I think both cases show the signs of "orginal research". Please look at this and provide comments. Deamonpen (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Do you deny the fact that Erwin Rommel fought in the Nazi Wehrmacht, for the Nazi Regime, and was for a time hitler's favorite general? Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
See, this is the problem. This is not about what I think or you think, but what the historians think.
Rommel fought in Wehrmacht and was liked by Hitler. Some historians say that he was a Nazi. Many say that he did not understand even the basic tenets of the ideology - for example, Reuth, who's a notable critical historian. Hitler liking him, also according to many historians, was due to their non-aristocratic background or Rommel's talent and charisma, or that Hitler found him exploitable.
Even whether his death was a suicide or not is also a debatable matter. Some scholars don't call it suicide, but murder
And then, not every Nazi can be considered a Holocaust perpetrator either.
If you want your "basic reasoning" to be recognized, you might as well write a scientific article on Rommel yourself.
I also suggest this Peter Lieb article. It has some parts on the Africa episode. Even the way and the time Rauff tried to contact the Afrika Korps is a complicated matter. Another notable detail is that, Rommel and his rear commander Otto Deindl had no idea that Italian counter-insurgency forces were operating right behind their back (let alone the details of their operation, let alone the activities of Rauff and others who were hundreds of miles away) Deamonpen (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I think they DID have an idea of what the Italians and Einsatzgruppen were doing, unless of course, you also believe in Neo-nazi David Irving's early theory that actually, hitler never knew of the holocaust, which is what you are doing right now but for Rommel. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
He was a nazi who knew full well what was happening, don't try to sugarcoat it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Also are you trying to give my computer a virus? because it's not allowing me to access whatever the hell you linked as 'murder' Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
That's the book Discovering the Rommel Murder: The Life and Death of the Desert Fox by Charles F.Marshall:
I did not notice that I copied just part of the link. Deamonpen (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, this is not you vs me, not a matter of what I think or what you think.
Irving has been discredited because historians have found concrete evidences that Hitler knew, supported and agitated for the killing of Jews, and not because people just apply "basic reasoning" and conclude that Irving is simply wrong. Mallmann, Cuppers, and Lieb have been en digging into the archives containing the papers of the units under Rommel and the records of other units and the Nazi government to see their perception of the situation, their plans etc. Even if Rommel somehow had predicted the defeat of the Axis power even during his Africa phase and ordered all the papers in his grasp to be burnt, other units would still keep their paper. Today, we know about the involvement of Nehring or von Arnim and the Afrikakorps/Heeresgruppe Afrika under them, but not Rommel. And as Lieb stated, Rommel never aigitated for the killing of Jews. -Deamonpen (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
So do YOU agree that Erwin Rommel fought for the Nazi Regime as a Nazi General, ok so we can keep the nazis who committed suicide category and remove the holocaust perpetrators category. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not think that I ever said that Rommel was in my opinion a Nazi general anywhere. I just said that, historians have different opinions on the matter. This is Brittannica's definition of "Nazi":
If we go by that definition, Reuth's portrayal of Rommel (fighting for Nazis without understanding their ideology and without committing crimes himself does not depict a Nazi (this is still a negative portrayal, if mild, as the author accuses Rommel of trying to close his eyes and trying to think of Hitler as good while blaming all the bad things on "the Party")
Also, to give some context on Rommel's status as Hitler's "favourite general": among all the "propaganda generals", he was the one who never got a Golden Party Badge (a reward for generals who supported the Nazi ideology, also functioning as a honourary party membership - as many generals were reluctant to officially become a party member due to military tradition). That should reflect on some of his popular ratings among the party's big wigs.- See the Lieb's article.-Deamonpen (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the golden party badge was a reward for loyal nazi generals, if it was Walter Model, someone who was very much a nazi would have it, and yet it didn't. And Oh again, he was still a Nazi General who fought for the Nazi Regime. And he definitely did commit war crimes in france. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
and there is a bunch of nazi generals who despite never holding party membership, still definitely carried out and believed in Nazism. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Model became prominent for Hitler later, when Hitler's relationship with Rommel became troubled. But Model was never a people's (propaganda) general on the caliber of Dietl, let alone Rommel. He was also not a high functionary that governed the political life of the army the way Keitel was.
Also, according to Lieb (also in the article above and the same part where he was talking about the Golden Badge), unlike the other generals, Rommel did not take special donations (bribes) from the regime. Also, admittedly, there are differences among authors concerning this (While all of them have been looking at the R 43 II of the Bundesarchiv, Ueberschär and Vogel do not know whether he accepted or refused anything or not, while Goda think that he was once a recipient but was cut off in 1944). Lieb is the last one who has published about that though.
According to Hans Lammers's interrogation by the CIA, Rommel was one of the two who never received anything. The other was Erwin von Witzleben:
Ok, Rommel was still a nazi general who fought for the nazi regime. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It's always hard to go inside people's head to know what they think and what they are. For historical personalities, it was about the way they acted - whether they actively popularized the ideologies or not. Regarding Model, he is also thought by some to be kind of a "scapegoat". In the end, he was dead and he was unpopular among officers. During the war he did participate in atrocities, but that was also common for other German generals. Keitel, Schörner and Dietl were the torch carriers of extremism in that regime - Lieb is comparing Rommel with them in that respect. Basically, according to Lieb, Remy and Watson, the aspects of Hitler/the regime that Rommel sympathized with were the cult of leader/leadership and the "folk community", focusing on the breaking of class barriers (Rommel and Hitler were both "common men" who hated aristocratic dominance) - it depends on the scholar to say whether that makes him a Nazi or not. In the case of Remy, he "kindof" does that, even though his portrayal is also very positive.
OK, by now I know your opinion, which I must respectfully say that I disagree. I await other editors' opinions too.-Deamonpen (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The text of the article justifies neither category. Present reliable sources and gain consensus for a significant rewrite of the relevant sections of the article then add the categories. As it stands this is a non-starter. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It's OR to say that because Rommel continued in the German Army after the Nazis came to power that he was a Nazi and was a perpetrator of the Holocaust. You need a source that comes to that conclusion. TFD (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
OR by genuine experts
The article is Chateau de Meudon. It came to my attention in the rough translation queue (WP:PNT); it was indeed a very bad machine translation.The topic is unquestionably notable, for its residents (kings of France, a king of Poland, a mistress of a king of France, etc), for the illustrious architects, landscape architects and painters who worked on it, and for the artwork that was housed there before it was moved to the Louvre and other museums. A recent talk page comment brought to my attention the involvement of a museum curator in the French Wikipedia page that our article was translated from.
I continue to work on the bad machine translation part of this, but what to do about the OR? I have previously encountered the like in other translations from French and taken the position that it is OK to mitigate this by verifying the content with independent sources, but in this case many of the diagrams and 3-D models are also the work of this editor and are too detailed to cite. And yet represent considerable work that is probably very valuable to a niche audience.
Eyes welcome. I could use some guidance here, and would like to end this by saying that I do realize that this article is not yet a polished, finished product. Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
From WP:OI (part of our NOR policy) - Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy.
So, the question is, do these original diagrams and 3-D models illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments? If not, then they should be fine. Blueboar (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
For example: See the user page for Franck Devedjian at fr.wikipedia and the origin of this article there. For what it is worth, the article is chock-full of stiff academic Frenchness and unnecessarily long quotes from historic figures, but I am working on that part and almost all of these are notable enough for their own en-wikipedia pages. Nothing that the article says seems remotely dubious or controversial, either. I'm confident that all of that can be referenced. I don't think the OR policy had this article in mind, but out of paranoia would like to ensure that I am not breaking it, either. Thanks to Blueboar and anyone else who may apply brainpower to this question. Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
IMO its not too much to ask any such expert to publish the information elsewhere, even if just on a personal blog or website. If they don't want to do that then of course as experts they will be familiar with the body of literature in that field and can cite it... And if they can't... Well they certainly aren't an expert then are they? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I just found a list of publications on the fr.wikipedia page but at first glance they tend to be about his methods for doing the reconstructions. I don't actually question his expertise; someone on the article talk page wants to consult with him about the chateau de Versailles, which is nearby and built by the same architect. Obviously, I have been wrong before and could be again, but I don't question his expertise as an art historian, at all. Where I am boggling is on how to independently cite room-by-room graphical representations of all of the murals and commissioned artworks and Andre Le Nostre terraced grand perspectives. It probably can be done, but might require a lot of primary sources. Maybe I should just see how far I can get with the referencing then revisit this question? For what it may be worth, I once put a lot of work into a similar architectural discussion of the water gardens and landscaping at Chateau de Chantilly, and his images of that seem pretty authoritative. I am actually pretty busy with other things just now and can wait for an answer to percolate through the hive mind; this article resurfaced in my list of things due to the Versailles inquiry. Elinruby (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Why not ask him to provide citations for his work? This is what one does with a wikipedia editor who add unsourced text, no? If they refuse then simply remove the unsourced text and if they want the text to be included then they will be required to source it. If it helps to consider the text challenged than I will provide a gift: I formally challenge the unsourced text both in the English and French version of Chateau de Meudon. At least on EnWiki inline citations are now required, that will make you either want to kiss me or murder me but the article will be better off for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Well. Good luck with that at the French Wikipedia. I haven't formally investigated their referencing standards but as someone who has unFrenched a buttload of bad MT on French history, I can say that it often assumes a lot of prior knowledge, inappropriately for the English Wikipedia. And that this is not the first article that I have seen that was written by an authority in a niche field that was particularly so. What kind of an editor? One who knows what he is talking about who has taken the time to write for Wikipedia, however imperfectly?
That said this is English Wikipedia and sure. But even I (irony alert) cannot remediate all things with the wave of a wand. I am neither the author nor the editor who spawned the original MT horror I have spent a lot of time deciphering. I don't mind referencing it, but no, a challenge doesn't particularly help. Its most likely effect would be to further discourage me from remediating MT in French history articles, which I've already sworn off because it only ever leads to well-meaning editors lecturing me about the deficiencies I am trying to fix. This particular article just now came back to my attention -- someone had ill-advisedly removed the copy-edit tag. Since the last time I saw it someone had come through, presumably with a bot, and changed all of the galleries to mode="packed", which superimposed the captions on top the images. I spent most of yesterday on that. But such is Wikipedia.
The article is already tagged as needing references and important as the topic is probably too detailed for the English Wikipedia; I deleted some detailed descriptions of individual paintings yesterday as well. If you want to add CN tags to particular statements be my guest. Since I have worked on this article I intend to finish it now that I will see that it isn't, but I am also, as you know, involved with Collaboration with the Axis powers, and as well another huge project involving multiple articles on the ramifications of the Napoleonic code. If you were to rampage through this article and for example remove a statement that Mme de Pompadour was the mistress of the king because it was uncited, I would say that the statement might be BLUESKY even for Americans and that removing it probably does not improve Wikipedia. In any event the question I brought here is resolved as far as I am concerned. Elinruby (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I have only praise for your work on these articles, I do not envy the position you are in. Does the French wikipedia not have a version of WP:BURDEN? Thats how we get around this sort of problem on the English wikipedia, if the person knows what they're talking about they can provide sources and if they can't provide sources then they don't know what they're talking about. Also note that verifiability isn't the only question you have to ask of this content... The primary question is actually due weight, because if its not published in a reliable source it carries exactly no weight and has no reason to be in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
DUE is an issue indeed. I am only marginally available today but am chipping away at that a little; for example I think some of (maybe a lot of) the architectural plans are TMI. But yes, this article is a poster child for some of the problems at WP:PNT. This one is probably worth the trouble and I don't regret pulling it out of the pile, but we have hundreds of articles like this about entrepreneurs and sports figures who may or may not be notable and which may or may not get our competence questioned if we try to fix them. Sorry if I was short just now; I have had that conversation way too often and thought that was where we were going. I was serious though when I invited you to tag it; it would actually be valuable to see some {{what|why do I care about this}} tags indicating that certain details are impenetrable to an average English-speaking reader; it would triage out certain remarks that would probably be too much trouble to explain. As for BURDEN, come to think of it I should look up who created this translation, but it probably wasn't the museum curator and odds are the editor responsible has already been blocked. Do you remember the CTX kerfuffle from a few years ago? Elinruby (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
IMO the page level tag is sufficient, especially as you're actively addressing the problem. As always there's no deadline, and thats doubly true for anything historical. Unless there's something that sticks out to you nothing needs to go today, the expectation is just that at some point in the future an effort will be made to source it if possible. I can't say I remember CTX. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Further clicking at French Wikipedia turned up Manière de montrer Meudon [fr] so I am going to say that it is not the case that nobody has described this property per Blueboar above. Despite the fact that it is referenced by a museum accession number here, it is nonetheless a single document with an identified author which presumably has a name or title. There is also an contemporary inventory on the contents of the palace in the BNF holdings, which come to think of it presumably also has a title and knowing the French probably a url as well. Elinruby (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Calculating per capita crime rates
Is it original research or "extrapolation" to calculate per capita crime rates based on total crime count and population? It simply means dividing one by the other. There's a bit of an edit war going on in Crime in San Francisco on this question. I don't believe it is, but one user thinks so.
Related: if this is inappropriate original research, then is it appropriate to revert this data and replace it with another calculation of exactly the same kind but with a different source?
Discussion on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crime_in_San_Francisco#Per_capita_crime_ratesHi! (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Definition of "improper fraction" goes beyond what is supported by sources
Context: Numbers of the form a/b, where a & b are both positive integers, are referred to as "proper fractions" if a < b (equivalently, a/b < 1) and "improper fractions" if a > b (equivalently, a/b > 1).
The point of contention here is the case where a = b, i.e. a/b = 1, fractions like "3/3". The Wikipedia article asserts that "improper fraction" includes such fractions:
"Common fractions can be classified as either proper or improper. When the numerator and the denominator are both positive, the fraction is called proper if the numerator is less than the denominator, and improper otherwise... In general, a common fraction is said to be a proper fraction, if the absolute value of the fraction is strictly less than one—that is, if the fraction is greater than −1 and less than 1. It is said to be an improper fraction, or sometimes top-heavy fraction, if the absolute value of the fraction is greater than or equal to 1. Examples of proper fractions are 2/3, −3/4, and 4/9, whereas examples of improper fractions are 9/4, −4/3, and 3/3."
The relevant cites given in those passages are to Perry and Perry's "Mathematics I", and to Greer's "New Comprehensive Mathematics For 'O' Level". The relevant passages from those sources can be seen here and here.
What Perry and Perry actually says is: "A proper fraction has the numerator less than the denominator and an improper fraction has the numerator **greater than** the denominator".
And what Greer actually says is: "If the top number of a fraction is greater than its bottom number then the fraction is called an improper fraction or a top heavy fraction. Thus, 5/4, 3/2 and 9/7 are all top heavy, or improper, fractions. Note that all top heavy fractions have a value which is greater than 1."
As I read those sources, both of them clearly imply that fractions equal to 1, where numerator (top) equals denominator (bottom), are not "improper fractions". It's not clear what they *are*; possibly the authors don't consider them to be fractions at all.
On the talk page of the article, I have noted some other sources which offer definitions similar to Greer's. I am not aware of any sources to support the "or equal to".
To my mind, these sources contradict the "or equal to" part of the definition offered in Wikipedia, and the presentation of 3/3 as an example of an improper fraction.
Since the article is protected, I requested an edit on the Talk page. Editors there have refused to do this, either claiming that these sources are consistent with the page content - I do not accept that they are - or by appeals to aesthetics (it would be "ridiculous" for other positive integers to be improper fractions, but not 1), or by stating the page "must not be changed" because surely there must be sources out there which support the definition given.
I don't see how these positions are consistent with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If there are sources which support the "greater than or equal to" version, then the article should include both and acknowledge that definitions are inconsistent on this point; if there aren't, then it should be changed to a "greater than" definition (including "improper otherwise" to "improper if the numerator is greater than the denominator") and the example of "3/3" should be removed. The current situation, where the article misrepresents the sources it cites by offering a definition not found in those sources, seems indefensible to me.
I'm therefore asking for uninvolved editors to take a look at this and see whether what I'm requesting seems reasonable, and if so to edit the article accordingly. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Without any sources to back this up right now my intuition says that 3/3 and anything else equal to one is not a fraction at all. I'll see if I can find something that backs this up (or refutes it). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This textbook, Wolfram Mathworld, and mathisfun disagree with me. On the other hand the text by Perry and Perry you linked to says "All numbers which are quotients of two integers are called rational numbers, and those quotients which are not integers are called fractions." Which means they do not treat integers like 1 as fractions. The book by Greer does not mention 1, but implicitly treats it as not a fraction. It seems that this is not clearly defined. But either way, of course the article needs to represent the sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those! Taking those into account, I think it would be reasonable for the article to say something like: "Some sources define "improper fractions" as those having numerator greater than denominator (equivalently, absolute value greater than 1) while others define them as having numerator greater than or equal to denominator, i.e. absolute value greater than or equal to 1", with cites to both kinds of reference. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark#Synthesis in the lead section regarding the synthesis of critical reviews found in the lead section. The discussion hasn't seen any participation in two weeks, so it would be appreciated if anyone could chime in. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems like it is WP:SYNTH of different sources from the Reception section to me. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Hysteretic model, self-publishing
After observing User:Nicolovaiana adding his own research to Hysteretic model, I removed it on the grounds of WP:OR. Then I noticed that virtually the entire article had been written by that user. The Matlab code included in the article has his byline on it. Four of the five sources supplied are by "Vaiana, Nicolò" and others. I don't know the extent, if any, to which material in the article, such as the mathematical formulas given, are published elsewhere in the field and the extent to which it's this user publishing his own research. Largoplazo (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up: I'm looking again and seeing that even the formulas are preceded by the likes of "In the bilinear model formulated by Vaiana et al.". The entire article reads as a presentation by Vaiana of his own work. Largoplazo (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I also find it interesting that the article does not mention two models for which we have standalone articles, i.e. Bouc-Wen model of hysteresis and Preisach model of hysteresis. And then there is this comment by an ip editor on the article's talk page This article, while giving off the air of being general, only cites work by the editor himself, and in the process ignoring almost a century of work on hysteresis modeling. This gives a very biased view of the field, to put it mildly, and rather feels like self-promotion by the editor. This is not how a scientist should conduct himself. (Talk:Hysteretic_model#Very_one-sided_view.) Looks to me like the entire article should probably go. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
With no reaction from the editor in question after more than two weeks, it may be time to consider nominating the article for deletion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe the article actuaria is going off the rails towards WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Before about a week ago, the article was full of misinformation. It had been caused by previous editors relying on recycling of other Wikipedia articles, a mislabeled museum photo and a failure to actually read cited sources. The topic had been approached strictly from a military history perspective and those involved failed to notice that the "actuaria" has primarily been a term for a type of trade vessel.
The article is currently well-cited with reliable sources, but my view is that Mathglot is ignoring this in favor of strictly personal interpretations, including attempts to deconstruct a Latin term that is already explained by cited secondary sources like Casson. I've voiced very strong disagreement with Mathglot regarding their approach to both the article and use of sources but I feel that I'm not being listened to. PeterIsotalo 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Are publicly viewable IRS forms, like form 990 filings by non-profits considered primary sources? Red Slapper (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I would treat them as court documents, primary in nature and should not be used to support controversial information. Masem (t) 01:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
If there are any portions which have been certified by a certified or chartered public accounting firm, they can possibly be treated as secondary sources.
I'm very disappointed to see an admin both WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVASSING, because your statement seems to be trying to sway people to your side by omitting the actual percent (as nobody is going to argue that a film with a 20% score is negative, but this page has people arguing if a 43% should be considered negative), and by ignoring the other arguments, such as that mentioning specific sites in the lede could be considered undue weight (I guess my other arguments weren't made fully clear until after you made this notification though). I am still assuming good faith, but you did not present this dispute in a neutral manner, and you already notified another noticeboard with similarly non-neutral presentation. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
This isn't canvassing/forum shopping. If there is a dispute it is reasonable to notify Wikiprojects with a stated interest in the article besides the relevant noticeboard. I think it is neutrally worded, in that I cannot work out just from this statement alone which side of the debate NRP is on. I was one of those who responded via the notice at Wikiproject Film and you will see I didn't dismiss your side of the argument. Betty Logan (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, fair, I guess with the resulting comments on the talk page, NRP's notification was neutral enough. Thanks for letting me know that this isn't forum shopping as well. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it's good to neutrally notify potentially interested Wikiprojects about RfCs. It can draw in more interested editors potentially better informed on a topic. I do this, too.
The list is largely uncited and has WP:V problems, but there has been some edit warring recently on including Russians on the list. The entire list probably needs to be double checked for WP:V, but another editor contested the listing of Russians on the list, it was removed and sourcing was requested before re-adding it. It's be re-added and the sourcing failed verification. I've looked and can't find a WP:RS that justifies inclusion (see the discussion on the UN Definition of "indigenous peoples" on the talk page if you're curious why there aren't sources), but editors have objected with dictionary definitions and pushed inclusion. This seems like an WP:OR issue to me, am I wrong? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The name is curious -- are we talking about big people? A. B.(talk • contribs • global count) 05:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@A. B., the list of indigenous peoples in Russia appears to be split between the "minor indigenous peoples" with an official government recognition and larger indigenous peoples groups which are widely considered by scholars to be indigenous peoples. The problem is "indigenous peoples" is a term of art under international law and ethnic Russians don't really meet it so there isn't any scholarship on ethnic Russians as indigenous peoples. But editors keep adding ethnic Russians to the list without a citation and won't provide one when asked on the talk page. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The four independent lists are not useful to readers. We should just merge them into a single List of Indigenous peoples of Russia that explicitly uses the UN definition, annotating respective national groups with their special category and titular status, if any. There should also be a prose description or a separate article Indigenous peoples of Russia which explains what the official categories are. —MichaelZ. 19:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources that have compiled lists of indigenous peoples of Russia not recognised officially (what "larger" is supposed to mean, if I understand correctly), it probably shouldn't be done by editors. WP:LISTCRITERIA requires selection criteria to be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources", whereas the sources I could find in Google Scholar either use the official definition (example) or explicitly say that the criteria is subjective (p.9). PaulT2022 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
combining estimates
Would combining two casualty estimates with proper attribution to both sources be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Because one of the sources mention casualties from 1999-mid2002 and the other source mentions casualties from mid2002 to mid 2003. I'm basically writing a total from these two sources with attribution.
like this:
~13,700–15,700 killed[a] (1999-2003; Janes & IISS)[ref1][ref2] the note specifies the time periods more exactly Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
^This figure only counts from Aug 1999-Feb. 2002 and Aug. 2002-Aug. 2003
Is the uncertainty in those estimates temporal or numerical? Because if you know that both estimates are for time periods that cover precisely the entire time period, without any overlap (in particular, that there time frames are exact) then adding their counts might make sense. If their timeframes are approximate, then this is not a well-defined thing to do. For instance, if there was a big spike in mid-2002 that was counted in both estimates (because of time uncertainty) then adding would give you an overcount. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@David Eppstein If you look at the note that I included in the estimate you can see that there is no overlap between the two figures. One counts from Aug 1999-Feb. 2002 and the second one from Aug. 2002-Aug. 2003. These are the two sources in question 1, 2. I added the approximation mark "~" because there is a couple month gap between the estimates and also left a note about this. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Basic calculations (including addition) are generally permissible per WP:CALC. One potential thing to be careful of is whether the methodology for both estimates is the same: if they are counting different things then adding them together won't necessarily produce a meaningful result – and indeed WP:CALC specifically warns against comparing statistics which use different methodologies. (To give a constructed example, if you had reliable sources for a particular country's medal counts at every individual summer Olympics, you would want to make sure that they were all e.g. treating medals for demonstration sports, medal winners who were subsequently disqualified, and medal winners who competed under the Olympic flag rather than their national flag, the same). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public Thank you for the reply. Both the sources simply count Russian combat deaths for these two periods. Do you think the addition would be meaningful as it pertains to the infobox of Second Chechen War? The estimates are listed separately in the the current version, and kind of clutters the small space. Considering MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE I believed this would be a valid change. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not happy that there's a six-month gap in that figure. I realize that you do have it footnoted, but IMO footnotes should not contain information that is critical to accurately understanding the claim. And while you indicate the figure is an approximation, a six-month gap is 12% of the total timespan and per the observation above, who knows what could have happened during that time.Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Orange Suede Sofa Would moving the designation out of the footnote and into parantheses be sufficient? like this
~13,700–15,700 killed(Aug. 1999-Feb. 2002 & Aug. 2002- Aug. 2003; Janes & IISS)[ref1][ref2] Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I took a look at the infobox in question, which currently has the different estimates split up. My view is that compared to the rest of the infobox, which is already quite dense, the clutter is not that bad and I don't think that it's worth any potential inaccuracy or confusion to change this. Several other stats in the infobox cover disparate date ranges, so there is already some internal consistency there, and in the interest of clarity, accuracy, and avoiding synthesis, I would not recommend pursuing your proposal. I'm sympathetic to your concerns; this infobox has a very tough job of expressing so many competing estimates from both sides and from neutral sources, but do not think the small visual gain from your proposal is worth the risk of synthesis. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
User:WalkingRadiance is adding badly-formatted original research to Partition (number theory) based only on a Stackexchange forum posting. Google Scholar finds only an arXiv preprint, arXiv:2303.03330, also not reliable. My revert was immediately undone by WalkingRadiance, so more eyes would be helpful here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There's a book that mentions it published by Cambridge University Press. This is also on the OEIS. WalkingRadiance (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There is an AfD discussion currently occurring on the article. Discussion has been relisted twice now as this is quite a contentious topic so further input from others would be appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 11:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The article has seen edits adding the statement that Patreon banned the webcomic's creator for hate speech as a way for the article to address the webcomic's present form as hate speech, something that the article had not covered due to lack of reliable secondary sources for that. However, the edits all rely on primary sources. I've removed past edits which would only cite this tweet, on the basis that the tweet itself does not establish an unambiguous connection to the comic. A recent edit has provided additional information (such as about the creator being locked out from Twitter for hate speech also) and primary sources. The user who added the edit, User:BurningLibrary, has argued here that the edit only repeats what the primary sources say and such usage of primary sources is acceptable. As I don't think I'm well-equipped to handle this by myself anymore, I would like the issues of whether BurningLibrary's edit constitutes original research and whether any information about the comic or its creator being hateful can be added to the article without being the product of original research to be resolved here. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is not really so much a question of WP:OR as it is a question of WP:BLPSELFPUB. Self-published sources are only acceptable in this case if they meet the criteria presented there. Of those criteria, in my view, this situation passes 1, 3, 4, and 5; the only question is whether it passes criterion 2, viz., it does not involve claims about third parties. So does it count as a claim about a third party for Ishida to say Patreon removed my account, Just got locked out of Twitter for this comic, etc.? I'd say these examples probably fall under that definition, but I could be wrong.I, too, would like to see more reliable, secondary coverage of the webcomic, and I'm mildly surprised that none seems to exist past ~2016. Shells-shells (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, taking quick peek into the creator's twitter, it seems like post-2016 the comic took a hard turn into TERF territory; nearly all of the recent comics revolve around shitting on LGBT people. I'll take a dive over the weekend and see if I can scrape anything up to give a more accurate description of the comic with appropriate sourcing. 23.246.110.58 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There's a recent post in the (highly critical) Sinfest subreddit discussing how outdated our article is because of the lack of outside coverage, and it doesn't seem like they've managed to scrape up anything of substance either. One would think that if there's anything to find, they would have found it by now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yep, I scoured every search engine I could think of and came up empty. It seems like the last article written on it that wasn't a blog or from tumblr was from 2016 (which is already cited on the page). On one hand, that sucks if we're trying to write a comprehensive article, on the other, it is probably best if that alt-right troll is denied any attention... DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The creator is definitely hateful, a quick peek over their twitter and recent comics can show that. The issue is finding secondary sources that state it. 23.246.110.58 (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
They are considered primary source. In WP:FAMILYSEARCH, it says family search sometimes includes copies of such records which are sometimes usable. Any example of when birth/death records are acceptable when it is not specifically referenced to by a reliable source? My understanding is using such a source on your own is considered WP:OR. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability.. Some examples of said "limited situations" would be useful. Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of my question here. I am really trying to clarify what "original research" means in this context. If one has to look at multiple birth/death records, look at several different ones to know that they're talking about the right individual, does that constitute doing original research? Thing about WP:OR is that it's disallowed anywhere. WP:RSP doesn't say original research using primary sources are ok as long as the article subject has been dead xx years. Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see forum shopping here. But I find that when a question is relevant to multiple noticeboards the best thing to do is to have the discussion at one and post notifications with links at the others. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Unsure about the focal seizure article
I've done a lot of research trying to find citations to improve the focal seizure article, specifically the section on presentation of simple partial seizures while asleep. Almost the entirety of the section on simple partial seizures is unsourced, but specifically I have concerns about the section on while-asleep symptoms because I can't find anything to support any of it. That entire section was added back in 2007 in one edit with no source (see this diff - the article it belongs to was merged into the focal seizures article in 2013). This worries me because it's medical related, and a casual reader could easily take it at face value, which could cause problems if it's not actually true. It's completely possible I've missed an obvious source, but I'm out of ideas trying to find anything. Any advice? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
This list has massive problems with unsourced content and even worse, failed verification/OR issues. Many of the entries in the list are not supported by sources that support the claim that the incident in question was an ethnic cleansing campaign. Thus, they are based on individual editors' belief that they constitute ethnic cleansing.
I tried to fix it by removing WP:OR content, but have been reverted by editors who claim the changes are too sweeping, because of the magnitude of the errors found.
In my opinion, it is never appropriate to restore original research content when it was removed by another editor. There is no way we should be allowing poorly sourced content on such a sensitive topic to stand. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Already at WP:BLPN, no need to duplicate discussion casualdejekyll 19:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know why you posted this here since you are the only one that thinks there is any OR going on. Loki (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion at Talk:Far-left politics that could use some more eyes. There is currently disagreement about how to approach sources covering the topic, and it's moving toward arguing about whether Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism should be considered significant far-left concepts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The major disagreement is whether far left is a distinct topic defined in a body of reliable sources or merely an expression used by people to refer to the part of the Left they consider unacceptable. TFD (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Undisclosed promotional COI editing by user Zenica87
This person made a giant mess. It is very likely that the articles they worked on were also edited by other accounts with an undisclosed COI.
There is a discussion at Talk:Noonlight that has come to a bit of a standstill as others have stopped responding and would appreciate some more eyes on.
The question is whether or not the sourced material has evidence to substantiate the claim made on the company's page.
Msmw4 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
His writing on one concept was unsourced and largely his own work. He got the name of the concept from a source, but then interpreted it without sourcing, because he "didn't think that it was reasonable to source that matter because [source] doesn't really describe what [concept] is".
He had "managed to circumstantially piece together an interpretation of what [concept] is with wikilinks to related topics"
"I do not definitively know that I got the idea of [concept] from [source]. The term was learned from [source], but my interpretation of the term (as to how he used) it was mine"
To me this seems basically to be an admission of large volumes of original research. The editor's response, during the same talk page discussion, has essentially been a strange kind of rules-lawyering, to reject the existence of the No Original Research policy and to accuse me of hypocrisy for engaging in interpretation of said policy's applicability to this situation.
In terms of the article itself, I think the best course of action would be to revert it to before this volume of text was added, given the user's own admission that it is original work. But if there are people knowledgeable on the topic who think it could/should be saved, that would be great too. In general though I'd appreciate some third-party input on how to resolve this dispute. Many thanks in advance. --AntiDionysius (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
When AntiD points out that WP:OR is "an English Wikipedia policy", the editor's replies are Yeah? Fascinating. How did you manage to overcome the indeterminism relative to the matter to ascertain the said policy as valid, thus signifying that it exists as a policy? and You did resolve whether or not there was indeterminism as to the policy, right? I mean, there is also a contradiction called "ignore all rules." You've failed to prove-up that your so-called policy is entailed from the terms of service. Are there any editors/admins who are up for dealing with this sort of wikilawyer? Schazjmd(talk) 17:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
This isn't wikilawyering. It's trolling. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The editor has now gone completely silent on any concerns raised, having editted almost continuously since the beginning of the month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The engagement they had been giving on various talk pages was pretty evidently bad faith so I stopped replying after a while. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The editor needs to comply with WP:OR and WP:V. Expanding the article is probably good, but it needs citations to be useful to anyone. As a lawyer, my first though reviewing their work is concern over the lack of inline cites. If I want to better understand any of these claims or concepts the article is not telling me where to go and that's a big WP:V issue.
Also, their habit of picking up philosophical arguments about how things are fundamentally indeterminate is a paper tiger. The world doesn't run on strict linguistic communication (and determinable knowledge), but normative understandings. Maybe they'll understand that better when a normative consensus forms that they are violating policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Picking through all that would be a nightmare, editors shouldn't create work for other editors to fix. I've added my objection to the nature of the additions on the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems like there is consensus here, but I'm also aware only a few people have voiced their thoughts. This is my first time trying to resolve a dispute like this; should I wait for more general community input before doing anything? AntiDionysius (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that you post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law to get the attention of editors experienced in that area to help evaluate the content. It's difficult to enforce inline citations for new content when the article never used inline citations. Schazjmd(talk) 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense, I'll go ask them. Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
When I look through the article, I am seeing a lot of, sometimes entire paragraphs without citations and random bits added on the tail end of cited contents that appear to be possible WP:SYNTHESIS or interpretation and explanation by page editors rather than mechanical summarization of information supported by cited sources. Graywalls (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking for additional opinions on this page to understand if it can be considered an original research (or an original synthesis). As I wrote in the talk page, the page is based mainly on primary sources and I found different references that were not really supporting the sentences for which they were used. Thanks! LostMyAccount (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that the editor above is demanding sources must specifically use the phrase “Islamist terror”, and removing reliable sources that state Hamas is Islamist, and that the attack was a terror attack, because they don’t use that phrase. Specifically, the editor above rejected a reliable source that described the perpetrators as “Islamist militants” and the event as a terror attack, because the demanded phrase wasn’t included. Drsmoo (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Drsmoo, taking sources that say two different things and then combining those facts is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
That is not what’s being discussed though. The issue is that the use above is demanding a particular phrase, and that phrase is rarely used in English. Drsmoo (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Were there such a thing as an “Islamist terror attack” that differed materially from a “terror attack committed by Islamists”, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. An “Islamist terror attack” is nothing more than a terror stack committed by Islamists, which is attested to in reliable sources. If one disagrees, please explain the difference between an “attack by an Islamist terrorist group“, and an “Islamist terror attack”? Drsmoo (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Here you go again thinking that "Islamist militants" cuts it. It doesn't. Please have a read of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
As I've pointed out in the talk page, and issue with the edit I removed was that it used one article to establish that Hamas was a Islamic terrorist organisation and another to establish that they committed the attack. Neither article by themselves could establish that Hamas was a Islamic terrorist organisation which committed the specifically named attack. TarnishedPathtalk 09:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
You’ve made your opinion clear Drsmoo (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy. TarnishedPathtalk 14:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It’s not and you’re approaching an accusation of WP:GAMING if a bit more patience and research are not conducted before making these assertions. That Hamas is an Islamist organization is not only well-attested, it is explicitly an Islamist organization as per its own Charter.
At the AfD in March 2023, there was consensus that entries of this list need to be cited to secondary sources rather than online satellite maps to avoid WP:OR, but people continue to ignore this rule, possibly because the in-page comment at the top of the list is not visible to those using the markup editor in a continent subsection. Should we create an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data, which would be visible in all subsections and the only sourcing-related editnotice in mainspace? ({{RS and OR editnotice}} is intended for use on talk pages of protected articles.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a little bit ago I went through all the removed USian locations on that list, as well as all the locations I could find in articles online, and came to the conclusion that there are no censored areas on the whole of Google Maps in the US (or at least no areas that anybody online seems to know about). jp×g 08:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Browsing around tonight, I arrived at this page from the Red River Valley page. Im not familiar enough with the topic to dive in too far with edits of my own, but section headings in the article of A legacy of fraud, A legacy of self-deception, A legacy of incestuous connections and self-interest and a prominent Conclusions section, all without sources using those terms (and in some cases denigrating sources for NOT reaching those conclusions: [...]are largely understated in most of the literature that has developed around the treaty) makes it seem like someone's class essay being published as OR. Just hoping for some eyeballs. Like I said I don't know enough to be certain myself. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the headings are non-neutral and the text following the headings presents opinions in the voice of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I have removed some of the most egregious NPOV violations, including all of the unsourced content and WP:SYNTH conclusions in the legacy sections, as well as some of the loaded language (lots of sentences beginning with "It was John Doe who..." or "The same John Doe..."). The legacy sections themselves have also been combined under a single header simply titled "Legacy"; the "Conclusion" section was deleted because the only remaining content after Caeciliusinhorto (talk·contribs) removed two unsourced argumentative paragraphs, was also unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a Mt. Dora, Florida, public park; the article described Ms. Sammons as having been "a professional singer and guitar player for 12 years on the coffeehouse circuit," or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds. [1]
The arguments for and against the inclusion of the paragraph are found in the discussion in DRN.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
To reiterate my argument here: The paragraph beginning with "A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002" shows that this is SYNTH. You cannot use an article which precedes the 2002 claim to refute the 2002 claim. This is original research on the part of the editor who added it. References must explicitly state what is being claimed in the article and this reference does not do that because it cannot. It cannot refute what hadn't yet happened.
WP:SYNTH specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is exactly what is happening with this paragraph. The editor even adds their own conclusion with "or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds." This is not in the 1993 article because that article has nothing to do with Hickory Wind or its authorship.
It is also OR to even claim this is the same Sylvia Sammons. There is no way to know that as the 1993 article about Sylvia Sammons and the 2002 article about Sylvia Sammons describe people of different ages; Eldanger25 even admits on the article talk page that it is "circumstantial evidence that it is the same person" which is definitely WP:OR. Again, the policy states that an editor cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
This section – which over multiple paragraphs discusses a 2002 claim of alleged plagiarism of a 1968 work of art (the named author died in 1973) – should be deleted as a minority viewpoint from a single source.
As an alternative, the 2002 claimant’s prior inconsistent statements in a reliable 1993 source should be included. I understand there is a concern that the subject of the 1993 article does not confirm herself to be the subject of the 2002 article, although they share a first and last name; unique disability; profession; specialization within that profession; and region of the United States. I believe that is addressed in the language chosen in the proposed paragraph.
I am not aware of any policy indicating that data relevant to a “controversy” may only be included if it comments on, and therefore post-dates, the controversy (particularly when one half of the controversy, Mr. Parsons, was dead for 30 years before the controversy arose). The proposed paragraph is drawn from a single source, and uses simple calculations, which are allowed, in evaluating relevant data points between that 1993 source and its neighboring 2002 source. Again, this is a so-called “controversy.” If the late-arriving claimant made disqualifying, inconsistent, statements about herself at a time well after the song had been published in 1968, and before she publicly surfaced her claim in 2002, that is relevant data.
Finally, I’ll restate an example I used in the “talk” page: If I gave an interview today claiming to have written the first draft of the screenplay for "Ghostbusters" in 1982, which I claim Dan Aykroyd then stole from my briefcase in a coffee shop a month later (I never made a criminal report or civil claim, and nothing exists supporting my authorship claim until my 2023 interview 40 years after the movie came out), and it turned out that someone with my same name; profession; region of the country; and identifying medical condition had given a newspaper interview 10 years ago, in 2013, stating they’d just started writing screenplays in 2005, and had never been to Hollywood but was excited to visit one day, the biographical consistencies and inconsistencies in the 2013 article are relevant to, and should included in, the 2023 "controversy" (if such "controversy" should even be included at all), even though the 2013 article did not – and naturally could not – comment on the 2023 claim. Eldanger25 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The relevant policy indicating that "data relevant to a 'controversy' may only be included if it comments on, and therefore post-dates, the controversy" has been linked repeatedly: WP:OR. The relevant sections are WP:PRIMARY ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation") and WP:SYNTH ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source") ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The WP:OR policy, as I understand it, would have been violated if the proposed paragraph ended with: "Therefore, she did not write the song." The proposed paragraph does not render such a conclusion; it simply sets forth data drawn from the 1993 news article that is reasonably relevant to the alleged controversy, and then engages in simple numeric calculations.
"Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research."
"What matters is that all material in Wikipedia is verifiable, not that it's actually verified. By this we mean that it is important that a suitable reliable source that supports this material has been published in the real world. . ."
"it simply sets forth data drawn from the 1993 news article that is reasonably relevant to the alleged controversy, and then engages in simple numeric calculations." So WP:SYNTH. Exactly what I have been saying it is. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion with myself. Is this past the borderline of OR? I am about to review it and wish to get it right. Please ping me on your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Adding parts not found in the cited source
Article Vlachs, entries 1 and 2, text: He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia could not be verified in the source(s). On discussion page the editor failed to provide with clear quotes from the sources that sustain his synthesis of the material, including the naming of provinces added in his edit. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Television Series: Adventure into Fear
There is a discussion going on at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series regarding the cancelled television block known as Adventure into Fear. This conversation is long-lasting and has been at a perpetual standstill, as the page and several other pages designate Adventure into Fear as having been developed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some eyes examining the conversations and the sources would be very much appreciated. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Bumping -- this is a debate that's been going on for several months. A lack of objectivity is hindering it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Bumping again due to lack of feedback. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Bumping yet again due to lack of feedback. ChimaFan12 (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
British possession
Hello,
I was here accused of "original research" in the new article British possession which I have been writing. Please help me understand if this is so, because I don't think it is. I think I have used only secondary and tertiary sources for the article, and only cited primary sources 1.) to help the reader, and 2.) to provide direct quotations from the sections of legislation expressly cited by the secondary and tertiary sources. Nevertheless, the article was nominated for deletion almost as soon as I had started writing it. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
@The wisest fool in Christendom I have studied British possessiononly in sufficient detail to contribute an opinion to keep it at the current AfD, but not in sufficient detail to form a judgement on the presence or absence of OR or SYNTH. That would take me more time than I have available for the task.
Tertiary sources are sources like Wikipedia, which record what is said in reliable, independent secondary sources. We favour secondary sources. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
@The wisest fool in Christendom Without study I cannot tell whether these are Primary, Secondary or Tertiary, I regret I don't have the time for that study, and in this specific case probably not the skill, so feel unable to give you the answer you seek. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Israel lobby in the United Kingdom
I would be grateful if experienced editors could look at Israel lobby in the United Kingdom as it cites pretty much no secondary reliable sources.
I've opened a new talk section there on this, but the pool of editors on the page is small so it would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I am seeking input into whether the Strictly Come Dancing (series_21)#Average chart qualifies as original research. These are not data generated by the show; these averages are calculated manually by editors. The "average score" plays no role in the competition and is not something that is announced or published by Strictly Come Dancing. When a weekly score is not out of a possible total of 40 owing to the absence of a judge or the presence of a 5th guest judge, the score is "adjusted" and then averaged in. Supporters of this chart state that this meets the criteria of WP:CALC. I would appreciate any feedback on this matter. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
If the average is just a÷b it's not WP:OR per CALC, if the number are being rebalanced because of missing judges and then averages bult on the new numbers... It's depends on how exactly that is being done. If no sources mentions such averages them they might not be WP:DUE, but that would be a discussion for the talk page of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The question is when the data is determined by (a+b+c+d+e+f+...)÷g. At what point is this calculation too involved to qualify as basic WP:CALC? And then there is the issue of certain scores being "adjusted" because they're not based out of 40. I have always thought this table needed to go for a whole host of reasons: Fancruft, No original research, Undue weight, Statistics, and the fact that these do not, in any way, impact the outcome of the competition. Contestants are eliminated on a week-by-week basis based on judges' scores and audience votes, and cumulative average scores do not factor anywhere in there. Anyway, I appreciate your feedback! Bgsu98(Talk) 21:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, averaging a bunch of numbers seems to be exactly the kind of think that WP:CALC allows for. Looking at the table currently in Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) there's apparently no issue with weighting averages; dances not scored out of 40 are apparently just not included. I am sceptical that a running average of all of the dances scored out of 40 is WP:DUE or useful or a good idea, but I don't think it's OR. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
There have not been any performances scored on a different scale yet this season, but there have been in the past. It could be that there won't be any this season. Who knows? I appreciate your feedback! Bgsu98(Talk) 20:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. So there's a long, unresolved dispute over at the 7 nm process article, about whether Intel 7 should be in the 7 nm process, or in the 10 nm process article (and wikilinked in pages as such). The three editors named above are the participants of the most recent discussion on that article's talk page.
So, we've gone back and forth, and discussed a number of opposing points thoroughly. One point I'm not sure about, which I am requesting some assistance on, is the no original research point.
So, to put it simply, the Intel 7 process has a density of 100-106. Of the "7nm" branded nodes from the competing companies, TSMC's N7 is 91-96, and Samsung's 7LPP is 95-100. Moving on to 10nm processes, TSMC N10 has a density of 52, and Samsung 10LPP has a density of 51. The unit of all these numbers is MTr/mm2 (million transistors per square millimetre). Note, these numbers are directly from the 7nm and 10nm Wikipedia articles.
With that out of the way, the no original research point being raised by Newslinger is that out of the many reliable secondary sources talking about the Intel 7 process node that Newslinger has looked at and reviewed, most of them call Intel 7 a 10nm process node (example), while a very few call it 7nm (example). Newslinger claims that it is original research to categorise Intel 7 as 7nm in Wikipedia articles because the density (which is one of the core measurements of how advanced a process node is[1]) is almost as good as, if not better than 7nm processes from other companies.
I believe that this, in itself, is not original research, because it is a purely simple, factual number. It is a measurement, Intel 7 has that measurement comparing much closer to competing 7nm processes than 10nm ones, as stated in the third paragraph above. I think, claiming Intel 7 has to be 10nm because sources said so, despite that favourable measurement, is a bit like saying a 300 horsepower car's engine is less powerful than a 250 horsepower car's engine, because sources somehow claimed that, even though the 300hp engine is factually more powerful, going by that power measurement. In my opinion, these "which number is higher" calculations fall into the "Routine calculations" (WP:CALC) section of the listed exemptions in the no original research policy.
I would like more opinions on whether this really is original research or not, as well as how much we should prioritise sources' claims over these factual number measurement comparisons. If this really is original research, then I will disregard my point of "Intel 7 is 7nm because it measures closer to other 7nm processes than 10nm ones" in the 7nm process talk page. — AP 499D25(talk) 12:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@AP 499D25, industry-based stuff is tough because they are secretive. The chip foundries do not talk about their processes, which makes writing process articles difficult at this point. So actual technical references don't exist, only analysis by technical news organizations. Don't downplay them. In other technical areas we have problems justifying using academic sources instead of news coverage. In the area of chips Wikipedia is a technical encyclopedia, which makes it a problem when what was once a way of labeling processes becomes just a marketing label.
These articles, by their titles, are currently about processes, not a label of resulting chip density or feature size. Actual density of the chips produced can be independent of process. I would say that classifying the Intel 7 by a density measurement isn't original research since there are sources that do so, but it is an incorrect argument for these technical articles given the present state of the industry. Can one show that there was a major process change within Intel from its 10nm process to produce the Intel 7? Does it matter which process produced it when the result is competitive with products from 7nm foundries? Its competitiveness can be mentioned in the 7nm article text, rather than listing it in a table. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the advice!
Can one show that there was a major process change within Intel from its 10nm process to produce the Intel 7? That's a good question. Overall, there isn't really a density difference between 10nm SuperFin (the preceding node to 10nm ESF / Intel 7) and Intel 7, at 100.76 and 100.76–106.1 MTr/mm2 respectively. Intel 7 used to be called 10nm Enhanced SuperFin.[2] According to that reference, it basically seems to be a refresh of the 10nm process, stating 10–15% performance per watt improvements. On TSMC's side there is N7P, which brings 7% more clock speed or 10% more perf/W at same clock speed compared to N7,[3] so a similar increase in perf/watt, but still branded as a 7nm class node. And then there is TSMC N6, which TSMC doesn't seem to say anything about whether it's different or how different it is from the preceding N7+ process (with N7+ bringing modest density increase over N7), but is branded as 6nm class.[4] TSMC N6 is listed in the 7 nm process Wikipedia article (and in fact, there isn't a Wikipedia article for 6 nm process).
Its competitiveness can be mentioned in the 7nm article text, rather than listing it in a table. I think that would work as well.
Lately an anonymous editor (who likely came from me requesting for more input at Wikiproject Computing's talk page for the 7nm process article) has joined in and added their own response to the Intel 7 7nm or 10nm matter, pointing out similar things as here. — AP 499D25(talk) 12:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
As I see it, the terms have been obsoleted due to new transistor, capacitor & chip designs. A parallel might be the evolution of the term horsepower resulting in a lengthy article here. The industry has responded with rebranding. The tech mags are having difficulty adjusting with contradictions even within the same mag. Going to GAA will further confuse as Samsung, TSMC, IBM, and Intel have different GAA designs. And then we’ll have power backside delivery which will likely increase transistor density without shrinking transistor size. So much for using transister size as a metric. Further yet is the amount of EUV (and later High NA EUV) lithography used in a particular node. What ultimately matters is the speed, efficiency, cost, flexibility, ease of design, etc. And the process node is only one factor. If the aim is to compare manufacturing processes, one number ain’t gonna do it. As for the question at hand, Intel 7 is a new stepping of Intel 10SF which is Intel’s 7 process node because Intel says it is and it’s all a matter of branding these days. RS are not that useful as they get confused themselves. I realize all this blather isn’t particularly useful. We may have to drop the nm nomenclature if we want to include multiple manufacturers in the same articles. But we may end up comparing apples and oranges. Unless/until RS find a way to deal with this, they won’t be of much use. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that the nominal "*nm" benchmarks have been a total crock for several years, e.g. if you look at 5 nm process you can see that IEEE's actual definition of "5nm" is for gate pitch to be between fifty and thirty nanometers. That is to say, the names of the process nodes are utterly meaningless marketing bullshit, so trying to base them on any actual measurements is folly -- unless there's a canonical source for the device roadmap saying that "7nm" has a pitch between X and Y. jp×g🗯️ 03:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
If you search the string "The international community considers Israeli settlements", you will see that some editor or group of editors has taken the time to insert an overarching note in every settlement, not specific to the subject of the article, that settlements in the West Bank/Golan Heights are considered illegal under international law, but Israel (and sometimes, it is added, the US) disagrees with this. Without commenting on the neutrality or veracity of this statement, it seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Is it not? --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't really understand where the connective tissue would be regarding that. If that piece of information applies to those settlements as a whole, then it seems like an independent, analytic statement to include in articles about the settlements, as opposed to being a synthetic statement. Remsense聊 23:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I just found this, and there is no chance I have the energy to wade through or relitigate that. Apparently it has been discussed ad nauseum and there was a decision to add that somewhat noncontroversial statement to every settlement article. Fine by me. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Does this section count as original research/synthesis?
While the second stage engines were planned to shut down at T+8:33, a frame-by-frame analysis of the SpaceX broadcast[1] shows the following sequence: at T+8:03 telemetry indicated all engines had turned off, at T+8:04 a series of faint irregular flashes of light and an expanding gas cloud first become visible, at T+8:06 the final altitude velocity update is shown, and at T+8:12 the gas cloud reaches its largest apparent diameter. After some dead air, the commentators asserted Starship was entering the coast phase at T+9:50 before finally announcing "we may have lost the second stage" at T+11:40. At T+12:20 the commentators speculated the Autonomous Flight Termination System triggered. An official analysis of the exact sequence of events is still pending.
The citation only links to the official stream, which does not contain any "frame-by-frame analysis". 91.129.104.148 (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it is OG. The passage is a surface-level description of happened, and any actual analysis is deferred the commentators. The question on whether its due for inclusion is whole another story. Catalk to me! 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Concur Sennalen (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm guessing it'll eventually be replaced with something more concrete once an official sequence of events has been determined and appears in reliable sources. 91.129.104.148 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I recently noticed List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel-Hamas War, and looks for similar precedents and found exactly two: List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine and List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and to me, all three seem like bizarre creations. I have to question whether these lists fall short of the notability bar for standalone lists, per WP:NLIST, in a way that, pertinent to this noticeboard, strays too far into the realm of WP:OR to be tenable - because ... absolutely no independent sources appear to be producing lists like this, but, rather, they all seem just cobbled together out of different news sources, most of them probably in turn based on government press releases. Most of these visits, individually, have no notability (no one would dream of creating standalone articles on them), and, in all likelihood, most had very little to no impact or relevance. So really, what's the point of gathering up this historical detritus of mundane, trivial visits that no one would otherwise remember? In the first list, there isn't even a single overlapping source between entries, so what is the thread of meaning holding this list together (aside from the incredibly lengthy and niche title specifically created to hold the information together)? On the Russian invasion lists, there are a few news stories might say 'so and so' and 'so and so' visited X, but I still don't believe this qualifies as a list topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", per WP:NLIST, but rather more of a grand synthesis made up of otherwise extremely narrow and patchy pieces of news coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The very first google hit when I searched for this was The Dignitaries Who Have Visited Israel So Far in the WSJ. Also some less direct sourcing like NPR. Does that make the list notable? No, probably not, but at very least there's no OR here. Just an NLIST fail. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Well neither actually obviously fail NLIST because the primary point of NLIST is that the subjects have been commented on as group or set, and both the WSJ and say Time RE Ukraine clearly show they have been in at least two quite high quality sources. The argument is really not an nlist one, its a GNG, and that has never really been applied that well to stand alone lists because by their nature, lists are often based on a grouping within a larger article (at least a couple of BBC articles on the Israel/Palestine conflict have mentioned who and where EU leaders have visited). So, the list grouping itself is clearly significant enough to be mentioned in high quality sources, is it significant enough to warrent a stand alone list article? Nominate it for AFD and find out. But its not OR. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Features many inappropriate citations to the Gospels for non-routine analysis. Not a great article in general Mach61 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Not a great article but it seems that most statements are backed up with a citation and not OR. Inclusion of gospel provisions seem to be for reference more than anything else. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, rereading it appears that only the very beginning of the "New Testament" section is problematic, and that the article just needs more footnotes rather than sources. Replacing banner with inline Mach61 (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Most does not appear to be OR. Although the article does seem problematic. There appears to be a debate in lead regarding what term should be used to describe anti-Jewish feelings that seems disconnected from the topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
LuchoCR isn't letting me add an author for which there is proof of involvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergara Acosta (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@Vergara Acosta: I don't understand your concern, but 1) if you have a problem with some of LuchoCR's edits, then discuss it with him on the talk page or seek dispute resolution; 2) this appears to be a problem going on at Spanish Wikipedia. If that is the case, raise the issue there, not at the enwiki's OR noticeboard, of all things. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Rattus rattus
Resolved
Hi, I'm currently involved in a dispute with an editor who has been attempting to add original research to the Black rat article. This is not an area which I am qualified in, and to avoid misleading the editor or continuing discussion in an area I am not particularly knowledgeable in, I'm here to seek the help of editors who are either more qualified in this type of article, or can make a ruling on whether or not the information they are adding counts as original research.
[1] - The suspected original research being added to the article.
Is "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." SYNTH given that the words "but" and "only" from the given examples have been removed? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I would say it depends entirely on the sum context of the paragraph. Juxtaposition of statements itself potentially creates implicit meaning, whereas the connective word 'but' and the qualifier 'only' create explicit meaning. With these two sentences alone, there is a clear 'question' being asked, even if its preferred answer is not stated. (Frankly, putting biases aside, most people would see it as being a negative meaning being implicitly created, even if there is an academic discussion to be had about whether the UN has done a good job.) Remsense留 16:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I second that. You're cherry-picking two facts and putting them side by to make the point that the United Nations doesn't work. Or maybe that it works very well. Either way, the example serves. It might be good to have the earlier example and then also the current example without "but... only" with the point that "Look at this, it's done more subtly but it's also not OK."Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you think it would be good for me to add it, or should I get consensus on the talk page first? Remsense留 19:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Dunno. Since it's just further explanation, not a change in any rule or procedure, no harm in adding it. You'll probably -- probably -- get shot down and have to get consensus anyway. Herostratus (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a good example of a case where caution and discussion is warranted. SYNTH is not a spectrum. It requires a synthesized claim in the text, not just by implication. By the letter of the policy, the example is simply not SYNTH. However, one of the sentences might be WP:UNDUE in the context. Sennalen (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's philosophically the case. Ultimately, this is human language, it's not perilous to admit that it is a spectrum. SYNTH is about claims, and juxtaposition creates an implicit claim.Remsense留 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
It's a point of substance that's been discussed in the past and I believe the consensus is that there is such a thing as implied SYNTH. You can imply, for example, a violation of BLPCRIME, by stating circumstantial things that create an impression of problematic adjacency to guilt, when not stated explicitly in the sources. However, I do think there are probably sources that have explicitly stated that the UN isn't doing a good job, so why not use those? Andre🚐 21:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This is regarding the examples offered on the WP:OR policy page, not real-world examples, whoops! Maybe it was unclear after a bit. Remsense留 21:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah you're right, about needing discussion. I don't agree on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Herostratus, I've posted it on the talk page.Remsense留 20:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Historical price data chart deletion: Citing NOR. Third opinion appreciated!
User deletion of chart below on the page Cardano (blockchain platform) in the revision history. Further debate can be seen on the talk page for resolution/ consensus.
Cardano price in USD over time. (as of February, 2023) [1]
Having read the standards for NOR it appears to me that this is not a fact, allegation, idea where for which no sources exist. The chart is neither analysis or synthesis and is purely statement of fact/price data. Nasdaq data source is a highly trusted stock exchange for more than 50+ years and one of the largest on the planet. No conclusion / additional bias is added.
(For clarity, Cardano and the token ADA has a value. This value has fluctuated since its launch over many years. The price data is freely available for anyone to evaluate from many differing sources online.)
I would greatly appreciate any assistance by third party to provide an objective perspective. I do not want to instigate an edit war and would prefer a third party to make revisions with commentary if deemed appropriate. If deemed fair, I would like to request the figure be reinstated. Thank you in advance. Bob (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
For transparency, User:Blockchainus Maximus (Bob) is a WP:SPA who has only ever promoted this cryptocurrency and related projects on Wikipedia.
The reason I removed this chart is because the cited source doesn't specify this specific range, nor does it emphasize the peak price. This red line is likely factual, but it's also emphasizing an obvious fact without any context and for editorializing purposes. The chart only ends at February because, presumably, that's when Bob exported the spreadsheet to make the chart. Regardless, interpreting raw data to emphasize a specific conclusion which is not made by that source is original research. Even without the red line, and even if updated regularly, the chart would be decorative but uninformative without context from a reliable source. We're not here to dump raw data in readers laps based on our own biases, we're trying to provide context through reliable sources.
To put it another way, the importance of this specific data range is not indicate by any reliable source. Few sources bother to talk about how its price has fluctuated since 2019 specifically. Using this chart is falsely implying that this data is of primary importance, but as I have reminded Bob many, many, many times on the article's talk page, we use reliable independent sources to decide what is important. It is not up to involved editors to include information they personally believe is vitally important based on their own research. In addition to all the other problems with this approach, this is writing backwards.
As I'm sure most experienced editors have noticed, NASDAQ's website mostly publishes information from press releases or newswires, or dubious 'contributor' blog content. I don't know where it gets its info on cryptocurrency specifically, since NASDAQ doesn't handle cryptocurrency itself. How 'trusted' it is as a stock exchange has nothing to do with its reliability for a cryptocurrency price during an arbitrary range of time. Finding reliable sources for cryptocurrency is an ongoing problem, again, as I'm sure most experienced editors have already noticed. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Apart from the ad hominem attacks: I think it is pretty black and white. This is a chart with price data and yes a dotted red line. Nothing more, nothing less.
NASDAQ data linked is not in any way "interpreted" by any contributor, and in what way have I "interpreted" the data? Seriously, how? What conclusion am I reaching? It is quite literally price data, as transparent and objective as it gets. Arbitrary? At the time of the chart creation it was the range available from the source, no "arbitrary" time frame was selected (even today the "starting" date for data is the same and indeed the date is included "as of February 2023"). And again I find it shocking you are stating a pure NASDAQ historical price overview is somehow "biased" or "interpreted", it's just genuinely nonsensical. And this is not a "dump of raw data" but a simple plain chart. For Cardano, ADA, that clearly has a long price history worth billions it is neither irrelevant nor some "random chart" that I have included.
This isn't OR as it does just show what is reported but in a different form, it's probably allowable under WP:CALC as is the peak price line. However it does seem completely arbitrary, so I'm not sure there's any reason to include it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 20:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback @ActivelyDisinterested. The page is entitled "Cardano", ADA its token has a value where the marketcap is in the billions, not entirely trivial. To illustrate its value through time doesn't appear arbitrary (BTC, S&P500 have these for instance - not to state Cardano is in any way similar in importance but purely to illustrate the financial aspect). ADAs price however is important for its impact on the blockchain security to prevent sybil attacks (https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2018/10/29/preventing-sybil-attacks/) not included in the article yet so is most definitely of relevance. In essence as the price for ADA increases it becomes more difficult for a nefarious actor to control the network and perform a 51% attack. Sorry for getting into the weeds there but didn't think I would have to be defending a price chart. xD Thoughts from others also welcome of course. How do we proceed? I will of course not revert/make changes till consensus. Thanks again for your time - Bob (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but none of what you've discussed couldn't be explained in text, without an obscure chart being needed. Also if it is needed to help explain a concept not yet in the article, then quite simply it shouldn't be in the article until it's needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 14:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I should not have mentioned the importance of Sybil attacks, it was to clarify context. On the basis of purely financial aspect alone it seems valid. However this is no valid reason for inclusion? Bob (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with ActivelyDisinterested. Per CALC, I don’t think creating a chart like this is a violation of NOR… but it does strike me as irrelevant. User-made charts and graphs can be allowable, but their purpose is to illustrate information that is discussed in more detail in the text - and the article text does not really discuss Cardano’s price fluctuations over time (ie, this particular chart isn’t illustrating anything discussed in more detail in the text). I would leave it out. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be permissible to include the chart if a sentence were added from the source listed above / expanded upon in the Cardano article?
___________
Cardano reached a market cap of $77 billion in May 2021, which was the fourth highest for a cryptocurrency at that time. (sentence currently in Cardano article)
Additional line: It was noted by the Independent that ADA's price had risen from 0.04$ in 2019 to a value of 2$ at the time of writing in May 2021. [2]
___________
I thank both @Blueboar and @ActivelyDisinterested for your input. I will adhere to your view if you maintain its irrelevance. Side note: Shall I remove the BTC chart for consistency? Bob (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I would omit the chart completely. If you had a section on the historical price fluctuations… (goving a detailed outline of this aspect of Cardano’s history) a chart might help illustrate what you were discussing. However, I am not sure that the rise and fall in price over time is something that is vital information. It seems trivial. Certainly one short sentence isn’t complicated enough to require an illustration. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, understood - would it be possible for me to include the short one liner above instead? Cheers, Bob (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Since that is not an OR issue, the article's talk page would be the place to discuss that. But for convenience, I will mention again that not everything which can be sourced is due weight. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, since it was related to the chart inclusion criteria. However it appears you are going to insta-delete it anyway by the sounds of it. I suppose a 5000% increase in price is trivial... Bob (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The spike (and subsequent fall) in price wasn’t trivial, but does not need a chart to illustrate it. Discuss on article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again @Blueboar, @ActivelyDisinterested and @Grayfell. Will not add the chart but may add the sentence as it is most definitely relevant as a bare minimum.
Price movements will often be noted when a source happens to mention a crytocurrency (or a company that trades on a stock exchange, for that matter), but those mentions are usually trivia that is either out of date or soon will be, and should be left out of a Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the section. However there is a little bit of a chicken and egg situation here. It is clear there is a large financial component to Cardano, which apparently can not be talked due it being "trivial" and as such can never have a clear price chart that represents the entire history including all ups and downs - that was the entire point of the chart to not rely on anecdotes. Bit of a dilemma. I suppose price is never to be discussed? Bob (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Information from the article Name_of_Italy#Evolution_of_the_territory_called_"Italy": "The term "Italy" also included Liguria up to the Varo river and Istria up to Pola. All its inhabitants were considered Italic and Roman".
The source for this information is a WP:PRIMARY (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1). This is how the secondary source(T. P. Wiseman, Catullan Questions Revisited) interprets the given information: [2]
And this is the primary (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1) information itself(google translation): Ποσειδωνιάτου διήκουσαν, ἐπικρατῆσαν δὲ τοὔνομα καὶ μέχρι τῆς ὑπωρείας τῶν Ἄλπεων προὔβη. προσέλαβε δὲ καὶ τῆς Λιγυστικῆς τὰ μέχρι Ὀυάρου ποταμοῦ καὶ τῆς ταύτῃ θαλάττης ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων τῶν Τυρρηνικῶν καὶ τῆς Ἰστρίας μέχρι Πόλας. εἰκάσαι δ᾽ ἄν τις εὐτυχήσαντας τοὺς πρώτους ὀνομασθέντας Ἰταλοὺς μεταδοῦναι καὶ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις, εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἐπίδοσιν λαβεῖν μέχρι τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐπικρατείας. ὀψὲ δέ ποτε, ἀφ᾽ οὗ μετέδοσαν Ῥωμαῖοι τοῖς Ἰταλιώταις τὴν ἰσοπολιτείαν, ἔδοξε καὶ τοῖς ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων Γαλάταις καὶ Ἑνετοῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπονεῖμαι τιμήν, προσαγορεῦσαι δὲ καὶ Ἰταλιώτας πάντας καὶ Ῥωμαίους, ἀποικίας τε πολλὰς στεῖλαι, τὰς μὲν πρότερον τὰς δ᾽ ὕστερον, ὧν οὐ ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν ἀμείνους ἑτέρας...Poseidoniatus lasted, but they prevailed until the subjugation of the Alps. and he also hired Ligistica as far as the Ovarus river and the same coast from the borders of the Tyrrhenian and Istrian regions as far as Pola. I wonder if, having made them successful, the first ones called Italians spread it to the neighboring countries, so that they would receive a reputation as far as the Roman Empire. Behold, once, since the Romans gave the Italians the equal state, glorify also the Galatians in the Alps and the Venetians, I grant the same honor, and you promise all Italians and Romans, you send many letters, the former and the latter being, where not ῥᾴδιον επεῖν amenus éteras.[3]
In relation to the secondary source but also a primary source, is this information from the article OR? Mikola22 (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Christopher Columbus
Information in the article which exists in the note after Italian in context of Christopher Columbus and his Italianness. "Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity;"
This is information for which no reliable, published source exists in the context of the sources which talk about Christopher Columbus but also regarding the term Italian or Italians. This is what I know based on searching English sources. The only thing I know and what one editor said is that this information is based on some information of Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23/24 – AD 79), called Pliny the Elder.
I also researched Italian sources and found this, google translate: "La parola italiano non è sempre esistita (il che è ovvio), né (il che è meno ovvio) è nata a poca distanza di tempo da quella su cui è foggiata, cioè l’antico nome Italia. La terra che Greci e Romani chiamavano così – riferendo il toponimo a un’entità geografica dai confini variabili – non era, in effetti, popolata da italiani (itali antichissimi e popoli italici non avrebbero potuto usurpare quel termine) come non lo era l’Italia alto-medievale in cui si ponevano le basi di quella moderna. Il termine che oggi usiamo per indicare i suoi abitanti sembra dunque sorgere assieme al patrimonio linguistico che, prima di qualsiasi altro, contribuì a delinearne l’identità culturale. Cioè il volgare, alla cui sintesi moderna si darà più tardi, e si dà tuttora, quello stesso nome: italiano Questo termine è alieno – per ragioni che difficilmente possono considerarsi casuali – dall’uso dei fondatori letterari: Dante e Petrarca non lo impiegano mai, e come vedremo quella che individua nel primo il padre della lingua italiana è una formula tanto consueta quanto paradossale....The word Italian has not always existed (which is obvious), nor (which is less obvious) was born a short time away from the one on which it is modeled, i.e. the ancient name Italy. The land that the Greeks and Romans called this way - referring the toponym to a geographical entity with variable borders - was not, in fact, populated by Italians (very ancient Italians and Italic peoples would not have been able to usurp that term) nor it was high-medieval Italy in which the foundations of the modern one were laid. The term we use today to indicate its inhabitants therefore seems to arise together with the linguistic heritage which, before any other, contributed to delineating its cultural identity. That is, the vulgar, to the whose modern synthesis will be given later, and still is, that same name: Italian. This term is alien - for reasons that can hardly be be considered casual – from the use of the literary founders: Dante and Petrarca they never employ it, and as we will see the one that identifies in the first the father of the Italian language is a formula as usual as it is paradoxical. (Lorenzo Tomasin
Italiano Storia di una parola) [4]
Is the information from note after Italian, formulated like this OR information? Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The text is used as a footnote for the statement Columbus "was an Italian explorer."
Unless there is a source that both discusses Columbus and says that the term Italian was used to refer to the people of Italy, then it should not be included. There is however no problem with describing Columbus as Italian, since modern sources do. TFD (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
TFD Ok, I didn't quite understand you. We are talking about information: "Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity;. This information is based on a primary letter which says this: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?". Otherwise, this information is not part of any source that talks about Christopher Columbus. In this sense, is information: "Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; OR information? If you can be more specific, if you can't I understand. Mikola22 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes it is OR to say the term italian existed based on a letter from a Roman. However there are reliable primary sources that the region was called Italy before the birth of Columbus. Presumably, an editor could resolve the OR issue by getting a better source.
My concern is why we are mentioning the history of the term Italian in this article when sources about Columbus usually don't. It is undue weight. Articles are supposed to cover the main points of a topic and leave out unimportant information. Otherwise this article could run into thousands of pages. TFD (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't even know why this information is in the article. In the context of Columbus I think it is OR, because it does not exist in the sources concerned Columbus but also the context of the information itself can be for a certain time period(I don't think this information can be used for some private person from the 12th, 14th or 17th century), a certain geographical area, Italy changes throughout history because the Goths also come, Lombards, and some smaller city-states exist. In my opinion such information must have secondary sources for confirmation that we know the broader context of the term Italian and to whom he historically refers. There are also the Romans, and the sources I read seem to separate Romans and historical group Italians. I did not read that they are all Italians together in the context of a common group, (I've been reading sources for a few days, so I don't know if I'm noticing correctly, ie the Romans/Italians interaction). Mikola22 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I found the same information in the note behind Italian in the article Dante Alighieri. The information is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder, Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [[5]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."
Otherwise, I've been looking for confirmation of this information and fact for almost two days(in English or Italian) and I can't find anything specific or in a secondary source as confirmation. Mikola22 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The note could be synth, in that no source mention both it and Columbus at the same time. The solution maybe to just remove it if modern sources describe Columbus as Italian without noting the context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested There are also strong sources that speak of Columbus as a Genoese. Also the problem is and anachronism ie information must be harmonized with the historical-time context. I don't know if the "Italian" is in this historical-time context. But I think that is not the theme for this discussion. Mikola22 (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The articles about Dante, Boccaccio and John Cabot call them Italian, while Marco Polo is called Venetian. Since this issue is relevant to mulitple articles, it would be better to get a determination of the guideline than to start a discussion for each one. Personally, I prefer to use the most common description in rs for each person. While it may make no sense to say that Marco Polo was Venetian, while Columbus was Italian, that's just the way it is. TFD (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
So looks like the statement in question (Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity) has this [6] Britannica source attributed to it which does mention, at the very top of the page, that Columbus was an Italian explorer. But I don't see any info in that article that talks about the history behind the use of the term Italian. In that case it appears that the footnote is OR because it's not currently supported by the reference. So, as ActivelyDisinterested has also suggested, it might be better to remove the footnote unless you're able to find a source that mentions both the history of the term and Columbus at the same time. The statement that Columbus was an Italian explorer should stay since it's supported by the Britannica source. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Maharlika Nation
Datu likha has insisted on using their preferred version with original research/primary sources from the group Maharlika Nation, specifically about their practice and beliefs that were not reported by third party reliable sources.
Through their own words they are motivated to rectify any misconceptions about the group by including a court case ruling through a poor scan hosted in Facebook, which I think is a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
I have made the my best efforts to frame allegations about the group as allegations. Assuming the case dismissal is true, I imagine it is frustrating that no reliable media outlets have reported on it, or a clearer copy of the case is available through the National Prosecution Service (NPS) of the Department of Justice.
On the less contentious inclusion. No reliable media outlets have noted the specific of the group's beliefs on tigmamanukan and bathalaism. There are no explicit sources given on these aspects. These maybe part of the core tentants of the Maharlika Nation's internal affairs but without a source, it fails WP:VERIFY.
I have tried reaching out with the concern user on the talk page and edit summary but to no avail. I have requested page protection and has been advised by closing user Johnuniq to ask noticeboard for opinion on how to proceed on this matter. ThanksHariboneagle927 (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what noticeboard to go to but I thought this one would work. User:MonsenorNouel has been removingindividuals from a list of notable Afro–Latin Americans on the basis that they don't "look" African enough. This dispute is taking place mainly on the user's talk page. When I provided reliable sources for a sample of these names which call them Afro-Latin* or in which they self-identify as Afro-Latin*, MonsenorNouel claims either that the sources are invalid, or that they do not make any claims about Afro-Latin heritage (or both). Instead, MonsenorNouel adds commentary to the article which is sourced to Ethnicelebs.com (a blog where [amateur] users research the ethnicity and genealogy of famous people).
The Ethnicelebs posts also appear to confirm that these individuals are Afro-Latin*, so I'm at a loss how to proceed here. ...discospinstertalk 21:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't the sourcing of a blog make relying on it prima facie unacceptable? Remsense留 23:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. This should stop, regardless of the particulars of individual cases. Remsense留 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Colonial Impact On Gender Roles And Fluidity In Indigenous Nigerian Cultures
The main subject of this article, indicated by the title, is/should be the impact of colonialism on conceptions of gender in Indigenous Nigerian cultures. The lead section indicates some ways in which this may be the case, though it's uncited. Importantly, none of the cited sections in the article discuss the impact of colonialism on Indigenous Nigerian cultures at all. Each of the sections is labelled as "pre-colonization". An earlier draft of the article also included the following sentence in the lead: "In navigating this complex terrain of colonial influence on gender roles and fluidity in Nigeria, it is imperative to acknowledge and respect the rich diversity of cultural expressions characterizing the nation's indigenous communities, each contributing to the ongoing narrative of gender dynamics in its own distinct manner." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles.
The victims section makes no mention of genocide, but other editors insist that it remains WP:SYNTH despite the violation because good information is lost. In Wikipedia:Edit warning it is written: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warning. I don't know if it applies here. Apart from that, this content that violates WP:SYNTH should stay? Parham wiki (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Multiple news sources, academic journal articles, and NGO websites have now been added as references that explicitly detail death tolls since the beginning of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War while also explicitly making reference to it being or potentially being a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
It seemed like a Powerpoint slide of questionable accuracy and/or reliability. It was never mentioned where the data for city GDP came from. Official GDP data in Malaysia are available down to state-level only, not smaller-level divisions like cities (https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-). Could this count as original research, since the purported sentence and data are not verifiable in the cited slide? Slothades (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
That source is good, but if that is all (also found [8]), I think including it fails WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding text and adding sources which do not support the text
I support objectivity, and it is my firm commitment that Wikipedia should display differing viewpoints as objectively as possible for controversial topics, particularly those of ethnic, religions and political natures. I neutrally displayed opposing viewpoints that were historically held by some on controversial topics regarding Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
I give multiple citations and Manya erases them. She asks for proof that the citations support my statements, I give it, and then she says that the citations do not support some other point. She is moving the goalposts. This conduct is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor.
Thusfar I have given her ample opportunity to pinpoint what is missing in my contributions. She cannot do it but persists in deleting cited, verified content.
These topics are sensitive and particular nationalists often try to cover up historical opposing viewpoints or facts that are incongruous with their narratives.
Please see the discussion I had with Manya on my User talk, under December 2023. RusHistorian (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The main issue I see is the content you've added content without any sources, if someone challenges your additions you are required to supply sourcing to a reliable source (see WP:BURDEN). You also seem to have tried to use Wikipedia as one of those sources but Wikipedia is never a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR). There has also to be a lot of commenting on others editors and not content, editors should not comment on other editors or the possible motivations. Finally if there is disagreement over whether a sources is reliable or not I suggest asking at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I am having a WP:OR dispute with @NadVolum:. They believe that the two separate estimates of Palestinian children casualties have different classifications as to whether children are defined as a person below 18 or 14 years old. They claim that this is acceptable to add because it is WP:CALC. However, there is no reference for this claim at all. Related discussion: Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox#Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox
Solved between us, withdrawn. Ecrusized (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I said I would revert if I couldn't find a reference quickly and then found one almost immediatly but then they come here wasting my time because they think they might use one age for the children killed but refer to a second age and their proportion in Gaza just a little further down the same page. Sheesh. NadVolum (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Post Office scandal
Some more input at Talk:British_Post_Office_scandal#'Individual_cases'? would be helpful. We are currently split 3 versus 3. The article, for a long time, had a section about individual cases affected by the scandal. This was removed based on an argument that talking about individual cases when over 700 individuals were affected constitutes WP:SYNTH. That seems to me to be a misapplication of the policy, but I thought I would seek the views of people here with more expertise! Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that the original removal is actually this one, and the policy-based reasoning, particularly wrt SYNTH, is expanded upon in the talkpage discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
MyrhaanWarrior
User:MyrhaanWarrior, has been adding original research content in multiple articles [12][13][14][15] has decided to ignore the concerns and warnings i've placed on their talk page. Can other users explain this to them. Magherbin (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This man is lying, I have consistently been adding information backed by verified sources, while he has been adding lies and unverified facts which anyone well versed on East African history knows are lies and taken the time to continue lying and deleting the facts I have put up and verified MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Maghrebin Deleting verified information and making false edits
@Maghrebin Has been deleting my wiki edits which have been verified by multiple books and first hand authors and has been pushng false information on wiki pages backed by no details which are blatant lies anyone with an ounce knowledge of East African history would know, one example is his ethno nationalist tendencies, claiming his recently created ethnic group in the early 1800's had taken part in the wars of another ethnic group they are confused for which is over 5,000 years old. I have taken the time to explain on his talk page writing paragraphs with evidences and he has refused to engage or even bother refuting me, responding by giving me false warnings
And even while I did verify my information he had deleted everything repeatedly making multiple edits MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard is about possible violations of the original research policy stay on topic, for example where does reference #31 state "Somali" or "Harla" in the Ethiopian-Adal war article which you based your edit off of? [16]. The reponse you've given me on the article talk page, indicates you wont accept academic references because they dont align with your original research viewpoint.[17]Magherbin (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
We already spoke about this and I provided evidence Marehan fought the hardest and Hirabu was the Emir of all Somalis, yet you decided to delete all my edits and sources even while I provided images from the book and the exact page number which described exactly what I stated
If you want to use this logic, then where were Hararis mentioned? The ethnic group didn't even exist as I previously, they speak a Semitic language and are a mix of Orromo, Habesha, Harrala and Somali, Harrala is what you're trying to claim, an ancient proto Somali Cushitic group
According to all historians before the 1800's the region was not Harari but purely Somali, thus the name Barbaria
Keep on topic, refute my points with evidence, or remain silent? MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Aside from your original research theory, I suggest reading the cited content especially p.66 [18] which states Hararis were involved in the war. You simply changed the text to state "Somali" and "Harla", the references makes no mention of either. Also not sure which "all historians" state the region was not Harari until the 1800s, the state existed long before that see a source by Oxford p.486 "the Harari imanate within the kingdom of Adal was nearly destroyed by persistent Galla raids. A member of Gran's family transferred the seat of his Sultanate from Harar to the fertile valley of Awsa and began what Trimmingham has described 'the miserable history of the Imanate of Aussa'. The new Sultanate did notescape Somali raids and was overrun by 'nomadic Afar' near the end of the seventeenth century." [19]. Another historian is Richard Pankhurst who discusses the defeat of Emperor Gelawdewos in the 1500s by the Harari cavalry. His work is titled "The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Regional History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century" on p.246 [20] it states "Galawdewos was hit by a bullet, but continued to fight until surrounded by a score of Harari cavalry". Magherbin (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Simpul skitsofreeneea has been indeffed, and a discussion thread is already open on another noticeboard for anyone else who wishes to continue. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editors are disrupting the progression of the article with the pretence of some idea of policy without following the necessary policy which they are using to stop the changes that I recently made, by enforcing the notion that consesus is necessary if the sources don't have the information in for the false information or non present in the sources information to have been added to the article in the first place.
The OR is a result of the reversion, the editor didn't choose to add the OR the reversion returned the OR. I showed the problem at the review link. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
14:35, 8 January 2024 facilitates access to the editorial pages for review. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The reversion additionally disconnected reference 1 from the necessary source link which is observable existing in the unreverted version hereSimpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
the OR is specifically
unidentified (@ 21:12, 7 January 2024)
Approximately 20 minutes later the object reportedly reappeared, climbed at speed and departed towards the north-west. (21:31, 7 January 2024)
purple hue (22:13, 7 January 2024)
11:00 am (22:26, 7 January 2024)
descending, overflew the high school, and disappeared behind a stand of trees.(22:52, 7 January 2024)
the order here is the same as at the review links. The order is increasing changes downward (1 change top link, 5 changes bottom link)
This is already being discussed at at the fringe theories noticeboard and has been for a week. Simpul skitsofreeneea has today also taken it here as well as to ANI. What's with the forum shopping, Simpul skitsofreeneea? Spreading the issue thinly over an increasing number of noticeboards won't result in more or better discussion, on the contrary. It wastes everybody's time. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you see this as rephrasing in own words or is this own analysis?
I think this is extrapolating and making inference rather than directly supported. I'd like to get additional perspectives. The prose in question is The Van Ryper ship models proved cost-effective for the government, as they helped in verfiying the accuracy of design, arrangements of naval deck fixtures, and alignment of various machinery components for larger ship constructions, based on source text of It is impossible to estimate the money saved in the construction of large ships by use of these ship models to check accuracy of design, arrangements of deck furniture and the lead of various parts of machinery. with regard to this edit from the source https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ithaca-journal-van-ryper-ship-models/138720698/ The source discusses two model makers and I do not see it discussing effectiveness in a way that directly demonstrates the cost effectiveness of Van Riper models. 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
It does seem like the prose in question is making an inference by stating that the ship models 'proved' to be 'cost-effective' when the original source is stating that "it is impossible to estimate." To me, those two things don't appear to be the one and same, in that, impossible to estimate doesn't equate to proving that something is cost effective. The original sentence is saying money was saved from the ship models but it would also need to say or have similar wording to say that it was also cost effective. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
You're right to query it. "It is impossible to estimate the money saved" might be read as implying that there was some saving, but as the sentence in the original source stands, the saving could be zero or perhaps even negative. So it's hazardous to conclude from the wording that there was a saving.
And even a saving may not be cost-effective if it involves a loss of function or resilience (of which there seems no indication, but the two concepts aren't the same). Quantist (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Pornhub
Can someone check [21]? It seems rather odd. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Nothing in the cited sources, the foundation's website or the websites of Ethical Capital Partners, who acquired the company that owns the website last year. Very weird edit. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Eugene N. Borza additions
Hello. Due to a content dispute on Eugene N. Borza, I need editors to confirm whether the following additions (1, 2, 3 and 4) constitute original research. Apart from these additions, it'd be great if editors could look at the whole Views section and determine whether it contains original research. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Use of Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project data at List of ongoing armed conflicts
However all these edits have the same problem, they involve interpretation of the data. While the Brazil page does give a total deaths for the country of 15,020 (14,625 in non-state violence), zooming in on the map shows that only 788 have occurred in Rio (plus a smattering of deaths in the vicinity of Rio). Therefore the 14,383+ figure is simply wrong. As well as this, the ACLED "dashboard" is cited consistently, for both the 336 deaths in 2023 and 10 deaths in 2024 (as well as many other entries on the list. I have absolutely no idea what options are being used to filter the data to arrive at those figures, I fear they are simply claiming all deaths in the Rio area are being lumped in as part of the favelas conflict, and the same applies for virtually every other entry on the list. Objections are met with claims such as "Those numbers are from ACLED, not mine", which ignores the entire basis of the objection. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Deaths by country section shouldn't have been deleted, but the change that happened ruined the list. Regarding the data from ACLED, it's a reliable source because it shows the number of casualties for each country in real time and there is not an alternative option to it. Some conflicts, like the one in Brazil and more specifically in Rio, require better sources perhaps, since it's a conflict that takes place in a city and not in the entire country, but there is no other source that provides real time data every week, so this makes the whole thing difficult. The other conflicts of the page are easier to edit and update since they take place in specific countries and areas which are easy to locate and connect them with their casualties. I always follow the same strategy with every conflict, like the one in Palestine, with multiple sources and a minimum and maximum number of casualties, in this way we have a clear view of the range of casualties with no mistakes. This can apply in every conflict, but there needs to be reliable sources. That is why I choose ACLED, for example, when there are no other available sources for a conflict, especially real time ones, we cannot have an outdated number or no number at all until we find the perfect source and even if we do find the perfect source, it won't be real time and the next update may have to wait for months, this wouldn't help at all. In my opinion, the method that we currently use is the most consistent and trustworthy for the page, since we have updated numbers for every conflict, every week, that are always compatible with numbers that we get from sources at the end of the year, or when a big change happens in a conflict. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
List of train songs
I'd appreciate some opinions on List of train songs. It appears to have become a dumping ground for any song that mentions trains in any way. The references are mostly to WP:ALLMUSIC or other sites that serve only to verify that the songs exist. I spot checked several and couldn't find anything in their references to suggest they had been classified as a "train song".
I think there might be a kernel of notability in the concept of the folk railroad song, but it's currently highly obscured. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
User Skyerise persist in deleting sourced content added by previous users which is highly relevant and directly linked to the topic of the articles and keep wrongly arguing that said content is neither sourced (it is) nor appropriate to keep in the articles in question (despite being completely relevant to the theory discussed in both articles). Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snarcky1996: I have explained to you that we may only report on direct criticism. The source must mention the theory being refuted. None of the sources you are synthesizing mention Jaynes. And they must mention Jaynes to be considered to be criticism of Jaynes. Have you even read the policy (WP:OR) I linked? Skyerise (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Skyerise you clearly abuse, in bad faith, this policy of (WP:OR), as this rule does not justify the removal of content directly linked to the topic when it is clear that it is linked to the topic at hand, even if it is not something that explicitly mentions the author of the theory discussed. Furthermore, in the case of the Bicameral mentality page, you are removing content which was not added by me, but by previous, several users who seemed to have reached a consensus on the matter. I simply added it to the relevant section in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind page. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snarcky1996: Nope, not at all. I've been an editor for over 17 years and have made over 100,000 edits, and I am accurately informing you of our policy. READ IT. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Skyerise That argument of authority won't be enough I'm afraid. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snarcky1996: I've been trying to explain our policy so that you don't get blocked. If you don't want my help, then go ahead and continue. But you will end up blocked for violating both WP:OR and WP:3RR. Skyerise (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snarcky1996:: Not true. I can count and I have not made four reverts to the same article within a 24 hour period. But you have. I took it to your talk page and the article talk page, where you did not bother to engage in discussion about the matter but rather continued to revert. That's edit warring. Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snarcky1996 it doesn’t matter who added it, the question is do your sources discuss Jayne’s (fringe) concept. I strongly suggest you stop adding this unless you get consensus here. Doug Wellertalk 21:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller The sources directly contradict Jayne's concept, therefor, they are relevant in the article. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snarcky1996: As I posted this quote on your talk page, but you removed it without reply, I will post it again here where you may not remove it. WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." Since none of the "critical" sources mentions Jaynes or his theory, no conclusion which mentions Jaynes' theories may be constructed from them. Skyerise (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Skyerise "Since none of the "critical" sources mentions Jaynes or his theory, no conclusion which mentions Jaynes' theories may be constructed from them."
Absolutely ridiculous claim considering that the facts highlighted by these sources contradict directly the sole basis of Jayne's theory. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller It should also be noted that, as it currently stand and apparently thanks notably to the efforts of users such as @Skyerise, both of these pages are strangely rather supportive of Jayne's theory, treating it as a serious scientific theory despite its fringe status. It is at most, and barely, described as a "somewhat controversial theory" in both articles. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snarcky1996: I am completely neutral about Jaynes' theories. However, criticism must be sourced to actual critics of Jaynes. We, as editors, may not construct criticism out of sources which do not mention Jaynes. Skyerise (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
"Since none of the "critical" sources mentions Jaynes or his theory, no conclusion which mentions Jaynes' theories may be constructed from them."Absolutely ridiculous claim considering that the facts highlighted by these sources contradict directly the sole basis of Jayne's theory. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you think it is "ridiculous" - that's exactly how our policy is intended to work. It's very explicit and I linked it (WP:SYNTH). You may want to read the explicit examples and the talk page archives of that policy page where you will find that you are incorrect about how to interpret it. We are allowed to report the direct criticism of others; we are not allowed to construct our own criticism out of whole cloth. Skyerise (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Skyerise This is like saying putting a source which state that the earth is a globe on the flat earth theory page is unwarranted because it does not directly name the flat earth theory. Nonsensical.
Also it is clear that unlike what you pretend, you have an interest in the matter, as your user page indicate, this Jayne's book is among your "Books on consciousness" that you highlight on your user page. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
My primary interest is integrity in sourcing and use of sources. Yes, I edit fringe topics, reviewing sourcing and sources. For most topics, I remove far more "pro" material than "con". However, we are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. We primarily report what secondary sources have said. Like a newspaper, we have to say "X criticized Y". If the critic X cannot be identified as directly criticizing Y, then it is the editor who is the critic. So please identify by name the name of the person who intentionally and explicitly levied that criticism against Jaynes. I am pretty sure it's likely to have been done - so find actual criticism that we can report. So-and-so said such-and-such specifically about Jayne's theories blah blah blah... TLDR: criticism must be direct and attributable. I'm done here, as I'm sure the other denizens of this board will agree. Skyerise (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Skyerise Numerous Wikipedia articles have sourced material which while not necessarily naming explicitly the title of the article, whether a theory, a person, or anything else, but still are directly connected to it and therefore are considered relevant and acceptable. I gave the example of the flat earth theory page, but countless others exist and are accepted as valid.
That you refuse to acknowledge that these sources and the written content that you want deleted clearly talk about what is presented in these articles is very perplexing. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
You're just not getting it, are you? Skyerise (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed I am not. The content in question can without a doubt be called a "refutation" or a "contradicting fact/element", warranting in itself its presence in the article(s). Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The point is that a reliable source didn't make that refutation; you did. If you want to dispute Jayne's theory with contradicting facts, get your paper published in a reputable medium. Editors only summarize what reliable sources have written about a topic. Schazjmd(talk) 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Schazjmd I do not dispute Jayne's theory, the sources that I maintain on the article (I did not added them) do. That's my whole point since the beginning.
"Editors only summarize what reliable sources have written about a topic" : exactly what the content targeted for potential removal does: it summarizes what the reliable sources used say about introspection of characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which, I cannot stress this enough, is directly linked to Jayne's theory. About half of the article is about that specific point already. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@Schazjmd @Skyerise Furthermore, it should be added that there is another element as to why it is incorrect to say that what is written in these sources is not linked to Jayne and his theory, i.e that it is (WP:OR), since Jayne himself dedicated time to try to explicitly refute what is said in these sources, by explicitly citing them. That response from Jayne is included in the content targeted for removal and is sourced, judge by yourself :
"Jaynes noted that the most complete version of the Gilgamesh epic dates to post-bicameral times (7th century BCE), dismisses these instances of introspection as the result of rewriting and expansion by later conscious scribes, and points to differences between the more recent version of Gilgamesh and surviving fragments of earlier versions: "The most interesting comparison is in Tablet X.": 252"
The text begins: As an argument against Jaynes's proposed date of the transition from bicameral mentality to consciousness, some critics have referred to the Epic of Gilgamesh. No source cited. The rest of that para is about the dating of the epic, citing a source about the age of the epic and a source about the age of the old testament. What needs to be sourced is that some critics[who?] argued against Jayne's proposed date referring to the epic. The next section mentions what Jaynes wrote about the epic (as you quote above), but is followed by His answer does not deal with the generally accepted dating without citing a reliable source that argues that Jaynes did not "deal with the generally accepted dating". Schazjmd(talk) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Bicameral mind is pseudoscience, granted. Gilgamesh epos contradicts his ideas, granted. But you are simply wrong about how Wikipedia works and about what is acceptable in articles. Several editors have explained that to you, but you are not listening. Read the policy pages they are giving you. And read WP:IDHT. Really.
If you still do not understand why you are wrong, you should at least accept that you are wrong and postpone the understanding. The alternative is that you will be blocked eventually. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed specializing more and more in promoting pseudoscience Snarcky1996 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hardly. Skyerise (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Using comic books to overrule secondary sources
A user at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)#Misleading content is insisting that content from reliable secondary sources should be deleted because it contradicts his own understanding after reading comic books featuring the character. I asked him to make a post here to settle the dispute, but he instead went to seek support at WP:WikiProject Comics. He seems to be making this argument because he believes I'm trying to emasculate the character by removing the laundry list of character feats cited to comic books (as he says here and here). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This is an inevitable result of MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PLOTCITE, which I feel badly need revisiting, since they unacceptably attempt to contradict WP:V. The simple answer is that as core policy, WP:V (and WP:NOR, but V is necessary in this case because editors will simply claim their plot summary isn't OR and without the sourcing requirement this can't be resolved) override WP:PLOTCITE; once you've challenged any text in an article, including a plot summary, an in-line citation must be produced for it, per WP:V's statement that All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Note that the direct and unequivocal contradiction between the two polices; obviously, as core policy, V cannot be overridden (certainly not by the mere manual of style) and always takes precedence, meaning PLOTCITE only applies as long as the summary isn't challenged (or likely to be challenged, in the case of summaries that make obviously controversial interpretations of the text.) At best, all PLOTCITE accomplishes is lightly discouraging editors from going around challenging every single plot summary for the sake of doing so, but it can't prevent anyone from challenging the text in any specific instance or remove the requirement for an in-line citation once that challenge occurs. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Aquillion, the contested content isn't even a plot summary. It's a statement about the character that's already cited to two reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I may have been overly suspicious, given your editing history here in Wikipedia, but my autistic mind is nearly unable to filter my thoughts or to play insincere manipulation games, and my social skills and emotional intelligence are very low, and I also have very high pattern-recognition, so I unfortunately tend to say exactly what I think without subterfuge.
It is not about emasculation, but rather about that the cited secondary sources list an extremely misleading specific statistic for the character without any explanation regarding how they arrived at this conclusion, which completely contradict virtually all stories featuring the character, and even makes Thor seem enormously weaker than Spider-Man, who has lifted tens of thousands of tons on occasion, and that after Thebiguglyalien removed enormous amounts of useful content for the article, it also seems to draw ties from the character to Nazism and Viking raiders, which is also extremely misleading and offensive for anybody remotely familiar with the character.
Thebiguglyalien also stated himself that the comic books are inconsistent, which is true, but by following that argument to its conclusion, no specific statistics should be included at all in the article, yet he adamantly and completely inflexibly refuses to budge an inch to remove even that particular brief phrase, even though I have otherwise begrudgingly accepted that he suddenly decided to destroy lots of work that I had put into the page. David A (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I will unfortunately not be able to actively participate here, as I am trying to juggle work duties and being on vacation at the same time currently. My apologies.
Helpful input in the linked to talk page section above would be greatly appreciated. 🙏 David A (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
(Coming from WT:COMICS) It's great to see the Wizard issues on archive.org being used in articles! That issue's language would support "over 100 tons" as well. Wikipedia's policies are against analysis of primary sources in the body text. If you'd like a list of how articles handle factually incorrect secondary sources check out Wikipedia:When sources are wrong. I don't see anything about Thor being a Nazi. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, the old "100 tons" claim originated as a very symbolic, rather than remotely literal, scale in the old 1980s Marvel Comics handbook, and it is constantly contradicted to extreme degrees by the actual stories that this character appears within, sometimes, as you can see by clicking here, even to a literally infinite degree, so I find it ridiculously misleading to suddenly insert such a blatantly absurd claim into the text. David A (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not convinced that the Marvel handbook is a secondary source, to begin with. This sounds like a dispute regarding conflicting primary sources. pburka (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's secondary. The handbook is itself a Marvel comic book, and from what I can tell contains quite a bit of original content. Either way, it's certainly not independent and probably not reliable. It would be far better to find a reliable, independent secondary source rather than argue about which comic books are authoritative. pburka (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Like the magazine cited in the article? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Any source that mentions "100 tons" is per definition citing the Marvel Comics "handbook", which in turn just made up a random symbolic number without any basis in the feats that Thor has actually performed within the stories themselves. David A (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
What definition? For better or worse, we trust independent, secondary sources, and it's not our role as editors to second guess their research. If you do believe it's wrong, find a better secondary source. pburka (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The 100 tons value was first mentioned in the 1980s Marvel Comics handbook, and very badly informed people, who have likely never actually read stories featuring these characters, have occasionally cited the number ever since. The only other alternative would be that they made it up out of thin air, and to state the blatantly obvious, secondary sources are not automatically correct, no matter how absurd their claims. How exactly do you explain all of the listed and referenced feats that I linked to above being performed by a character that can supposedly only lift a truck? David A (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You're probably right, but this is original research. You need to find a reliable secondary source that supports your position. pburka (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
My point here is that we cannot just blindly cite any form of random claim that is very blatantly inaccurate, nonsensical, and completely contradicted by hundreds of feats by the affected character in question. The statement in question also originates from a Marvel Comics handbook, which is a much less reliable primary source than the main comic book stories. In such cases it is better to say nothing at all. David A (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The cited information also comes from opinion piece articles about fiction, not scientific research. Citing numbers indiscriminately regardless of reliability and logical basis is very inappropriate. David A (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
What about changing it to "several tons", without a specific number? The references would still verify it, it would be consistent with the character's usual in-story characterization (that he's really strong, even by superhero standards), and I don't think it would contradict anything. Cambalachero (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I am afraid that I think that still sounds very misleading, given just how ridiculously extreme feats of strength that Thor has performed on quite many occasions, sometimes to a literally infinite scale, so I would personally prefer if we either restore the powers and abilities section to how it was before the recent page overhaul or say nothing specific at all. David A (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The previous version was sourced exclusively to the comics. Per WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation and Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. If you're using the comic books themselves or your knowledge of them to write an article about a comic book character, then you're doing it wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, the issue here is that any source that claims that Thor can only lift a truck when he has explicitly moved multiple universal space-time continuums through sheer physical strength, and performed a few even greater feats when in possession of his father Odin's power, is per definition unreliable and does not know what it is talking about. David A (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has its own definition of reliable/unreliable, at WP:RS. That you think a source is wrong does not make it per definition unreliable, not according to how we do things on this site. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The issue isn't that I merely subjectively think that the source is wrong. The issue is that the claim in the source has been extremely explicitly disproven hundreds of times, so all that I am asking for is that we avoid stating any specific statistics at all. David A (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
So are any of you willing to let me remove what is equivalent to a very blatant lie from this page? David A (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
McLauchlin (1998) would support a change from "approximately" to "over". Would that seem more accurate? And if not, is there a reliable secondary source for "moved multiple universal space-time continuums through sheer physical strength"? Rjjiii (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not certain. I found the following links, but they lead to a site which I have blocked my access to, so I unfortunately cannot verify yet. [22][23]
However, the feat happened in Thor volume 1, issue 494, January 1996, and you can overview it yourself via the following link in order to verify, if you wish. [24]David A (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I have checked a bit. Is it acceptable if I use the following two pages, and other similar sources, as references for Thor's powers and abilities section? [25][26]David A (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Anyone? David A (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate some kind of confirmation here. David A (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
But that's when he's in possession of a special power. We don't expect or (if we are being honest) trust editors to be responsible for reviewing all the comics available and presenting a comprehensive analysis. The analysis must be done by secondary sources. Always. Cornsimpel (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
No, Thor moved at least 9 universal space-time continuums in his base power state, without the Odinforce or even the warrior's madness. When in possession of the Odinforce he has performed a few far more impressive feats than even that extreme scale. And this in combination with all of Thor's other feats makes it absurd to claim that he can only lift a truck and that's it.
Anyway, is it acceptable to use the pages that I linked to above as alternative secondary sources for some of Thor's feats and powers instead of the extremely false "100 tons" claim? David A (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Could different writers have depicted Thor differently? It seems to be about so and so's Thor so maybe it is true for the creators/edition of thor the magazine was writing about. Cornsimpel (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Marvel Comics and DC Comics characters are often depicted very differently depending on the writers, yes, but taking old extremely unreliable Marvel Comics handbook statements, that were not based on anything, as gospel and using them here, is unwise, to say the least. At the very least we should use secondary sources that reference specific events that happened within the stories themselves. David A (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I still need responses that instruct me regarding if it is acceptable if I use the following two pages, and other similar sources, as references for Thor's powers and abilities section, so I know how to proceed here. [27][28]
Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Help would still be greatly appreciated. 🙏 David A (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Plural in "Foot (unit)"
At the Foot (unit) talk page in the thread "Plural : feet" there is disagreement, when describing the proper usage of the plural (fee), whether it is necessary to cite a reliable source that is specifically about word usage, such as a dictionary or style guide, or whether citing several reliable sources that just use the word "feet" in a certain context is good enough.
The suggestion from several IP addresses seems to be that a statement could be put in the article that an exchange such as
Q: "How tall are you?
A: "Six foot."
is common usage. Such a statement would only need examples from a few reliable sources that are merely using such language, without evaluating it the way a dictionary or style guide would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: My suggestion would be to tell the IPs once that they need a reliable source. After that, you don't need to engage with them. WP:DR should be followed which boils down to asking for opinions on wikiprojects and possibly starting an WP:RFC although I wouldn't advise that for a couple of IPs with no sources. I don't know, but I can tell you that {{convert}} has a unit to allow plural foot due to popular demand from people brought up where that is said to be common.
My perception is that both plurals are in use. If I had to guess, I would say it was more common to use foot for low number plurals and feet for larger number plurals. But it might also be different norms in different kinds of English. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Using “foot” in the plural may be common, but it is colloquial usage… almost slang. Blueboar (talk)
Seems like the consensus is that "foot" is indeed a commonly-used alternative plural - the fact that some editors consider it "colloquial" or "incorrect" isn't really relevant. Wikipedia should just describe things as they are, rather than as some editors would like them to be. All we're discussing is whether the article should list "foot" as an alternative plural to "feet" in common English usage, not that its the primary plural or anything. I see no valid reason to suppress this information. I would also note that its not common practice for demarcation of plurals to require citations at all. There's no citation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep explaining that the plural of sheep is sheep for example, and that was just the first page I checked. 2.222.13.214 (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I take a different position on this. When someone says "six foot" they are not using "foot" as the plural of "foot". Rather, they are using the singular form in a common exception to the rules of grammar. Note how it is similar to "a six foot man"; one never hears of "a six feet man". We also hear of someone taking a "two mile run", which isn't a use of "mile" as a plural of "mile". In short, no evidence is provided here that "foot" is ever used as the plural of "foot". Zerotalk 23:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
you're confusing two different things. Yes it's common to use the singular rather than the plural when forming a portmanteau adjective. But that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing the fact that 'foot' is commonly used *as the plural* in place of 'feet' in phrases like 'six foot of rope' or 'he was standing twenty foot away', and 'my girlfriend is only five foot'. None of these are phrases where you'd use the singular, just pick a different unit and repeat the phrases and see for yourself. 2A02:C7C:7483:CE00:ED55:A559:F64B:B65F (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
For encyclopedic (ie formal) writing: “He stood twenty foot away” is simply incorrect. I would also say that writing: “Mrs Smith was only five foot tall” is incorrect. However, I am less sure when it comes to writing: “Joe, at six foot eight, was the tallest member of his basketball team”. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The "foot" in "a six-foot-three guy" or "a twelve-foot ladder" is a little more like an adjective. It is like the "horse" in "a one-horse town" -- you would not say somewhere was a "two-horses town". All of this crap notwithstanding, is this really an original-research issue? jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature. ...
P. 183:
It is true that Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, rode to power on a wave of bloody zealotry. To defeat the great Hindu Rajput kings, whose troops outnumbered his by as many as ten to one, Babur inflamed the passions of his Muslim soldiers by calling his war against the Hindus a jihad, or holy war. To demonstrate his own commitment to Islam, Babur had his entire wine collection poured onto the ground and his wineglasses and flagons smashed before his men. This act of sacrifice is said to have infused his men with religious fervor and brought them victory at the decisive Battle of Khanua. To be sure, it probably helped that Babur's men had firearms while the Rajputs did not. In any event, after days of slaughter, the Rajputs fled the battlefield, leaving Babur triumphant over northern India.
.
P. 184
It was only under Humayun's son Akbar, and his next several successors, that the Mughal dynasty consolidated its power to become one of the greatest empires of the time. Not coincidentally, Akbar and the other kings of the Mughal golden age were among the most religiously and ethnically tolerant rulers in the history of the pre-modern world. Indeed, without this turn to tolerance, it is highly unlikely that the Mughal Empire could have lasted as long as it did, or reached its dazzling heights of cultural grandeur. Conversely, the period of Mughal decline is associated with some of the most brutal episodes of ethnic and religious persecution in India's history.
.
P. 185
Akbar's patronage extended to men of all faiths. Though illiterate himself, he (like his distant relation Khubilai Khan) strove to fill his court with men of arts and learning. Among his courtiers the nine most illustrious were known as the navratna, or nine jewels of the Mughal crown. Four of these "nine jewels" were Hindu.
.
P. 186
To a surprising extent, Akbar did not favor Muslims. In war, he crushed resisting factions with the same brutality whether they subscribed to Hinduism or Islam. He attacked corruption among the Muslim clergy and initiated sweeping reforms equalizing land privileges for holy men of all persuasions. Along with Muslim festivals, he celebrated Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. Defying orthodox Islamic law, he granted non-Muslims permission to repair their temples and to build new places of worship. He also decreed that Hindus who had been forced to convert to Islam could reconvert without being subject to the death penalty. Most dramat ically, in 1579 Akbar abolished the jiziya, a mandatory tax levied exclusively on non-Muslims.
.
P. 189
In 1658, the Mughal Empire came into the hands of Aurangzeb Alamgir, the third son of Shah Jahan. Aurangzeb became emperor after killing his eldest brother, Dara—whose head he sent on a platter to their dying father. Dara had been an intellectually curious, open-minded scholar with a strong interest in Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, and Christianity as well as Islam. As Aurangzeb explained, "The fear of seeing the Muhammadan religion oppressed in India if my brother Dara ascended the throne" was what compelled him to seize power.
.
P. 190 Aurangzeb's Muslim zealotry tore the fragile religious and political unity of the Mughal Empire to pieces. His vicious campaign to eradicate Sikhism—including the destruction of temples and the execution of a revered Sikh holy man (on charges of converting Muslims)—earned the Mughals the hatred of tens of thousands in northern India and paved the way for Sikh militarism.
TL;DR:
According to this source, the Mughals rose and fell with bloodshed caused by the "Muslim zealotry" of their rulers at those times. It was only in the middle period of the empire, during the reign of Akbar (and his several successors), who defied "orthodox Islamic law," that the Mughals became tolerant and experienced a golden age. Akbar embraced all other religions, allowed non-Muslims who had been forced to convert to Islam to return to their religions, abolished jizya, etc.
But @StarkReport only wrote in the article that: "In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
Isn't this gross source misrepresentation and cherrypicking? I haven't checked the rest of his addition, but much, if not all, of the section of the article was replaced for this "neutral" version of his. And a lot of what he has removed seems to be critical of Islam. Isn't this also considered WP:CENSORSHIP? — Kaalakaa(talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The article is a general article about History of Hinduism and cannot delve extensively into a one specific aspect. The content in the Muslim rule section violated WP:Neutrality and WP:Balance. Consequently, it necessitated adjustment to present the better overall balanced representation.
This is more suited for the talk page of the article rather than shoving it on WP:ORN. A more constructive approach would involve specifying the information requiring proper sourcing and applying the [citation needed] tag accordingly.
And read ahead, there was already the content "Aurangzeb in particular was criticized for his policies of religious intolerance towards non-Muslims and destruction of temples" But if you want to write deeply about only the critique, I suggest you create a dedicated article about it. StarkReport (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Was Aurangzeb a Mughal ruler or not? Was Babur the founder of Mughal Empire or not? According to the above source that you cited, they ruled with "Muslim zealotry" and engaged in the "slaughter" and "eradication" of non-Muslims. It was only in the middle period of the empire, during the reign of Akbar (and his several successors), who defied "orthodox Islamic law," that the Mughals became tolerant and experienced a golden age. Akbar embraced all other religions, allowed non-Muslims who had been forced to convert to Islam to return to their religions, abolished jizya, etc. But you simply wrote in the article:
"In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
Kaalakaa, I'm uncertain why neutrality concerns are being raised here since they can probably be better discussed elsewhere. So I'm only going to address the OR issue, specifically the sentence: "The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
This sentence doesn't seem to be an appropriate summary of what the source states which, according to p.184 above, is: "Akbar and the other kings of the Mughal golden age were among the most religiously and ethnically tolerant rulers in the history of the pre-modern world." The source is referring to specific rulers during a specific time period, which is the the Mughal golden age during the Mughal rule.
So to generalize the statement isn't accurate because the source is referring to specific rulers during a specific time period and to better reflect the source, the sentence should read: "The Mughal kings of the golden age were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature." Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Is a book published Doubleday and written by a legal scholar (not historian) even a WP:HISTRS? also agree that the paragraph is a misrepresentation of the sources. TryKid[dubious – discuss] 20:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Seems tough to me to claim that the Mughals were known for religious tolerance. I think you'd need a lot of sources and specific references to support this claim. JMWt (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
it is OR to use census data to produce a map?
I saw this map and was wondering if anything needs to be done. The immediate source website seems to have disappeared, the data is apparently from the US census. Without OR can one produce a map like this?
I would say yes, it is. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Definitely OR by my lights. Even if relatively straightforward, making a map requires a level of interpretation and input from the editor that I would say is beyond policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok. What's the procedure for an xfd of this type? Seems to me it doesn't fit the normal criteria for files for deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it would not be OR if the only thing an editor did was to take data directly given in a table from an RS (like the US Census Bureau) and fill in a state or county map based on those numbers, as long as the data is cited in the resulting image file. If the data required some massaging before this transformation could occur, then one is getting into OR. — Masem (t) 16:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
but if it is just a visual way to present the data, with no manipulation beyond simple math, then its OR status is no different to using a wikitable or a bar chart/pie chart etc. A picture is worth a thousand words. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Not commenting on this particular example, but I can think of lots of ways you can intentionally or unintentionally mislead people by converting numbers into bar charts/pie charts.Scribolt (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
True, but I think that would be a POV or WP:FRINGE issue. The POV-weight of an image is maybe the same as a paragraph? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Well. If the data itself has been uploaded to wikidata and then has been tabulated or converted, that seems to me to be a different thing. Here we have a map which we are told has been produced using the data. But there's no simple way of going back and forth to the datapoints, so I'm not sure how we tell if there has been manipulation. Which, one could argue, is part of the point of the WP:OR and WP:V guidelines. JMWt (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The raw source, Summary File 1, is here [29] and it's description implies that the raw data supports direct, no OR translation to the US county map. — Masem (t) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok so can you link to to the table where we can see the data presented without any manipulation or scraping needed? I've looked and I don't see it presented in that way, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Knowing that it comes from the census doesn't really help identify and/or check the data has been accurately presented. JMWt (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
How do we know that the map itself is free to be copied to Wikipedia? The file says that the data is from the US census so is fine to be uploaded, but does that apply to derivative works based on it? I doubt it. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
As long as the original Census data is used (and referenced) and there is no OR involved, remaking a map like this, where it is just 1-coloring counties that meet a threshold, is not a copyright issue. That would all be PD. — Masem (t) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Its going to depend on the exact context, sometimes the answer is going to be yes and sometimes its going to be no. The key is if any original interpretation or analysis is required to turn the data into the map (or vice versa). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
It is OR. The Census does not have a list of counties with fewer than 25 blacks. The only value in this type of map is if someone has used it to explain a position in a reliable source. TFD (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, there are several counties with a population of something like fifty or sixty, so I would say that this map makes some misleading implications and is a bad illustration, whether or not it falls under our definition of original research. jp×g🗯️ 02:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Not OR provided that the data (assuming it is reliable) can be transparently mapped to the er, map. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Selecting some arbitrary data cutoff not present in the source, to demonstrate a point not mentioned in the source, is blatant OR. JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The raw data point that certain counties have fewer than 25 black residents is of negligible value. In California, where I live, Los Angeles County has 9,861,224 residents, and Alpine County has 1,204 residents. Nobody should be surprised that an isolated, rural county high in the Sierra Nevada mountains with a tiny population has fewer than 25 black residents. What matters is the total percentage of black residents per county, not the raw number of black residents per county. Any map structured in this deeply flawed way will inherently place disproportionate emphasis on lightly populated rural counties outside the areas where black people have historically resided. The granularity of black population statistics in states like Idaho and Montana is completely lost. What encyclopedic value does it bring to learn that Esmeralda County, Nevada, which has 829 residents, also has less than 25 black residents? None. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
After checking the two possible statistical tables that could have been used to create the map, the first thing I noticed is some counties that are highlighted in yellow are in fact missing from the tables. Examples include, but are not limited to Powder River County (30075), Terrell County (48443) and Kusilvak Census Area (02158). I also noticed the same thing regarding the other map (used in the African Americans article) which shows some 30 counties as having less than 2% when in fact they are not mentioned in the source. Is there something slightly wrong with these maps or am I missing something obvious? M.Bitton (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Missing data possibly? In which case this could be another reason to delete the file. JMWt (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Simply taking data from a reliable source and presenting it in graphical form is not OR. However, guessing extra data that is not in the source (as M.Bitton suggests) would definitely be OR. There are other arguments that might be brought against the map, for example whether the choice of 25 as a cutoff gives a fair impression, but that's an NPOV issue, not an OR issue. Zerotalk 03:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I would note that this image is located in Commons which does allow both OR and NPOV content. MKFI (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I found a way of presenting what the problematic map is trying to highlight without choosing a random cut-off point. The counties that I mentioned previously as missing are in fact those with no Black population. I missed an important note (Population Greater Than Zero) while scrapping the tables. What this means is that we can use "zero" instead of an arbitrary number like 25. Obviously, I'm not suggesting the creation of a similar map, as I don't see the point of it, but there is nothing stopping us from creating a map for the 2020 census (to complement this one), but for the Black alone population (I noticed that they released two maps for the 2010 census, one for the "Black Americans (alone)" and the other for the "Black Americans (alone or in combination)").
Here's the finished map. Please let me know what you think and whether anything needs changing (I have no issue with removing the zero if some editor object to it). M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
My issue here is whether all of these counties have full coverage by the census authorities or whether the 0 is actually lack of data. Do you know? It feels important when the map is being used to make a point on a page. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that all of these counties have full coverage by the census authorities. Here's the link to the official source that was used. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious to hear opinions on this and similar pages. It seems to me that this is WP:SYNTH - in the sense that the page is pulling together results from competitions in an era when a "season" meant essentially nothing. Travel was obviously difficult at the time, so what actually happened was local/regional events which happened in the same year. There were champions of multiple championships, but that's still not a "season" as we might think of it today. They likely lived in countries where there were multiple events, elsewhere not so much.
Is there any value in pages which attempt to put modern language onto sporting events in the past? Is it WP:SYNTH to do this and WP:OR given the effort needed to collect the data and knit it into a coherent page? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
My immediate thinking is that, while the content on the article doesn't constitute a season per se, I think the SYNTH concerns might clear up with just a small change in framing: retitle the page to 1888 in women's tennis and replace any language (e.g. the "Summary of season" header) that portrays it as a unitary season. There's certainly plenty of precedent for "[year] in [topic]" articles; I see them most often in arts/entertainment topics (2024 in jazz, 1976 in film, 1998 in video games, etc.) but I think they'd make sense for sports articles as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I also agree here with @ModernDayTrilobite. Suggestion for changing "season" term in section title - change the section "Season results" to "Tournament results". Not sure about "Summary of season" section, but may be "Rise of Women's International Tennis" Asteramellus (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I looked into this further and it seems what's there is correct. It is a series - from 1888-1912 it's called Tennis Season - signifying the growth of tennis at international level. So, there are some other similar pages in that series. So, don't think any changes are needed. Asteramellus (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Need input on whether a certain argument contains OR
There is currently a discussion here where a user is arguing for the deletion for a sourced claim in the lead of the article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that asserts the RSS drew inspiration from European Fascist movements. The claim is sourced, but the person making this argument has enumerated reasons they do not agree with the sources or various faults they find in them, which I believe is their own OR. They naturally disagree with my assessment. We would appreciate any input from third parties on this question. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Summarizing award nominations/wins for notable award events
This is coming from WP:ITNC but likely should be considered across the board. At articles like 77th British Academy Film Awards, 96th Academy Awards or 75th Primetime Emmy Awards (among many others), there is typically a section named Statistics or similar where the total number of nominations and wins by a work or other body (such as networks with the Emmys) are listed. Two possible SYNTH problems have been identified with these. First, whether these lists being compiled by WP editors based on the nomination lists or winners lists is a violation of SYNTH, or whether that qualifies as a basic CALC. This also leads to the case when editors add in the footnotes as seen on the BAFTA film awards, which, when unsourced, feels like an attempt at SYNTH. Second, whether these lists even belong in the articles. I can generally show that for these major awards that there is generally some reliable soruce that has shown interest to identify the most nominated or most winning work (eg for the Oscars, this Variety articles) but these articles usually do not fill out the full list down to those that are nominated or won a minimum of 2 awards. So it still is a question of whether such a full list is appropriate given this lack of completeness in the sourcing. It would be a good idea for community input on where the line between inappropriate SYNTH and allowed CALC would be drawn for these cases, since this is a practice reflected across nearly any major award ceremony for any media. — Masem (t) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It's more a matter of WP:UNDUE that happens to be produced by WP:OR. The leading nominees are directly mentioned in independent sources in prose, and dont require tallying with a ctrl-F or equivalent and worrying about piecemeal counts with some lists being missed or double counting. However, it is pedantic to have an exhaustive list that is indiscriminate with no cutoff, esp. if a complete list is not eventually expected to be commonly published in other reliable sources. This is not a few straightforward 2+3 WP:CALCs. —Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
Resolved
.svg){kind=link}