situation arose in 2011 when one justice (Hassell) died and another (Koontz) retired, the General Assembly elected two new justices (McClanahan and Powell) but indicated which new justice replaced which outgoing justice because the judicial interview list shows that of the two new justices, only Powell was interviewed for the Hassell vacancy. A similiar situation also occurred when two vacancies overlapped in 1969 and were filled with appointments by Governor Mills Godwin. Again, on that occasion, Governor Godwin reported to the General Assembly that he had appointed new Justice Cochran to succeed Justice Eggleston and new Justice Harman to succeed Justice Buchanan.

There is no similar indication of which of the 2022 new justices replaced which 2022 outgoing justice. Both new justices were elected on the same day. Two users have asserted that Mann replaced Mims and Russell replaced Lemons, but the media articles they have added to support their citations only say that Lemons and Mims retired, and that Mann and Russell were elected as replacements. The cited articles do not say that Mann replaced Mims and Russell replaced Lemons.

Because there is no publicly verifiable source material supporting the assertion that Mann replaced Mims and Russell replaced Lemons, the two users' revisions making that connection on the Wikipedia article appear to be original research. One of the users who made the change suggested that the connection is implied from the order in which Lemons and Mims vacated their seats, but judgeships are not filled on a first-out, first-in basis. For example, Seat 7 on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacant for 16 years while presidents nominated and the Senate confirmed judges to fill other seats on that court.

An impartial review would be appropriate. Glanvil (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree that there is no source to this effect. The two sources added to the article both say words to the effect that Mann and Russell replaced Mims and Lemons (or Mims and Lemons were replaced by Mann and Russell) in that word order. The consistent use of an order in saying that A and B were replaced by C and D is sufficient indication, in the context of succession of seats on a court that A was replaced by C and B was replaced by D. BD2412 T 05:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  The order of the names has not been consistent in press reports. For example, the Associated Press report lists Lemons' retirement first, then Mims' retirement; the same report lists Mann's election first, then Russell's. That's the opposite order compared to the two articles you cited.

  The AP version was republished by several news outlets, including DC-area newsradio station WTOP-FM, national newspaper U.S. News & World Report,, and Virginia's legal trade journal, the Virginia Lawyers Weekly.

  Because the order used in the press reports is not consistent, choosing which press report to cite is arbitrary and outcome-determinative. Glanvil (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I think it's very clear where the source states, "The Hon. Thomas P. Mann of Fairfax Circuit Court begins his term on August 1. The Hon. Wesley G. Russell Jr. of the Virginia Court of Appeals begins his term on July 1. The new justices fill the openings created by the retirement of Justice William C. Mims, and former Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons". However, just to be sure, I'll call the court and ask. BD2412 T 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    I am on the phone with the clerk of the court right now, and they have confirmed the succession as stated, noting that the judge taking their seat earlier succeeded the judge who retired earlier. BD2412 T 14:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    • You are continuing to edit the Wikipedia article about the topic in dispute while my dispute resolution request is still pending here.

      I, too, have spoken with the court clerk's office and--contradicting one of your recent edit summaries--office and seating assignments are based on seniority according to when a justice is sworn in, not on which former justice a new one replaced (except for the Chief Justice, who is always the most senior). And the Supreme Court of Virginia Historical Advisory Committee confirms that there is no link between either Justice Mann or Justice Russell with either of the two overlapping vacancies because the General Assembly did not say which new justice was replacing which retired justice. The General Assembly just filled the two existing vacancies.Glanvil (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction, seniority being based on the first incoming justice replacing the first outgoing justice. In any case irrespective of office and seating assignments, the clerk of the court specifically informed me, as they likely did you, that Mann succeeded Mims and Russell succeeded Lemons. BD2412 T 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have put in an OTRS ticket via an email to the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia which will settle this beyond further question. BD2412 T 22:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The appointing authority, not the court, is the conclusive authority about who replaced whom, so I did not ask the clerk's office's opinion on that; I asked whether office and seating assignments were based on seniority according to when a justice is sworn in.

I've emailed the Division of Legislative Service's committee counsel for the House of Delegates' Courts of Justice Committee and Senate of Virginia's Judiciary Committee, and the committee chairmen's legislative offices, but I doubt there will be a response before next week. In the meantime, I point out that in the nominating resolutions, Mann is listed first.This is also the order shown in the House and Senate's minutes of the session during which Mann and Russell were elected.

So to the extent your argument depends on an inference that first-in replaced first-out, according to data from the appointing authority from which to draw such an inference, Mann would replace Lemons (whose retirement was effective first), not Mims, even though Mann's term specifically did not begin until August 1; Russell would replace Mims, even though Russell's term specifically began earlier on July 1. My argument, though, is that there is no public, verifiable source material stating who replaced whom, and in my opinion all these conflicting data points weigh in favor of that conclusion.Glanvil (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is your source for the extraordinary proposition that after 127 years of having a succession of seats, and 60 actual successions, all having the first to leave the court succeeded by the next to join the court, the Supreme Court of Virginia has suddenly and without notice abandoned the practice of having a succession of seats? That is the source we would need to say that there has not, in fact, been a succession of seats in this case. My argument is that you never bothered to specifically ask who succeeded who in the first place, and I did ask this (because that is the question we are trying to resolve), and I was specifically told by the court that Russell succeeded Lemons and Mann succeeded Mims. The question of who is the "conclusive authority" is nonsense. If this was reported in the Norfolk News you wouldn't be saying that we can't use that newspaper as a source because the newspaper staff are not the "conclusive authority". You also appear to be confused about the relevant dates. Lemons left the court on February 1, 2022. Mims left the court on March 31, 2022. February comes before March, period. The situation would be no different if Lemons left the court on February 1, 2022 and Mims, having already announced his retirement, had continued to serve until mid-July, after Mann took his seat. The situation is the same for all of the 60 prior successions on the court. For example when George L. Browning left the court on August 26, 1947, he was succeeded by Abram Penn Staples, who assumed office on October 7, 1947, even though Henry W. Holt left the court on October 4, 1947. Where is the source stating that there has been a change in this longstanding practice? BD2412 T 00:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The court doesn't decide which incoming justice replaces which outgoing justice; the appointing authority does. For example, when a president sends a federal judge's nomination to the Senate for confirmation, the nomination specifies which judge the nominee would replace. To illustrate, see the bottom of page 8 of the Senate's Executive Calendar for August 7, 2022, showing that President Biden nominated Andre Mathis to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit vice Bernice Bouie Donald. The Sixth Circuit doesn't decide whose seat Mathis fills, if the Senate confirms him.

The reason we can attribute a chain of title, as it were, to the seats on the Supreme Court of Virginia between 1895 and 1971 is that before the current Constitution of Virginia took effect in 1971, the General Assembly or the Governer had to specify which outgoing justice a new justice replaced, because under Section 102 of the Constitution of 1902, a new justice who was appointed to fill a vacancy created by death, retirement, or removal only served for the unexpired part of his predecessor's term. (Under Section 91, the terms were staggered, so there was no doubt who a new justice replaced if his predecessor's seat became vacant because the term simply expired; only one term naturally expired at a time.) Thus, as the citation in the Wikipedia article already reflects, Governor Godwin told the General Assembly that he had appointed Cochran to replace Eggleston in Seat 2 and Harman to replace Buchanan in Seat 3 when those vacancies overlapped in 1969.

So the period at issue here is not 127 years or 60 successions; it is the 51 years since the Constitution of 1971 took effect. And the reason there hasn't been an issue in that 51-year period, until now, is that there was only one occasions where vacancies overlapped: in 2011, when Koontz retired and Hassell died before the General Assembly elected anyone to fill Koontz's seat. In 2011, the General Assembly indicated that Powell succeeded Hassell and McClanahan succeeded Koontz because, again as cited in the Wikipedia article, the judicial nominee interview dockets show who was interviewed for which seat.

Separately, to return to your Abram Penn Staples example, we know that Staples replaced Browning because Governor Tuck appointed Staples on August 28, 1947 (even though he wasn't sworn in until October 7). We know that Staples did not replace Chief Justice Holt because Holt didn't die until October 4, 1947, so Browning's seat was the only one vacant for Tuck to fill when he appointed Penn in August. I'll be happy to explain any other vacancies you'd like to question, even where they are not overlapping vacancies--just as the Browning-Holt vacancies did not overlap.

You may reject the idea that the appointing authority is the "conclusive authority," but you introduced the idea of conclusivity when you said that "the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia" "will settle this beyond further question." The OES cannot settle who replaced whom beyond question, because it does not decide who replaced whom. The court could not decide for itself before 1971 which of two justices appointed at the same time filled which of two overlapping vacancies because, as explained above, it made a difference in how long each of the two new justices' terms would be; if the court could decide which justice replaced whom in an overlapping vacancy situation, it would have been deciding how long each of the new justices' terms would be, and it did not have that power; the appointing authority did. Although the Constitution of 1971 ended staggered terms and allows new justices to serve full 12-year terms, regardless of how the vacancy they're filling arose, the Constitution of 1971 did not confer any new power on the court to decide which new justice replaces which outgoing justice, and the court clearly lacked that power before 1971.

Next, if the question of who succeeded whom had been clearly reported in a press article, it may have been sufficient authority to remove the question from the realm of a "no original research" dispute, but a press report can still be mistaken. When there are contradictory, publicly-verifiable sources, there can still be a legitimate debate on Wikipedia about the weight of the sources.

Finally, I am not confused about when Lemons and Mims retired. As I said in my most recent reply (before this one), Lemons retired first. Mann is listed first in the House and Senate nominating resolutions, and is shown as elected first in the House and Senate minutes. There's at least as sound an argument to be made (for purposes of your first-out, first-in theory of succession) that Mann was elected first, so succeeded Lemons, and Russell elected second, so succeded Mims, based on the order of nomination and election, as there is that Russell's term started first, so he successed Lemons, and Mann's term started second, so he succeeded Mims. But I disagree that your first-in, first-out theory is valid; my theory is that the appointing authority has to specify. The implied constitutional requirement to do so (to determine the length of the new justice's term) may have been eliminated in 1971, but the principle is the same: the authority putting a justice on the court is the authority that decides who that new justice replaced. If the General Assembly didn't make that decision this time, then the order of succession is as arbitrary in this instance as it was when the General Assembly filled five overlapping vacancies when it elected a full new bench in 1895. As nice as it might be--as clean and convenient as it might be--for there to be an orderly succession in the seats, there's no requirement for one anymore, after 1971; there wasn't an orderly succession in the seats in 1895, and there may not be one in these two seats now.Glanvil (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I received a response directly from Senator John Edwards, chairman of the Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee. I have not yet received a response from Delegate Rob Bell, chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee. I specifically asked Senator Edwards "do you know if there is any public documentation about which Justice filled which vacancy? For example, did Justice Mann replace Justice Lemons or Justice Mims? If there is no public documentation, do you have any insight you can share on that question?" The answer was, "I don’t know which new justice replaced which of the two retiring justices." He also confirmed that there was no intention to indicate a successor based on the start date of each new justice's term. He said he did not know why Justice Mann's term began on August 1, and that Justice Russell would take seniority over Justice Mann on the court because Russell took office first, but that this was "happenstance."

If the chairman of one of the two legislative committees responsible for certifying the candidates for election to the judgeships doesn't know which new justice replaced which outgoing justice, then I renew my assertion that any attempt to establish who succeeded whom in the two vacant seats is purely arbitrary.Glanvil (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

References

As I have already explained, I received confirmation of the order of succession from the court. Finding someone who doesn't know the answer to the question has no bearing on the fact that the question has been answered. This quest to apparently prove the unsourced contention that the state of Virginia has secretly abandoned a 127-year old practice of having a succession of seats, based on the common sense progression of the first justice to leave the court being succeeded by the next justice to join the court, is tilting at windmills. BD2412 T 23:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Delegate Bell's office directed me to the Division of Legislative Services Judicial Selection Administrator, who responded today that Justice Russell replaced Justice Lemons and Justice Mann replaced Justice Mims. They confirmed, however, that this has nothing to do with the order in which new justices join the court. When a new justice starts on the court depends on "wrapping up cases, personal obligations/scheduling conflicts, etc.," and has nothing to do with which seat they fill.Glanvil (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad to have this resolved. BD2412 T 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at "Particle in a box#A more general analytically solvable problem in quantum mechanics"

NOTE: This is a continuation of a discussion from Talk:Particle_in_a_box#Possible_original_research?, since this is probably a better place for it. Please visit that page for previous messages. The newly-added section in question is Particle in a box#A more general analytically solvable problem in quantum mechanics, and I'm posting here because I was unsure if it was original research or not.

@Luman2009: Sorry for all the confusion. I think what I'm specifically trying to ask is: Does the article and/or book explicitly state that the solution it presents for Bloch waves is a generalization of the simpler particle in a box? The article and book's titles make it sound like they focus only on crystals, so I worry that their solutions will have additional assumptions as a result. Is there maybe a sentence in the article or book that specifically states that this isn't an issue?

Also, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm disagreeing with your new content itself. I trust that your additions are accurate; I just want to make sure that everything's by-the-book with regards to Wikipedia's citation standards :-)

BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I appreciate your every effort in pursuing the purpose of the best Wikipedia articles.

A crystal IS different from the "Particle in a box" model. The difference is that: the potential in a crystal is periodic, but the potential in the "particle in a box" model is flat. A flat potential can be considered a limit when the period of the periodic potential goes zero.

The "Particle in a Box" model has been widely used to treat physics problems in crystals, such as the "Quantum dots" section in this current Wikipedia article. In these treatments, the effects of the periodic potential were simplified to be an "effective mass," as clearly shown in the beginning sentences and the equation.

The new theory analytically solves the problem "Particle in a box" with a periodic potential in the box. It obtains many new results and provides new insights into relevant physics.

The citations are for "the new theory." The entire contents of the article and two editions of the book are all closely related to the new theory and relevant problem. Further narrowing pages may lose some accuracy. 70.95.157.7 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if I have already made my points clear enough in my previous reply. So in the following, I will try better to answer the question:

"Does the article and/or book explicitly state that the solution it presents for Bloch waves is a generalization of the simpler particle in a box? "

1.The "Particle in a box" model solved the quantum confinement of plane waves is a well-known knowledge in quantum mechanics.

2. Bloch wave is a more general type of wave than the plane wave.

3. The entire content of the cited published article and book is to analytically solve the quantum confinement of Bloch waves, which is more general than

the quantum confinement of plane waves in the " Particle in a box" model.

I will be happy to answer any further questions if necessary.

Thank you very much again for your help in the making a better " Particle in a box" article. Luman2009 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Two Indian caste/tribe topics

That is about the articles Tribal casteism and Tribal multiculturalism. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Opinion_on_Tribal_casteism_and_Tribal_multiculturalism?. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Texas

Did a Texas law passed in 2019 nullify federal anti-discrimination employment law? It is currently stated so at LGBT rights in Texas#Summary table. Four citations are provided for the statement—two links to Texas law and two to news media coverage—and there is a dispute about whether the sources support the analysis.

There's some active discussion at Talk:LGBT rights in Texas/Archive 2#Fresh start and protracted prior discussion in sections above. There are other related issues, but I wanted to bring up one of the central issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Any takers? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything useful I might be able to do to spark wider discussion, @Firefangledfeathers? (Purposely haven't weighed in here, as I assumed the idea is to get views of other, uninvolved editors.) Where do we go from here? AukusRuckus (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this a primary source or a secondary source?

Hello, there’s a disagreement at Talk:Coup_d'état#Large_deletion_of_material as to whether this is a primary source or a secondary source:

Marsteintredet, Leiv and Malamud, Andrés. “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research”, Political Studies Vol. 68(4) 1014–1035 (2020).

This seems to me like scholarly material from a reputable secondary source. Of course, if people would like to find scholars who have a different position, any such scholars can be cited too, but I’m not aware of any. The authors of the deleted material are reputable scholars:

• Leiv Marsteintredet, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

• Andrés Malamud, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Portugal

As for the journal, the lead of its Wikipedia article says this: "Political Studies is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering all areas of political science, established in 1953 and published quarterly by SAGE Publications on behalf of the Political Studies Association." This particular article has already been cited many times by scholars in this field, even though this particular article was published relatively recently (2020), per Google scholar.

Thanks for advice. If parts of it are primary while parts of it are secondary, here’s how the source was used in the Wikipedia article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are we here? At the source dispute no one has questioned whether this is a primary source, have they? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s incorrect. At the source dispute, I said “This is scholarly material from a reputable secondary source.” Another editor said, “The content seems undue as it is primary research, not secondary.” Per the Wikipedia article titled secondary source, “Secondary sources in history and humanities are usually books or scholarly journals, from the perspective of a later interpreter, especially by a later scholar. In the humanities, a peer reviewed article is always a secondary source.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were holding the "scholarly" work up as primary too. Thanks for focusing the question.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's UNDUE because it is a cherrypicked source that promote a POV under discussion on a different WP page and it has been stuck it on the Coup page where it is not central to mainstream narratives as to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not aware of any source that contradicts it, but your solution in a case like this would be to find such sources instead of blanking what you don’t like. This reliable secondary source was cited twice by this Wikipedia article for other points, before I ever touched that Wikipedia article. Just because it goes against your POV is no reason to exclude it for some purposes and not others. You know that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:ONUS and do not edit war this content back into the article without prior talk page consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I've asserted at the article talk page, and here below, that how this paper was being used means that it is a primary source. It is a correlative analysis by the authors of three disparate datasets; a combined English/Spanish Google ngram search, and data of recorded coups from two other papers. Combining these sources in this way represents a novel idea of the authors, and the findings of that combination are new information, which is inherently a primary source per WP:PRIMARYINPART.

In addition, there are concerns, based upon one of two papers that actually cite the relevant findings of this analysis that it may be in part incorrect or inaccurate for coups in West Africa. As such, it is very difficult to assess the source for weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Any analytical papers are secondary sources for the facts they contain, including facts about the relative acceptance of opinions, and primary sources for the opinions of its authors. TFD (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Our article secondary source says, “In the humanities, a peer reviewed article is always a secondary source.” Maybe the job of peer review is to remove unsubstantiated opinion, leaving only substantiated facts and conclusions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Just want to remind everyone to read WP:VNOT. It may be relevant here. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean whether it is DUE or not? :) Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think Wikipedia editors are supposed to reject content merely because they dislike it, which I see all the time. If something is well-sourced and a Wikipedia editor feels strongly about including it, the best path is to let it in, I do so all the time, while trying to make sure it’s presented with other viewpoints that may contradict it. Just blanking material you don’t like is the worst kind of censorship. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Policy allows reverting addition of material even for a crap reason although one would hope that if the reason was merely idontlikeit, then other editors would weigh in to readd. DUEness is a legitimate reason for keeping something out as long as it can be explained why something is undue. Again, editors need to arrive at a consensus on the point. Initially though, if one is trying to add something, then the so called WP:ONUS rests with the one trying to add and being well sourced (verifiable) is necessary but can be insufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems like nothing is sufficient, no reason is sufficient, next to a greater number of editors who merely say there’s no consensus to include. WP:UNDUE insists that “pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints”, and this material at issue now is manifestly one of those viewpoints. It violates WP:UNDUE to exclude it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If the local consensus (on the article talk page) is against you, your only recourse, apart from just walking away, is to increase the eyes on the problem. This noticeboard is for OR problems, you might want to ask at the NPOV board whether the source is a sufficiently held viewpoint for inclusion but try and demonstrate that it is first. If you are out of arguments and still wish to press the issue, an RFC is an option (same idea, get more eyes on it). Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter how many eyes are on it, if the notion keeps spreading that people are entitled to reject whatever content they don’t like. And that notion certainly is getting very widespread in Wikipedia articles related to law and government. What special interest group wouldn’t want to dive into Wikipedia now to make sure that articles suit their fancy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly why "more eyes" works, in general. It draws in editors with no axe to grind. In an RFC, the policy based arguments are more important, an editor whose view translates to idontlike it is not going to have that much attention paid to them. Whereas a "pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints" argument will carry some weight. As for sigs, well they are doing that all the time, eventually legit editors will catch up with them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said at the article talk page, my objections to this are not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They are based upon the NPOV policy. You are correct in saying that pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints, however it also says in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Based on the papers that cite Marsteintredet and Malamud, it is impossible to identify the prominence of this work, in relation to others published in the same area. The paper is not that well cited; it has only 14 citations that are not from undergraduate or masters theses, and only two of the English language citations actually cite and make commentary of the information we are interested in. This is why I have repeatedly stated that it is undue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave yesterday, what I thought was a pretty comprehensive rationale for why I think the content is undue (diffs; [45], [46], [47]). I'll go over the key points again here though for clarity.

The source was being used for this added section, where it is citing the findings of Marsteintredet and Malamud's original research. Breaking it down by paragraphs:

• As of 2019, coups were occurring less frequently than in previous decades. Yet, the term “coup” was occurring more frequently in both academic and non-academic contexts, especially in conjunction with an adjective like “soft” or “parliamentary” or “electoral” or “slow-motion”.

  This paragraph is citing a juxtaposition of a Google ngram search conducted by the researchers, using the 2012 English and 2012 Spanish corpora (per page 3, and note 2 on page 19 of the PDF), against the frequency of recorded coups as reported in two papers by Powell and Thyne (2011), and Przeworski et al (2013) (pdf page 7). That analysis by Marsteintredet and Malamud is inherently a primary source, because it represents their analysis and correlation between the three sources.

  This presents two issues; one is that the sentence is misleading, and the other is one of weight. We cannot say in Wikivoice that As of 2019, coups were occurring less frequently than in previous decades, because the research by Marsteintredet and Malamud only covers the period between circa 1800 and 2012, as the sources used by Marsteintredet and Malamud only cover that period. At best we could say "As of 2012, coups were occurring...".

  However we also have the issue of how much weight do we assign this source. Because it is a primary source for this correlation, we cannot assess from this source how well regarded these findings are. The paper itself has been cited 18 times, six of which are noted on Sagepub, and the remainder from Google Scholar. Of those 18 citations, 4 are unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, 4 I was unable to assess due to a language barrier (I don't speak Spanish, Portuguese, or Romanian), 2 I was unable to access, leaving 7 sources which I read to see how they use the work. Of those seven sources, only two cite it in a way that is relevant to this sentence, one of which has a brief positive analysis, and the other which contests the findings in relation to coups in West Africa. As such, based on the sources that cite this source, I would assign it low to zero weight for this sentence.

• This development has been linked to a more general linguistic phenomenon: when instances of a concept become less frequent, the understanding of that concept expands to cover more cases.

  Here we have a problem of causation versus correlation. The work by Marsteintredet and Malamud is pretty explicit that they are reporting on a correlation only. We also have the issue of weight from the previous paragraph, because this part of the paper is not widely cited by others, and when it is it is contested.

• Political scientists Leiv Marsteintredet and Andrés Malamud, who have studied this general phenomenon as it applies to the particular word “coup”, caution that, “labeling an event as a coup may generate political actions of grave consequences such as the withholding of aid, the suspension from international organizations, the triggering of international sanctions, and even foreign military intervention.” They assert that the constitutive elements of a “coup” are summarized in the definition provided by Powell and Thyne who wrote in 2011 that a coup occurs when “the military or other elites within the state apparatus…unseat the sitting executive.”

  Notwithstanding the issues of weight, this paragraph is more reasonable, because it attributes it to the respective authors.

For me, the big issue here is one of weight. How much weight do we assign this paper? Is the findings of it representative of the mainstream view in this field? Based on how others have cited the findings with respect to the correlation, it is impossible to tell because we have only two datapoints; one of which is positive and the other negative. However this is only representative of the citations in English, and it is possible that the 4 other papers I cannot read due to a language barrier may offer some more clarity on this. Nonetheless, in lieu of that extra analysis I'm pretty confident in saying that this paper, in the way it has been proposed for use, is undue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First things first

You've objected to three separate parts of the material you deleted. Let's just focus on the first one for now, because I think it illustrates the basic problem throughout, which is that you are trying very hard to dismiss the article by Marstentreidet without proper grounds. You deleted this, for example: As of 2019, coups were occurring less frequently than in previous decades. Yet, the term “coup” was occurring more frequently in both academic and non-academic contexts, especially in conjunction with an adjective like “soft” or “parliamentary” or “electoral” or “slow-motion”. You say, "That analysis by Marsteintredet and Malamud is inherently a primary source, because it represents their analysis and correlation between the three sources." This is a fundamental misunderstanding about what a secondary source is, and what a primary source is. This peer-reviewed article is a secondary source, and you acknowledge it is using "three sources" having earlier dates; primary sources do not assess or summarize earlier sources. You say that we cannot say in wikivoice that "As of 2019, coups were occurring less frequently than in previous decades", because (you say) the sources used by Marsteintredet and Malamud only cover up to 2012, but that's your original research, not based on what any experts have said or written, and you're just wrong; Martsentreidet explicitly say this matter is uncontroversial (emphasis added):

“ Globally, coup attempts have been declining since the latter half of the 1960s, and have been particularly rare after the Cold War. Based on data from Powell and Thyne (2011), Figure 1 displays the trend of coup attempts since 1950. The downward trend is uncontroversial and supported by several recent studies (Belkin and Schofer, 2003; Derpanopoulos et al., 2016; Djuve et al., 2019; Marinov and Goemans, 2014; Marshall and Marshall, 2018; Singh, 2014). In Latin America, with some exceptions such as in Honduras in 2009, coups have almost vanished. ”

There is absolutely no ambiguity here about what this peer-reviewed secondary source is saying, but you somehow think it's our job to question its correctness even though no published authors have questioned it. If you would look at what published authors have written in reliable sources, you would see that Martsentreidet is correct. If you don't have access to the sources he cites, you can simply use google and find stuff like this: Desilver, Drew. “Despite apparent coup in Zimbabwe, armed takeovers have become less common worldwide”, Pew Research Center (17 Nov. 2017). You claim to have found a source that "contests the findings in relation to coups in West Africa" but that is simply false; the article by Heyl says, "Complete regime collapse through coups d’état has become a much rarer event than in the pre-third wave decades – even though the latest coups that took place in 2020 and 2021 in Chad, Guinea and Mali call into question whether this trend still holds for West Africa." Those latest coups in West Africa took place after 2019 (the material you deleted specifically said "as of 2019"), and Martsentreidet made no claim whatsoever about what would happen in the future, nor relied upon what might happen in the future. It really strikes me as profoundly wrong to simply blank this material based on flimsy reasoning, without even being willing to accept in-text attribution. If you want, I can address the other two pieces that you objected to, but if we cannot even agree about this first part then it would be a waste of both your time and mine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Ok, one more attempt with regards to why the relevant part of Marstentreidet, with respect to the proposed added content, is a primary and not secondary source, per WP:PRIMARYINPART. The relevant section of Marstentreidet is a combination of three sources; a Google ngram search conducted by the researchers, using the 2012 English and 2012 Spanish corpora, and the frequency of recorded coups as reported in two papers by Powell and Thyne (2011), and Przeworski et al (2013).

With regards to the Powell and Przeworski papers, Marstentreidet is a secondary source as it is using and reporting on their findings. With regards to the Google ngram search, Google is the primary source for the underlying ngram data, however Marstentreidet's specific search is in kinda a grey area. Google host the dataset, however it is Marstentreidet who has chosen what specific terms to search against that data. As such, the search has elements of it being both a primary and secondary source.

However with regards to the combination of the three sources, and the analysis of that combination, Marstentreidet is unquestionably the primary source. As far as has been demonstrated, no other authors have combined these three sources; Google ngram, Powell, and Przeworski, in this manner. As such the correlation that is reported in Marstentreidet, that there has been a downward swing in coup attempts but an upward swing in the term appearing in literature, which is based on the combination of these three sources, is inherently primary. Marstentreidet is the original source for this assertion, which makes it a primary source.

It is therefore not incorrect nor controversial to say that the part of Marstentreidet upon which you rely on is a primary source. Per WP:PRIMARYINPART A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material), which very clearly applies to Marstentreidet. PDF pages 2 and 3 have a brief literature review laying out the context of this work, which is inherently secondary. However the combination of the three sources of Google ngram, Powell, and Przeworski, on pages 3-8, are a "novel idea" from Marstentreidet's authors, and as such are inherently primary material.

This is idea of a research paper or journal article being both a primary and secondary source is de facto in most, if not all scientific fields. Though I do recognise that if you are a historian it may seem odd, because primary and secondary sources have different meanings in that context, and perhaps that is maybe where this confusion is arising from?

There is absolutely no ambiguity here about what this peer-reviewed secondary source is saying, but you somehow think it's our job to question its correctness even though no published authors have questioned it. That is not what I've been saying. Our job is to figure out how much WP:WEIGHT do we assign the source. How do we contextualise the primary findings of this source; the inverse correlation between recorded coup attempts and use of coups in academic and non-academic literature, against other findings in this field? Does it represent the mainstream view? Is it a fringe view? None of those are questions we can answer from the Marstentreidet paper alone, because to answer them we need to see what other sources say about this source.

You say that we cannot say in wikivoice that "As of 2019, coups were occurring less frequently than in previous decades", because (you say) the sources used by Marsteintredet and Malamud only cover up to 2012 That is roughly correct, though I need to make a slight correction; 2008 not 2012. Marsteintredet is pretty clear in their text that their specific findings only cover the period between 1800 and 2008, per the caption on figure 2, PDF page 4, and footnote 2 on page 19. It is not WP:OR, because this is what Marsteintredet clearly and plainly state.

Where Marsteintredet is discussing the findings of Belkin and Schofer, Derpanopoulos et al., Djuve et al., Marinov and Goemans, Marshall and Marshall, and Singh, on PDF page 3, it is with respect to only the downward trend of coups since the 1950s. Those six papers do not form part of Marsteintredet's previously mentioned combination. It is also entirely improper to use the publication years of those six papers to imply that coup attempts are still trending downwards at the publication year of either those specific sources or Marsteintredet. When looking at the two most recent of those papers; Marshall and Marshall, and Djuve, Marshall and Marshall was published in 2018 however its last reported coup was is in 2017, meanwhile Djuve was published in 2019 but it only covers regime breakdowns between the years 1789 and 2016.

It really strikes me as profoundly wrong to simply blank this material based on flimsy reasoning, without even being willing to accept in-text attribution. It is not "flimsy reasoning" to say that the WP:DUEness of Marsteintredet has not yet been demonstrated by yourself. This is a perfectly germane question to ask of any new text that is being added to an article, and is strongly suggested by both Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Because you are the author who wishes to include this text, per WP:ONUS it is your responsibility to demonstrate why this content is due for inclusion. To date, you have not done so. Despite ONUS being a shortcut to the WP:VERIFIABILITY, this is quite clearly not a verifiability issue, as we can easily verify that Marsteintredet has said these things via the links provided. The problem is actually based in the WP:NPOV policy, which is why my arguments are predicated on WP:WEIGHT, and why we need to determine whether Marsteintredet represents the mainstream view or a fringe view.

To do that, we need sources, which are secondary of Marsteintredet, and which either directly discuss the findings of Marsteintredet, or through some other means present the mainstream point of view in this topic. However despite the very long discussion both at this noticeboard and the article talk page, you still have not demonstrated this. At the article talk page, I've attempted to do so based on other papers that have cited Marsteintredet, however in doing so I only found two papers that actually cite the findings in a way that are relevant to the text you wish to insert into the article, and from those two papers it seems impossible to ascertain whether or not this is the mainstream perspective. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This is just profoundly wrong. You haven't even mentioned the Pew paper that I linked which confirms that this point is completely “uncontroversial” (as Marsteintredet says) that coups were far less common in the 2010s than in previous decades. You haven’t cited any source whatsoever that says otherwise. You say, "As far as has been demonstrated, no other authors have combined these three sources; Google ngram, Powell, and Przeworski, in this manner." Almost every single article on Wikipedia has a list of references that is unique to that article, but that doesn't somehow turn the Wikipedia article into original research. You say, “Where Marsteintredet is discussing the findings of Belkin and Schofer, Derpanopoulos et al., Djuve et al., Marinov and Goemans, Marshall and Marshall, and Singh, on PDF page 3, it is with respect to only the downward trend of coups since the 1950s.” Well that’s exactly the point you want to omit from this Wikipedia article (among others). You say, “Those six papers do not form part of Marsteintredet's previously mentioned combination.” Right, they’re in addition. You say, “It is also entirely improper to use the publication years of those six papers to imply that coup attempts are still trending downwards at the publication year of either those specific sources or Marsteintredet.” That’s your opinion, and you haven’t substantiated it, you’re quibbling that those papers were published a year or two before Martsteintredet so they can’t support anything Marsteintredet asserts about any prior decades if that year or two is included in the assertion. And yet you haven’t shown any reliable source that remotely suggests Martsteintredet is wrong about that year or two. Even if I were to offer that we say “up to 2017” instead of “up to 2019” you have still claimed that the sources in my blockquote are irrelevant, so I’m not going to make that offer only to have you shoot it down for some other insupportable reason. Feel free to restore the material you blanked and make corrections as you think necessary, as you’re required to do per WP:Preserve. I give up discussing this for now. If other editors would like to weigh in, that would be great. At article talk, I’ve shown you dozens of papers that cite Marsteintredet, and you haven’t pointed to a single one that contradicts or criticizes any statement by Marsteintredet that I’ve relied upon (or even anything else said by Marsteintredet), yet for some mysterious reason you think Marsteintredet is not mainstream and cannot even be used with inline attribution. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The only point I'm going to address is on WP:PRESERVE, as we have seemingly talked exhaustively on the other points and I see no reason to address the strawmen arguments presented. Per WP:CANTFIX, PRESERVE is beholden to other policies including WP:NPOV and WP:V. The arguments I have presented stem from the WP:UNDUE part of NPOV, and to date you have not been able to demonstrate why the proposed addition is DUE. As such I am not required to do anything.

I'd also remind you that I am not the only editor who has objected to this content, nor was I the first. @SPECIFICO: was the first to remove the then recent addition which was expanded and refactored over the next few edits. SPECIFICO also stated that this new content was in violation of NPOV as it was UNDUE, both in her edit summary and on the talk page. I agree with her on this point. As this was recently added content, PRESERVE is also beholden to WP:ONUS, and it is on you to demonstrate why the content is due and to seek a consensus for it. Again, this is something that has not been done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says, “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” You could comply with both this and WP:PRESERVE by adding other viewpoints that differ from Marsteintredet. Since you cannot, you simply delete. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)