Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Does The Turner Diaries explicitly mention white genocide conspiracy theories?

Regarding this discussion about The Turner Diaries, the NOR policy at WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot." My question concerns whether these passages can be cited or need to be quoted:

But one thing which is quite clear is that much more than our freedom is at stake. If the Organization fails in its task now, everything will be lost-our history, our heritage, all the blood and sacrifices and upward striving of countless thousands of years. The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence. No excuse for our failure will have any meaning, for there will be only a swarming horde of indifferent, mulatto zombies to hear it. There will be no White men to remember us-either to blame us for our weakness or to forgive us for our folly. If we fail, God's great Experiment will come to an end, and this planet will once again, as it did millions of years ago, move through the ether devoid of higher man. [Chapter 5]

the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face. [Chapter 6]

By terrifying the White population they will make it more difficult for us to recruit, thus speeding our demise. [Chapter 10]

Each day we make decisions and carry out actions which result in the deaths of White persons, many of them innocent of any offense which we consider punishable. We are willing to take the lives of these innocent persons, because a much greater harm will ultimately befall our people if we fail to act now. [Chapter 14]

...the newscaster gloated, "The White vermin died like flies. We can only hope they realized in their last moments that many of the loyal soldiers who pressed the firing buttons for the missiles which killed them were Black or Chicano or Jewish. Yes, the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else, so that racial harmony and brotherhood can be restored to America. We must kill them! Kill them! Kill! Kill!" [Chapter 26]

Could any educated person verify the statement that "The Turner Diaries presents a white genocide conspiracy theory" from those passages? EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Find secondary sources that say either say that (1) TTD promotote WGCT, or (2) proponents of WGCT draw inspiration from TTD. Then let the wikipedia article article reflect what these secondary sources say. If the secondary sources cite particular passages of TTD, then those passages may be quotable. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are the sources used to support the statement:

Since the 1990s, ideological white nationalism in the United States has declined. But since 2008, recruitment based on less-defined racial fear and hostility has risen to take its place, emphasizing ideologically neutral concepts such as “white genocide” and shifting toward less clearly delineated movements (such as the “alt right”). Users participating in these new movements on social media routinely and selectively highlight incidents of racial unrest and black crime as evidence that “The Turner Diaries are coming true” -- Berger, J.M. (September 2016). "The Turner Legacy: The Storied Origins and Enduring Impact of White Nationalism's Deadly Bible" (PDF). Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Studies. ICCT Research Paper Series. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism: 40. doi:10.19165/2016.1.11. ISSN 2468-0656. Retrieved 19 March 2019.

The recent manifestation of white genocide has its origins in the American neo-Nazi movement. The Turner Diaries, a very influential 1970s novel by William Luther Pierce, posited a dystopian world in which white Americans were oppressed by non-white minorities at the behest of Jewish politicians. -- Ross, Kaz (March 16, 2019). "How believers in 'white genocide' spread their hate campaign in Australia". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 March 2019.

Are those sufficient? EllenCT (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, those are the type of sources we need (see also this Atlantic article by the author of the ICCT paper). As long as we summarize their relevant content correctly, it should be ok. Abecedare (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the sources generally agree that the phrase "White Genocide Conspiracy Theory" comes from David Lane about 20 years after The Turner Diaries are published. It' s absolutely correct to say that Lane himself was heavily influenced by the Turner Diaries, and that the book inspired/parallels elements of WGCT, but it's a stretch to say that the Turner Diaries depict a "white genocide". current lead seems in line with sources. Nblund ^talk 13:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure Lane or anyone associated with him called it a "conspiracy theory"? The origin of the theories appear to be a 1925 book by an Austrian-Japanese author published in German. None of the proponents call them conspiracy theories, although they do talk about conspiracies. I'm convinced that the excerpts above would convince "any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" that The Turner Diaries were advancing a WGCT as the motivation of the main characters. While the genocide which occurs at the end of the book is by whites against others, there are actually about twice as many passages where the specter of genocide against whites is raised than just the excerpts above. EllenCT (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT: that should say, the phrase "White genocide" is attributed to Lane. the general idea of a conspiracy to destroy "white civilization" is probably as old as the concept of whiteness itself. I agree that Praktischer Idealismus has some thematic similarities, so does The Camp of the Saints, so do the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but reliable sources usually attribute the current usage to David Lane. Lane's co-option of human rights terminology like "genocide" and his complaints about "racial integration" wouldn't have made much sense in the 1920s. There's a fairly broad cross-section of editors saying the same thing, and I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise unless you can find lots of high-quality reliable sources that explicitly say the things you're saying here. Nblund ^talk 15:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I have written an essay that may help. It it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT's primary source doesn't talk about any conspiracy. It talks about minorities outbreeding whites, which has been a white nationalist talking point for many years, but the idea that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals appears to have come later, when Lane popularized it. Assuming that any mention of minorities outbreeding whites is a mention of the later conspiracy theory that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals is a classic example of original research. The fact that the mention is in a primary source and that the secondary sources directly contradict the OR is icing on the cake.

This has been discussed to death at:

• Talk:The Turner Diaries#Several explicit mentions of white genocide conspiracy theory
• Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Does The Turner Diaries specifically mention the white genocide conspiracy theory?
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#Double standard
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#White genocide conspiracy theory is unbalanced
• User talk:EllenCT#March 2019b

"Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".)" --WP:OTHERPARENT

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Novels are not usable reliable sources for claims of fact. No matter how one looks at it, novels are fiction. If something is a fact, policy requires that we use a source stating it as a fact, and that is not the purview of novels in the first place. This is basically why Wikipedia does not use novels in every article, as far as I can tell, except for articles specifically about that novel. Collect (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The article in question is the one about the novel, for which it is the primary source. The novel includes passages such as "The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence," and, "There will be no White men to remember us," and, "the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else," which per WP:PRIMARY would lead any educated person without further specialized knowledge to conclude that it presents a white genocide conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

And the novel is fiction - and thus its "theories" are also fiction. Does it say "This is a white genocide conspiracy theory" in it? Or is it an attempt to read into a fiction book something which is then linked' to a "current conspiracy theory"? Ergo, it is not properly used. Collect (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• It should not be claimed that a novel depicts a conspiracy theory that developed long after it was written, and using a wikilink (even a piped one) to imply that connection is misleading. It might be fair to say it describes a "genocide which targets whites" as a more generic handling, but that would have to come from sources that interpret it as such. On basic reading, it sees more like its just referring to birth rates. This seems like a case where the article title includes "conspiracy theory" as part of it both limits the coverage and treads the POV/NPOV line. If the article were more simply "white genocide", it would cover more broadly and chronologically, and so this connection might not be such a stretch. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory started in 1916, see White genocide conspiracy theory#Origins and development. EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Any sources that say the author of Turner Diaries read the 1916 or 1925 books, or at all was aware of their content? -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

William Luther Pierce#Early political activities says he was the editor of the American Nazi Party's journal and spoke at the delegate's convention at the first National Socialist World Congress, so do you really doubt he would be familiar with the American book that Hitler called his Bible? EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Some scholars note even older precursors, but the term "genocide" didn't exist in 1916, and Grant's version doesn't really posit a conspiracy - it posits a more-or-less voluntary "race suicide". I'm all for citing Grant and others as important influences, but this source doesn't say that WGCT began with Grant in 1916, and even if it did, we would still need to do better than simply citing a single journalist to make that claim in wiki-voice. I'm puzzled as to why you aren't satisfied with being a little more conservative here - if you just dialed it back a little ("David Lane coined the term but here are several important precursors to the theory") it would be a really good contribution to the article. Nblund ^talk 20:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that essentially what the WGCT article says now? The broader policy question is whether an educated person without specialist knowledge would consider "destroy the racial basis of our existence," and, "There will be no White men," as within the definition of white genocide even if written before the term was coined. Editors here are saying they would not, without providing any reasons that they might not. I'm baffled, and I've stopped editing the Diaries' article until we can figure this out. EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ellen, the problem here is that you are the one making the connections here. Yes, your connections are logical, but they are still originating from you. That’s what isn’t allowed. Instead, you have to report on the connections that others (sources external to Wikipedia) have made. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The WP:PRIMARY policy asks whether any educated person without specialist knowledge would make the connection. The very excellent source Nblund found says the term "white genocide" appeared in a 1972 issue of White Power, "the official newspaper of the National Socialist White People’s Party," which was six years before Pierce wrote The Turner Diaries and while he was a leader in that very organization. So the idea that the book predates the term is wrong. Is there any reason to think that any educated person would not make the logical connection? EllenCT (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet the term "white genocide" doesn't appear anywhere in The Turner Diaries, and there are no reliable sources that explicitly say that the Turner Diaries represent an instance of WGCT. You might not be satisfied with that explanation, but no one has to satisfy you, and at some point you probably have to accept what multiple editors are telling you. Nblund ^talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ellen: A white genocide theory and the "white genocide conspiracy" are two related but different things. An educated person should know that.--TMCk (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm convinced I'm right, but on reflection, I can't think of any reason that the encyclopedia would be any better if The Turner Diaries was described as presenting a WGCT instead of just shaping their later development, so never mind, I don't care anymore. EllenCT (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas, that doesn't solve our problem. You have shown us that you are either unable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policies. Just because you give up on one page because you don't think your original research improves the page, there will no doubt be other pages where you aren't willing to give up. The fact that you remain convinced that you are right no matter how many people tell you that you are wrong and no matter how carefully we explain the policies you violate is a problem. Your practice of opening discussions on multiple pages hoping that you will get the answer you want is a problem. My advice is to completely drop the stick. Just unwatch all pages related to race or white nationalism in any way. Those pages have a lot of good editors working on them, and your efforts are not helping. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

...and, as usual, every fucking detail turns into a big fight and a wall of text, all of which could be avoided by this simple thought: "Gosh, everyone is against this. Should I go along with the consensus, or should I argue on and on, despite the fact that in every previous case where I argued on and on I failed to get my way? What to do? What to do?"

Related: The Most Important Thing Possible, Megalomaniacal point of view

I can't take this any longer. I will not be reading any further comments on this and I am unsubscribing from all related pages. I wish the rest of you the best of luck in dealing with this dumpster fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be very obvious here: If we have a conspiracy theory which we have a well-sourced date period where it began to be propagated, and we have a book that was published well before (decades) this conspiracy theory took hold, there is no way we can say the book promotes that theory. If and only if we have secondary RS sources that state the book shares several of the principles of the theory, then we can state, with appropriate attribution, that the book was seen to espouse some of the points that are now part of this theory. But that requires the sources; it is original research for an editor to make the leap of logic on a contentious topic, even if it seems obvious that the book is similar to the conspiracy theory. As soon as you get into contentious areas like a conspiracy theory you better have sources to back up all claims like that. Core principle of NOR. --Masem (t) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OR question at The Great Replacement

Looking for some outside input on a discussion that partially concerns WP:OR issues on The Great Replacement. The discussion concerns whether or not we suggest that there are distinct conspiracy and non-conspiracy related versions of the theory.

Link to discussion

Nblund ^talk 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Venom

Regarding Venom (2018 film), Adamstom.97 is restoring content to the lead section that is not supported by sources in the article body. He is trying to restore content that critics disliked the film "for its script and inconsistent tone" even though the "Critical reception" section has nothing indicating this overall conclusion. It appears that he supports this conclusion based on synthesizing individual critics to "reach or imply a conclusion" these were the overall trends. Furthermore, he is also trying to restore content that it was "an unexpected box office success" despite the "Box office" section not saying anything about this. It grossed more than tracking predicted and broke records, but there's no indication of how much it was expected or not. Can other editors please review this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Israeli permits

At Israeli permit system in the West Bank an editor has argued that it is OR to use the following source which compares a specific permit requirement to the pass laws of South Africa under apartheid. as it does not refer explicitly to an overarching regime or system. The source is

• Pieterse, Jan (1984). "State Terrorism on a Global Scale: The Role of Israel". Crime and Social Justice. 21–22 (4): 65. JSTOR 29766230. The parallels extend to the finer print as well, as with South Africa's pass laws, and Israel's special IDs for Arabs (stamped with a "B") and requirements for travel passes in the occupied territories.

Does the source need to refer to the overarching regime or can we use a source comparing a specific permit requirement? The user has argued that other sources define the regime itself as beginning in 1993, and yes one source does this, another however says it began in 1967. Is the argument that it is SYNTH to use a source that refers to a specific permit but the overarching regime valid? nableezy - 16:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The diff in question is this, and this was being used to source: "The regime itself has been likened to the South African pass system under apartheid" - a stmt on the regime/system, not the particular travel pass in the oPT. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thats a bit dishonest. The diff in question shows you removing the sentence The Israeli permit or pass system for Palestinians was likened very early to that devised in South Africa under Apartheid. Your arguments on the talk page have also been wider than that one sentence. You have argued that a source that discusses one permit may not be used if it does not discuss the regime (eg here). I dont know why you wont just own that argument here if it is the one you think is true. Ive offered to rephrase, you rejected the source as a whole on the basis of not including the word "system" or "regime". nableezy - 16:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack - I quoted what was being used in the lede, I indeed did not quote the similar sentence in the body (with a similar issue - referring to a system Pieterse does not refer to). Also please cease misrepresenting my talk page arguments - I said using Pieterse to refer to a "regime" or "system" (which Pieterse does not use) would be SYNTH and OR (SYNTH being a subset of OR). I did not "reject the source as a whole" - though using a source which doesn't mention the subject of the article does raise questions (which I did not raise - as it is irrelevant at this point). Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry what did I misrepresent? What you wrote in the diff I linked to is

Without Pieterse referring to a regime, system, or any other clearly synonymous word - Wikipedia editors making a guess regarding Pieterse's intentions based on a feature Pieterse mentions being present in other sources (written at a different time) that do discuss a "system" or "regime" - is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

You said, explicitly, if the source does not refer to the system as a whole then including it is SYNTH. I am here asking if that is a valid argument of if we may use the source when it refers to a specific permit requirement. Here you wrote that because it is referring to a specific permit it may not be used in the article on the overarching regime (Absent the source referring to a permit regime or system - then yes - tying it to our article is WP:OR). What exactly am I misrepresenting? If you dont feel your comments on an obscure talk page should be used in a wider setting maybe dont make those comments? nableezy - 16:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I said "Without Pieterse referring to a regime, system, or any other clearly synonymous word - Wikipedia editors making a guess regarding Pieterse's intentions based on a feature Pieterse mentions being present in other sources (written at a different time) that do discuss a "system" or "regime" - is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR" - and I stand behind that stmt. I most certainly did not "You said, explicitly, if the source does not refer to the system as a whole then including it is SYNTH". In any case, I'll let un-involved editors weigh in - this being a rather clear-cut case of WP:OR (using a source that doesn't mention "regime" or "system" to make a stmt on "the regime"). Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Really? Absent the source referring to a permit regime or system - then yes - tying it to our article is WP:OR. nableezy - 16:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the permits discussed in the source evolved into the "permit system" that is the subject of the article? Or is that not clear even though both the source and the article refer to the permit system being utilized in Israeli-occupied West Bank? I'm not sure how much this extends into OR... but definitely has verifiability issues, which can be resolved by giving the sentences attributed to this source more context. Instead of The regime itself has been likened to the South African pass system under apartheid maybe In the 1980s, special identification for Arabs and passes required for travel—earlier implementations of the modern Israeli permit system—were compared to pass laws in South Africa during apartheid. Sidenote... the source used pass laws, so why was the link for the article Pass laws purposefully altered to "pass system"? Rhinopias (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

With the article under 1RR I dont think I can correct that right this second, but when I can I will. nableezy - 15:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"-earlier implementations of the modern Israeli permit system-" would be OR - as the source doesn't say this. The permit system is much wider than just travel passes (encompassing a wide variety of different permits - building, work, travel, etc.). Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes its wider, this source is discussing one part of it. nableezy - 16:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, which is why I questioned that exact part of my example prior to giving it. If there really is no other source that says the "Israeli permit system started as special identification for Arabs and passes required for travel in _decade_", just give necessary context to the source in question without tying it to anything else. But I find it hard to believe sources don't discuss the history of the system, and it wouldn't be synthesis to just demonstrate that these components did precede the more complex system. Either way, this would still be fine... In the 1980s, special identification for Arabs and passes required for travel were compared to pass laws in South Africa during apartheid. Just make sure this sentence is separated from others in a way that doesn't tie the source's comparison to the subject as a whole. Rhinopias (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Anecdote as original research

I'm writing this in reference to The double thank-you of capitalism page, which includes several explanations in the form of narrative anecdotes, particularly under the "trade creates mutual wealth" section and the discussion of the win-win scenario; as they mostly lack a source, I was wondering whether or not they count as original synthesis/research? Darthkayak (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If it can't be found in any previous publication, then it was original research by the user who added it. The easiest way to find out is to ask. @Kazvorpal: where is this information from? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of dbase in music articles

Is this original research:

article:

See You Again

content:

As of May 1, 2019, [the video] has received over 4 billion views and 23.7 million likes, making it the site's third most viewed and second most liked video. It is one of 163 videos to exceed one billion views, 34 videos to exceed two billion views, seven videos to exceed three billion views and three videos to exceed four billion views.

References

Please comment here:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dbase.tube

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Citing film footage or photos

Can footage in a documentary film or a still photograph alone (ie, without a caption) be used to support a point? I'm referring to a situation at Sympathy for the Devil where user:Kenotoo is citing a filmed performance (included in the documentary One Plus One) and a photo to support specific contributions on the released recording. As I understand it, this is original research – an editor watches a film, sees a musician playing a certain percussion instrument, and takes their understanding of a visual image to state something as fact.

I have read it somewhere on Wikipedia (I'm not trying to be vague) that including personal interpretation of a photograph constitutes original research. In the case of individual musical contributions in a song article, I can see that documentary footage would be a useful guide in deciding which sources to use if there's some disagreement across the sources. But we'd still need a reliable source to explicitly state that Musician 1 played Instrument C on the recording, rather allowing our eyes (or ears) to determine the point. If someone could advise on this, I'd be grateful. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Too bad that what is noted here isn't all true on what I did and didn't cite or say. I simply noted to him (to get him to stop harassing me and repeatedly taking down my work) - when he asked me, where I got my info that Brian Jones played the bongos on the song Sympathy for the Devil, and his claiming I wasn't using citations - when I did for all of the work he questioned (he's the one that wasn't citing anything), so to get him off my back, I noted to him (only) that the photo of the Stones in the studio when recording the song Sympathy for the Devil for the movie One Plus One and shown on the movie's cover (DVD and Tape box cover), showed Jones playing drums . The photo is on the Wiki page in question for the song, that's why I told him that so he could see it for himself. However, I didn't cite that photo as source on the page edit, I cited the movie, where the photo comes from. I did also check with you guys first about this before I used such citations (since I'm a new editor here and that seems to be a crime to him). There are so many incorrect credits on the Stones many different pages on Wiki and I'm only trying to correct them. The Stones management came to me and hired me years ago to work on their official web site when it was being rebuilt because they knew of me and that my work is credible. What he is claiming about me is a falsehood. Plus the movie in question, at least the part of it that is about the Stones, is 100% filmed in the studio and it shows 5 days of them recording and working on this song. Kenotoo (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a forum for discussing whether sources are reliable and can be used in Wikipedia's articles, not for slugging out any differences that might lead to a thread being started here. I didn't mean to imply that you were citing the cover photo as a source in the article – the diff links I added provide the context for each one – although I do make a connection between interpretation of film footage and photographs because of the guideline or policy I've read on photos in the past. I only mentioned you by name, incidentally, to ensure you'd be able to see the responses that other editors give; raising the matter here is not intended to be an accusation, just as this noticeboard is not a place where editors pass judgment on that side of the matter.

So, if we could keep this thread on-topic, that would be great – otherwise, it's hardly a discussion that others will want to join. To repeat, I'd appreciate some input from NOR/N regulars, because they're most likely well versed in what is and what is not original research. JG66 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia editor's observations on film footage, on recorded music, and on photographs is original research. At most, an editor can make an observation, something that they see as being obvious, and then seek out written and reliable sources to confirm this. It may seem counterproductive but simple observation is unreliable. An editor may see one thing, while a second editor sees something else entirely. Films, even documentaries, do not always show things accurately, because of editing and juxtaposition. The article for the film Sympathy for the Devil (film) states that what is being shown on screen are rehearsals and the "recording and re-recording various parts to 'Sympathy for the Devil'". From the film alone, it is impossible for the viewer to tell what version of the song will be the final take for the actual released version. Brian Jones during this period is famously unreliable -- we have no idea if his contributions are included in the final version of the song simply by watching the movie. That's why we need reliable sources. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. freshacconci (✉) 14:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017‎

Outside input requested on: diff. Specifically -

1. with signs like Poland was not the aggressor, it was a victim", "Poland should receive compensaton, not give it", “Treat anti-Polonism like antisemitism” and 'Stop slandering Poland in the media' - does not appear in the cited reference.
2. The Polish American Congress, the biggest Polish-American organization - does not appear in the cited source (which is PAC itself, an organization with some "issues" - e.g. [1], [2]).
3. "According to the accounts of activists in a counterprotest, who described the anti-bill protesters as "Polish nationalists", some of the protesters carried antisemitic signs such as referencing the Holocaust Industry or the Jewish greed stereotype, and some engaged in Holocaust denial rhetoric." - the cited sources - [3][4][5][6]:
   1. do not use "Jewish greed".
   2. do not attribute "Holocaust industry" to the "accounts of activists in a counterprotest".
   3. "who described the anti-bill protesters as "Polish nationalists"" - not attributed in the cited sources (nor Deutsche Welle here) tocounter-protesters - the cited sources simply describe the protesters as "Polish nationalists" and do not say anywhere that counter-protesters described them as such.

Discussion at - Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#Arbitrary Break. Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Still this discussion?

1. While they do appear in the photos, we ought to rely on the author's written account first. The image can be referenced directly, but in this case the caption would precede our interpretation of the image, unless the caption digresses to the absurd. Here the written account and the text diverge, as do the caption and the text.
2. Unless supported by sources, the statement is WP:OR. Note WP:CALC may apply, depending on the case.
3. Three out of the four sources use the terms "nationalist" and/or "antisemitism" themselves (Haaretz being the exception). All refer to a third source - who I'm not sure can be deemed an "activist", as the text does - but insofar as they are convinced enough by that source that they use these terms in their own voice, so should we.
   1. Go with the sources.
   2. See #3.
   3. See #3.1.

François Robere (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2019 Greek legislative election

I think user Impru20 is conducting original research. He keeps changing the data from polls sources without consensus, using his own math formula. Shouldn't the numbers of the citations correspond to the ones in the table? Can anyone try to supplant the original pollsters research? I tried to correct the numbers, but he reverted, what should I do? You can see the discussion here A I am waiting for a response. Thank you! Gomoloko (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC for Appeal to nature

• Appeal to nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Appeal_to_nature#RfC_for_Singer-referenced_content is considering whether it is original research to include an example into the article with a reference that does not mention "appeal to nature". --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A year ago I stated and published 3 Conjectures about normality of Pi digits and other numbers

Conjecture1 π is not normal to any base b > 1, but it is normal to some order s that imply that ∃S ∈N, such that π is normal for ∀s ≤ S and not normal for ∀s> S

Conjecture2 π is not normal to all orders that are greater or equal 19 ∀s> 18 or S =18

Conjecture3 Conjectures 1 and 2 are correct to a wide class of fundamental constants and possibly can be extended to all algebraic numbers. Michael Fundator Application of Multidimensional Time Model for Probability Cumulative Function to Experimental and Statistical Investigations into Statistical Randomness and Normality of Pi Sqrt2 Etc JSM Proceedings 2017

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.120.98 (talk • contribs) - 23:44, May 16, 2019‎

And this belongs here -- why? --Calton | Talk 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hydration_system article completey not sourced

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hydration_system

This both reads like original research and has zero references, citations, or even additional resources from external sources. It was last updated a month ago. But was flagged in 2009 for readability.

I have added a couple of references. It's hard to find coverage aside from commercial advertisements for individual systems, of which there are tons. I also removed the "confusing" tag as it was never explained what was supposed to be confusing. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:47.152.134.105 adding original research to Richard Lee I

The IP User:47.152.134.105 has repeatedly added WP:OR to Richard Lee I. They claim to have carried out their own research in primary records and that their solution, for which they cite a self-published web page, provides the correct parentage for this man while the accepted published parentage, which has appeared in a scholarly journal, is inaccurate, and that she needs to get the information out. I have warned the editor about OR, 3RR, SOAPBOX and BRD, but the content keeps returning and I am up against 3RR myself. Agricolae (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Article semi-protected by Orangemike. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

List of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships

The entire list of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships seems to be original synthesis:

• The underlying premise of the list seems to be synthesis because it seeks to create a list of NCAA schools combining their NCAA championships and non-NCAA championships and labels them as "Division I national championships" but this is fundamentally flawed because NCAA Division I is inherently an NCAA division.
  • Furthermore, the selection of which non-NCAA championships are included seems rather arbitrary.
  • Similarly, the selection of which non-NCAA sports are included seems rather arbitrary. For example, rowing is included, but sailing is not.
• The "Other team titles" column is completely uncited. There are notes attached, but all of the notes are uncited. The only "citation" is to the "Table of sports" which is simply an uncited table at the bottom of this same Wikipedia article.
  • There is an entire prose section entitled "'Other Team Titles' column" that lays out which sports are or are not included and decides which championships are or are not included. This section has very few citations.
• The "Table of sports" is completely uncited.

(This should not be confused with the list of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships, which has a much more conventional list of NCAA championships with citations.) OCNative (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the list of championships, but conflating it with NCAA championships/Division I seems unnecessarily complex/WP:ORish/misleading. I would recommend proposing a merge with list of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships and put it under a new heading of "other championships of current D1 schools". Buffs (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on List of most visited museums

There is a robust discussion happening about whether listing museums that are not in existing lists of most-attended museums constitutes original research. Your input is welcome. Qono (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Original research on TELECHROME page

QUESTION 1. Here is a paragraph from the Wikipedia page on Telechrome (an early color picture tube)...

   Baird also described a system using the ridged tube that eliminated the need for glasses. In this case,     the tube was rotated so the peaks ran vertically instead of horizontally and the red gun was removed. The guns formerly used for green and blue were now used for left and right images.[6] The basic concept is identical to the lenticular printing system used in magazines and other printed materials to produce 3D images.[7] However, there is no evidence such a system was ever trialled.

The above paragraph fits Wikipedia's definition of original research. The alleged method for autostereography was the use of a serrated target in the tube as a lenticular lens. However, the target that the patent describes *isn't* lenticular. Instead, the target has a *serrated* cross section.

In proof of his fringe hypothesis, the author cited secondary-source articles in Wireless World and Popular Mechanics. These articles mention Telechrome, but not Telechrome autostereography, and not the use of lenticular means. A drawing in the patent shows the serrated target. But the use of this target is to impart two different color images to *both* eyes of the viewer. The author insists that upon rotation, these same serrations would then provide a *different* image to each eye. If both eyes could see the same image, of course the effect couldn't work!

The serrations run horizontally across the target. In the patent, there is no mention of rotating the tube as in the hypothesis of the article author. Further, the patent doesn't claim that Telechrome has an autostereographic capability. There is also no mention of how serrated targets can become lenticular (curved top) lenses. Nor is there a statement about how one can eliminate the red electron gun and rotate the tube to achieve autostereographic pictures.

I decided to leave the author's speculation about lenticular, autostereographic 3D effects. I added a paragraph that explained that Telechrome autostereography is speculation. I then explained discrepancies in this fringe idea. I cited various sources, including one that showed the cross section of a lenticular lens. My citation of Ray Herbert's personal memories (1996) brought forth an eye-witness account. According to Herbert's book, Telechrome was capable of 3D, but *only* when viewers wore anaglyphic glasses. Russell Burns' book, to which I referred, agrees. So does a book by the inventor's son. (I cite this last book on another page: http://www.earlytelevision.org/pdf/telechrome_not_lenticular_color_12-27-2016.pdf) Making matters more interesting, no one knows if the inventor J.L. Baird ever built a tube with the serrated target. No museum has such a tube.

At the end of September 2018, I visited the Telechrome page. I discovered that another author had deleted my material about the flaws in the alleged "lenticular Telechrome" hypothesis. My references are also missing. (This author erased several of my other edits, too.) The reason that he gave for deleting the "lenticular Telechrome" critique is that the Popular Mechanics (PM) reference supports it. Rereading the PM article (and the Wireless World material, too), I find no such support. The PM article does mention "3D without glasses." But there is no description of the process, whether by Telechrome or mechanical television means. There are no specifics, such as "rotate the tube, lop off one electron gun, and behold!"

Inventor J.L. Baird did test an autostereographic television method. (Various histories such as Burns, Herbert, Abramson, and M. Baird mention this method.) Unfortunately, this method required a non-Telechrome cathode ray tube and a spinning disc. There was no use of a lenticular, or even a serrated target. This non-Telechrome method could well be the one that Popular Mechanics referred to. Since the PM article is so vague, the citation offers no support for the author's assertions about Telechrome autostereography.

QUESTION 2. Inventor Baird had claimed that his two-color system would be adaptable to the 405-line British TV service. The service was then already on air with monochrome pictures. Some time ago, I added a table to the TELECHROME article. This table shows two possible interpretations of Baird's ideas for commercializing his two-color television system. I labeled my table as speculation. Should I remove this table from the article? ColorWheel (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User:CorbieVreccan and User:Indigenous girl adding WP:OR to Order of the Arrow

I would appreciate a neutral set of eyes to check out several claims in Order of the Arrow in the first paragraph of the body. In it, these two users are attempting to interject several political grievances with the group via WP:OR and WP:SYN

• "...Wimachtendienk, a word he stated meant "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects." By adding "stated" these editors are unnecessarily introducing doubt. It is one example where subtle changes are not producing the information contained in the reliable sources.
• "“Wimachtendienk” is a word constructed by the Moravians..." is not supported by the references The reference states “Wimachtendienk” is a word used by the Moravians..." This particular quote was intentionally omitted and rephrased intentionally in order to advance a political point of view: that the missionaries made up a word and are culturally appropriating an Indigenous People's language
• No source to back up the claim "it's worth noting" fixed as it doesn't seem to be contentious
• "Wimachtendienk is not contained in any current online dictionary of the Lenape People"
  1. There is only one online dictionary of which anyone is aware, but the phrase implies there are others.
  2. I contend that a word's absence in a dictionary (online, "official", or otherwise) does not prove it doesn't exist.
  3. Take into account that the people putting this online dictionary admit the dictionary is incomplete.
  4. The word IS contained in a published Lenape-English dictionary of the timeframe in question
  5. Whether the "word is currently contained somewhere online now" is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia.
• "Translations of words and phrases related to "brother" This is completely unnecessary. While brother and brotherhood are related terms in English, that doesn't mean the word is related in the Lenape language

Remedy desired: remove/rephrase the intentionally misleading words added to advance a political agenda. Buffs (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - This has all been discussed extensively on article talk: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Wimachtendienk. Per usual, Buffs likes to drag these things to other boards and try to wear people down rehashing them. He has misrepresented the sources and the prior discussions. I strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in this go read what's already been said, sourced, and documented, to spare us having to repeat ourselves here. He's just trying to wear people out.

Though I will add, it's pretty funny he's asking us to cite text he put in: "It's worth noting". He put in that text and changed the name of the cite from "LanguageNote" to "BetterNote". :) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the last one; I was mistaken who added it. The reason I brought it here is that there are 2 editors with highly correlated edits who continue to alter it to suit their agenda. All I'm looking for here is a 3rd party opinion. If consensus isn't with me, so be it. The demeaning remarks aren't needed. Buffs (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If I've misrepresented ANY source, feel free to point it out. I provided links for EVERY claim I've made and they back up what I'm saying and falls in line with Wikipedia policies. All you have is unfounded speculation you're using to push a political agenda against what you feel is cultural appropriation. Buffs (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The Lenape Talking Dictionary project has been around since 2002. They chose not to recognize a number of words utilized by the Moravians (they also corrected the grammar, pronunciation and spelling). The dictionary is incomplete because new words are always being created such as pënaelìntàmahikàn which is the word for computer and is obviously not found in any of the Moravian historical documents). I don't believe for a minute that the Moravians were appropriating. They were trying to assimilate and convert the Lenape. They did so without violence and were respectful in many ways including the fact that they learned the language and created dictionaries and grammar books so that in-coming missionaries would be able to communicate in the language. It is simply important to note in some manner, even if it is a foot note, that the words utilized by OA and BSA are not recognized by the actual living Lenape people. They are historical words at best. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have no problem noting that the term is historical (or, probably more appropriate, "archaic") if that's what was written in reliable sources.

My ONLY issue with that is that what you've presented here is WP:OR/WP:SYN or maybe even just speculation/assumptions. I have no third-party reliable sources to back that up. With that restriction in place, it shouldn't be in WP.

If the Lenape people wrote a word for "brotherhood" and put it in their translation dictionary and it wasn't the same, based on your assessment listed above, I think it would be appropriate to put in "Archaic. Wimachtendienk". I honestly think you and I are close on this. Buffs (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

How about this...? Buffs (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The word is not "archaic". It's simply not Lenape. The founder of your group misrepresented the Lenape in so many ways, and this is one of them. Your edits have been dedicated to hiding and minimizing that. Your edit is in no way accurate, even by the BSA sources. You have over-sourced the article to OA sources right up until one of them also sourced that the Moravians cobbled it together, and now that's a source you want to remove, and in this discussion you're pretending it doesn't exist. Your history of trying to remove critical sources from the article makes your "only concern" statement not credible; it simply doesn't back up your history of editing on this article, Buffs. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with CorbieV. TowtoeTwo (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — TowtoeTwo (talk • contribs) has made no other edits prior to this response here

1. This is not "my group". I've never even been in Boy Scouts. I've mentioned this to you repeatedly and you keep intentionally mischaracterizing me.
2. I've not hidden anything. I'm not "minimizing" anything. I'm only looking to provide here what is present in reliable sources
3. "It's simply not Lenape..." Got a WP:RS to back up that claim? Until then, it's WP:OR/WP:SYN
4. "You have over-sourced the article to OA sources..." As I've pointed out (see talk page), I've added several non-BSA sources (at least 3)
5. "now that's a source you want to remove, and in this discussion you're pretending it doesn't exist" Please look at the diff above. I did NOT remove it nor am I advocating for its removal. I'm not pretending it doesn't exist...in fact, I'm QUOTING it! I AM advocating that we remove your POV-pushing/WP:OR/WP:SYN and stick to what the source actually says (using the quote which states "used" vs your editorializing "constructed"/"cobbled")

Please stop mischaracterizing me/my edits (see Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility 2e) Buffs (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Anyone else's opinion would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this OR or not?

Input requested for: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Satellite_map_images_with_missing_or_unclear_data

There have been repeated reports that this article is mostly OR over many years on the talk page, and nothing has ever been done, seemingly no-one cared enough to sort it out - until now.

To prevent violation of 3RR, I request that someone review the recent changes and advise.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.230.217 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• WP:OR was the basis for a very spirited AFD of that article in 2007, just adding that link for background. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• I think the part that the editor above is referring to is the Examples tables, which seemed to have been collected by editors looking at online maps (Google, Bing, Live) and identifying sections as "blurred" (some called them "censored"). A lot of editors over the years have stated that was original research; a lot of editors over the years vehemently disagreed, stating the online map was the source. (I've just been watching the page flip back and forth because I think both sides have a point.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• The above IP who is asking this question, has been repeatedly blanking this article calling it OR (sometimes using different IPs). They have been reverted every time by other editors; I count 7 times in the last 4 weeks now. This article is really a list article, and hence my proposal on the Talk Page to have it renamed as such, and is simply a collection (but not complete) of maps with errors. I don't think this is clear OR as long as the maps are properly referenced. However, I do see such lists appear at AfD from time to time as OR concerns (e.g. where the items in the list are not some a single, or even tightly defined source), and in my experience, they usually get through AfD. This article last appeared at AfD in July 2016, and the result was a unanimous keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite map images with missing or unclear data). Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• The article was never blanked. The unsourced table was removed. The article discusses a notable subject (censorship/obfuscation of satellite imagery), which is why I have not started an AfD. The article can be saved, but as long as the table exists without proper sources, there is no hope. Why would editors start to follow the rules now if they have never been followed before for so long? 82.19.230.217 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• You are not directing anybody on this post to a table; your only guide is that: repeated reports that this article is mostly OR over many years. Your only statement on the Talk PAge of the article is to oppose a renaming of the article with the rationale that As the entire list is original research, this argument is moot. The table that you refer to is virtually the entire article (see [7]).

You have not attempted any engagement on the Talk Page over your concerns. You have not even helped editors on this OR notice board understand the history of the AfDs on this article around OR (because it does not support your views). That is not collaborative or consensus building.

Having only come to it just now, I have found three external articles that reference this article, and three books that make reference to it. This is a really interesting article, and it is clear that readers outside of WP find it interesting. The length of the Talk Page shows that considerable time and effort has gone into it. You need to engage with the editors on this article on the Talk Page and stop making assertions/edits that two AfDs, and most other editors, have disagreed with, without discussion. Britishfinance (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• The prior AfD's should not influence outside commentators ability to understand what is original research, the content of the article speaks for itself. I posted this question in a neutral tone to let others draw their own conclusions. I am not posting an AfD, because I do not support that, and which is why questions about rehashing prior AfD are not really relevant. However, if you would like me to address the AfDs, I will:

• The most recent AfD does not cover OR at all, it was a discussion about whether content that is constantly changing should stay up, and never got enough visibility to attract any useful discussion.
• The original AfD was based on OR and unfortunately does include a summary by the closing admin to explain. Strength of argument would seem to weigh in favour of deletion, but it reads that it was closed like a vote.

• Having external articles link to a WP article does not make it a better article - you are coming at this from the wrong direction. Being externally linked puts more onus on the editors to make sure that it is properly sourced and verifiable. Time and effort spent editing can never be a substitute for proper sourcing.82.19.230.217 (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• See my comments below on this. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Only just also realized that the above IP editor had not expressed their OR concerns about the article on the article's Talk Page, so that none of the editors who have contributed to the article (and who have been reverting the IP editor's repeated blanking of the article), have been able to express a view. Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• The opinions that the removal of the table were based on have been expressed time and again on the talk page and have been ignored for over 10 years. If original research is not a problem in this article, then why not remove the tag? Re-raising the same points again would be a waste of time. I was bold. Those using BRD to revert did not do so correctly. 82.19.230.217 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the tag as the person on the Talk Page who put it there in 2017 didn't really make any substantive argument, and certainly nothing that has not been considered at past AfDs, and was just repeating The entire point of this is that it's original research. Listing individual google maps that have been blanked-out/blurred for security/other reasons is not a clear OR; it is just as likely to be an incomplete list (a view was broadly taken at two AfDs). Britishfinance (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• That was a rhetorical question. Listing things does not constitute OR - drawing conclusions from primary sources and then listing them does. Per Wikipedia's rules, unsourced information is to be removed, and it is the responsibility of those adding or restoring information to ensure proper sourcing. Is 10+ years not enough time to collect proper sources? If you are going to make a change like this, then please explain how the contents of the table does not constitute original research, otherwise, please put it back, or remove the table.82.19.230.217 (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• See my comments below on this. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

You are mixing OR with Referencing. It is not a clear case of OR (as the two past AfDs on this article have confirmed), to create a partial list of items that are reasonably defined (but not specifically defined). Here is List of cult films, which has been to AfD three times under the same concerns and keeps getting passed; I could provide many other such lists from AfD. In addition, this table that you keep blanking, and which is +90% of the article, does contain secondary references; but where it is unreferenced, the table gives a direct link to the Google map in question which is blurred out. Such a link is a PRIMARY reference, but as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, is not a material issue as the information is not manipulated and is from a high-quality source. The more I look at this case, the more I realise why the 2016 AfD passed on all keeps. This is a very interesting article (clearly given that it is mentioned in books and magazine articles), and would be well worth updating. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Firstly, I would ask that you stop referencing 2 AfD's - As I have previously said, the most recent one had nothing to do with OR. The one from over 10 years ago was around OR, but was closed without a summary and read like a vote. That said, I am also not proposing an AfD at all here.
• Secondly, I do not believe that I am confusing anything. The cult film list is full of properly referenced reliable secondary sources. The list in this article has none. Adding a reference to support OR is not relevant, for self explanatory reasons.

Let me give you 2 hypothetical examples, and I will let you draw your own conclusions:

• A writer working at a reliable source, ie CNN, writes an article detailing how satellite imagery providers appear to blur imagery, they cite sources, they go to the providers for comment, and they are subject to proper editorial oversight before publication. A Wikipedia editor notices that article, checks the sources used, and creates a table on this article that references the article as a reliable secondary source, and links to the locations on Google Maps as a direct supporting reference from a primary source.
• A Wikipedia editor is looking at Google Maps and notices something that they consider to be blurred out. They do not look for or do not find reliable secondary sources that support their analysis, but they create a table on this article with a link to the area on Google Maps anyway.
  

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.230.232 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note, this editor uses a dynamic IP address but doesn't always sign their posts; however, it is the same editor.

• Sorry, but I don't find it constructive to interact further with you on this. The above are not WP:PAG arguments, and you ignore the PAG arguments made to you. You dismiss other facts that go against you (e.g. wanting to dismiss/ignore the past AfDs (and DRV), wanting to delete a table that is +90% of the article but representing that you are not deleting the article, not mentioning that several editors have now reverted your 7 deletions on the article etc.). I don't think you will find this approach productive for you on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be WP:OR, IMHO. While there might not be clear evidence as to WHY they are blurred or who requested such actions, the fact that they are obfuscated (intentionally or unintentionally) is not contentious nor WP:OR. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this original research or not?

I am not sure if this is an original research or not in the context of 5G radiation fear please help

RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government, aired programming linking 5G to harmful health effects without scientific support. Several RT stories have warned of health impacts such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease" and have spread to hundreds of blogs and websites.

Sources

The first three sources are not related to 5G topic or anything they are only about RT being propaganda. the only source that is about the subject is the fourth source (the NYT) and the NYT says something like this it has been described as "Russian propaganda outlet..." The NYT doesnt put this "Russian propaganda outlet..." in their voice, instead they make it as a quote. Is "a propaganda outlet for the Russian government" an original research?--SharabSalam (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, do you mind if we close this thread and resolve this matter with an RfC instead? There are some editors who have been removing this content on other grounds such as the reliability of the Washington Post source, so I think it makes the most sense to use an RfC to address all of the objections together. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Ahrtoodeetoo this thread is just because I can't tell whether it is an original research or not. I am confused so I asked here. That's it. The policy of WP:OR doesnt seem to clarify this issue.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand and it’s a reasonable question. Do you mind if I run an RfC concurrently? R2 (bleep) 22:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I have no problem. You can run a RfC. It seems reasonable. Many editors have removed that text. There is even an editor who created his account in 2013 and made his first edits by removing the text you added. However, I have one question, why are insisting in putting the word "propaganda outlet" instead of "media outlet funded by the Russian government"? The last one seems fine. You can also say: it has been described as "Russian propaganda outlet" instead of adding a lot of sources to make "propaganda outlet" in wikivoice.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I have never made any report to this notice page but it seems dead. There is almost no one here replying. There are older reports but no one has replied. This place looks dead.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Not original research. The prohibition of improper synthesis reads: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The sentence at issue does not imply anything that isn't stated explicitly by any of the sources. It says RT is a propaganda outlet, a conclusion stated explicitly by the WaPo, BBC, and New Yorker sources (and many others), and it says that RT aired certain programming etc etc. The fact that these were combined into a single sentence with an appositive phrase doesn't turn it into synth. The same content could be readily phrased in two separate sentences and it would convey the same information. R2 (bleep) 17:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's a link to one of those articles, "‘A global catastrophe’: Radiation activist warns that 5G networks are ‘massive health experiment’" (RT, 8 Feb. 2009). While it mentions the health claims, it says the claims have not been proved. Compare with an article in Reuters, "Switzerland to monitor potential health risks posed by 5G networks" (17 April 2009) which makes no comment on the validity of the claims. Similarly, an article in the German state-run DW News, "5G networks: Are they dangerous to our health?" says the science is unsettled. Similar articles appeared in Euronews, "What are the health risks associated with a 5G network?" (26 March 2019), Fortune, "Health Concerns May Slow Rollout of Super-Fast 5G Mobile Networks, Analyst Warns" (22 May 2019) and many other reputable sources, including Wired Canada's leading newspapers the Star and Globe and Mail, the LA Times, and CBS News. While it may be that RT should have emphatically stated that 5G was safe, its reporting is no different from that in non-propaganda news. TFD (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD, the New York Times source says that RT's alarmist coverage began in 2018 and intensified in 2019, so a 2009 RT article isn't really relevant. In any case, that's not the point of this discussion. SharabSalam wants to know whether the language/use of sources is improper synthesis. R2 (bleep) 18:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice that although many of the articles are more recent. The fact remains that RI reporting is no different from other sources in this subject. In any case, it is implicit OR. Compare with the following statement: RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government, claimed without providing evidence that smoking is harmful to health. It implies that since the source publishes false information, its statemnt about smoking must also be false. TFD (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If the sentence used source A to state that RT is Russian propaganda, and source B to state that it spewed a bunch of bullshit, and combined them into one sentence to make a point, then yes, that would be synthesis. And that appears to be what the sentence is doing, but it's not. Actually, in this case, source B could be used alone for the entire sentence - the Nytimes article makes the entire argument in one breath. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It is an ad hominem argument. The source is bad so whatever they report is necessarily wrong. In that case, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies which requires intext citation and attribution. TFD (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Your argument makes literally no sense to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You just said that the NYT article makes an argument. That argument is that since RT is a propaganda channel, its coverage of 5g is wrong. How we report that argument is covered by NPOV, which says, "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." So how do we do that? The easiest way would be to use a direct quote. If you still have difficulty making sense of this, try to imagine how we would report it if a source said, "RT which is a propaganda station says smoking is harmful to health." Certainly we would not present that observation in Wikipedia's voice, but would attribute it to the source. TFD (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A little further down NPOV also states, "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." But I see your point - an attributed statement would be better than an implicit argument, even if ver batim factual, and it would actually be even more informative. I would propose something along the lines of, Following an RT America segment that referred to 5G wireless networks as "A Dangerous ‘Experiment on Humanity’", The New York Times has argued that the station's alarmist coverage of advances in technology is part of a Russian propaganda effort "to destabilize the West by undermining trust in democratic leaders, institutions and political life... Earlier campaigns took aim at fracking, vaccination and genetically modified organisms... The network is now applying its playbook against 5G by selectively reporting the most sensational claims, and by giving a few marginal opponents of wireless technology a conspicuous new forum." Someguy1221 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• The statement and the sourced references seem appropriate. It's not WP:OR Buffs (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

definition of scorn

your definition of scorn does not include the actual historic meaning of the word in the english language. This kind of negligence destroys the root and core of comunications. The meaning is to show disdain or contempt for some one elses view point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:7007:de00:ac7e:f9a9:6a6:7896 (talk)

Can you specify the context? Buffs (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparent original research in Martin Heidegger article

Much of the Martin Heidegger article contains what appears to be original research without citation. The article also misquotes some sources. Some engaged editors of the Martin Heidegger article are resisting attempts to correct the problem. See talk page of the Martin Heidegger article for more info. Remedy desired: remove text in this article that is unsupported by authoritative sources. Work to assure that quotes are appropriately used and to assure that the content of the article is aligned with the information found in the cited sources. Sbelknap (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this synthesis:

Gravel's attempts to stop the draft had failed (notwithstanding Gravel's later claims that he had stopped or shortened the draft, taken at face value in some media reports, during his 2008 presidential campaign).

This is explained by a long footnote:

Footnote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
During Gravel's 2008 presidential campaign, he would claim that, "In 1971, Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), by waging a lone five-month filibuster, singlehandedly ended the draft in The United States thereby saving thousands of lives." See "Mike Gravel and the Draft". Mike Gravel for President 2008. Archived from the original on January 17, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2007. A 2006 article in The Nation stated that "It was Gravel who in 1971, against the advice of Democratic leaders in the Senate, launched a one-man filibuster to end the peacetime military draft, forcing the administration to cut a deal that allowed the draft to expire in 1973." See John Nichols (April 15, 2006). "Pentagon Papers Figure Bids for Presidency". The Nation. Archived from the original on January 17, 2008. Retrieved December 20, 2007. Neither of these assessments is correct. From the beginning of the draft review process in February 1971, the Nixon administration wanted a two-year extension to June 1973, followed by a shift to an all-volunteer force – see David E. Rosenbaum (February 3, 1971). "Stennis Favors 4-Year Draft Extension, but Laird Asks 2 Years" (fee required). The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2007.; for confirmation, see "Once More, "Greetings"". Time. October 4, 1971. Retrieved February 2, 2008. – and this is what the September 1971 Senate vote gave them. Gravel's goal had been to block the renewal of the draft completely, thereby ending conscription past June 1971. See Mike Gravel (June 22, 1971). "Filibustering the Draft" (fee required). The New York Times. Letters to the Editor. Retrieved December 29, 2007. In Gravel's 2008 memoir, he conceded that he failed to bring about the immediate end of the war that he wanted, and that Nixon had gotten the two-year extension he had originally asked for. However, Gravel wrote that he had never trusted Nixon's pledge to only extend the draft for two years, and that when Nixon let the draft expire in 1973 it was the threat of a renewed filibuster that caused him to stick to the pledge. See Gravel and Lauria, A Political Odyssey, p. 180. No other accounts support this interpretation; in fact, Nixon had first become interested in the idea of an all-volunteer army during his time out of office, and he saw ending the draft as an effective way to undermine the anti-Vietnam war movement, since he believed affluent youths would stop protesting the war once their own possibility of having to fight in it was gone. See Glass, Andrew (January 27, 2012). "U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973". Politico. Retrieved March 19, 2019. and Ambrose, Nixon, Volume Two: The Triumph of a Politician, pp. 264–266.

The footnote shows that the media accepted Gravel's claims, then uses sources from the 1970s about the end of the draft to argue that Gravel had no role in it.

TFD (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the analysis in question is accurate and sound, it is still Original Research. Specifically, the claim that media outlets "took Gravel's claims at face value" requires a reliable secondary source, and cannot be supported simply by a Wikipedia user's research. Perathian (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Citing one's own primary research

• Petropoulos (AfD discussion)
• Labros S. Skartsis

This is not merely an AFD matter, and needs checking out. I have also drawn attention on the reliable sources noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's legacy after the Leaving Neverland documentary

As seen here and here at the Michael Jackson article, an editor -- Partytemple -- wants to add that the documentary "did not diminish his music's popularity or his image" or "did not fully diminish his music's popularity or image." The editor would rather go with the former wording. At the Leaving Neverland article, as seen here, the editor wants to add "his image has not diminished." My argument is primarily against the "his image" aspect. This is because a source saying "believed Jackson's legacy could withstand the Leaving Neverland controversy" is not the same thing as saying his legacy or image was not diminished. Reliable sources talk about his legacy and image being diminished. And, really, we will have to wait years to see the full impact. The editor has not pointed to any reliable sources that state his image was was not diminished. Jackson's friends or relatives, or fans, stating so is not the same thing. And regarding the popularity of his music? His music still being popular is not the same thing as "his popularity was not diminished." It's not the same thing as "his legacy was not diminished." It's not the same thing as "his image was not diminished." Because of this, I have argued that Partytemple is engaging in WP:OR/WP:Synthesis. At Talk:Michael Jackson#Edit consensus: lead sentence describing Jackson's legacy after Leaving Neverland, three editors thus far (myself included) have opposed Partytemple's changes. Pinging SNUGGUMS and FlightTime, the other two editors involved thus far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

My stance on what phrasing to use stays the same as before. Partytemple can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that editor had the impression that "diminished" was used as another way to say "erased". It's actually more of a synonym for "reduced". I thought "did not fully diminish" was a fair compromise. Anyway, one source included had the words "hasn't greatly diminished" (in other words, no major reduction). It at the same time specifically says "Backlash to the documentary that aired in March on HBO and Britain's Channel 4 prompted radio stations in Canada to stop playing his music and the producers of 'The Simpsons' to remove an episode that featured Jackson's voice." This is referred to as "the most visible extent of the backlash" and the article goes into how he hasn't had people going out of their way to avoid listening to his music like they did with R. Kelly or had honors revoked like Bill Cosby did. As I said here, radio bans do count for a popularity reduction. I hope this ends any misunderstandings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Definition of popularity: The quality or state of being popular; especially, the state of being esteemed by, or of being in favor with, the people at large. (My emphasis.) Meaning, not the decisions of a few radio stations. I cite Jackson's album sales surge following the documentary [1], an AP source describing various industry individuals and honors not being rescinded [2], and an article stating how the stations treated his music as my sources [3] for two different sentences currently in dispute in Leaving Neverland and Michael Jackson articles.

Definition of NOT WP:OR: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (My emphasis.)

The AP/Japan source states: "but the initial wave of negative publicity hasn’t greatly diminished the King of Pop’s image or the enduring popularity of his music." This is a direct transcription from the source. It's appropriate for the statement regarding the "image" question in the Leaving Neverland article.

Billboard source states: " 'Our decision for the time being is to make no firm decision,' says an executive with Stingray." If you read the entire article, I believe my edit accurately represents the situation. This refers to the following sentence in the Michael Jackson article: "The 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed alleged child sexual abuse by two former friends of Jackson, led to an initial wave of negative publicity, though it did not diminish his music's popularity or image—outside of a few radio stations that banned his music indefinitely."

"Image" and "popularity" not being "diminished" is an accurate description when considering these articles that directly state the same thing. —Partytemple (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless the sources state that his image, legacy or popularity were not diminished, it's WP:Synthesis for you to take the sources and relay "was not diminished." WP:OR is about no sources (anywhere) existing for the statement; WP:Synthesis is an aspect of WP:OR. The words "hasn't greatly diminished" used by one source are not the same thing as "has not diminished." They are not synonyms. And since it's one source stating that, it's a WP:Due weight issue anyway. It's also a WP:Recentism issue. At Talk:Michael Jackson, you stated, "We also know that industry professionals were vindicated in believing Jackson would survive the controversy." No, we don't know that. Read WP:Recentism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And the focus of this dispute is "image" anyway. No one is disputing that his music is still popular, or that he is still popular (although "still popular" doesn't mean "his popularity didn't take a hit"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources support what I wrote. That's all I can say this point. There's no way around this fact. Again, "image," "popularity" and "indefinitely" are warranted descriptions and supported. —Partytemple (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If they supported you, three editors thus far wouldn't be against your wording. I'm not going to keep debating you on sticking to what the sources state. That would just make this section WP:Too long; didn't read. I await the opinions of other significantly experienced Wikipedians. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• :: I would like to add that there is not a source that says Jackson's image was diminished to some degree objectively. The AP article is a credible evaluation of the controversy's aftermath. Stating these facts doesn't mean I'm on a side or this controversy of not. Even if I hated Jackson and believed he was a pedophile, that doesn't mean I'm delusional to the facts. —Partytemple (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Furthermore, in regards to an WP article "standing against the test of time," my edit proposal clearly states "though it did not diminish his music's popularity or image—outside of a few radio stations that banned his music indefinitely." It refers to the documentary. I'm not saying Michael Jackson will forever be popular until the death of humanity and the universe. I'm obviously saying this particular documentary didn't diminish his popularity. —Partytemple (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We know what you are referring to. WP:Recentism applies either way since we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL with regard to how society will feel about the documentary years from now. As is clear from the Leaving Neverland article, we know that Jackson's image/legacy took a significant hit and that it was not mainly just "a few radio stations" matter. We know what many critics stated. We know that his legacy was reassessed and that people wonder how the documentary will continue to affect his image/legacy. Sources focusing on his music is not the same thing as sources focusing on his image/legacy. Indeed, enough people have talked about whether or not they can still enjoy his music while believing the victims (and I state "victims" because it's what they are called). Music and merchandise regarding a well-known singer always soar when a scandal or other controversy regarding that singer happens. The same can be stated for other well-known public figures. That does not translate into "their image/legacy was not diminished." Like WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES states, "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source." It is easy enough to stick to "wasn't greatly diminished" or similar. But I still find it to be undue since it's one source stating it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We can add "fully diminished" or "greatly diminished" for the Leaving Neverland article, since it does not state the radio stations explicitly. But the Michael Jackson edit proposal have it clear, that his popularity/image did not diminish outside of the radio station bans. —Partytemple (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been clear that I disagree with going with "did not diminish outside of the radio station bans." Not sure if SNUGGUMS also disagrees with that wording. So pinged SNUGGUMS. SNUGGUMS, also, how do you feel about going with "wasn't greatly diminished" or similar based on the one source? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with using "was not greatly diminished" within Leaving Neverland (keeping WP:CONTRACTIONS in mind for article prose) though definitely disagree with "did not diminish outside of the radio station bans" per everything I said before. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Rip it all out. I agree with Flyer22 that definitively stating that MJ's image (or whatever) has not been diminished is not a fair reading of the sources and also vulnerable to WP:RECENTISM. What's more, from a copyediting perspective, all this wording around "diminished" or "fully diminished" or whatever is just miserable - it's vague handwringing. Popcornduff (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Popcornduff. This is too recent and the phrasing too weasel wordy. Just leave it out, come back in a few years when articles or books actually tackle the effect this documentary had on his "legacy." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Labour power

The page Labour power is about 30.000 characters, mainly personal research. Some contributors have added quotations form Marx (with due reference), but this does not change much to NOR. Delicious example: “However, Marx did not provide a general theory of the state […]. It is possible—apart from bad health—that he did not write a general critique of the state, because he lived himself as an exile in Britain, and therefore, he might have got into major trouble personally, if he had criticized the state publicly in his writings in ways not acceptable to the British state.” OK. Many things are “possible”. Most of the page is better than this, but still is original research of a few authors who are eager to give us their own best explanation of Marx's labour power. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This and a lot of similar articles were written years ago without sources. In this case the article was originally written in 2004. The problem is that no one wants to rewrite them according to policy and guidelines. It's a lot easier to write a good article from scratch than to improve a poor one. It might be best to reduce them to stubs until they can be re-written. We should have guidelines about what to do. TFD (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The closest we have is a widely-cited essay called WP:TNT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Here is a statement made by the initiator at the talk page in November 2018:

Still a lack of references. «Labour power … is a key concept used by Karl Marx…». Marxism demands new developments in a changing world, based on Marxist concepts. But Wikipedia in not the place for personal research (Wikipedia:No original research). The parts about the theory of Marx himself need more references. Many very long developments in the page are modern without any reference. This is a difficult situation. I do not feel allowed to suppress 4/5 of the page, contents that exist since quite a long time. Part of it is interesting. It is up to the authors to provide references or to cut their OR.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

TNT is an essay, but I have used it in AfDs. I doubt the original editors are coming back, so TNT may be the best approach. But that requires a sourced statement that explains what the general concept is. TFD (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The Television System that Never Was

3D pictures by alleged “lenticular” Telechrome? Fiction. Here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia page on Telechrome (an early color picture tube)...

[Quotation from article "Telechrome"]

   Baird also described a system using the ridged tube that eliminated the need for glasses. In this case, the tube was rotated so the peaks ran vertically instead of horizontally and the red gun was removed. The guns formerly used for green and blue were now used for left and right images.[6] The basic concept is identical to the lenticular printing system used in magazines and other printed materials to produce 3D images.[7] However, there is no evidence such a system was ever trialled.

The above paragraph is original research. The alleged method for autostereography was the use of a serrated target in the tube as a lenticular lens. However, the target that the patent describes *isn't* lenticular. (A lenticular lens has a target of many lenticules. Each lenticule is *cylindrical.* Yet in Baird’s proposed tube, the target has a *serrated* cross section.)

Sources don't support premise. The "Telechrome" article author cited secondary-source articles in Wireless World and Popular Mechanics. These articles mention Telechrome, but not Telechrome autostereography, and not the use of lenticular means.

In the Telechrome patent, a drawing depicts the serrated target. But the use of this target is to impart two different color images to *both* eyes of the viewer. The author proposes rotating the CRT 90 degrees. He claims that rotation would cause these same serrations to provide a different image to *each* eye. But since both eyes could see the same image, of course the effect wouldn't work!

In the patent…
(1) There is NO mention of rotating the tube (as in the quoted passage).

(2) There is NO claim for Telechrome autostereography.

(3) There is NO mention of how serrated targets can become lenticular.

(4) There is no assertion that Telechrome's 3D capability compares to lenticular printing.

(5) There is no resolution of the differences between Telechrome and lenticular printing: Telechrome front-projects two images on a serrated surface. Yet lenticular printing uses cylindrical lenses to erect stereo views of an image under the lenses.

Telechrome 3D only works with glasses. Here's proof. According to Ray Herbert's book (p. 26), Telechrome was capable of 3D: But *only* when viewers wore anaglyphic glasses. (Ray was a long-time Baird assistant. He also interviewed EGO Anderson, another Baird assistant.) Russell Burns' book (p. 380) agrees about the need for anaglyph glasses.

Confusion with other Baird 3D experiments. The author may be confusing other 3D experiments by inventor Baird. Baird did test an autostereographic television method. (Various histories such as Burns, pp. 369-372; Herbert, p. 24; and Abramson, pp. 13-14 mention this method. Also see the book by Antony Kamm and the inventor’s son Malcolm Baird (pp. 334-336).) Unfortunately, this autostereographic method required a non-Telechrome CRT and a spinning disc. There was no use of a lenticular, or even a serrated target. This non-Telechrome method could well be the one to which Popular Mechanics referred. Yet Popular Mechanics offers no support for the author's alleged Telechrome autostereography.

I recommend removing the paragraph about alleged “lenticular” Telechrome. This unsupported material is original research.

ColorWheel (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Is this original research? It seems to be extrapolating a current population figure from genetic data

I took User:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. to ANI for various problems includding OR. He is now saying that the following is not OR/synthesis:

He sources a population figure of +13,556,610 thusly: ""

and later in the article added: "A Y-DNA compilation organized by the Genetic Company "Applied Biosystems" found that 13.33% of the Filipino Male Population sampled had Y-DNA of Latin American and Spanish origins, thus it can conclude that up to 13.33% of the (Male) Filipinos sampled have direct patrilineal descent from populations then originating from Spain, Mexico or Peru. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by German ethnologist Fedor Jagor of the population of Luzon island (Which holds half the citizens of the Philippines) 1/3rd of the people possess varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry.. "

Note that the survey is from an 1870 source - I'm not challenging the source, it's a good one but only for historical data.

Sorry to bring this here, but I'm finding it very difficult to explain to this good faith editor what his problems are. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't emphasize the other study I cited from the Institute of Human Genetics and that study from National Geographic with a sample size of 80,000 Filipinos that concluded a large amount of Latin American and Spanish ancestry was present among Filipinos. I am using a Smartphone right now. So it's hard to put in the links via typing so I'll defer posting that until I get a laptop. But you know what I am talking about. Anyway most of the points I have addressed with you in a previous talk. I'll just post it here again so that the Administrators in this talk page will know...

Actually, the Open-source Y-DNA compilation done by Applied Biosystems was the one that presented the facts that 13.33% of the total male population they sampled from all across the Philippines had Spanish and Latin American Y-DNA and it just fit with the historical census data by Fedor Jagor that 1/3rd of Luzon which is about 16.5% of the Philippines had Latin American admixture. What I posted was a function of "Corelation" and "Sylogism" not "Synthesis", arriving at New data which was not present in the original sources via combinatronics like there are only two piano keys and if played by one key alone there is no melody formed but with at least two keys, you can start a musical piece. In fact for a Synthesis to form strictly speaking, in Dialectical materialism, two different schema with different qualities I.e. a Thesis and an Anti-Thesis should fuse or oppose one another to form a Synthesis. What I did was not a Sythesis in the original meaning of the word if we get into Logic or Semantics. In fact, I also put your POV in mind and I even reduced several sentences from my previous post, in fact I am willing to extend my consideration of you even more, to at least two magnitudes... Since we disagree that 16.5% of Filipinos are of Latin American descent then we either agree, on the spirit of consensus building, that 7% of the Philippine population (Since in that Open Source Y-DNA bank sampled from all across the country 13.33% of Filipino males and half of that is 7%, have sure Iberian/Latino descent from the Paternal line) or that at least 200,000 Filipino people have Latin American or Spanish descent (With indication that its from an 1870 Census) I'm already bending backwards for you in this case btw since I already cited those genetic studies from the National Geographic and the Institute of Human Genetics of California that most of 80,000 Filipinos they sampled had Iberian and/or Native American descent.(UTC)

Editor has been blocked for among other things original research. --Doug Weller talk 12:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:SYNTH and WP:OI

Does WP:SYNTH apply to WP:OI images? For example, if a graph is being produced, should all of the data and annotations in the graph be citeable to a single dataset? Or may you combine multiple datasets or articles to produce a graph? ResultingConstant (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Tricky... my first reaction is to say “single dataset”... but I can see some nuances in this. For example, if you have “source C” that uses two datasets (A and B), and source C combines A and B textually (but not visually) ... I think it allowable for a user to create a visual illustration of source C’s textual combination. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, in that case C is the source. WP:OI wouldn't give much value if you could only reproduce already created images. However to go deeper down the rabbit hole, what about sourced A, B, C, D. Source D textually analyzes the combination of A+B+C. Would it be permissible to make an OI of just A+B? ResultingConstant (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If it illustrates your own analysis of A+B no. If it illustrates a source’s analysis of A+B, yes. It’s that simple. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Here is an actual examples. Over on the wikimedia commons there are a cluster of maps showing which European powers colonized which parts of North America. These maps are contradictory and unrealistic. Maps of the portions of North America colonized by France routinely show France ruling over every square inch of what would eventually become the Louisiana Purchase, sometimes adding Rupertsland, and even Baffin Island. Meanwhile, most of the native people in those territories certainly weren't paying taxes, never met a Frenchman, and had probably never heard of France.
• Well, people upload maps they created from Tolkien, or Game of Thrones, so I can hardly object to the uploading of fantasy maps of New France. It is when the image is being used in an article that SYNTH applies.
• So, if the multiple datasets were defensibly comparable, like "live births per thousand pregnancies" for Canada, and for the United States, I don't think a meaningful SYNTH objection could made over combining them in a single graphic. But if one dataset was "hospital births per thousand pregnancies" - ie leaving out home births - then the datasets would no longer be comparable, and shouldn't be mixed. Geo Swan (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible OR in Winx Club

In Winx Club, there might be some cases of original research. I am mostly active in Russian Wikipedia, and it would definitely not be allowed there, but I'm not that well aware of the EnWiki policies, so please take a look.

• Straffi's studio Rainbow finished a pilot episode in 2001 (citing this). In that video on 15:24, there's a popup text saying "Magic Bloom (2001)". There are no direct statements made regarding the year it was finished in, so it's only an assumption made by the author of that statement.
• Production of the restyled series began by 2002, and Rainbow estimated the episodes would be delivered to distributors by late 2003 (citing this). In that source (it's in Flash) you need to click Enter > Catalogue > Winx. There, it says: "DELIVERY: Autumn 2003". And that's all. And from this statement the person made the conclusion that "Production of the restyled series began by 2002, and Rainbow estimated the episodes would be delivered to distributors by late 2003".

There might also be other similar cases, but for now I've spotted just these. The anonymous editor persists in removing my "citation needed" and "verification failed" templates. Please advice. Coolak (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, provided that those are primary sources coming from the creators, it might very well be not worth including in the article at all. But that's not my main concern here. Coolak (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed a pre existing sentence to say "by 2002" (not in 2002) because the webpage published in 2002 said the season was currently "In Production". Which I think is straight forward 2600:1000:B005:EA84:680E:7F65:E323:FB16 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't write Wikipedia like that. Coolak (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible OR in Qibla on determining its mathematical orientation

User:KLS has added Qibla#Mathematical determination to the article. It appears to be original research. There is one self-published source for part of it. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

A self-published source? No. The source which I used was a website written S. Kamali Abdali, more than twenty years ago. I am not S. Kamali Abdali, and I had never even heard of him, but I just found that site by using Google. That site contains the essential part of what I added to this Wikipedia article. Yes, I have explained a little more than what was explicitely stated on Abdali's site: namely what follows from the well-known fact that the trigonometric tangent function is periodic with period 180 (not 360) degrees. For that fact, I could add any elementary book on trigonometry as a source reference if needed. -KLS (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

KLS Self-published in this context doesn't mean that you published it - it means that it was published by the author. If it's a website that Abdali wrote and published himself then it's a self-published source, like a blog, and we shouldn't be using it. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for the effects of puberty blockers

Over at Talk:Puberty_blocker an is arguing that American Academy of Pediatrics is not a good enough source for this statement. To my mind, it seems like it would be WP:OR to alter this characterization based on our own views of what the research "actually" says, but I don't do a lot of MEDRS editing. Could someone else take a look? Nblund ^talk 20:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we clarify when an interview is merely a primary source...

Another contributor recently excised a passage I contributed, and the source it referenced, because that source was an interview, and interviews were primary sources.

I am going to skip to my recommendation: Everywhere WP:NOR refers to an "interview", as a primary source, I recommend we substitute the term "oral history"

There are notes, in WP:No original research that name three academic institutions that have academic guidelines, that list interviews among the kinds of sources they consider primary sources.

• OR quotes a guideline from the University of Nevado, at Reno [8].

  That guideline includes interviews in a list entitled "original documents" with "autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, speeches..."

• OR quotes a guideline from the University of California, Berkeley [9]. It seems clear, to me, that, in context, the UCB document is using the term "interview" as a synonym for "oral history". An example it offers is "japanese Americans interviews"
• OR quotes a guideline from Duke University [10] It says: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." Again, I suggest that, in context, "oral history" is the meaning of "interview" in this passage.

Academics conduct interviews. Historians conduct interviews when they seek first-hand accounts of historical events, or when they seek to inform themselves on folklore, passed down in an oral tradition. Sociologists conduct interviews when they seek the unvarnished attitude of a specific group, about a trend, or a phenomenon. For instance, an academic might interview school kids, in Ferguson, Missouri, about their attitude towards the Ferguson Police. I suggest, first, that it is this kind of interview the three University guidelines the policy cites were talking about; second, that in this kind of interview the interviewer is trying their best to capture the interviewee's experience, and that they are doing their best to not let their own interpretations influence the interviewee's answers. If they were interviewing them as research, for their Masters or PhD thesis, the unvarnished interviews might be in an appendix, and they would keep their analysis of the interviewee's comments to the body of their thesis.

The kind of interview we are most familiar with is unlike that. When a good journalist interviews a subject field expert they should either be well-acquainted with the interviewee's subject, themselves, or they should do a bunch of homework, so they are prepared to ask probing questions. The good journalist is in charge of the interview, through the questions they ask. They might say things like, "Yes, but, hasn't your colleague Joe Schmoo challenged your interpretation, suggesting XYZ alternate interpretation?" Even if the interview doesn't contain obvious gotcha questions, the good interviewer is guiding the interviewee, picking and choosing what aspects of their subject field expertise will appear in the interview.

If a key distinguishing characteristic between a primary source and a secondary source is that a third party is providing independent analysis of raw data, in the interview of a subject field expert by a good journalist, it is the good journalist who is providing that independent analysis. Of course, in some interviews of a subject field expert by a journalist, the subject field expert is not offering answers from their raw data, they themselves spent years analyzing and interpreting raw data supplied by others. I'll go into this in more detail at the end of this note, but I think this edit to the Andrea Pitzer article is cutting a paragraph, and its source, through an interpretation of WP:PRIMARY based on misreading those guidelines from the Universities of Nevada, California and Duke.

Here are some links to previous discussions.

1. #Are_interviews_primary_or_secondary_sources? - June 2008
2. [as Primary Sources] - November 2009
3. #Interviews_are_not_primary_sources - September 2011
4. suggest addition to point out that primary sources such as interviews do count towards notability - May 2012
5. Sources that contain both primary & secondary material (interviews)? - May 2013
6. Interviews clarification - February 2014
7. Are interviews considered secondary sources? - November 2017

I didn't go over the previous discussions I linked to, with a fine-toothed comb. However, I think they all reflect the initial confusion arising from mis-interpreting the guidelines from the three Universities, which I think clearly are using the term "interview" to refer to an oral history, an interview where an academic gets a subject who is almost certainly non-notable to give an unfiltered account of something they know, and the academic wants to study. The academic's analysis comes later, after they gathered the raw data, the subject's unfiltered account. Of course that kind of interview is a primary source, because the academic conducting the interview is trying their best to keep their own views from tainting the subject's account.

Some of the previous discussions mention the famous interviews David Frost conducted with Richard Nixon. If Richard Nixon had drafted all the questions, in advance, and Frost was just a friendly talking head, who posed them to him, those interviews would be a Primary Source, because Nixon got to say exactly what he wanted. But Frost, and research assistants, spent months preparing for the interviews, listening to the famous tapes, and doing other research, so Frost could prepare a really probing set of questions. Questions that forced Nixon to reveal far more than what he wanted to reveal. Questions that showed Frost, and his team, had a deep understanding of the topic.

Some of the previous discussions contain frankly hilarious attempts to explain why the Frost-Nixon interviews were a primary source.

Having an academic interview, for your oral history of an event, doesn't confer any notability on you. I suggest having a journalist interview you, because they recognize other people consider you a subject field expert, on the other hand, does confer a measure of notability. If it is your local newspaper, with a circulation of 10,000, it confers less notability than if the interview is published in the New York Times, or broadcast on national TV.

The guideline from Berkeley offers "japaness american interviews" as an example of a primary source. The guideline is almost certainly referring to interviews with the 50,000 or so captives interned during World War 2. George Takei, the actor who played Lieutenant Sulu, spent part of his childhood in one of those camps. If an academic had interviewed a young George Takei, before he was famous, seeking his unvarnished opinion and recollections of life in the camp, that interview would be a primary source. However, if a journalist were to ask famous actor George Takei about growing up in the camps, surely that would not be a primary source?

Okay, returning to this edit to the Andrea Pitzer article. Slate is not the New York Times, but, neither is a less notable local paper with a circulation of 10,000. And the interviewer was not a nobody, not a blogger in his pajamas. He was one of Slate's senior editors. So, I question whether it merited a referencectomy. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Geo Swan, I don't understand the problem here. Secondary source for what? For itself? Frost-Nixon has been written about plenty--those publications allow us to mention that they happened, to cite from them, etc. What we have here (and I don't understand why you spend so many characters on this) is simply a plug, a resume entry: "person X was interviewed for program Y", with a link to the installment of program Y with the interview. Is there any good reason to include that statement, other than to namedrop, because the interviewer is more or less famous? If Pitzer had said, in that interview, "These camps are nothing less than a crime against humanity" or whatever, you could have quoted her from it (did you insert that sentence?). Instead, it's nothing more than a link. Now, if David Frost had said (in an interview, in an article) that she was interviewed, you could claim Frost is a secondary source and thus the statement worth including. But you don't have that; in fact, we really have nothing here, and we're not even talking about anything (certainly there is no "unfiltered account of something they know", since the statement said nothing, not a word, about what she said. Now, if you want to claim that the interview might could verify the poorly formatted and unverified previous passage, the one starting "According to Pitzer", we might have something to talk about. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the reply you left to the heads-up I left you on your talk-page I think your use of the phrase "admittedly contextual definition between primary or secondary sources" could mean you are acknowledging my main point -- WP:NOR does not justify excising every reference to an interview, because NOR says "interviews" are always primary sources.

    We are all volunteers here. You probably hate it just as much as I do, when someone seizes on something I wrote on a talk page, or in an edit summary, and seems to knowingly misinterpret what I meant, by focusing on what I actually said. I'd never do that to you. I honestly thought your edit summary was justifying an excision because you were claiming all interviews were primary sources.

    If your excision was only based on your editorial judgment over whether the passage added anything to the article - not a point of policy - fine, we can discuss that back on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Interviews are always primary sources because there is no fact-checking. Experts are not oracles and they may misstate what they mean or explain things poorly. In the Frost-Nixon interview, we know that Frost got Nixon to admit things because reliable secondary sources tell us he did. But then there are softball interview and assassination interviews that are misleading. There are more of them than Frost interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

• Hmmm. "[subject field] experts are not oracles..." May I remind you, we seek "verifiability, not truth". We use newspaper columnists as reliable sources, even though they too are subject to normal human fallibility.
• With regard to "softball interviews and assassination interviews" that you regard as "misleading"... You sound like you are forgetting our role. I have worked on controversial topics, and I have made thousands of edits where I disagreed with what every reliable source said. When we disagree with what the RS say we have two policy compliant choices. Either we do our best to neutrally cover what the RS say, even though we disagree with it; or we walk away, and let someone else cover that topic, that event. WP:VER and WP:NPOV both say it is not our role to decide what is "true". Please don't forget this.
• WRT to your assertion that an interview is a primary source because there is no fact-checking... The good interviewer provides fact-checking, because the good interviewer either already has a strong background, or has recently done a lot of homework. You will see interviewers catch errors. Interviewers wear an earpiece. You will see reporters and interviewers correct themselves, 10 or 15 seconds after they made a mistake. That same team of fact-checkers may be helping the interviewer know when the interviewee made a mistake.
• WRT the Frost-Nixon interviews, and the comments on it from other reliable sources... No one is questioning the value of those later commentator's opinions. However, if Nixon says "I exploited Kissinger's popularity, but I never trusted him" your third party commentator may point out how many times Nixon publicly said how much trust he had in Kissinger, if Frost didn't point that out himself. Nixon may still have been telling the truth, and he fooled those commentators.
• You have not addressed my point that the underlying documents the policy cites, from those three Universities, are referring to the kind of interviews academics do with experimental subjects, or witnesses to historical events, where the academic is doing their level best to be neutral, and not let their own conclusions or interpretations taint the interview. Geo Swan (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with claiming interviews are always primary sources, because this ignores how we define primary/secondary/tertiary sources on WP. Interviews are dependent sources, and this can influence notable as well as when statements need to be attributed. And there are cases where interviews are "first-party" sources because the person being interviewed has actually arranged it, rather than the third-party having independently set up the interview (as the case in business and politics)

But whether an interview is primary or secondary depends what the interview focuses on. An interview with an eyewitness but non-participant of an event is purely primary because they are not transformation that information. Alternative, an interview with a director about their process for making a film (for example) is likely secondary since we're getting transformation of how the movie was filmed. What this basically means related to PAG is that a topic that is only backed up by interviews and no other coverage of any type will likely fail GNG for lacking independent (even though it may be secondary) sourcing. --Masem (t) 04:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is no blanket answer to the question of whether an interview is a primary source because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Consider the following scenarios:

1. A paid puff piece interview in a click-bait website. Legendary entrepreneur Kumar Edison talks to BuzzWire about how being true to yourself can be the best business decision you'll ever make! This consists of a short bio intro that is obviously just a reprinting of a press release, the full unedited transcript of the interview with no additional context, and the interview itself is clearly just low-ball questions to give the subject space to brag about themselves and their business.
2. A full page spread in the Washington Guardian, a national newspaper of note, normally a publisher of reliable investigative journalism. Award winning actor George Mooney on philanthropic giving and legacy. This piece is also mostly low-ball fluff questions, albeit of a more serious note. However, the piece itself starts off with several paragraphs of text giving a biographic overview of George Mooney's career, a brief scandal when he played a doctor on that one television show, and cites independent coverage of his philanthropic efforts in bringing fresh water to the people of the Democratic Republic of Somewhere.
3. A full interview in NorthAmerican Public Radio with Canadian MP Albert Li. The prospects of war in the Middle East This also provides an independent contextual overview of the person's biography, voting record, and the current tensions in oil rich Somewhereistan. The interview itself is a combative exchange, with the journalist challenging asserts made by the MP, and interjecting with context and independent reporting when the MP oversimplifies or misrepresents something.

These are not the same quality of sources for our purposes. The first is garbage and probably shouldn't be used for anything. The second is independent and secondary with regard to the biography, but not for the statements of the subject. Although the statements of the subject, if reprinted elsewhere from this interview, might be DUE. The third is a much higher quality source, offering a range of independent secondary context, is probably more likely to get reprinted, and is much more useful for our purposes overall. GMG^talk 13:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• It depends. Here's a Vox interview with the director of a recent documentary about Molly Ivins. I'd say the director's comments about the process of making that film are primary, but the director is a secondary source for statements about Ivins herself. That's a separate question from the reliability of comments given by the subjects of interviews. Interviewers don't necessarily fact check their subjects, and some interviews are only lightly edited for clarity. Nixon's comments about the powers of the presidency might be considered "secondary" analysis of the Constitution, but he's still not a reliable source for the claim that presidents are above the law. Nblund ^talk 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that film directors are good sources for describing people's potiical ideology, in this case the director says Ivins is a populist. I would see that as an opinion not a fact. If the director included that statement in an article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers would ask whether that was a personal conclusion, in which case they would require a clear statement of what populism was and an explanation of why she meets the criteria. The article would have to state the degree of acceptance of that conclusion. It could be that upon having the article returned for revision, the director could find that she was using the term populist in an idiosyncratic way, and choose to change it. Note too that it is unlikely that the director would have dictated the article and have it typed up and submitted without reviewing it to identify errors and poorly worded segments. After publication, later writers may challenge statements of facts and opinions in the article.

Columns by the way are not reliable secondary courses, but "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Saying experts are not oracles is demanding a higher standard than verifiability. It's merely acknowledging that some degree of fact-checking is necessary before a source can be considered reliable. Otherwise why have fact checking at all if we believe every word uttered by an expert to be infallible?

It's not credible to believe that interviewers are so knowledgeable about the topics of interviews that they can adequately fact check especially in real time. For example in many interviews i have watched, the late Diana, Princess of Wales was referred to as "Princess Diana," which of course is wrong. But most interviewers are not experts on British titles and even if they were, they are not going to make pedantic corrections of their guests.

TFD (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, but whether or not the source is reliable is a separate question from whether or not it is secondary. The two aren't necessarily connected to each other. Nblund ^talk 19:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I will rephrase myself. An interview is both a reliable primary source for what the interviewer and interviewee say and an unreliable secondary source for facts presented by the interviewee. It can also be an unreliable tertiary source depending on what the interviewee says. So a film director commenting on ideology is both a reliable source for their opinions and an unreliable source for political science. I wouldn't expect a political science textbook (which is a tertiary source) to rely on interviews with film directors. Rather than worrying about whether marginal sources are usable, it is best practice to identify and use the best sources available. TFD (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"an unreliable secondary source for facts presented by the interviewee". Absolutely not. An interview with the director of a film some years after release, discussing his vision, how things happened behind the scenes, interesting stories, etc. with the interview being done in an otherwise reliable, independent source , is a 100% reliable secondary source for the film which would be used to flesh out a Production section. This is not true for all interviews, but it is to the point that categorizing all' interviews as "primary sources" and nothing else is completely wrong with how WP uses primary/secondary/tertiary and other measures of source qualifications. --Masem (t) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I just watched on youtube an interview of Elizabeth Warren on Breakfast television. She referred to the 1920s as the Guilded Age, when in fact it was the late 1800s, and no one corrected her. And she's an expert. Also, Joe Biden has been in the news lately for providing different incorrect versions of his meeting with a soldier (or navy captain) when he was vice president (or senator).[11] Human memory is fallible. That's why fact-checking exists. Wikipedia relies on fact-checking in published sources. TFD (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to treat interviews and other forms of extemporaneous speech (like cable news transcripts) as less reliable than something printed. I would be reluctant to dismiss them out of hand: if a journalist gets a pull quote from a marine biologist talking about shark attacks, I'd think that could be reasonable as long as it wasn't an exceptional claim. Nblund ^talk 20:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Basically, interviews where the subject's responses to questions are just reproduced verbatim are generally unreliable and primary. They don't help toward notability and should be used as with any other unchecked information directly from the subject. However, an interview might also include fact checked analysis or the like, and that analysis could count as independent and reliable material. But answers in the interview itself are unchecked, unreliable, and are not independent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on original research in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article

There is a request for comment on original research in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC involving possible OR/SYNTH

There is a request for comment about the article Kate Dover. The third question relates to WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If you are interested, please participate. Thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Question re archival personal data

I am new to Wikipedia, did look through the original research rules, and wonder whether I should delete the following (which I wrote--no dispute here) as original research. This is the link: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Julian_D_Steele_(Social_Worker,_Public_Citizen)&action=edit&section=1 Thanks for any adviceWest Newbury (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What part of this are you concerned might be taken as OR? You cite a large number of sources, clearly not written by you. You also do not appear to have put any personal opinions in, nor drawn any conclusions or interpolated any data. Looks like a normal article to me... Will (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Steele's paternal grandmother, Gertrude Elizabeth Winkler Steele, was the child of a Free Person of Color and a slaveholder whose ancestors were among the early Scots-English settlers in New Hampshire.

References

List of paramilitary organizations

Many if not most of the entries are original research. There is no lead and no definition. There's been a discussion on the talk page but it died out and I forgot about it. Any suggestions as to how to fix this? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Gold toilet or just gold-plated?

Your input is welcome at Talk:America (toilet). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is a secondary-source ref that _begins_with_ copying a company merger PR announcement OK if it also quotes/paraphrases the CEOs of the merged businesses and gives analysis?

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.

---

The refs are to TechTarget.com, to ChannelBuzz.ca, and to BlockAndFiles.com articles. Cris Mellor, the author of the BlocksAndFiles.com article, is also an editor for The Register, which is a Situation Publication sister website.

I would think the answer to this question would be an obvious "yes". Even primary-source refs are OK for an article about a business given the caution that "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." In this case the ref'd articles start with a PR announcement of the merger of Retrospect Inc. and StorCentric. However all three articles includes direct quotes and paraphrases of the two CEOs' remarks about those same basic company facts, as well as the CEOs' reasoning behind the merger. The BlocksAndFiles.com article includes analysis by Chris Mellor of where the merged companies would fit into the industry, which one would expect in a secondary-source ref.

However Guy doesn't think so. He deleted the entire fourth paragraph of the former History section of the Retrospect (software) article because for the entire article “There is clear consensus on ANI and elsewhere that the level of detail here is excessive, the content promotional, and the sources lack intellectual independence”.

I'll discuss Guy's claim of "consensus" for the entire article in another section on this page. However IMHO it's clear that any "consensus" should not be used as an excuse for the deletion of a paragraph about the merger using the above three references. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Fraud category on Cupping Therapy

The discussion is at Cupping therapy#Consumer_fraud. No sources could be found to justify the health fraud tag. Alexbrn argues based on this source that fraud and quackery are synonymous and then cites sources calling cupping therapy quackery. However, the source cited does not actually state that fraud and quackery are synonymous. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anybody out there? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Mistaken identity in sources

While trying to improve our article on Andreas Joseph Hofmann (a German professor and politician who proclaimed the first republic in Germany in 1793), I noticed that my sources claim he was educated by an uncle called "Franz Xaver Fahrmann", a person who does not appear anywhere except in articles about Hofmann and who seems not to exist. Actually, the uncle's last name and profession (he was a professor who became auxiliary bishop in Würzburg after 1780) clearly uniquely identify him as Andreas Joseph Fahrmann (the German Wikipedia article is my own). My hypothesis as to what happened is that one author (Friedrich Otto), the earliest author I could identify who names the uncle, made a mistake (the book he cites on bishops of Würzburg does not mention Fahrmann's first name, but was written by someone called Franz Xaver von Wegele, and somehow this became "Franz Xaver Fahrmann" when writing the article), and then most of the authors that followed simply copied this from Otto's article without verifying it against the list of bishops of Würzburg. My question is how to best cover this in the article. I would like not to repeat an obvious error but stay on the right side of our prohibition against OR. Could any of the OR experts here give me a hint on what to do? Is my footnote OK or is the only way out to completely avoid talking about this uncle? —Kusma (t·c) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand your question:

1. Andreas Joseph Hofmann is a well documented person;
2. You have sources that he was educated by an uncle;
3. Sources say the uncle became auxiliary bishop in Wurzbug;
4. Previous drafts state that uncle was named Franz Xaver Fahrmann, but no individual by that name is documented;
5. You have studied Hofmann enought that you have a personal opinion, you think Human Error by earlier contributors inserted Franz Xaver Fahrmann - you found Andreas Joseph Fahrmann is the only candidate for uncle who was also a bishop...

Okay, one approach, if you are confident RS say he was educated by an uncle, change the article so it only says that, that he was educated by an uncle, don't name him.

If you are confident RS say the uncle who educated him became a bishop, change the article to say that, don't name him. Geo Swan (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sources that say he was educated by "his uncle, the professor for moral theology Franz Xaver Fahrmann" (for example [12]) and sources that say that "his uncle Franz Xaver Fahrmann, who was professor of moral theology and became auxiliary bishop". I am confident the sources name him incorrectly (and so did earlier versions of the article, which I wrote essentially on my own), as both university professors and Catholic auxiliary bishops of the time are very well documented. The problem is that Hofmann's early life is documented only in a few contemporary sources, and interest in him only picked up significantly since the 1970s. Most sources since then have copied the error without checking (the main biographical reference works ADB and NDB do not mention the uncle at all, but confirm the maiden name of the mother to be Fahrmann). I have removed the uncle's name to the footnote for the moment, and will try to get hold of even more sources. Thank you for having a look! —Kusma (t·c) 12:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism and controversies section of Islam in Houston

Hi, guys! Someone added this section Islam_in_Houston#Terrorism,_Violence,_and_Controversies. Each individual act/incident is verifiable, but there seems to be an unstated assertion that there is a recurring problem with the Houston Muslim community. Would this be original research? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

People's Salvation Cathedral

Resolved

 – He admitted doing sheer original research Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that comparisons with other icons from People's Salvation Cathedral are sheer WP:OR (i.e. unverifiable in WP:CITEd WP:SOURCES). I'm am not an expert in this matter, so I welcome the community to chime in. Previously the article choked with WP:SPS sources (WP:BLOGS) and with self-references to Wikipedia and Commons (WP:CIRCULAR). So I find it highly suspicious of ventilating the mere opinions of editors, instead the opinions of WP:RS. So, yes, I suspect that MIHAIL has filled the article with his own musings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

[13] Solved our dilemma. MIHAIL recognized that It's my work and that he got the information directly from the painter D. Codrescu, instead of consulting WP:RS. I'm not saying that what he did was bad quality information, but WP:NOTESSAY denies his right to perform original research inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Benson, Arizona

I would appreciate input about whether this edit at Benson, Arizona is original research. User:DJ Jones74 used personal correspondence with a city employee to support an edit, and now that editor and I differ on whether this is original research. I searched online for a published source to support this edit but have not located one. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that this will qualify as a valid source, simply for the reason that WP has no way to know if the document was tampered with or altered in any way. Also, the editor says they "Provided pdf copy of scan from City Manager of resolution from city records. Cannot scan to Wikipedia." Which means we basically have to take the editor's word that they received this information. Now, I understand WP:AGF, but I think that is taking the concept a bit far. As such, I think it fails WP:VERIFY. Clearly, if a city underwent a change like that, there must be a verifiable source which can be used: a local newspaper?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I cited the date (Jan 1985), where it was received from (Benson), when it was received (10/1), and from whom (the City Manager). I cited the resolution, which is not available online because there is no way a town of that size has the resources and manpower to put up documents from long-ago council meetings (and same goes for trying to find an article from a tiny town newspaper from that long ago). The whole point of CONTACTING the City Manager was because that information wasn't available online ! I've been making edits and contributions for 12 years almost explicitly on this subjects of cities, towns, villages, ghost towns, et al. Still not enough. Yes, because someone is going to tamper/alter with a document of an almost 34-year old resolution of a town council and the set date the election was held to upgrade the status from town to city. You bring paranoia and silliness to a whole new standard... and with the standards you boys set, you're going to have to delete 90% of what's on this entire website because -- guess what -- it's "original research." Perhaps 95%. Good job, kids. DJ Jones74 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sedimentary isostasy

As far as I can make out, the article sedimentary isostasy is almost all original research. The exact term is used exactly 15 times in research papers according to Google Scholar. All of these are referring to the isostatic effect of sedimentary loading and none of them mention the accommodation of the paired areas of erosion/uplift and sedimentary loading/subsidence by movement of a "mobile granitic melt" within the lower crust, as proposed in the article. I have attempted to discuss this with the article's creator User:Geologician on the article's talk page, but have got nowhere. Links to this article have been added to several other geology articles and the time has come, I think, to address this problem. Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on Geologician's own comments on the talk page, it is exceedingly clear that he is engaged in original research. Most especially his explanation of essentially daisy chaining papers over the course of decades to materialize a lineage of ideas that he himself admits is not acknowledged in the literature. I mean, he literally admits that he is deducing things by synthesizing knowledge from numerous sources, so there's not even really a dispute over whether this is original research as defined by policy - he just doesn't seem interested in that policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a succinct analysis, thanks. So what is the next step? I assume that I should take the article to WP:AfD, but what about the editor in question? Mikenorton (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Before bringing this here, Mikenorton reached out to me as a research-university professor who has written academic papers on isostasy. This is something that I have never come across in any of my professional career, in agreement with Mike's search through the literature. At risk of diving into the rabbit hole: The "hypothetical mobile magma" invoked by the article is incorrect: no major part of the Earth above the outer core, except for the oceans, is liquid; even in "magma chambers", which are few and far between, there is a mix of melt and solid rock, and zones of volcanic activity typically include 1-2% melt that slowly migrates upwards. From the talk page, I also read some confusion about a "fluid layer" within or directly below the lithosphere. The proposal that there is sudden sinking of an entire package of rocks is inconsistent with seismic observations and laboratory experiments that determine the rheology of the mantle. Most importantly, it seems that an enthusiastic author is synthesizing some scattered information to create and push forward an idea. I would be happy to discuss with the article's author how we know that flexural isostasy works and would support his/her moving it to some other part of the internet where such ideas are discussed, but in my professional opinion, this is WP:OR and Wikipedia cannot be the platform for such an article. (Finally, even outside of my professional opinion, the lack of support found by Mikenorton for this is enough, I believe, for this article to be nominated for deletion; not sure yet about the author's ability to be a good contributor to WP; I will take a look at their contribution history.) Andy Wickert (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Geologician significantly edited Migmatite in ways that they may have hoped to be helpful. However, they added some confusion of terminology at the top and rewrote quite a bit in the style of a research paper, but using very outdated references. Therefore, the key ideas are now obscured a bit by some of the synthesized history of thought. They also added support for "sedimentary isostasy" to this article.

Talk:Mathematics/Archive_9, from long ago, demonstrates a further disconnect between their activities and an understanding of topics, and seems like advocacy. I could disregard this due to the time, except that it seems that the general tendency is the same.

Recent changes to Saprolite seem relatively benign though not very helpful (photo a bit too general, grammar).

Changes at [14] seem helpful as well, though there is an uncited reason about the spelling of isostasy. I did not check this for WP:WEIGHT.

This extension to Unconformity is WP:OR and is incorrect at multiple points unrelated to "sedimentary isostasy". I will revert it: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Unconformity&type=revision&diff=919614702&oldid=914539554.

In short, this editor has the ability to produce useful contributions, but seems to see Wikipedia as co-authoring a volume of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rather than the perhaps less exciting but quite useful task of faithfully collating global knowledge.

Andy Wickert (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now nominated the article for deletion here, linking to this discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Mike Norton has just informed me of this discussion of Sedimentary isostasy, Migmatite and Unconformity, which I welcome. I shall consider the points raised carefully and revert later with constructive responses. Geologician (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Response to Sedimentary isostasy criticism

Wikipedia’s own definition of an encyclopedia states: An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either from all branches or from a particular field or discipline... encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title.

Information in traditional encyclopedias can be assessed by measures related to such quality dimension as authority, completeness, format, objectivity, style, timeliness, uniqueness. —If required, I shall defend my compliance with each of these parameters.

Fundamentally, all encyclopedia articles are reviews of existing knowledge distilled for readers by experts in each field. The history of geology is replete with examples of alternative interpretations held with quasi-religious ferocity. Agreeably, the format of Wikipedia allows for different interpretations to be discussed under a common heading, as I did when comparing cyclothems with chronosomes. If Wikipedia were to insist that all entries follow a single ‘canonical’ interpretation, then who will be the canonical pope for each geological discipline?

Objections to the Sedimentary isostasy-Migmatite-Unconformity trilogy suggest that individually or collectively they amount to original research. Yet in real life, many statements are too obvious to be labelled original research. Thus I might say ‘water is wet’ or ‘the fire is hot’ and easily avoid being accused of making original deductions. Likewise, on a technical level, I might state that granulite never appears at the surface in molten form, so there must be some combination of temperature, pressure and facilitating fluids that allow it to exist as a melt at some depth in the crust. The required conditions for the crystallization of associated metamorphic minerals such as sillimanite, andalusite and garnet have been established in the lab, so we know that we are talking about depths of 10 to 15 km. It is quite unnecessary to burden the Wikapedia reader with a rundown of lab procedures. There is no reason to suspect that geothermal gradients are much different today from what they were in the Dalradian, so there is no logical cause for supposing that granulite melt, today, is not still widely present at some equivalent depth. Also, regarding seismic evidence, with which I have some experience. Love waves propagate by multiple internal reflections of horizontally polarized S-waves and develop near the surface, constrained by a wave guide that could coincide with the migmatite-granulite transition.

I am well aware that some statements in the trilogy, (all supported by attached authoritative references) are at variance with some supposedly canonical academic views. I am able and willing to defend all such statements with other experts in these fields.

In my opinion it would be a disservice to the Wikipedia reader if alternative interpretations of fairly tenuous geological and geophysical data is not given a fair and equable public airing. Thus the public might gain some insight to the issues we all have to address. Geologician (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geologician: I'm sure you have the best of intentions, and it is admirable that you want to help expand the knowledge published by this project. However, what you have just described is explicitly outside the scope of Wikipedia, as it conflicts with The Five Pillars. The goal is to summarize the significant aspects of notable subjects from the point(s) of view of reliable sources written by relevant experts in a given field. A subject, point of view, or conclusion, that does not appear in those sources, therefore does not belong.

Wikipedia was designed this way deliberately. Since we are "democratizing knowledge", there is no validation of expert credentials, and even those experts whose credentials may be validated are not given any special privileges. Therefore we are all treated much as "random people on the internet". Rather than assure readers that the editors have thought about it and are pretty sure articles are correct, the goal is to simply point them through citations directly to the reliable sources that back up any content. If we have to provide an original argument or explanation for why the text matches the sources, we have already failed.

Ultimately, if your dispute is not with the claim that you are engaged in original research (as defined by WP:OR), but with the original research policy itself, the proper path for you would be to suggest a change to the policy at Wikipedia talk:Original research, although I can tell you now from almost 13 years of experience that the chance you successfully lobby for a change is almost 0. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I respect the intentions of Wikipedia and desire to comply fully with the standards expressed in the 5 pillars. However I regret that have not been given a fair opportunity to respond to the opaque criticism of Mike Norton, Andy Wickert or Someguy1221 before the articles in question were reverted, mainly for reasons of original research. I do accept that the Stacked unconformities article lacked references but it was intended simply as an extended caption for the accompanying uncontroversial illustration.

However the specific criticism and reversion made by Andy Wickert seems to be based on the Field POV principle that “Wikipedia reports what people familiar with that field consider as having been reasonably enough established by the original research.” However, it can be argued in response that Andy, who is a glacial geomorphologist with experience of running flexural isostasy computer models, lacks the broad geological background needed to take on board the issues supported by my citations. — I watched his 2011 YouTube CSDMS video last night and noted some common points between his interpretation and mine, although he uses ice rather than sediment as a load and prefers to put the source of isostatic buoyancy deeper in the crust, which is an easily modified model parameter.

By an extraordinary coincidence it emerged that there is an overlap in our educational backgrounds. When I was at Colorado School of Mines, Golden, many years ago, I took an extracurricular 600 course for credit at INSTAAR, Boulder, where Andy gained his PhD. That semester course, ‘Computer applications for geologists’, was taught by John Andrews, who went on to publish about the vast thickness of the Laurentian Ice-sheet and to co-operate with Peltier in his papers on Global glacial isostatic adjustment and coastal tectonics, etc. This is not the proper place to recount how that research team led down a whole series of blind alleys, via Fairbanks in Barbados through Lambeck to Mörner, to eustatic sea level reponses, forebulges and host of speculative papers about climate change all over the world. Consequently, there remains today a broad institutional bias which ensures that modern published papers such as I have cited get ignored if they do not agree with that persisting canonical status quo.

For the above reasons I’d respectfully request that these issues are reviewed by some other qualified editor, preferably a geophysicist well versed in geology —and that the reversions are reinstated in the meantime, to allow a breath of fresh air into this musty corner of earth science. Geologician (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the papers that you have cited. It's your use of them to support a previously unpublished concept that's the problem. Mikenorton (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I am away from home at the moment, so I don’t have access to my files, but a Google scholar search for ‘Westaway uplift and subsidence’ lists six papers that may allay Mike Norton’s concern that this process (not then called Sedimentary isostasy) is a previously unpublished concept. Amongst these is a 2006 paper by Morley and Westaway in Basin Research that describes a deep basin in SE Asia which is particularly relevant. The abstract says “…the depth (and thus, the pressure) at the base of the brittle upper crust subsequently varied over time. Following such a perturbation, thermal and mass-flux steady-state conditions took millions of years to re-establish. In the meantime, the lateral pressure-gradient caused net outflow of lower crust, thinning the crust beneath the depocentre by several kilometres (mimicking the isostatic effect of greater crustal extension having occurred beforehand) and thickening it beneath the sediment source region.”

This process is analogous to glacioisostasy so it seems reasonable to dub it ‘Sedimentary isostasy’. Naming an established process for convenience falls a long way short of submitting original research.

Morley and Westaway’s concept is not much different from those described originally by Herschel or more recently by Doré and by Japsen but perhaps their 2006 paper addresses more directly any remaining concerns about activity at the base of the rigid crust and the response of the melt that occurs below that boundary. There has never been any dispute, of course that migmatite occurs at the base of the rigid crust. Geologician (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That is helpful. Morley and Westaway's paper, following on from a series of papers by Westaway, attempts to explain anomalously high post-rift sedimentation in a rift basin by appealing to flow in the lower crust. That is solid-state ductile flow not as a magma. Wikipedia could usefully have a page on Lower crustal flow, I think, as it comes up a lot. The term being used (by Westaway, Bridgland and Marra) is "erosional/sedimentary isostasy", because it particularly relates to the formation of river terraces linked to climatic change - a high rainfall period leads to increased erosion of uplands and sedimentation in nearby basins, which leads in turn to small (but detectable) amounts of uplift/subsidence linked to lower crustal flow, giving the observed river terraces. Note that there is still a very small level of usage of this term. It's also pretty clear that this mechanism lacks widespread support, although this may well come. I can see having a section in the proposed "Lower crustal flow" article relating to this. This would, however, not include anything about chronosomes (another term that doesn't get much use in the literature) because there are no papers that I know of that support their linking to that mechanism. Also Westaway's mechanism is certainly similar to Herschel's, but he doesn't mention Herschel once, that I can find, so we can't point out the similarity unless someone has published it, however strange that may seem to you. Finally, when Japsen et al. (2018) describe the uplift and exhumation history of the Scandes they do not mention a mechanism, and no-one, as far as I'm aware, has linked this to Westaway's mechanism, so that means that Wikipedia can't make that link either. Mikenorton (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just found a paper in which Westaway acknowledges Herschel's idea - Dependence of active normal fault dips on lower-crustal flow regimes https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.155.2.0233 , so I've stricken that one sentence above. Mikenorton (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your further research and valid concern about fundamental issues.

Morley and Westaway’s paper goes part of the way towards deeper understanding, but to assign ductile flow to “solid state ductile flow” shows that they lacked thorough knowledge of metamorphic and igneous geology. This is a common limitation in the background of most competent stratigraphers and geomorphologists. Likewise, most metamorphic /igneous geologists haven't thought much about isostasy, cyclic sedimentation or river terraces. Fortunately (or unfortunately!) I gained an in-depth understanding of all three disciplines, so I have difficulty getting draft papers past the journal referee stage. A few years ago I submitted a paper describing topographic evidence, including river terraces and lower crustal flow to the JGS but it was rejected, presumably because it exceeded their reviewers’ scope of competence. Thus I was aware that submitting articles to Wikipedia might require extended patience.

Moving on, I strongly recommend the following references to stratigraphers who want to understand what is happening deeper down.

1. Shelley D. (1993) Igneous and metamorphic rocks under the microscope. Chapman & Hall, London, 445p , particularly ages 226 to 244. This book provides a thorough grounding in granite crystallisation, textures and structures

2. Fournier RO. (1999) Hydrothermal Processes related to the movement of fluid from plastic into brittle rock. Economic Geology,Vol.94 No.8 pp 1173 – 1211. This paper gives a detailed description of the processes operating at the brittle-ductile transition and the role of supercritical fluid.

3. Brown M & Solar GS. (1998) Granite ascent and emplacement during contractional deformation in convergent orogens Journ. Stuct. Geol. 20, 1365 -1393. This discusses the emplacement of magma in horizontal tensile fractures, lopoliths and sinking of the floor etc.

4. Pitcher,W. & Hutton D. (2003) A Master Class Guide to the Granites of Donegal. Publ. Geol. Surv. Ireland. The description on p7 – 9 of the Thorr granite indicates that this pluton, and probably the entire Donegal Batholith provides outcrop experience of Granulite generation from a migmatite roof, differentiation and emplacement in various styles that imply lateral displacement of the initial magma.

I have drawn on a much wider range of sources before submitting the thoroughly researched articles on Sedimentary isostasy, Migmatite and Unconformity to Wikipedia, so I hope we can agree on a suitable list of references to support acceptable encyclopedia style articles therein.Geologician (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

To be entirely clear here, Wikipedia is not an alternative route for the publication of your research - see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. You have admitted that the article in question is original research, so I'll leave it to others to decide if this needs any further action apart from the deletion of the article. I have spent a good deal of time on this and I'm going to return to the more productive task of creating and expanding articles. Mikenorton (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, the deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedimentary isostasy.Mikenorton (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about applying the "pro-Maduro" label to Venezuela's institutions (eg., the Supreme Tribunal of Justice)

Please take a look at the following RfC, wherein we discuss whether applying the label "pro-Maduro" to certain Venezela's institutions/branches of government violates WP:OR (possibly including WP:SYNTH policies. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#RfC:_Should_Venezuelan_crisis-related_articles_use_terms_like_'pro-Maduro',_and,_if_not,_what_alternatives_can_be_used? Notrium (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Scythian origin of Korean Hanbok

There is a long standing case of potential WP:OR and misquotation of references at Hanbok#History where it is claimed that Hanbok, the Korean traditional clothing, originates from ancient Scythian clothing and was heavily influenced by other ancient Iranian clothing styles in its subsequent development. I have removed some parts that contradict common sense [15] but currently the Scythian origin section remains. While there is a list of Korean language references added by User:VeryGoodBoy that does mention "Scythian", they may be referring to a much broader group of cultures with the term. Relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Hanbok#"Scytho-Siberian_cultural_sphere" and your input is welcome. Esiymbro (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

For reference, please check the current debate on the scope of the term Scythians[16], Scythian cultures, Scythian art, Ordos culture, and Crowns of Silla. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Does policy only restrict original research and point of view comments from article space?

I sometimes get challenges from other contributors that I think are based on misconceptions about our policies.

NPOV is a simple example. WP:NPOV prohibits us from inserting our own interpretations, in article space. But when good faith contributors don't agree on what a the sources mean, it can be essential for each party to try to explain their own personal interpretation of the controversial source. If we don't do this the other good faith contributor can innocently draft a passage that uses that source, that they think is neutral, but is not only not neutral, but is also incorrect. We really needed to explain our interpretation, on the talk page. Of course it has to stay on the talk page. But complying with NPOV, in article space, can, sometimes, require stating our POV, in talk space or a fora.

I have received challenges from other contributors over passages I drafted, in userspace. Just like NPOV, WP:OR prohibits putting original research, in article space.

Those of us who work intensely on covering a developing field can think we reached a genuine understanding of that field. I have notes, in userspace, that help me keep my eyes open for new developments in the fields I follow. When those notes state, or imply, a development I anticipate, so I can find the RS that documents it, as soon as that is published, I don't think this is original research, at all.

I'd welcome others opinions on this. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen similar arguments, and they are wrong. You are right. There are editors who would have us take a hear-no-evil see-no-evil sort of attitude where we just accept sources on blind faith because they have the right publisher and stick that content in the article; but if articles are supposed to not be trash, it's simply not workable that way. It's impossible to evaluate whether a source is reliable without doing a little original research. It's also impossible to know what the neutral point of view is without discussing the points of view of individual sources. This is actually very important given that articles are supposed to be summaries of available information. How can you accurately summarize an author's lengthy critique of a subject in just a sentence if you refuse to discuss what the author is trying to say? Anyway, those are my, I guess, three or four pence on that question, without having any idea what the underlying issue is. I'd also add that there are people who insist all discussions of a subject must be free of anything resembling an opinion, even in choice of language. But there's no rule against that, certainly not NPOV. As long as it's not disruptive it is not a problem. More often I think people bring that up in order to tone police rather than substantively engage, possibly while insisting they cannot be accused of POV pushing because they never overtly expressed a personal opinion. It's annoying. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oftentimes there are source conflicts so one has to judge/weigh sources to determine which is right. I don't have a problem with internal comments explaining processes/judgments in this way. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

NOR only applies to articles. OR is acceptable on talk pages if it is designed to improve article content. Sometimes our own knowledge of subjects tell us that facts reported in reliable sources cannot be true. For example if a source says that Caesar liked to watch Game of Thrones, we would know that was untrue. While such an obvious error would be unlikely to occur in reliable sources, many less obvious errors can be. TFD (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, NOR only applies to article space. Talk pages and userspace are not covered. BLP does apply to all of Wikipedia, except for editors. Editors can be slandered, often with impunity, but NPA still applies. Lies which are not presented as personal attacks seem to be immune. I once had an editor create an elaborate gaslighting story about me and get away with it. No admin would do anything, not even allowing me to remove the lies. I was told that BLP does not apply to editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOR applies in all namespaces, however applicability varies. In mainspace, there are strong sourcing requirements to demonstrate that information is not coming from editor opinion or synthesis. In userspace and draftspace, it is OK if there is an intention to achieve that objective, and in userspace there are no time limited on getting there. At MfD, it is standard to delete the most extreme OR, for example inspired physics and cosmology divinely inspired reimagining, which is exactly the sort of thing early Wikipedia attracted, and still does to a small extent. In category space, NOR applies, although it can be argued as applying via the mainspace arguments. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:No original research does state explicitly "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Original research on talk pages is acceptable if it is intended to ultimately help decide article content (which is the purpose of talk pages), which means eventually finding sources that don't require WP:OR. This means that it's acceptable to, for instance, say "based on my research, I know X to be true, so we should look for sources in that direction" or "based on my research, source Y looks wrong, so we should try to find a better source", whereas saying "based on my research, I know X to be true" purely to convince other editors might be delving into WP:FORUM. We're permitted to use our expertise and own knowledge to put together a general outline of what the article ought to look like, provided we can ultimately find the sources to flesh that outline out and back our personal knowledge up. In fact, using that personal knowledge and original research to direct the initial plan for the article is often the only way to write an article on a complex or highly technical concept - simply knowing what sources to look for is going to require knowledge, which often means discussing that knowledge and performing initial research yourself (or relying on existing education and knowledge you have.) And, as you said, with highly technical sources a degree of knowledge about the subject is sometimes necessary simply to interpret and understand them - this can be a tricky line, especially if an interpretation is potentially controversial, so it's best to try and find secondary sources or to keep our summary as close to the source as we can if there's disagreement. But saying "based on my expertise, what this source means is X" is acceptable as a starting point for discussions (it's helpful to make your position clear in any case), and in uncontroversial cases it's fine to rely on that if nobody disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes, civil POV pushers are trying to use NOR to advocate their POV. For example, when I presented (on a talk page) my analysis of available literature that demonstrated that the source X should be used with reservations, or not used at all, the response was: "All of that is just your own original research. We are not allowed to do that, we only tell what reliable sources say." (obviously, the actual purpose of that type argumentation was to give an undue weight to the source X).

I think we should think about modification of the policy to make this aspects more clear:

Not only we are allowed to do original research, sometimes we have to do that to meet requirements of V and NPOV. The only restriction is: the results of our analysis or synthesis cannot be added to the article space as separate thoughts.

In other words, it is quite ok to write (on a talk page): "according to the results of my original research, the source X is fringe, the source Y is mainstream, the source Z is dubious, and we should reorganize the article to give more weight to Y, less weight to X, and exclude Z."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would support such a clarification! Highly interesting discussion so far, and also might be linked to WP:CIR in some sense. --Signimu (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• However, it is not OK to say that an academic publication and other good secondary RS were fringe or dubious just because they made references to less reliable sources [17]. For example, an academic book will not be a less reliable source even if it makes a reference to Kavkaz Center. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Brother#Famous brothers

Is there any piece of this section that is not original research/completely indiscriminate? GMG^talk 16:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

About adding unpublished synthesis in Sanal Edamaruku related articles.

Summary:- As per WP:RS, Sanal Edamaruku was subjected to the FIRs after his investigation to Weeping crucifix in Mumbai. As per few sources, he made fun of catholic figures.

It started from here in which editor objected several accusations and labeling as miracles. But after providing sources, he kept on saying that Interesting: During the subsequent TV discussions in Delhi and Mumbai, Sanal accused the Catholic Church of "miracle mongering" this would be a good reason for him to be accused of blasphemy (and requested to apologise): obviously it's not for his line of scientific inquiry but defamation of Catholic clergy/faithful. And yes, he found good reason for him to be accused of blasphemy.

1. Later, he introduced these things in the article in here and gave reference of PRI. In PRI story, it is NOT WRITTEN that he was subsequently subjected to FIRs after he made fun of some POP or so called holy figures. But still editor added it. Remember, no other sources say that he made fun, not even mention.
2. I objected WP:SYNTH and he went on personally attacking me by calling ABSURD. And the user did same in biography of Sanal Edamaruku. He introduced word so in FIRs which clearly shows that FIRs were due to the mockery while most of WP:RS didn't give this reason
3. He reverted edits and gave justification that it was per PRI but no references about that has been given in line till I am writing now. Only, BBC source is given and it is not written about mention about mockery, leave alone reason. The same editor said in Talk:Sanal Edamaruku that he doesn't trust BBC and still gave reference about it.

Now, it is clear that no sources say that FIRs were due to the mockery and still details has been here due to the synthesis. The another editor also called it in the talk page of first point that this may be good explanation. Please crosscheck and verify whether it is synthesis or not.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You seem to just be ignoring the source that was used. From [18], which appears to be of very high quality, and should be regarded above many others simply due to the degree of specificity and detail it contains: He accused the church of being anti-science and mocked the Pope for condoning exorcism... Archie Sodder, [member of Association of Concerned Catholics], said "we had no option but to lodge the complaint..." The Catholic Church in Mumbai has released a statement saying they are not complicit with the complaints filed against Edamaruku. Though the Archbishop has reiterated that he should apologize and the complaints dropped. I'm not going to defend Elizium23's tone in this dispute, but this source comprehensively supports his changes to the article, minus possible quibbles about the wording. There is a possible dispute regarding RS/NPOV/DUE/BLP, but this is not an OR issue, and honestly, this version makes a lot more sense than what was there before, such as the nonsensical implication that the Catholic Church has the power to dismiss criminal charges. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Are these sources primary or secondary?

Three sources are currently used in Gas van article to support the claim that gas vans were used in various parts of the USSR before WWII. Although I believe they all are primary, I would like to hear a third opinion.

• Григоренко П.Г. В подполье можно встретить только крыс… (Petro Grigorenko, "In the underground one can meet only rats") — Нью-Йорк, Издательство «Детинец», 1981, page 403, Full text of the book (Russian) In this memoirs, the author tells a story told to him by a witness of what he called "gas van usage".
• Шрейдер М.П. (Shreider M.P) НКВД изнутри: Записки чекиста. (NKVD from within. Notes by Chekist ), Moscow: Возвращение, 1995. – p.78, full text online
• The Frontline Interview with Alexander Mikhailov

I would like to know if usage of these sources in that context constitutes an original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read them? Third source does not say anything about gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theorists' bodycount

Resolved

 – Compromised by including a summary table showing dates, locations, figures and their totals, and eliminating the 1995 bombing from the textual summary in the intro. EllenCT (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory#In domestic terrorism mass murders, 1995 to present lists nine sourced incidents, in 1995, 2000, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018, and three in 2019, perpetrated by white people who were acting on their mistaken belief that whites are being exterminated. The intro of that article used to include the sentence, "Conspiracists have shot or bombed at least 347 people to death since 1995 in increasingly frequent incidents, injuring at least 974 others." That sentence has been removed twice by an editor who thinks it fails WP:OR. I included it after compiling that section which had previously been dispersed throughout the article, and believe it follows WP:CK, WP:LEAD, and WP:CALC. Please share your opinion at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Another problematic sentence. EllenCT (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Having read the talk page, I can somewhat understand the removal. The argument is that your total combines incidents where belief in “white genocide“ was the primary motivation of the perpetrator, with incidents where the perpetrator was primarily motivated by something else (but who happened to also believe in “white genocide”). In other words adding all the separate incidents together and attributing them all to “white genocide” is a flawed synthesis. I don’t know enough to say one way or the other, but I do understand the argument. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

GGogreen...

Not a forum for general discussion of original thought.

Are we all aware that Bangladesh lies somewhere in the tropics of cancer and that females provide the most relief from farming and production of food for the family it's true that because of the flooding women are to receive funding to help.Heres my point as a diabetic I have concerns for all diabetics effected by global warming due to the excesses of co2 in the atmosphere and in our man made processes. Diabetics have a test for hemoglobin concentration and. I feel that the increases in co2 will adversely affect diabetics.where oxygen therapy and other precautions and funding should be made available for things like oxygen machines and related devices and to make it our number 1 property in the battle against global warming just like Bangladesh as a concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogreen... (talk • contribs)

Responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Gogreen... § Global warming and diabetes

Murderer of Timothy Caughman a white genocide conspiracy theorist?

Resolved

 – removed. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Is NY Daily News (March 26, 2017) "White supremacist James Jackson reveals deranged desire to kill black men to save white women in jailhouse interview," quoting the murderer stating that he was stalking Black men to kill in order to prevent white women from having relationships with them because, "the white race is being eroded," sufficient for including the murder in White genocide conspiracy theory's list of domestic terrorism incidents?

Please opine at Talk: White genocide conspiracy theory#Murder of Timothy Caughman. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

NOR query for database sources used in drug pricing articles

Could editors experienced with NOR (specifically, simple calculations vs. calculations requiring expert knowledge) please offer opinions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#NOR sample discussion ? The rest of the lengthy talk page discussion contains numerous other examples, concerns and issues, but the current attempt before formulating an RFC is to hone in on how several specific database-style sources are being used, and discussion of these examples might benefit from further input. @SlimVirgin: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Is use of Google Maps to determine a specific location original research?

A few editors (myself, User:Doncram, and User:Bubba73) are disagreeing about what to list as the location of Covenant College. One of the questions on the table is whether it's original research to use Google Maps to determine the location of the college in contradiction to the (mailing?) address the college has posted on its website and registered with the U.S. Department of Education. Opinions from editors experienced in identifying original research are welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, maps, including Google maps, provide definitive information about borders of cities and counties. Follow the instructions put into the note I added to the Covenant College article. You can also check Mapquest, which even more easily shows where the county line is. And I have asserted already that colleges are unreliable, in fact, about their assertions of location, which is presumably for marketing reasons and/or to keep things simple for the public. It would take some digging but I could present some other examples, however that is not necessary. This is just about the facts. --Doncram (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI Stanford University, widely known to be in Palo Alto, California, is not. Siena College claims to be in the hamlet Loudonville, New York which is not so, although the Wikipedia article on Loudonville has been contorted to try to allow that stretch, despite past clear discussion if i recall correctly at the college and/or hamlet Talk pages. The marketing of other colleges is not directly relevant again, what matters are the facts about Covenant College. But of course many colleges have set themselves up on open land just outside some town or city, and then it makes sense to use the town/city name to avoid confusion, so students take the bus to the right city, so parents can find it, so it sounds "cooler" than explaining they are in "Podunk" or an unincorporated area. --Doncram (talk)

Let's not get bogged down in specific cases, stick to the generic question. My tuppence worth is that it is entirely reasonable to use Google Maps to find a latitude and longitude of a location. Where the problem of OR arises is when an editor reads a map to infer that a particular location is on the other side of a county line. Maps may not be that precisely accurate. If the reliable source says that X at this (fashionable) address and not that (unfashionable) address, then we have no business contradicting it no matter how obviously wrong it reads on the map. Find another RS that disagrees first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Their own campus map on their website shows where it is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, their own campus map goes to Google maps in fact.

Interestingly, the college's Our Location page does not give the mailing address location, because they know that it would be wrong to assert the college is located in the city of the mailing address. What we have here is NO sources really asserting that the college is actually located in the mailing address city. And we have plentitudes of maps (Google, Mapquest, Dade County tax assessor, Walker County tax assessor, Dade County Comprehensive Plan, Walker County Comprehensive Plan, City of Lookout Mountain document, and one could go on and on) all showing that the college is in Dade County instead of city of Lookout Mountain which is wholly in Walker County.

What the original poster does not understand is that all the map systems nowadays are extremely accurate in their databases of line files (borders), which actually originally derived from U.S. Geographic Service or other governmental map database systems. In the past, when I got up to speed in using two different types of mapping software (MapInfo, and SAS) to do mapping, I recall that I had to download from a government site, or get on a C.D., the U.S. GIS database covering the U.S. state where I was doing the mapping. If I recall correctly, it was an annual file, which would presumably reflect some minor updates in its point files that label landmarks, etc., but the city and county border line files would practically never change.

Bubba73 and I and other NRHP editors have done tons of extremely exact locating of places, using satellite view to identify exactly where a given historic building is, and often checking/confirming on which side of a county line or whatever it is located. We do have to determine, occasionally, which is the exact city or town for historic sites that were listed as being in one city or town some time ago, before city/town borders changed. Here, there has never been any change in all history, or at least modern history, for these entities.

Basically, modern mapping software is extremely accurate for showing borders, and these borders exactly match county tax assessor map borders, and it is extremely easy to look up exactly which city/town holds any given building. Mapping services are extremely reliable reference sources. I think there are never any contradictions between mapping services, because they all fundamentally rely upon the same base GIS data, including the individual legal parcel plot lines that show in county tax assessor GIS data. And in this discussion, there is certainly no counter-example whatsoever, so the appropriate conclusion is "No, the use of extremely reliable GIS reference sources (which all perfectly agree with one another) to perform a simple lookup is not original research." It is merely appropriate use of the definitive reference source(s) for this type of thing. Also it is not use of primary research (as has been questioned, too), and also it is not "unreliable" (as has been questioned also): every single person who does such a lookup will find exactly the same results as every other person. -Doncram (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I have checked the location of hundreds of places, mostly on the NRHP and corrected maybe 100 of them. There are many sources of errors. First many use pre-1983 coordinate system, which can be hundreds of meters off. Secondly, there are a significant number of typos. Third, NRHP usually gives UTM coordinates and these get translated into lat/long, causing more errors. Fourth, in recent years, the coordinates given are where that street address is on the road, and there are usually several buildings near that location. (Sentence added:) Fifth, if the property is larger than 1 acres, the NRHP forms give the corners of the property, and you have to find the house/building within that. I use the NRHP photos and Google street view to find the right building, or use the building footprint or a sketch in the NRHP form to scour the satellite view for the correct building, or sometimes verify the location in person. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So there is an entire group of editors routinely engaged in original research? That's very troubling. ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Since when did consulting reference material, i.e., a map, turn into original research? We are all aware that the references given on the NRHP documentation is frequently wrong, sometimes grossly so, or at least not terribly accurate, so we don't take them as gospel - we do some fact-checking. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"I use the NRHP photos and Google street view to find the right building, or use the building footprint or a sketch in the NRHP form to scour the satellite view for the correct building, or sometimes verify the location in person" doesn't sounds like consulting reference material to me. It sounds like Wikipedia editors using primary sources and personal observations to make judgments i.e., original research. ElKevbo (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The use of Google Maps is not original research. Neither is street view, in the narrow sense of determining the specific location of a building, when one has a street address or a picture but no coordinates. The use of graphical references is not proscribed. Going to see if it's the right building is sometimes a good idea, once one has some basis in references for an approximate location. It's about accuracy, not undertaking geospatial survey work. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider it original research. It is correcting errors or getting accurate coordinates. I match buildings to their photos or information in the NRHP forms. The HRHP forms often include maps or hand-drawn skethces of the location. If someone does their own work in science, math, history, etc, that is O.R. The main source of information for these locations is NRHP forms and their photos. If some published source gave the incorrect coordinates for the White House, would you use that or the correct coordinates? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't realize that WP:OR only applied to science, math, history, etc.! Can you please point that out to me in the policy so I can correct my misunderstanding? ElKevbo (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Taken to its extreme, you might extend your argument that going to the building and taking its picture is OR - but that's what we do, what we're encouraged to do, and what's good for the encyclopedia. I have taken thousands of pictures, many of which have either camera GPS metadata or coordinates that I've found by going to the map and adding to the file description - as we're encouraged to do - to indicate the location at which I stood for the image . Would I use that data for a reference? - no. But photography requires a certain amount of research to make sure it's the right place. The same argument could be applied to any image of anything in an article - is that really Queen Elizabeth in that user-submitted picture? Where's the reference to prove it? Practically all of the pictures in Wikipedia projects are a product of some level of original research, the more so since we usually can't use published materials on copyright grounds. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded over 5,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, almost all of sites on the NRHP. Checking the HRHP with satellite views and/or street views with the NRHP data is essential. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy close. I !vote "speedy close", because this is silly. This duplicates discussion at Talk:Covenant College#Located in Dade County, not in city of Lookout Mountain, not in Walker County. Where Elkevbo is complaining about duplication of discussion, meanwhile they are duplicating discussion here and at my Talk page! --Doncram (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about US geography means that I am free to comment :-) Reading the above, it seems to me that Elkevbo is posing a generic question about using Google Maps, not about any specific instance of it. So let's not get bogged down in the details of a particular case. Make the rule first, then look at its effect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, okay, so I comment above about how extremely accurate/reliable the mapping services are, for exactly the purpose used here and in general for any lookup of location for anything approaching the size of a building. --Doncram (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the original poster has indicated elsewhere that they do not plan to follow up here, so I don't think there is any real discussion to be had, so I do think this discussion topic can be closed. --Doncram (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I said that I had posted my question and was patiently waiting for others to respond. It's poor practice to hound other editors or continue to make the same point(s) over and over again. ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay i am sorry, i am not going back to look there, but i guess i did mischaracterize that. --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is not original research to use a reliable reference work to look up the exact sort of information that the work is intended to provide. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's an insultingly simplistic and inaccurate summary of the question that was asked and the situation that motivated it. ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to close this discussion. It's clear that my understanding of this policy is not in alignment with how editors understand and apply it. Belaboring the point here isn't helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think i ought to confess that i have not been entirely friendly and helpful throughout this (here, my Talk page, Covenant College Talk page). User:ElKevbo did have reasonable questions and reasonable points. While i was more argumentative than i should have been. I should apologize, sort of, but honestly i was irked a bit by how this started and developed (i say a little bit more, here, see the bottom part if interested). Okay I do apologize for being ornery. But out of this discussion here, I think it is a certain accomplishment to identify/state that the mapping systems are extremely detailed and all agree with each other, and that they form a general reference source (per Bubba73 saying somewhere in this), and that simple lookup of point location vs. borders can be done reliably and does not constitute OR or non-RS or anything else bad. That's my takeaway. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In many cases, editors consider a problem to be about the reliability of sources rather than weight. If no reliable sources including the college itself (other than google maps) say where it is located, then there is no reason to mention it. It might be better to rename the field "address" in these cases. TFD (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, TFD, about what to say at least in the lead of the college article, where the current version is in fact jarring that there is a correction or different-than-usual assertion being made. (This was going to be fixed, but it seemed to me we needed to agree on the facts, first.) We could avoid the issue there, perhaps yes by labelling that city as the mailing address city. However, I also do think there is a need for Wikipedia to state the truth, and in fact this college has been misleading / many people have been misled. For sensible reasons from the college's perspective, that it is simpler and/or sounds better to imply they're in the mailing address city, from which they do get some services, and through which comes most persons coming to the college. And the city itself glosses over this too, speaks of the college in a list of its major institutions, and so on: it is symbiotic. But then here I think it is actually important for the encyclopedia to state the truth, with appropriate sourcing, at least in a footnote and/or much further below. The location of the college is such a basic fact, it does need to be said, and we shouldn't simply go along with fudging about it. Clarifying here adds value, even more so where there is some surprise for some/many readers perhaps. So there is some reason to state it, though your point about weight still stands (i.e. we shouldn't make a big deal about it). --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not original research - Per Google itself the map is generated by reliable sources, none of them user generated or submitted. That said, making a statement that some institution isn't reliable about where it is, is plain nuts and fails WP:BLUESKY Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• What is reading? - Is reading a map different than reading a book? You read a source, you make some interpretation of that source based on your command of the language of the source and then cited based on that interpretation. A map has its own language which is read and interpreted, then cited. Same for a photo, article, book, music, (printed or performed) blueprint, etc. They each require different (though overlapping) reading skills, but in the end, aren't they all the same? If reading and citing a journal is not original research, I would think that in general, the same holds true for all the other sources. For me, the only question here is is it (Google maps, Mapquest, etc.) a reliable source? The definitive conclusion above seems to be "yes". (Kenyoni (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC))

Is it original research to take a table from an article on genetics and interpret it?

For about two weeks User:Tursclan and I have had a slow moving argument at Etruscan civilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Latins (Italic tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with User:LambdofGod and their earlier IP User:185.218.35.216 over the use of (FigS29) which can be seen on p70 here. An example of its use is at Latins (Italic tribe)#Genetics which is currently fully protected by User:Swarm. I suspect there is cherry-picking from the article in the entire paragraph, and I don't think we should say "A 2019 genetic study by Stanford", but my main problem is with this sentence:

"In addition, genetic analysis (FigS29) shows that the Iron Age population had a much lower frequencies of SNPs associated with both light skin and light eye pigmentation compared to modern Italians, who instead are similar to other modern Europeans (British, Finnish and Spanish), although the authours are cautious about these results

Note that the quote isn't from the article but, like FigS29 from the supplementary materials [ here] although it's sourced to the article.

LambdofGod's last reinsertion is with the edit summary "Considering that neither Tursclan or Dougweller responded to my talk page, It's obvious that you guys have no argument beside "it hurts my feeling"" despite my posts at User talk:LambdofGod and User talk:Doug Weller#Etruscan civilization where I try to explain policy and they reply " I am exposing a fact, not my personal opinion, and the data are autoevident for anyone with a minimum of genetic knowledge. You can't really expect the authours to write a paragraph for all their 40-50 images." See also Talk:Etruscan origins#Genetic studies: recent edits on SNPs associated with light skin and blue eye where Tursclan has tried to explain to him. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

More reinsertions, the latest being "In addition, genetic analysis (FigS29) shows a massive increase in the frequencies of SNPs associated with light eyes and light skin from the Iron Age to Medieval and Early modern population period, with the modern population resembling other modern European populations." with an edit summary "Fig. S29. Allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance. Imputed genotypes for alleles previously shown to be of functional importance (and under selection), denoted by putative function, associated gene, variant ID, and derived allele, are shown for study individuals from central Italy, ordered by time on the x-axis. For reference, the population allele frequency for three present-day populations in the 1000 Genomes Project (British/GBR, Finnish/FIN, Spanish/IBS) are designated by" which is an excerpt from the only comment on S29 I can see, "Allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance. Imputed genotypes for alleles previously shown to be of functional importance (and under selection), denoted by putative function, associated gene, variant ID, and derived allele, are shown for study individuals from central Italy, ordered by time on the x-axis. For reference, the population allele frequency for three present-day populations in the 1000 Genomes Project (British/GBR, Finnish/FIN, Spanish/IBS) are designated by the first letter of the population name. Sample points for study individuals are colored by their time period. For each variant, a LOESS (locally weighted smoothing line) is plotted all points excluding the three modern populations." Again this appears to be OR. I wish we had a policy on genetic peer reviewed articles not allowing us to use material not in the abstract (and that only if written by the authors) or the concluding discussion. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I think best practice is to use only quotes from the source for conclusions. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• Left a note at WT:MED. GMG^talk 11:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• I saw the note at WT:MED. Doug, do you have a genuine concern about the fundamental factual claim being incorrect, i.e., you think that the skin color likely didn't change during those ~25 centuries, or that skin colors might have gotten darker during that time? I haven't looked at the source, but I'm pretty sure that if you wrote to the authors and asked them if that's what their paper meant, when brought down to the simplest words, that they would add some hedging (because what if their 1000 genomes aren't truly representative?) but agree that it was accurate summary of the relevant material actually in the source (and therefore not a case of original research). The problem for Wikipedia (and the reason that I haven't bothered to look at the source) is that including information from any single recent primary source isn't WP:DUE for these articles. That content isn't important enough to mention in such general articles unless and until it's picked up by a secondary source, such as a textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This the actual description from the article.

Fig. S29. Allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance. Imputed genotypes for alleles previously shown to be of functional importance (and under selection), denoted by putative function, associated gene, variant ID, and derived allele, are shown for study individuals from central Italy, ordered by time on the x-axis. For reference, the population allele frequency for three present-day populations in the 1000 Genomes Project (British/GBR, Finnish/FIN, Spanish/IBS) are designated by the first letter of the population name. Sample points for study individuals are colored by their time period. For each variant, a LOESS (locally weighted smoothing line) is plotted all points excluding the three modern populations.

Pay attention to the last part. They used an algorithm to show graphically the change over time of frequencies of certain SNPs.

I'm awaiting for your response. LambdofGod (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"That content isn't important enough to mention in such general articles unless and until it's picked up by a secondary source, such as a textbook"

The content is shown in the fig29 of the original article so it's important enough to be mentioned. LambdofGod (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That is wrong and is not how Wikipedia works—anyone can edit does not mean that anyone can cherry-pick factoids and use them to slant an article in a particular manner. As explained above, a secondary source would be required to conclude what Fig. S29 represents, and to demonstrate that the conclusion is WP:DUE for the article. The caption quoted above does not mention "skin" or "eye" or "pigmentation" so concluding that the figure proves certain findings regarding those matters is classic original research and is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Johnuniq--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"The caption quoted above does not mention "skin" or "eye" or "pigmentation" so concluding that the figure proves certain findings regarding those matters is classic original research and is not permitted."

Skin and eye are mentioned in the actual graph (fig29), so it's proven. There is no slander at all considering that now all archeogenetic papers includes analysis about functional SNPs and the results are often commented. Case in point this is from the article about the Yamnaya culture:

"Physical characteristics The genetic basis of a number of physical features of the Yamnaya people were ascertained by the ancient DNA studies conducted by Haak et al. (2015), Wilde et al. (2014) and Mathieson et al. (2015): they were genetically tall (phenotypic height is determined by both genetics and environmental factors), overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.[28][7] Despite their pastoral lifestyle, there was little evidence of lactase persistence.[6]" LambdofGod (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

A caption at least has a chance of being a summary of the author's view (which still would not overcome the primary source problem). However it is original research (and UNDUE) for an editor to interpret a graph. You might browse WP:INDENT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have looked at the graphs shown on Fig S29. I have several concerns about Lambdofgod's interpretation.

My first concern is that, as far as I can tell, each dot on the graphs represents a single "study individual", i.e. one person. The sample size is small.

The authors do not include R-squared values to establish the quality of fit of the regression curves. This makes it difficult to know how well-modelled the regression curves are.

No statistical analysis is provided to show if allele frequency is significantly different between the different age-based populations. I suspect that the reason for this absence is that the differences are not statistically significant. This is also related to the small sample size.

As humans, we have evolved to be very good at pattern recognition—to the point where we see patterns even where patterns don't exist. Even though it looks like there may be a trend, can we be sure that a trend really exists? This is why the semi-objective techniques of statistical analysis are so helpful.

My interpretation: these findings might imply a trend towards lighter skin in more modern populations, but this requires further analysis of much larger sample sizes before we could declare this with any certainty. Of the genes tested, SLC24A5 looks like the most promising. In any case, our interpretations of these graphs should not be included in Wikipedia's article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

occupational stress

I am looking for advice on the occupational stress article. There is a large heavily weighted section in the lead which is not even discussed in the actual article itself. It has no real relevance to the article and seems promotional. It appears to be original research. Would appreciate other's opinions. Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that second paragraph needs to not be in the lead. You can change it yourself if you like.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Protests of 2019

Protests of 2019 was controversial almost immediately after its creation. I was not its creator, but I felt that the sources tended to support the creator's claim, so I developed the article. The final result of the deletion discussion, mainly about concerns for OR/SYNTHESIS, was no consensus and the article was kept. Subsequent mainstream media a month later seems to support the existence of the topic as a valid encyclopedic topic.

In the last week or so, a new user who is clearly quite enthusiastic and is making a good effort to provide sourced material has been adding quite substantial content. Since I've contributed most of the material to the article, I'm in a highly non-neutral position for judging what should or should not be in the article; the article is not mine. However, the new user does not seem to realise that what s/he is contributing is really pushing the limits of OR/SYNTHESIS in an article that started off with these concerns, and s/he does not understand that the talk page is the place to respond with concrete counterarguments, and that edit summaries are not sufficient for sorting out a serious content disagreement. The Protests of 2019 article is presently just two clicks from the main page (click (1) In the News/protests; click (2) infobox - Protests of 2019 at the top), so the OR could risk becoming embarrassing - or result in a new deletion proposal because of the added OR material - if there are no other editors participating and explaining to the new user. New users have the right to learn, and it's understandable that the new user is suspicious about listening to the opinion of just one person. Boud (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC) (minor copyedit Boud (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

The new editor has finally responded on the talk page, but by creating a new section rather than responding in specific talk page sections on specific editing issues; and in parallel has done a wholesale revert. However, s/he does seem to have made an effort on the Common causes section, without (in my judgment) quite getting the idea of OR in this context. Help in recommending that the editor focus on specific talk page sections concerning specific issues to work step by step, and independent opinions on these specific issues, should not be difficult for people who watch this noticeboard. The two specific issues/talk page sections are include Brexit? and include immigration/xenophobia paragraph?. Boud (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Upcoming RFC

Please put Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices on your watchlists. Don't answer yet (we're still trying to decide whether anything needs to be polished up any more), but I'd really appreciate it if some of the regulars here would plan to share your expertise with us once it opens. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)