Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Hamas charter and Likud platform comparison

There is a dispute as to if the inclusion of a comparison to Likud's platform to the Hamas charter at Hamas. The difference in views can be seen in this diff. The sources used to justify are for comparing to Likud, to Gush Emunim and Likud. The last source, while discussing extreme religious views in charters or platforms that are often cited but just as often ignored by the politicians, gives quotes from the Hamas charter and then gives quotes from the Likud charter, with both quotes laying claim to all of historic Palestine (the river to the sea maximalist position on either side). Is it SYNTH to say that both Likud and Hamas' charter/platform make the same claim to all of Palestine based on these sources? nableezy - 19:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's Synth as none of the sources describe Hamas and Likud's charters as similar, unlike the text, which describes them as mirrors of one another. It's also Undue. Drsmoo (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's just listen to external, neutral reviewers. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I've also notified the other involved editors. Drsmoo (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, saying two charters are compatible means that the entire charter is comparable, not just one part. Most charters, constitutions, party platforms, declarations of independence are comparable in some aspects, but that doesn't mean you'd say the charters are comparable, but a part of the charter is. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That isnt what the article says, it says this position is the same. nableezy - 22:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The article says that, but the sources don't. Drsmoo (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Volaticotheres

Falconfly, who has a history of making claims not supported by the sources he cites (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Falconfly), has repeatedly edited pages relating to Volaticotherini with references to his pet hypothesis that volaticotheres were capable of powered flight. In particular, he has posted reconstructions of three taxa, Argentoconodon, Ichthyoconodon, and Triconolestes with fully-developed wings. All published sources on Volaticotherium and Argentoconodon have consistently referred to them as gliders similar to flying squirrels, incapable of powered flight, and reconstructed them as such. There is also a somewhat grayer area regarding whether a source refuted an older source adequately. Ornithopsis (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I am following what Meng et al describes (large patagia, incomplete hand with long proximal phalanges; he does mention the absence of a pterosaur-like wing-finger, but this has already been addressed with the fact that the Ichthyoconodon image can be interpreted as a styliform); tellingly, evading this has been a consistent aspect of these conversations on your part. Second, you have been erasing legitimate information (ie that so far the evidence against long term aquatic transportation in Ichthyoconodon molars has not been properly addressed), so you cannot fault me from including said information

First of all, Sigogneau-Russell states, and I quote, "...led us to believe that they could not have undergone long transportation and, in consequence ,that they could have belonged to a piscivorous and aquatic mammal." As the Anoual Syncline is a deltaic environment, it is possible that it could have been transported only a short distance from the shore. As you continue to ignore, Kielan-Jaworowska et al. state "co-occurence of mammalian fossils with those belonging to aquatic or semiaquatic taxa does not, in itself, indicate that the mammals were aquatic" in the context of the habitat preferences of Astroconodon, Ichthyoconodon, and Dyskritodon. Moreover, as other eutriconodonts are potentially semiaquatic, it is far more likely that Ichthyoconodon was preserved in a littoral environment as a result of it swimming, than that it was an unprecedented fifth origin of powered flight in animals. Second of all, the elongate wing-supporting strut in your version of Ichthyoconodon does not resemble the styliform element in any extant glider, and there is no evidence of a styliform element of any kind in Volaticotherium, similar to the condition in some extant gliders such as colugos. Third of all, Meng et al. state "as in the pes the metacarpals and proximal phalanges are dorsally arched, with the latter being proportionally long in comparison with the former" (emphasis mine). They would have mentioned if the manus was proportionally large as in bats, and moreover, the figures in the paper clearly show that the manus is much too small to form part of a bat-like wing. Regardless, this is original research as all published sources with reconstructions of volaticotheres (e.g. Gaetano's thesis [2]) depict them as flying squirrel or colugo-like gliders, and multiple sources have described them as gliders and even explicitly stated [3] that no Jurassic mammals were capable of active flight. Can you provide a single source which mentions the possibility of powered flight with full wings in volaticotheres? Ornithopsis (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources on the Anoual being a delta? Men 2006 and Sigogneau-Russell 1995 both describe it as "littoral", which is a term usually not applied to deltaic environments. And this feature of Ichtyoconodon's dentition is not noted in other mammal fossils from the region (Gobiconodon, Hahnodon, et cetera). Second, it is a slightly longer versin than flying squirrel styliforms. Third, A) bats similarly have phalanges adapte for grasping due to their maneuverable flight style, B) the Bicklemann 2015 paper distinguish between "volant" and "arboreal" Mesozoic mammal ecologies.Falconfly (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's stated to be deltaic in Kielan-Jaworowska et al. (page 55) [4]. Second, your reconstruction of Ichthyoconodon has a styliform element roughly 1.7 times the length of the arm, whereas both giant flying squirrels and the aberrant theropod Yi have a ratio of around 0.7--that's a difference well outside the bounds of "slightly longer". Third, I fail to see how bats having manus adapted for grasping is relevant here. Finally, volant means "able to fly or glide," so Bicklemann et al. saying that Volaticotherium was volant does not support your argument. You continue to be unable to show a single source which even implies active flight, elongate styliforms, or batlike wings in any volaticothere, whereas I have provided multiple sources which explicitly contradict your claims. Your claims are wrong, and even if they were remotely plausible, they would still be OR. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A) No citacion. B), erroneous terminology (note also volant ecologies, seperated from arboreal, which a gliding animal should fit in). C) Your pettiness is amusing. (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that "volant" has been used for gliding species in the technical literature, including flying squirrels and gliding treefrogs (though it's more common in older literature). Though I regard it as sloppy terminology, it raises the possibility that Bicklemann et al 2015 were using it in this manner (especially since that was not the subject of their paper, and people can often mess up terms from other fields). The portion of the paper you're quoting has a string of references after it; if they meant powered flight, one of those references should explicitly support that claim (or they were sloppy with references). A claim of truly powered flight needs something more than a drive-by terminology drop in a marginally related paper. HCA (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, you've continued to be unable to provide a source that explicitly states volaticotheres were capable of powered flight (yet you call out Ornithopsis for evading information and not providing citations). As you've continuously avoided acknowledging, it's WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Shuvuuia (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you want a citation for? I, unlike you, can provide references which support my claims. The Bickelmann paper also lists "scansorial" as separate from arboreal, so I would be cautious in taking their mentioning separate ecologies as particularly meaningful. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Can you point to a peer-reviewed scientific article clearly and explicitly stating that volaticotheres were or could have been capable of powered flight? If not, it's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, period. If you feel the case is strong for this, then write it up and submit it to a paleontology journal; it's easy. But until then, unless you can directly attribute this claim to a paper (not abstract, definitely not website), it can't be included. HCA (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ROLLBACK needed

Can someone please ROLLBACK the edits by User:36.83.144.248 (I don't know how to use that option). All his or her edits are about adding unsourced categories regarding ethnicities, which, again have no reliable sourcing or even foundation (see (see [5]). I warned the IP on his or her talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Issue addressed here. Quis separabit? 12:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Interpretation of demographic proportions from a 16th-century text

The original text written by Antun Vrančić is in Latin, and the translation below is made by Ioan-Aurel Pop {in his work Religiones and Nationes in Transylvania during the 16th Century):

[Transylvania] is inhabited by three nations, Szeklers, Hungarians, Saxons; still, I would also include the Romanians, who are easily equal in number [to the others] but have no liberties, no nobility, no rights of their own, with the exception of a small number who live in the district of Haţeg, where Deceballus is believed to have had his capital, and who were ennobled during the reign of John Hunyadi, a native of those parts, because they relentlessly fought against the Turks

According to the interpretation of some fellow editors, this can be expressed by the following percentages:

• Szeklers 25%
• Hungarians 25%
• Saxons 25%
• Romanians 25%

These data can be found at History_of_Transylvania#Historical_population. Is this interpretation good? 123Steller (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How neat and tidy, unlike the other figures. But no, of course not. Why not 16.6666 16.6666 16.6666 50? Or maybe it was 20 20 20 40, as 'easily' could be more than. It's original research. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, just a comment:

On that figure almost everything is an ESTIMATION, if we do not speak about censuses. To Doug Weller: 16.6666 16.6666 16.6666 50 or 20 20 20 40 cannot be since you did not interpret good the text, and also many translations are suffering from the improper or misunderstandable translation of the original latin text. The original text says, the the number of Romanians may easily equal by the number of any other nations mentioned ONE BY ONE, not all the other nations together additive = all the nations had approx. equal distribution.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC))

Why not 26 27 26 20 or even 33 30 12 25? What's the source for other nations having close to equal distribution? I'd expect a 25 25 25 25 arrangement to be quite unlikely in a random country. I could infer from this source that Romanians weren't the 4th by population, and probably not the 1st (or it would be stated outright), but not much else. Daß Wölf (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What you have written mathematically is acceptable, unlike, the former counter-demonstration attempt. Since the relevant info was an alleged ESTIMATION, there is no right to deteriorate or calculate or modify more than the source suggests, if we want to be totally fair. In there is not any further info in the source, fairly we have to estimate 25% for everybody, otherwise it would be an OR++. We could discuss about such if i.e. the author would also tell us more or would suggest a different ratio to any nation. The source is Antonius Wrancius: Expeditionis Solymani in Moldaviam et Transsylvaniam libri duo. De situ Transsylvaniae, Moldaviae et Transalpinae liber tertius.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: (assuming that was you), it's OR to say it's definitely not 25% for everybody, but it's also OR to say it's exactly 25%, when there are literally thousands of possibilities (consider for example 26 25 24 25, 26 26 24 25, 26 24 26 25...). 25% a piece might be the most likely possibility, but its likelihood might not be more than a fraction of a percent, so it's quite a strong (and thus OR) assumption to say that exactly that is the case. Not that the source doesn't say "are equal in number", but "are easily equal in number". In my experience that means "larger than or equal", or even slightly less but in the same order of size, and is only an estimate.

If that's not convincing, imagine I take at random 20 playing cards from a standard deck. I look at them without showing you and tell you only that my hearts are easily equal in number to any other suit. Would you bet your money that I have exactly 5 of each suit, and not e.g. 7 hearts, 7 clubs, 5 spades and 1 diamond? Daß Wölf (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot my signature, it was me. Since I am dealing also with mathematics, as I said your conlusions are mathematically fair. But I have to repeat, since all is an ALLEGED ESTIMATION, noone - not me, not the legend, etc. - can in any means tell us that "exactly" was 25% for everyone. I never stated this, I am aware what the author said and about the meaning of "easily", I just emphasized that fairly as long as in the source there not any sure allusion or justification about the details of any possible larger than X, than we have to apply equal by the estimation, like in mathematics or engineering if there is a missing information but we still want to satisfy the equation. Your example with the cards are identical with your former presentation, thus I have not any further reaction to it, since I understood what you have written, so no further convincement is needed towards me. Shortly: "larger than or equal" = ">=" and in case we have no info on ">" than "=" still satisfying the condition in mathematical terms. If in the legend tilde (~) would be put before the 25%, than it would be acceptable? By some other estimations ~ is applied, although it is not necessarry, since initially it is written in the box that is not a census, but an estimation, thus it should not be regarded as something carved in a stone...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC))

It's not for us to interpret the sources that way. Far better to just have a line in the table with no figures, and a note including a direct quote. Readers can infer what they will. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's a 7-7-5-1 situation, then we have 35%. Or if it's, say 8-8-2-2, we have 40%. That's a far cry from "about 25%". Now, having re-read the article section we're talking about, I guess 25% could be a good guess (disregarding the quickly-changing medieval demographics due to war, epidemics etc.), in line with other numbers in the table, but it's not necessary. We already have four entries in the table corresponding to the 16th century, and there is no year listed with this one; so I think it would be awkward to add an entry for "16th century". I think the text as quoted adds much more to the article than a simple number in the table. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It could also mean that Romanians numbered as least as much as the minimum of the first three. I think these precise interpretations of an imprecise source are all OR and shouldn't be used. The best approach is to just quote the original text and leave it at that. Zero^talk 00:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Daß Wölf, as we discussed 7-7-5-1 and 8-8-2-2 situation is mathematically impossible since then the statement would not hold. Moreover, there was a year listed with this one (1551), so this is not a problem. Zero, it cannot mean, since the original latin text cannot be misunderstood if you do not have a clear intention to it. I would not consider the source imprecise but as you wish and telling also to Someguy1221, just to avoid any suspicion of OR I will not struggle to put it back, but I will later put a secondary source/scholar work that also draws from this source, since unfortunately majority of the Anglo-Saxon sources adopted the biassed interpretation of this source and they advertize it everywhere so it will be a healthy counter balance.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC))

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article has been notified of a potential WP:SYNTH issue in what is now the Observations of behavioral patterns section. The content at the talk page discussion is quite long. So, I've summarized what I think is the current state of the issue - because some things have changed since the initial post. You will get the perspective of Rrburke, though, quite clearly when you read it, he or she is quite articulate.

• The primary concern, as I understand it was that there was SYNTH in the information gathered from the Huffington Post source - and then published in the WP article. There are other issues as well, like the source of the author's research information seems to be non-applicable, based upon the title of the article, "Understanding the link between men's alcohol use and sexual violence perpetration" Looking at it, though, (I just realized the poster provided a link), there is a section of the article entitled and focused on "Sexual Objectification and Sexual Violence" on pages 2-3. Another concern is that Huffington Post is one of the sources that editors working the page have decided to avoid, because of POV. The poster raised a concern that it's an Op-Ed piece.—Because of the number of concerns, the content has been commented out and will likely be removed soon, because noone is asking for it to stay.
• There is also information that comes from the Economist. Its inclusion in this article is questioned because it, too, is an Op-Ed. It is claimed that the research source was the same one used in the Huffington Op-ED.
• We also have additional content in the section that speaks to the connection between Trump's alleged sexist behavior and sexual misconduct.
• Because of the concerns, it has been requested that the entire section be removed.
• I am researching claims that there is no objectification / sexual violence connection in Trump's case for balance.

References

Your insight and guidance would be much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC) wrong with this posting? Something that needs to be done to help the watchers of this page look at the issue? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The first two bullets have been resolved, the content has been removed. I have not heard that we still have an issue, but will post on the article talk page to verify that. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Lumping together suspected and confirmed terrorist attacks in various lists

See for example List of terrorist incidents, 2016 and a brief discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2016 and a longer discussion at User talk:JBergsma1#WP:NOR violations. Without reliable sources confirming that these are actual terrorist incidents, the lists are original research - and worse, the readers can't tell which is which. There's obviously the RS question of sources, but for terrorism we normally look for official sources. Pinging those involved in the discussion, @NewsAndEventsGuy, Drmies, JBergsma1, EvergreenFir, and Parsley Man:. I wish we had a board that combined RS/NOR/NPOV. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My position: Inclusion on such lists requires that reliable sources which explicitly state that an event is terrorism. Reporting of allegations of saying "Allahu ackbar" is insufficient and inclusion based on that or similar info is original research. Further, these lists should only contain confirmed events; suspected events should be excluded. Thank you Doug Weller for raising this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Moreso, it needs to be a source that has declaration that the act is terrorism by a government authority that has the ability to recognize that aspect. The press is not an authority for this, nor are random politicians. Agencies like the FBI, the police, etc. are the only groups that generally have this ability. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Statements in the press or by the press aren't sufficient. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Most good RS won't declare it terrorism unless officials do (NYTimes would say "possible" or "suspected" often), but making that requirement that it needs to be from an official agency clear makes sense to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Let it be known that I also tried to raise the issue at WP:VPP (see here), but apparently to no avail. Parsley Man (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Shooting of James Boyd

Shooting of James Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request some outside help with the above article. The core issue as I see it is original research. To set the background, this was a very controversial shooting in a town with a history of police violence, and which triggered a finding by the state attorney general that the police department brought charges against the district attorney "for political purposese" after she filed charged against the police officers who shot him.

Much of the secondary source coverage deals with lapel video -- whether or not Boyd was turning when shot, whether or not this meant he was surrendering, etc. Furthermore most of the coverage was provided by a television station, which live streamed the trial.

The most important question is how to handle the differing transcriptions. A key piece of evidence is what exactly one of the shooters meant when he said "this fucking lunatic? I am going to shoot him in the penis with a beanbag shotgun here in a minute." Or possibly "in the pecker" as some testified at trial, although I am not certain whether this is a difference in transcription or recollection. A state police officer also said under oath that the shooter, APD Detective Keith Sandy, said "with a beanbag shotgun" but I just don't hear that, though the officer had with him a beanbag shotgun and a Taser shotgun, so it is possible that this is what he meant and the other officer understood. What Sandy actually shot him with was a rifle, which may have escaped the notice of some of the people protesting this death not being called a first-degree murder. I don't really care which gets used; the significance to me was that it was said before the officer made contact with him.

I have an opinion about this shooting, which I have stated on the talk page, but my primary goal is accuracy in the Wikipedia article. The other editor who has been working on this article says the same, but his definition of accuracy seem to me to be "validating the opinion that of course the officers did nothing wrong." It seems more complicated than that to me -- these officers seem to have received training contrary to their SOP manual; what are we to make of that? We can't just revert to secondary sources only as we both agree that several of them are wrong, including the initial Associated Press account.

So. I would like some help, please, in sorting this out. I am not going to mention names here as this question is really what *are* we supposed to do, and I may yet need to do an ANI or NPOV report on an editor, so I would like to keep the matters separate. Thanks for any input. Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Elinruby on several points. One of them is that I don't think there's an issue with the "differing transcriptions." I think that since there are several interpretations of what was said and they are reported in various media, it's impossible to tell which it the absolute correct version. Therefore I think that putting both (or several versions if they exist) into the article, along with sources, of course, to let the readers know of the controversy.

The matter of first or second degree murder is not of importance. The judge hearing the case (which by the way is over. It resulted in a mistrial, a hung jury, voting 9-3 for acquittal) found after the prosecution case was over that first degree murder was not appropriate and dismissed that charge from the jury's consideration. The trial proceeded only on the second degree murder charge and one of aggravated assault on one of the two defendants. The only bit of evidence for premeditation was this statement, and the judge has made a decision that it did not rise to that level, therefore this point is moot.

I don't think a judge decided that oen. I think the DA never charged them with first degree. But I am not entirely sure about that, I am not sure which DA it would have been, and no I don't have a source here in my back pocket, but whatever happened with first degree was in 2014 or 2015. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: The DA filed an "open charge" of murder (forgetting the agg assault charge for a moment). This means that the jury could convict for either first or second degree murder. At trial, after the prosecution closed, the defense made a motion to remove the first degree murder charge from consideration, stating that the prosecution had not shown anything to support premeditation. The judge agreed and removed it. There was only the one DA, Brandenburg. The attorney who tried the case was a special prosecutor, McGinn. You're wrong about it being discharged in 2014 or 2015. It happened in the trial, which was this year. The links to all of this are in the Article. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for an editor to keep discussing premeditated murder when a judge has decided that such a thing never occurred. A single statement to the effect, that some people think the judge was wrong, should sufficient since that's probably correct.

I have an opinion as well and my primary goal is the same, accuracy in the article. Before I found the article, it was quite one sided, with few statements supporting the other side of the question from the opinion that the officers had committed murder. I have significant education, training and experience in these matters and felt that they had done the best they could with an difficult situation. All I've done is to present viewpoints that others have overlooked or ignored. All of my contributions to the article are properly sourced and cited.

This is the first I've heard that another editor thinks the officer "seemed to have received training contrary to their SOP manual." But I think that too is a moot point. The department investigated the incident and found that the officers were within policy and the jury has spoken.

A major point of erage deals with lapel video -- whether or not Boyd was turning when shot, whether or not this meant he was surrendering, contention is the true definition of "Original Research." I have cited a news story that has as part of it a video.

that is because it is original research and therefore I did not put it in. But the CIT officer testified about the SOP. The SOP is not what happened. The defense argument is that the policemem were doing their job as they were trained to do it when they shot the man. Therefore their training and the SOP differ. Shrug. But if that goes in it needs a reference. Pereferably several Elinruby (talk)

The news story discusses, among other things the knives used by the man who kept the officers at bay, threatening to kill them with it repeatedly. http://krqe.com/2016/09/26/murder-trial-for-former-albuquerque-police-officers-to-resume-monday/ The articles describes the knives as having a blade that is about "3 1/2 inches long." The accompanying video shows a close-up photo of one of the knives and it's clear that it has a partially−serrated blade. I wrote the description of the knife as " folding pocket knife with a 3 1/2" (8.9 cm) partially-serrated blade." I think this is as Wiki policy says, "a straightforward descriptive statement of fact and can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" But one editor has reverted it a couple of times, saying that it was Original Research and could not be used because it came from the video, and there was no written description of the knife that contained the description of it as being partially serrated. In reading the definition of OR it appears to me that this does not fall under a classification that would have my description of the knife being prohibited. Looking at the photograph of the knife in the video one does not need any "specialized education" and is not an "interpretation" but is, instead an observation.

Generally the other editors involved in this have resisted many of my efforts to provide balance. Many of my additions to the article that support the law enforcement side of the issue have been resisted at one point or another, with various reasons being cited. One editor has said, in the talk section, that he will no longer interact with me, including a refusal to discuss the article with me, due to an unrelated dispute that occurred.

You took something he said to you and me on his user page and posted it on on *your* user page to preserve a record pf how ignorant he is. Or something. A personal anecdote that conceivably might identify him, if he lives in a small enough town. Why are you trying to prove his ignorance anyway? we understand that you don't think anyone who hasn't been law enforcement has a right to question these events. I just disagree, personally. You're right, it's not an original research issue per se but you had this same sort of preference for video... well. I think he was probably trying to explain a policy to you that really does exist, and that attitude is why I asked you how close you were to the APD. And I am not going to let you describe him as unreasonable for being upset about that Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I put it on my page to preserve it. If someone thinks it shows "ignorance" they can interpret it that way. Everyone is ignorant on many topics. But that doesn't mean that THEY are ignorant. Some people don't understand the difference. You seem to forget that HE put the anecdote out there, and even if I didn't preserve it, Wikipedia does! Everything that's written here is archived, even if it's deleted from an article, a talk page, or a user page. The argument might have some merit if I had gone looking for personal information on Activist, but I did not. HE made the information public, not me. I disagree with your statement that it's conceivabl[e that someone] might identify him.

You're wrong when you write, ... we understand that you don't think anyone who hasn't been law enforcement has a right to question these events. Actually I think that anyone, no matter what their background, has the right to critique these events. But when there's a disagreement as to what something means or why something was done, the opinion of the civilian (meaning someone who is not or was not LE and educated, trained and experienced with these matters) matters little, if at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts. For example, when Boyd turned (which the prosecution interprets as him surrendering) LEOs who know about such things, know that this is not a show of surrender, by any stretch of the imagination. He's not being commanded to turn or to get down on the ground. He is being told to FIRST "drop the knives." AFTER THAT, will come orders for him to move away from them, and THEN to get down on the ground. So anyone is welcome to think that he was surrendering, but LEOs know that he was not.

As to I think he was probably trying to explain a policy to you that really does exist. I'm well aware of the policy and don't deny that it exists. But what I did does not rise to the level of a violation of that policy. First, HE made the information public, not me. Second, THERE IS NO PERSONAL INFORMATION (required to be a violation of the Wiki Policy) anywhere in the statement. In fact HE IS BEING UNREASONABLE in his demand that I remove the information. More than likely had he approached me in a polite and professional manner, had he continued to contribute to the editing of the article and responded to my questions, I'd have removed it. But given his behavior, I won't take it down. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But that dispute is another matter, not under consideration here. I'm only concerned with his refusal to discuss the article and his continued reversion of it to remove my description of the knife.

probably because he isn't sure what kind of source a still image that appears in a video is. Actually, the still image is in a different video, but you do have 3 1/2" here in the article and also in Detective Render's evidence, so all other comments apply. And why do we need to litigate all this just so you can describe the knife as "serrated"? It is completely legal in New Mexico. Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

One editor seems to think that merely calling something "Original Research" makes in unusable on Wiki. Several times I've posted the policy that says it must be used carefully but that it can be used. That editor has never responded to that. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean primary sources must be used carefully or you get original research, don't you? If so, yes, that is what I said. Elinruby (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Thanks for the correction. Here's the policy from Wiki

"primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• I only looked at the description of the knife. It is not stated in the source. Interpreting it on our own is precisely OR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

While the "description of the knife" is not "stated in the source," it is SHOWN "in the source," in the video, where any educated person can see that the knife is partially serrated. It does not take the SLIGHTEST bit of "interpretation." Just as one can look at the words, one can look at the video. This requirement that something must be written down or it can't be used here arises to the level of 'absurd.'

Here's the link I was about to put into the article when I discovered that you had deleted the entry, without discussion in the talk section, I might add. Simply click on the link, start the video and go to 0:33 on the video. Stop the video when the photo of the knife comes on the screen and look at it. It does not require any interpretation, only observation by an "educated person." The video was shot by official TV cameras in the court room, during testimony, and Elinruby has used it for other entries in the article that is being discussed. If those edits are to stand, so should this one. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not delete this. Elinruby (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for going and finding that. The problem with youtube video is that even if you say ok, this is court video, a) we do not know if it is edited a) and b) YouTube is the epitome of self-publication. But in this case the video belongs to the 2nd District Court, and erm, if it were federal it would put it in the public domain. Not sure if the same is true of New Mexico jurisdiction. But anyway. We stipulated that the youtube videos we were looking at were likely accurate, but offhand I would still prefer that they be hosted on say krqe.com than in a youtube account, because of information integrity concerns. Right? So to me, if the article at the link says x, then x is true because to a certain point anyway I trust krqe. Now. If the prosecutor says in the video that Boyd has a 3 1/2-inch knife then that would be primary source for "3 1/2 inch" but kind of OK still because this is the section about the trial and part of that section should be what the prosecutor said. And a primary and a secondary source together that say the the same thing is fairly convincing, for example. So, article quotes her is secondary, video where she says it is primary. Normally you would not pull courtroom video to check sources but I think that since there are clearly mis-statements and contradictions and different transcripts, then it is a matter of weight and reliability if there is no primary source, but if we can use the primary source to settle the point it might save a lot of tedious writing that so and so said this and the defense attorney asked him that and so on.

What do you think of making "Preliminary hearing" and "Trial" sections? I think part of the reason this is complicated is because it's all under "Special prosecutor" and not all the witnesses or the testimony were in court both times.Elinruby (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that your first paragraph here is spot on. I think that making those new sections in the Article is a good idea. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think (please correct me if I am wrong) @Beanyandcecil: is wanting to use an exhibit in the court case which is displayed in the videotaped testimony. My issue is that ok apart from OR, the exhibit would prove the length of the blade to me if I was a juror maybe, but we don't need this probable OR because there are secondary souces that say this. I am not sure if these sources are also cited here. His citation, though, such as it is, or the one I saw, say nothing about a serrated blade, nor do they use the word "lockback" that was previously in the description of Boyd's weapon. So the one thing it does prove, we have a better source for, and it still leaves a lot of adjectives uncited Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think (please correct me if I am wrong) [Beanyandcecil] is wanting to use an exhibit in the court case which is displayed in the videotaped testimony. My issue is that ok apart from OR, the exhibit would prove the length of the blade to me if I was a juror maybe, but we don't need this probable OR because there are secondary souces that say this.

While there may be "secondary sources that say this," I've not come across them. And if it was necessary to cite every source to back up statements made in articles, they'd be drowned in citations. The primary source that I've cited, is not OR because it 'does not require any interpretation by an educated person,' the Wiki standard, to see that the knife is partially serrated.

I am not sure if these sources are also cited here. His citation, though, such as it is, or the one I saw, say nothing about a serrated blade, nor do they use the word "lock back" that was previously in the description of Boyd's weapon. So the one thing it does prove, we have a better source for, and it still leaves a lot of adjectives uncited 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as any educated person does not need interpretation to see that the knife is partially serrated, they do not need interpretation to see that the knife is a folding lock back model. The knife "clicks" into the locked open position when it's opened on the video and one can see the depression on the back of the knife where the lock is pressed, to allow it to close. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

But see you may be an "educated person" who sees this at a glance, but those of us who majored in French lit and network security may not be able to see that at all, without this meaning we are uneducated. And supposing I agreed with you it would still be a primary source, ie not preferred. I am confused by the various discussion posts, but we agree that in the video of the prosecutor talking, in which she says the knife was 3 1/2 inches long and also submits into evidence the knife itself on some sort of backing next to a ruler, proving the length for court purposes, right? We agree on that, I think. But the KRQE story quotes her saying that and so is a totally good secondary source which is even reliable for this purpose. So you don't need the video for that. We discussed primary vs secondary and agreed that there are contradictory statements, acoounts and transcriptions, right? So I said I think we can use primary to clear up some things that are unclear. Which one of to the crisis officers was talking to him, for example.

@Activist:@Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, But see you may be an "educated person" who sees this at a glance, but those of us who majored in French lit and network security may not be able to see that at all, without this meaning we are uneducated.

I think that by "educated" Wikipedia means a person with an average education (whatever that means) on general topics, perhaps a high school education, or slightly above that. I think that such a person can look at the photo of this knife and see that it's serrated. Perhaps someone with an esoteric education might not recognize serrations on a knife but that the general public will. The issue of it being a lock−back has already been addressed. Several reputable sources describe it as such. If I were to show the general public a picture that showed three knives, one with a serrated blade and the other two plain blades, I think that most people would have no trouble telling which was which. But it's irrelevant now.

Elinruby wrote, And supposing I agreed with you it would still be a primary source, ie not preferred.

I don't give a hoot that it's "not preferred." it's NOT prohibited and per Wiki policy, it's permissible if used "carefully."

Elinruby wrote, We discussed primary vs secondary and agreed that there are contradictory statements, acoounts and transcriptions, right?

Those various interpretations are based on which side of the question one comes down on. There is no such 'interpretation' as to the fact that the knife is partially serrated. It's a fact, not subject to opinion or interpretation.

Elinruby wrote, But the problem with primary sources is interpretation and this is where we run into these issues:

• what exactly did Sandy said to Ware? I think it is *possible* that he *meant* Taser shotgun but this is an interpretation. He didn't *say* it. It may be obvious to someone of a certain background, ie you and the state police officer that this is what he meant. But I don't think we should insert words into a quote based on what we think Sandy meant, especially not a quote that is the rationale for all the "murder" analyses going around.

Thanks for making my point. The reason that the first degree murder (premeditated) charges were dismissed was that the judge agreed that Sandy said, or meant "Taser shotgun" thereby negating any premeditation. I believe that there is at least one transcript that has "unintelligible" right before the word "shotgun." That would account for the various interpretations. But no matter, Ware is "adamant" (his word) that Sandy said "Taser" and in the references in the conversation that immediately follows, Sandy confirms it.

Elinruby wrote, The fact is, he had less-lethal weapons and a rifle. We agreed on that, right? So there is no need for saying APD "murdered" anyone and also no proof, right?

I agree. Some people have interpreted the fact that Sandy responded with four weapons, a rifle, two less lethal shotguns, and his handgun, as evidence of murder. The fact is that he wears the handgun every day, it's part of his everyday uniform. The long guns, are assigned to him so that he can pick one or more of them depending on the situation.

Elinruby wrote, Did Perez say Booyah after he shot Boyd? If so... well. The tape this is on is the one from Perez' heltmet cam, or at least that is what the headline says.(ref coming shortly)

It makes no sense, given the timing of the incident. It's said at the moment that the K−9 handler is trying to get the blue bag away from his dog. It's a common word used by K−9 handlers when the dog has done something wrong. It's not a command, such as "sit" or "down," rather it's an expression of dissatisfaction at something the dog has done. Most people say "NO" loudly when their dog does something that they dislike.

Elinruby wrote, In fact, as far as I know, there are no helmet cams at APD

Is the video from Perez' helmet cam, a privately owned camera? If so, wouldn't that make him one of the good guys who spends his own money to document his work and provide evidence?

Elinruby wrote, Taser cameras come with cloud storage, while the old systems had to be downloaded to an external hard drive and the officers were tasked with doing this. Compliance was unsurprisingly poor.

You may remember that I said that I had some inside sources at APD. This is just for information, I'd never put it into any article. I'm told, by those sources that this download had to be done before an officer went home for the day. But if it was at the end of the shift, officers had to do this DL on their own time, they weren't reimbursed for it, as required by federal law. So many of them just refused.

Elinruby wrote, Certain officers, however, were developing a pattern of serial use of violence incidents, in most of which their cameras "malfunctioned" or were not turned on. This isn't me saying this, this is DoJ and any number of RS news stories about how Albuquerque comes to have more police violence than New York or LA.

I don't doubt it. Not every LEO is a white knight. There are some idiots who need to be disciplined, some who need to be fired, and some who need to be jailed. I dumped several during my career.

Elinruby wrote, Anyway, there are discrepancies in this equipment story, but getting back to Perez. Based on volume it sounds like him (defense equipment expert said the loudest voice is the person wearing the camera).

Ya can't always rely on experts, no matter what side they're testifying for. In this case, you should know from experience watching TV and using recording equipment yourself, that not always is the loudest voice the one closest to the mike. If someone is further away, but is shouting, that may be louder than the person wearing (or holding) the camera. This is common sense and one shouldn't need an expert for such an interpretation. I think Wikipedia calls this "Bluesky."

Elinruby wrote, The file played in court has this sound captioned (inaudible) but ok, it could be "oo ya", to me. One theory, not a reliable source, was that it was possibly "pshaw" and this is sometimes used with dogs. I am not going to look for a better source on "pshaw" because I don't believe it.

Going on four decades of training LE K−9's all over the US, in Europe and Canada, and I've never heard anyone say "pshaw." Of course that doesn't mean it's never happened but until someone does it or tells me of it, I'll doubt it. Where did you hear this?

Elinruby wrote, But do you see the problem? We are arguing about *interpretation* -- and wikipedia doesn't deal in unsupported opining, no matter how expert it might be. This policy does, we agreed, lead to weird stuff. Cited quotes, expert opinons, get deleted because they aren't CNN. I know, I know. But this might be weirder. All I know to do in this article is just keep hanging references on stuff. Eventually there will be too many and we can delete some of thrmand stop arguing about this because we convinced one another. Theoretically.

I think that one of my jobs as an editor is to sift out the BS, even though a reputable source said it. Sometimes reputable sources talk to idiots and/or crazy people. I've seen interviews with people who claim the earth is flat, that we didn't go to the moon, and computers are literally the work of the devil. I restrict my editing to areas where I have expertise. That gives me a good 'BS meter.' When something of this nature is cited, such as that Boyd's turning was a sign of his surrendering, and an editor uses it as fact, I go out of my way to find a source that tells the truth.

And thanks for the new look of my messages goes to Lemongirl942. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But the problem with primary sources is interpretation and this is where we run into these issues:

• what exactly did Sandy said to Ware? I think it is *possible* that he *meant* Taser shotgun but this is an interpretation. He didn't *say* it. It may be obvious to someone of a certain background, ie you and the state police officer that this is what he meant. But I don't think we should insert words into a quote based on what we think Sandy meant, especially not a quote that is the rationale for all the "murder" analyses going around. I also think you don't pay enough attention to who does what. I actually took the reference that said "murder" out of the article, because it was NPOV and we had the same video at a link that didn't also contain a bunch of allegations about murder, k? The fact is, he had less-lethal weapons and a rifle. We agreed on that, right? So there is no need for saying APD "murdered" anyone and also no proof, right?
• Did Perez say Booyah after he shot Boyd? If so... well. The tape this is on is the one from Perez' heltmet cam, or at least that is what the headline says.(ref coming shortly)

• In fact, as far as I know, there are no helmet cams at APD, just Scorpion lapel cams, which were replaced by Taser lapel cams, replacing the earlier cams due to a deal then-APD Chief Ray Schultz signed for the X12 Taser rifles and lapel cams together. This deal was investigated by both the state and local governments. Schultz resigned, and became a 1099 employee with Taser, giving talks to other police departments about why they should adopt the Taser equipment. It did apparently offer some incremental improvements. Taser cameras come with cloud storage, while the old systems had to be downloaded to an external hard drive and the officers were tasked with doing this. Compliance was unsurprisingly poor. Certain officers, however, were developing a pattern of serial use of violence incidents, in most of which their cameras "malfunctioned" or were not turned on. This isn't me saying this, this is DoJ and any number of RS news stories about how Albuquerque comes to have more police violence than New York or LA.

Anyway, there are discrepancies in this equipment story, but getting back to Perez. Based on volume it sounds like him (defense equipment expert said the loudest voice is the person wearing the camera). The file played in court has this sound captioned (inaudible) but ok, it could be "oo ya", to me. One theory, not a reliable source, was that it was possibly "pshaw" and this is sometimes used with dogs. I am not going to look for a better source on "pshaw" because I don't believe it. I still think there is a version out there with a caption saying "Booya" and the defense perhaps successfully argued that this was inflammatory. But no, I don't have a source handy, if anyone has a opinion (or a source) I would like to hear it though.

But do you see the problem? We are arguing about *interpretation* -- and wikipedia doesn't deal in unsupported opining, no matter how expert it might be. This policy does, we agreed, lead to weird stuff. Cited quotes, expert opinons, get deleted because they aren't CNN. I know, I know. But this might be weirder. All I know to do in this article is just keep hanging references on stuff. Eventually there will be too many and we can delete some of thrmand stop arguing about this because we convinced one another. Theoretically. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Misattribution of a quote - OR or not?

Please see the passage below:

In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School". Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" in which a quote from Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West is attributed to Herbert Marcuse. The intellectual historian Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:

"... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's."

References

OK. So it is indeed true, that the Jaeger video attributes something to Marcuse, that is actually Pat Buchanan's summary of his own view of "Cultural Marxism". For example the video attributes the following quote to Marcuse: "Western societies are history’s greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism fascism, and Nazism". But this is quote right out of Buchanan's book Death of the West, on page 80, where Buchanan is describing Cultural Marxism in his own words. Others opposing "Cultural Marxism" correctly attribute this quote to Buchanan. See for example: Gordon, David (14 June 2002). "The Folly of National Unity". Mises Institute., and also Ellis, Claire (26 June 2014). "The Socialist-Capitalist Alliance: the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, and Big Business: Part II". Council of European Canadians.

The problem for me is that no reliable source identifies the misattribution (it is definitely true). User:Jobrot believes this is a WP:BLUESKY, simple factual thing, and justifies the use of reference #2 above, under WP:PARITY. In my view that youtube video is an SPS and not valid, and the phrase, "in which a quote from Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West is attributed to Herbert Marcuse" is OR supported by a poor source.

So the questions is - is the above OK per BLUESKY or is this OR? Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In Buchanan's book it appears like this: "Under Critical Theory, one repeats and repeats that Western societies...Nazism". He does not use quotation marks and he does not attribute it to a particular person, though Marcuse is mentioned two paragraphs earlier as an exponent of Critical Theory. It is not a surprise that this has morphed into an alleged quotation of Marcuse, but I don't think we need to follow suit. Not all "reliably sourced" things need to be put on Wikipedia. Since the attribution of these exact words to Marcuse is clearly a mistake (until proven otherwise by stronger evidence like a work written by Marcuse himself), we should not attribute them to Marcuse. Good editors faced with the facts will quickly form a consensus. Zero^talk 01:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Although that's not the question exactly. It's almost certainly the case that these are not Marcuse's words, and the suggestion is not that they be included as if they were. The point is more whether the page on the Frankfurt School should include the claim that a misattribution has occurred, based solely on an assertion on an obscure Youtube video critiquing the original obscure video in which the "quote" appears and on the detective skills of WP editors. We have no reliable secondary source that says it is a misattribution: for that to be the case we would have to have evidence both a) that they were presented in the original video as if they definitely were meant to be his words and b) that they definitely were not. We have neither. Nor indeed do we have any source that seems to think any of this significant enough to comment on in the first place. What sort of WP page says, "Some obscure Youtube video might be claiming that the subject of the page said X, but he almost certainly didn't [source: another Youtube video]? N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants to insert a statement like "Claim X was incorrectly attributed to Herbert Marcuse", it would be SYNTH unless there is a reliable source which makes precisely that point. It would be a sort of editorial comment on the sources rather than the mere report of the sources as we are customarily restricted to. I would also examine it on the basis of WEIGHT. Zero^talk 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

well WEIGHT is not a big deal - it is like 12 words ("in which a quote from Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West is attributed to Herbert Marcuse") in a very long article. so we have two evaluations that this is SYN and not BLUESKY. Thus far at least. Still waiting for other thoughts on this as N-HH was the person you were originally having the dispute with. no deadline here.. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC) (redact to make this more accurate for the time I wrote it Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC))

So far this discussion seems to mostly contain editors who are already entrenched in the dispute. With Zero^talk being the only new editor to chime in. I'd remind everyone that WP:WL warns against:

• "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles."

...and I believe we have a loose consensus that they're most likely Buchanan's words (and that to ask for proof of a non-existent Marcuse quote doesn't really make sense given the circumstantial evidence). I think within the WP:RS hierarchy Buchanan's book rates higher than Jaegers independent youtube film (as well as pre-dating the film by a decade). So I think the current wording of 'attributes' is a good compromise, as long as it's not changed back to 'misattributes' or 'incorrectly attributes' (which I've gone back and forth on before, and I now admit the previous wording comes closer to WP:SYNTH). But I think the current wording is fine.

I would definitely like to hear from uninvolved editors on this issue. --Jobrot (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

what article is this anyway? Elinruby (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is The Frankfurt School, and the section in question is titled Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Basically some American paleoconservative came across a fairly unused term in 1970s cultural theory (namely the term "Cultural Marxism") and now blame it along with the The Frankfurt School for every bit of social progress that has emerged since the 1960s (womens rights, civil rights and gay rights included) - all of which are seen as bad, in some cases even satanic [6]. The modern alt-right have now come to view The Frankfurt School as a sort of communist plot to destroy the western world, regardless of any facts to the contrary. It's all pretty ridiculous. --Jobrot (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

yeah this board as not as well attended as one would like. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If we know that a quote is misattributed in a reliable source, we should not use it. However it is SYNTH and violation of weight to correct a misattribution in a work which is the subject of an article, unless reliable sources on the topic do so. Even reliable sources contain errors. It is a frequent tactic of highly polemical writing to search for them in works by their adversaries and attempt to discredit them by finding them. Works by UFO fans, 9/11 truthers, birthers, etc., gleefully point out all the errors and discrepancies in official reports. The implicit message pointing out the error in a Wikipedia article is the writer does not grasp the facts and therefore their analysis is flawed. Policy says that all judgments presented in articles should be sourced and the degree of their acceptance made clear. Furthermore, it is tendentious to make implicit criticisms of subjects. TFD (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like this part of WP:FRINGELEVEL is relevant here:

"If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

I think by portraying the quote as being of questionable attribution (ie. unaccepted by scholars of Marcuse) - we're successfully following the intent of WP:FRINGE.

James Jaeger is definitely a fringe theorist (and should probably be portrayed as such). His website reflects as much by containing lines like "every major Hollywood motion picture is green-lit by the same 21 politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage who police the screenplays to make sure "androgyny" and "critical theory" are properly implanted in the writing." [7] his website actually houses lots of articles about how Jews run the world. [8]... not to mention a fair few on how September 11 was an inside job [9]. So personally I don't feel like a secondary source is required to confirm that it's not a Marcuse quote (and the Buchanan text seems to serve this function under WP:BLUESKY), I feel like it's pretty WP:BLUESKY to suggest that Jaeger is WP:FRINGE. I don't think the current wording steps over the line, I definitely wouldn't call it WP:SYNTH or WP:OR - all we're doing is portraying an attribution as not-accepted as per WP:FRINGELEVEL. We're correctly attributing the Marcuse quote to Pat Buchanan and hence portraying Jaeger's viewpoint in the WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE light it deserves. Seems appropriate to me, but I may be wrong. --Jobrot (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You said you wanted new people to comment? Anyway if, as you say, Jaeger is a fringe commentator by WP's or anyone else's standard and these words are in fact not Marcuse's – both probably true statements – then the rather obvious question is why on earth any of this should be included on the Frankfurt School page at all. You're also citing and applying WP policies and guidelines in a pretty odd way tbh. As before, the issue is not so much whether it is or is not an accurate quote, but whether the likely misattribution is a significant thing in itself. N-HH talk/edits 22:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering it's the exact kind of thing that the very next paragraph is focused on - and that the source for that paragraph is Martin Jay who many consider to be part of The Frankfurt School; I'd say that qualifies as significant - and the video in question is popular among proponents of the conspiracy theory. At any rate; when discussing WP:FRINGE ideas - Wikipedia does have to cover ideas that aren't valid (such as that Aliens built the pyramids or that the CIA shot Kennedy), and WP:FRINGE instructs us to portray them as invalid/unsupported. --Jobrot (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot, WP:FRINGELEVEL says, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." But "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." The guideline does not say that we should factcheck each claim. TFD (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But surely attributing it as a Pat Buchanan quote isn't fact checking; it's just stating that the sky is blue as per WP:BLUESKY... and no; we don't have to fact check, but we DO have to check the reliability of sources and when those sources convey a significant opinion (ie. "This is a Marcuse quote") we have to place that opinion in the correct context with a correct attribution. After all; the pages on the 9/11 conspiracy theories or New World Order (conspiracy_theory) don't side with the conspiracy theorists - and there's a reason for that. That reason being WP:FRINGE. To put it another way; Wikipedia IS biased - it's biased towards the facts.

After all; an encyclopedia is intended to have an edifying effect on the reader isn't it?... and I don't think anyone here is attempting to cite James Jaeger as a reliable source (on the contrary); yet he can (and does) still hold a significant opinion (just as other conspiracy theorists do on other topics by way of their popularity and how prolific their works become). I'd like to hear the real essence of why this is wrong, or what the alternative case/argument might be.

You're right; we don't have to fact check every little detail - but I would have thought that where it is the topic of Wikipedia's content and other authors related to the subject (as in this case) and where a correct attribution can be found (as in this case) and where the author's work is significant (as in this case, in fact Jaeger, Buchanan, Marcuse and Martin Jay are all important figures to the conspiracy theory) that would be enough to justify the inclusion of a correct attribution. We're not slyly 'hinting' that Jaeger is incorrect without having any sources; so we're not making an original research claim - we have the correct attribution; it is the topic of the content (see the Martin Jay paragraph which follows it), and it is a significant opinion from a significant work that's relevant to the conspiracy theory viewpoint and its evolution. Is that a bad argument for keeping it in? I don't see how. --Jobrot (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot, for what it is worth you now have two editor's opinions who were not involved in your original argument with N-HH; both TFD and I have said it is your OR and should not be in WP. Don't know if more people are going to weigh in; we can keep waiting and seeing of course.Jytdog (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

To both Jobrot and N-HH, it doesn't help get other opinions for the two of you to continue your dispute here - that is what drives other people away, and we want more people to comment. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, consensus is not a numbers game; and I was just addressing TFD's arguments. N-HH has been relatively quiet from what I can see. As far as new participants to the discussion we have 1 for keeping the text (Zero, unless I'm reading their argument wrong) and 1 against keeping the text, TFD, (who is yet to address my counter arguments). To clarify; I respond to arguments because I'm interested in getting to the bottom of this. Personally I believe that section in question is WP:FRINGE and that no one is attempting to substantiate Jaeger's claim so no secondary source is required. I see the text as relevant because it's the subject of the content of the section, hence its inclusion, just not seeing any counter-arguments to what I've said above. --Jobrot (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"Synthesis of published material" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."

Taking a passage where someone is quoting someone and comparing it with the original quote and concluding that it was wrongly quoted is synthesis because neither of the two sources say it was wrongly quoted.

Your argument against following the policy is that Wikipedia should be edifying. However, it has always been its position that information facts and opinions not reported in reliable sources should not be put into articles. That means we're leaving out lots of information about novel theories by editors, new bands, new companies, etc. And nothing that reliable sources do not mention are not important enough to include in articles.

TFD (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I concede defeat. I was going to argue that we're just reporting Jaeger's view; and have another youtube video as secondary but I'm aware that an anonymous youtuber wouldn't be WP:RS. So yes; feel free to edit the section as you see fit. --Jobrot (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

list of cryptids

Hello folks. Right now we've got an article called list of cryptids. The article itself is a total mess and is a relic of an era in which cryptoozologists had free reign on Wikipedia.

Recently another article was merged into it, a result of an ongoing effort to clean up the huge mess the cryptozoologists left behind from that era. However, what remains on this article is a mass of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. (To dispel any confusion, cryptozoology is a classic pseudoscience on par with, say, flat earth theory or ghost hunting and shouldn't be confused with biology or folkloristics.)

Anyway, there are a lot of dubious claims going on there that stink of original research. Please see the talk page for discussion. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A response to your notice and a plea for some kind of WP:Boomerang action or sanction here. User:Bloodofox has been on a rampage about "cryptozoology hijacking" and topics in this list making multiple edits in multiple articles on this topic. Yes I engaged today in the Jersey Devil article, it is on my watchlist and I have edited it before. I'm not saying that my edits there were all correct-(they were not), but I definitely felt a lack of trying to find a consensus and more of a WP:battleground and scorched earth type of editing in progress. In trying to save some content, I feel like I was pushed into some bad edits there myself, when really the original material was fine or at least should have been discussed on the talk page before discarding content and a source which was attributed to a famous cryptozoologist. I am asking User:Bloodofox not to remove so much content without discussion please. I can see where User:Bloodofox may have a point about this cryptozoology hijacking thing, and also that User:Bloodofox has made some great clean-ups of dead links and promotional referencing but I think that there is room to include some sources and referencing that may be attributed to authors and researchers who call themselves cryptozoologists, who are not "pseudoscientists". Some of them are actual academics and scientists and professors of sciences, so I object to this wholesale categorizing and crusade/agenda to WP:right great wrongs at the expense of content and editorial consensus.TeeVeeed (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You had no reliable source for your claim and you have yet to be able to produce one. It's as simple as that. And that's precisely why we need more people out there bringing these folklore articles up to par: by kicking out the undue emphasis on tiny, internet-based pseudoscience subscultures and bringing in the peer-reviewed secondary academic sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You DELETED the reliable source and then later left tags and notice that a reliable source was needed. That seems to be one of your habits for deleting content and that's why I am asking you to please slow down or at least please discuss your content deletions on article talk pages. I really think that your folklore vs cryptozoology problem needs to be addressed. TeeVeeed (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding req.attention to edits. The thread is Editor on a mission: folkloristics vs cryptozoology. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Geographic names from multiple sources

Some administrative units are known by several names. E.g. some sources say about Pozsony County and other about Pressburg County (the same county).

If the first source contains a sentence "Nyitra County shared borders with Pozsony County" and the second uses the name Pressburg (but does not mention a neighborhood), is the following sentence original research and synthesis of published material?

"Nyitra County shared borders with Pozsony (Pressburg) County"Ditinili (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

that pressburg county has always been the same as pozsony county? even if it was the same administrative unit, its borders could have changed. in this case using anachronic names may create some confusion. otherwise i see no OR. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

that pressburg county has always been the same as pozsony county? Yes, the first name is German and the second name is Hungarian. The region had mixed German-Hungarian-Slovak population + some Croatians, thus various ethnic groups used various names (note: Pressburg and Pozsony are some historic name of present-day Bratislava).

"even if it was the same administrative unit, its borders could have changed" Of course, the exact borders had changed over centuries (this is not something unusual), but they had always common border. These changes are well known and I can also provide a reliable source where they are described in details.

Is it OR/SYNTH? Ditinili (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Article appears to be an OR synthesis of two ideas.

Hi, in my best estimation the short article 'agnostic theism' I nominated for deletion is a neologism founded on a synthesis of agnosticism and atheism. When I nominated it I didn't expect opposition, there is opposition that doesn't seem to understand the OR objection. An opinion might be helpful. If I'm wrong, I'll withdraw the deletion nomination. The opinion of a knowledgeable 'OR' perspective may be helpful.

Thanks in advance. KSci ^(talk) 23:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are some links to make things easier: the article in question, the current AFD, a previous AFD from 2006. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking review of recent edits to Anti-Indian sentiment

I reverted these edits to Anti-Indian sentiment that to me appear to be original research and a change in pov not supported by the sources, and appear to fall under general sanctions. Could someone review the edits? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In my point of view, this is a dispute resolution noticeboard and I'm not seeing a dispute here. If the IP contests your reverts, then feel free to seek help. If the IP editor refuses to provide quotations from a reliable source that supports his/her additions, then express your concerns here and another editor or I will be happy to look at this further.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

While in practice, this noticeboards are used for disputes that have already been discussed at some length, the noticeboard is for addressing OR problems. Given the subject matter and general sanctions, I'd like a review. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

OR related to the situation in Syria

Hi We have a discussion for deletion here and no admin has taken action yet. The article itself is OR purely and clearly. The 2 editors creating/editing it are clearly not neutral and motivated with Kurdish nationalist ideas. Many other articles related to the so called "rojava" are the same and are created and persistently maintained in their current biased form by the same users who have been edit-warring to deleted any neutral edit. Please take a look at Human rights in Rojava for example, to see how it sounds like utopia (pure propaganda for a certain political party). Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not seem fully familiar with the various policies you're trying to recruit to your cause. Original research means one thing and one thing only: claims not supported by citations. It looks like at least one editor has undertaken tagging and removal of some claims in the article in response to your complaint. There is, however, a lot of material left. It clearly meets sourcing and notability requirements for the existence of an article. Just naming as many policies as you can in hopes that something sticks will not help your cause. What you have is a perceived problem with the article's neutrality. What you can do about that is improve the article with sources you feel are less biased. Rhoark (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that what Amr ibn Kulthoum is complaining about is a lack of neutrality, and that describing a lack of neutrality as being original research is confusing. I do not agree that "Original research means one thing and one thing only: claims not supported by citations". I could write my own analysis cited to multiple primary sources and add it to Wikipedia articles -- whether about Rojava or about anything else. This would still be original research even though it was supported by citations. Equally I could engage in WP:SYNTH of multiple secondary sources and add it to Wikipedia cited to those sources, again that would be original research even though supported by citations. MPS1992 (talk)

Thanks MPS1992 for understanding what I am talking about. Another example is the article "Rojava" itself. This name is politically charged and only used by one political party in Syria (PYD) with its military branch (YPG). There are sources that use that name (blogs, forums, facebook, Kurdish news agencies, Kurdish parties), are those reliable? NO. No reliable international media, state or organization uses that name for the territories occupied by Kurdish militia. The maps used to illustrate that territory (as a political entity, not as a zone of war occupied by military force) are faked, and keep expaning. I know this comment should go to the Reliable sources noticeboard, but there is also a lot of OR in there as well. I hope some admin will read the article(s) and take action, because the alternative would be either edit-warring (look at all the rereverts that have happened there) or the ridiculous very biased versions of those articles. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Just three random examples from the past weeks, out of 5 Million Google hits for the term "Rojava":

"The Rojava Model", Foreign Affairs, the term Rojava in the headline and central throughout the text

"What the Syrian Kurds Have Wrought", The Atlantic, the term Rojava central throughout the text

"The Women Leading a Social Revolution in Syria's Rojava", Newsweek, the term Rojava in the headline and central throughout the text

This is the top level of English language media. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The mentioned article is original research cause it recruit sources that do not mention the invented region called shahba, making it look like a real historic region with historical recognition even though its just a result of the syrian war where different parties gain and lose lands everyday and this region was born because the YPG took control of it and can go out of the face of earth if another force took over it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Admins, any action here? Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Google Ngram to support text in wikipedia

To what degree the results of Google Ngram Viewer are allowed to support statements in wikipedia articles?

See Talk:Soft skills/Archives/2016#"First documented usage" where this question arose. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like we should never use it, as an automatically generated list with no editorial control. It's a great way to look for old sources, but that's it. Heck, it has references to Wikipedia going back to 1906, because google lists a 1906 publication date on a book that was uploaded with recent commentary added. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say that it counts as original research. I'm not familiar with Ngram, but I would say that it acts like a tool and that a person is making their own determinations from using that tool. It sounds like whatever results it returns have no notability since those results won't likely be found in reliable secondary sources. It's like if someone uses a ruler to measure the length of a coke can, it would be original research. I also wouldn't count the returned results as being "published" with editorial oversight, so there would be reliability and verifiability concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say it should not normally be used as a reference for information stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice (such as "first documented use"). In my opinion such results are admissible, for instance in talk page discussions, to support editorial decisions such as the choice of words, spelling, etc. There may be borderline cases. --Boson (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Constructing a sales chart

What do folks think about the following, which is being proposed at the Felodipine article? It is a chart of annual sales, constructed from the company's annual reports.

  AstraZeneca Revenue for Plendil in millions USD

References

Never seen anyone do this before. Is this OR? Kind of interesting. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How do you find all this amazing stuff!? A chart like that is not suitable for Wikipedia unless a reliable secondary source has produced the chart and analyzed its meaning and significance. Anyone could extract figures to show rising/falling sales or popularity or whatever, and a chart may lead readers to a false impression of the underlying situation. What would be the point of the graph? What it is trying to say? If those questions can be answered in text supported by reliable sources, and if the information is WP:DUE, the text could be considered for inclusion in the article. However, if no suitable answers are available, the graph is not suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not medical content so IMO does not need the same degree of sourcing. I assume this sort of sales graph is similar to what we would find for many brandname products. Totals sales of the compound would be more interesting. When did the generic manufacturers join the picture. Are these global or just US sales? Etc. I also hate graphs that do not start from zero. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If they underlying data comes from a reliable source I don't see why formatting it into a graphical would somehow make the data non-suitable for Wikipedia. A graph contains the same information as a table, just in a different layout. Sizeofint (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The figures are worldwide sales by AZ. The question about when generics entered the market is pretty obvious, isn't it? 2003. Besides not showing generic sales, the other thing that is weird here is that the drug started out being marketed by Merck in the US in 1991 and AZ everywhere else, and all the pre-2004 revenue revenue isn't shown here. The chart is kind of useful to show what generic entry does to originator revenue, but that is about it. It doesn't give a complete picture of AZ's revenue nor sales of the drug by anybody, including after generic entry. I would say too arbitrary a dataset, and so falls afoul of OR in that regard. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Rómaiak, románok és oláhok Dácia Trajánában (Budapest, 1935)

Hello all. I wish to know if the source in the title could be reliable considering its age. The author is Tamás Lajos - (the link is to the Hungarian Wikipedia article about him); the book is referred here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania#cite_note-60 . 123Steller (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OR related to Voter Turnout in the 2016 election article.

There is Original Research being placed in the United States presidential election, 2016 article by Gsonnenf concerning Voter Turnout. It needs to be removed immediately. It is false and it is not supported by a reliable source and Gsonnenf is falsely claiming that the number Gsonnenf is making up is supported by the leading expert in the field, when it isn't.

Election Day may be over but the counting of the votes has not finished. There are still about 4 million or so votes to be counted.

Various editors have been asking that Voter Turnout not be placed into the article until ALL of the votes have been counted because--all of the experts (including Dr. Michael McDonald, Associate Professor at the Univ of Florida Political Science Dept and principal at the United States Elections Project)--have stated that no one can determine Voter Turnout until all of the votes are counted.

However, Gsonnenf has taken it upon himself to decide the true number of votes and to decide the number of eligible voters and calculate the Voter Turnout on his own--even though he is merely a Wikipedia editor and is not an expert. This is original research. Especially since the people that specialize in it--such as Dr. Michael McDonald--say that it cannot be determined until all of the votes are counted and McDonald is reporting a different, higher number.

Gsonnenf keeps reverting other editors and jamming into the article's infobox his original research number. This violates Wikipedia in all kinds of ways. Gsonnenf claims that his edits have the consensus of the talk page and that could not be further from the truth. He was involved in a discussion and he did not like the direction the discussion was going and just decided the consensus went his way and now he says his edit are the consensus over and over again--even though that claim is not true.

Gsonnenf edited article to state that Voting Turnout is 53.7%. You can see his edit here: Gsonnenf's false claim that U.S. Elections Project reports 53.7% Voter Turnout. The fact is that Dr. McDonald has claimed publicly that he believes the Voter Turnout is NOT finalized but it should be about 58%--not Gsonnenf's made up 53.7%. Please see Dr. McDonald's 58% Voter Turnout Estimate here: On November 14, 2016, Dr. Michael McDonald stated 58%--not the false number Gsonnenf uses

When you compare Gsonnenf's made up number (and he is NOT an expert, just a Wikipedia editor) with the number that has been posted by Dr. McDonald on his Twitter account, you can easily see that Gsonnenf is engaging in original research--which is verifiably incorrect and Gsonnenf is flat out making up a number and then--to put the icing on the cake--he cites Dr. McDonald, saying that Dr. McDonald supports the false 53.7% number. Dr. McDonald does not support any such thing.--ML (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was reached here: [10] that this is WP:CALC. User:Proud User also said it was WP:CALC. MaverickLittle refused to participate in dispute resolution via similar issue, calling it a "joke", here: [11] and we are currently also on the edit warring board on this very issue here: [12]. I don't think anyone is really happy with this guys behavior, so I'm hoping the admins will just resolve this.Gsonnenf (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus about original research. What you are saying is that if two different Wikipedia editors get together and do original research and as they agree that what they did is correct then original research is acceptable. But unfortunately that is not the way that it works. These two editors got together made a fake number (53.7%) and then they claim that Dr. Michael McDonald supports their fake number. Dr. McDonald says the number is 58%. Gsonnenf just made up a number, which is incorrect. On November 14th Dr. McDonald stated, on his Twitter account, that Voter Turnout is 58%. You can see his Nov 14th estimate here: McDonald's Nov 14 estimate. On November 10th, the Washington Post quoted him to say that as of Nov 10th Voter Turnout was 56%. You can see that quote here: McDonal's Wash Post estimate 56%. As more and more votes are counted the Voter Turnout number is going up, not down. Gsonnenf's number is well below the expert reliable source. Also note that Gsonnenf does not even attempt to provide substantive support for his made up, fake number because he has ZERO reliable sources to support his fake number. He has no substantive arguments. He just attacks me personally. He truly lacks any credibility.--ML (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

All the editors in that discussion decided that dividing total votes by voting population was simple arithmetic and would make it consistent for comparison with the 2008 and 2012 election page. Its from the same source in the same table. Read the discussion and you will understand. If you look at this MaverickLittle edit history[13], he edits articles almost every single day since his start date, for hours on end. Its beyond me that he acts like this. I think he is a paid political editor.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, just because a couple of editors decide to engage in original research does not make it acceptable. The expert in the field clearly states that Voter Turnout is going to be in the area of 58% and you claim that Voter Turnout is 53.7%. You do not cited a reliable source for that number. All you cite is your incorrect calculations, based upon a number of actual voters that is changing each and every day. Also, you are confusing voting eligible population (VEP) and voting age population (VAP) they are not the same thing and you are not qualified to make that comparison or that calculation any way. You are just a Wikipedia editor. We need to wait until: (1) All of the votes are counted, (2) We have a solid set of numbers for VEP and VAP, and (3) a reliable source quotes a well-known expert in the field. You have not done any of those things. You are just making up a number. Please note that Gsonnenf did not provide you with a substantive explanation for his false number. He just attacked me personally. Why didn't he give a substantive reason for the fake number? The answer is simple he made the number from whole cloth and then he worked very hard to keep placing the false number in the article even though it has been removed by several editors.--ML (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Voter turnout is not a simple calculation because we do not know how many votes were cast or how many eligible voters there are. While we can estimate the uncounted votes, that is a matter of judgment. Similarly we do not know how many listed voters are duplications or otherwise not eligible voters or how many eligible voters failed to register. We also have the issue of disenfranchised voters, people who have lost the right to vote, but are hard to estimate and may in any case be on the electoral rolls or may have voted. Voters may lose or re-gain the right through moving to a different state. Also, American Samoans vote for president, but it is not counted. Millions of Puerto Ricans (we do not know how many) have moved to the U.S. where they can vote. Better to use estimates by an expert. TFD (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Sherri Rasmussen

Ir seems to me that the article linked above has a plethora of Original research. Its principal writer has asked for a Peer review. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems equally likely to me that this editor, who so thoughtfully placed this notice here without notifying me that he had done so, doesn't truly understand the concept of original research. I have responded to his, uh, allegations here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Find a specific claim in the article that you think is lacking a verifiable source and then post it here. Not many people are willing to do that work for you.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: The basis of his claim is that a fair amount of the article (though not all of it by a long shot) is sourced to the California Courts of Appeal decision upholding the conviction. He claims this all should be reported by independent sources to be included. I don't know by what reading of this policy sourced information counts as OR.

Nor do I recall anyone ever claiming we can't use court decisions as sources. This has never been a problem on other articles I've worked on. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Directly from WP:OR "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Court decisions are primary sources and should only be used to cite straightforward facts that do not require interpretation and that anyone looking at the document could verify. On top of that, there would be notability concerns because thousands of court decisions get made every day. We give importance to these decisions based on their usage in reliable secondary sources. So while it's not against the rules to use a primary source, there are many limitations that the primary source must meet first. In general, if something is worth noting from a primary source, then it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable secondary source to cite instead.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: In this instance, there are plenty of secondary sources. The appellate decision isn't the only source for the facts of the case; there are two longform articles in national magazines plus some of the LA Times's daily trial coverage. Most of what I took from that decision is specifics, like the type of ammunition used by the shooter.

Where I used it as the major source was the section on the appeal itself and the court's decision, in which case the decision is the subject of that section and so I think there's wider latitude for relying on it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Another business thing

Might as well go back-to-back here.

The question to the community is - is the inclusion of content about biotech in the Silicon Alley article WP:OR?

OK, so the following content is in the Silicon Alley article:

The biotechnology sector is also growing in Silicon Alley, based upon the region's strength in academic scientific research and public and commercial financial support. On December 19, 2011, then Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced his choice of Cornell University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology to build a US$2 billion graduate school of applied sciences on Roosevelt Island, with the goal of transforming New York City into the world's premier technology capital. By mid-2014, Accelerator, a biotech investment firm, had raised more than US$30 million from investors, including Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, for initial funding to create biotechnology startups at the Alexandria Center for Life Science, which encompasses more than 700,000 square feet (65,000 m²) on East 29th Street and promotes collaboration among scientists and entrepreneurs at the center and with nearby academic, medical, and research institutions. The New York City Economic Development Corporation's Early Stage Life Sciences Funding Initiative and venture capital partners, including Celgene, General Electric Ventures, and Eli Lilly, committed a minimum of US$100 million to help launch 15 to 20 ventures in life sciences and biotechnology.

References

Right. So, in New York City, "Silicon Ally" is parallel to, you know, Silicon Valley. Computer industry -- digital media, apps, etc. Information technology. For short, the "tech industry". Which is =/= biotech.

Looking at the refs used above:

• well, nothing for the first sentence. Unsourced.
• The first two refs are about Cornell tech campus, which is engineering. Not biotech, no wetlabs. Discussion of that does belong in this article.

  NYT ref no mention of biotech. all about tech

  cornell chronicle - no mention of biotech. all about tech

• Then we have WSJ article on Alexandria Center which is biotech/pharma lab space - nothing to do with tech or Silicon Alley. Funded by life science (not tech) VC; about the biotech/pharma (not tech) activities there. This is the only ref that ~could~ have supported discussion of biotech in this article, and it doesn't.

I edited the above to read as follows, taking out the biotech:

The New York City government has worked to support the tech sector. On December 19, 2011, then Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced his choice of Cornell University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology to build a US$2 billion graduate school of applied sciences on Roosevelt Island, with the goal of transforming New York City into the world's premier technology capital.

References

That was reverted by User:Castncoot, and i have asked them why they included biotech in this article, and they just keep writing stuff like this, in which they say that "biotechnology" includes "technology" (it is applied biology) so of course biotech is part of the "tech industry" and so it is part of Silicon Alley. I have asked them to bring refs showing that biotech is part of Silicon Alley, and they have brought none, and instead just cited the dictionary at me.

What more could I tell you? Here are the first bunch of refs used in the Silicon Alley article itself.

1. business insider - all tech. no biotech
2. NY Daily News - all tech; no biotech
3. CNN: "New York has made a lot of the digital age. The city hosts a thriving tech sector with 300,000 employees -- on par with Silicon Valley -- and city government is praised for its use of analytics in evaluating all manner of programs." all tech. no biotech
4. "Venture Investment - Regional Aggregate Data - probably includes some biotech. source is not about Silicon Alley so that is fine
5. NYT about ted cruz - this is ref and the content about it is bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
6. AP piece on environment - bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
7. NYT on climate change protests on environment - bizarre. nothing to do with silicon alley or biotech
8. NYC EDC plan for telecom - all about tech; nothing about biotech
9. wi-fi expansion in harlem - tech; not biotech
10. office space coworking - a tech thing. all tech, no mention of biotech (which need wetlabs, not desks for coworking). And on those go.

I have shown Castncoot stuff like A Tale of Two Startup Worlds: Biotech And Tech VC Ecosystems and Why Biotech Startups are Not the Same as Tech Startups and Patent fight: Tech vs. pharma, round one (the role of IP is extremely different) and explained how the tech industry and biotech industries are wildly different (different amount of time and money to get to market, different regulatory scheme (none for iT!), different buyers (insurance companies for drugs, consumers for IT), different people doing it with very different skills, different investors, very different role of patents, etc etc). The industries are as different as a silicon chip and a beating human heart. To no avail.

I have shown them this page from the NYC Economic Development folks, showing the ED folks' very different plans to help the different sectors (IT vs biotech). To no avail.

So - the concrete issue is the content above in the Silicon Alley article. The question to the community - is the inclusion of biotech in the Silicon Valley article WP:OR? Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

For User:Jytdog to suggest that Silicon Valley doesn't include biotech is just downright nonsensical. Just google "Silicon Valley biotech" and it is self-evident that biotech is an important part of Silicon Valley's technological scene. What User:Jytdog is trying to do here is to redefine tech and biotech and supplant them with his own definitions and interpretations for some unknown reason. He hasn't denied a conflict of interest with regards to a company he suggested listing in the Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area and then edited that entry extensively on that article page. I have repeatedly pleaded with Jytdog to address this issue regarding the base biotechnology article, which clearly defines biotechnology in the first sentence by consensus to include "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2)". To no avail. Rather than bringing this discussion up at the base article (or even acknowledging its existence), he is trying to gut and redefine the longstanding status quo at this article, perhaps to give him a stepping stone to also modify the longstanding status quo at the base biotechnology article as well. Parent Wikipedia articles and their consensus-sanctioned material serve as the base for other articles incorporating the same topic or concept.The numerous refs he cites are wasted breath which merely express some authors' opinions about this material but neither contradict the fact that biotech is merely biological technology, simply one type of technology and nothing more mystical or magical, nor contradict the primacy of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of WP:CONSENSUS. Castncoot (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, no one but you are me seems to care about this. :( Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Alley, Valley, rather confusing. Biotech is more than drugs design; MRI machines and pacemakers are made by engineers, not biochemists; biochip manufacturing (lab-on-a-chip systems..) uses lithographic techniques developed for the semiconductor industry. The same signal and data processing techniques are used in all industries, fMRI uses an FFT algorithm that was developed to detect nuclear tests (and first invented by Gauss to interpolate the trajectories of asteroids). An article on techcrunch.com article named Silicon Valley and Health Valley (Basel, Switzerland) as the two hotbeds for innovation in biotechnology, so (assuming there's some truth in it) inclusion of biotech in the Silicon Valley article seems justified. Whether it also merits mentioning in the Silicon Alley article, I don't know... Prevalence 00:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your view is consistent with what I've been saying all along, that biotech is one form of tech, supported in addition by the fundamental examples you've cited above. Silicon Alley may not (yet) have reached "top two" status in biotech, but as you can see in the new Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area page, it may be getting there (along with Greater Boston); certainly a significant biotech presence in Silicon Alley has already been attained. Yet User:Jytdog doesn't even want this new article to be mentioned as a "see also" in the Silicon Alley article, which I believe is an unreasonable stand to take. Castncoot (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

References

What our one commentor said, is i don't know. for pete's sake castncoot under your logic we should class peanut butter as Category:Dairy products because it has the word "butter" in it. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Baloney. He agreed that biotech has significant commonalities with tech (and has given examples, which you've conveniently ignored) such that lines are blurred – which is diametrically opposed to your trying to portray tech and biotech as having nothing in common but the four letters "tech". So as far as I'm concerned, I've demonstrated the most fundamental point of all. Now are you going to make a big obstructionist stink about simply adding the Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area page in the see also section of Silicon Alley? Castncoot (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't agree and the feedback here has not been clear. (in fact it just added fog - fMRI is not biotech, it is medical imaging, which is kind of on the edge of the medical device industry -- GE/Siemens/Philips are not Regeneron or Biogen; different science and business universes). This has not worked out to resolve the dispute; I will consider a different method of DR. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The James Brown line from What a Man

In the page Whatta Man, I removed the passage that in ictu oculi added. IIO says that the line "Make me do the James Brown, every time I get on my feet" refers to Linda Lyndell's backing act days with James Brown. However, the song's connection to Brown is just analysis on the song, discouraged by the "no OR" policy. I searched for sources connecting the song to Brown but found none. I found this source and that source, but I don't think those sources link the song to Brown. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

These are two factual statements with no connection analysed: "Lyndell had sung as a support act with James Brown (fact), and the song includes the line "Make me do the James Brown Every time I get on my feet." (fact). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

George Ho seems to be trying to disprove a connection between this song (or a version of it) and James Brown personally, but no editors or sources are making such a connection to begin with. (Or maybe I'm missing something?)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: It seems unlikely that WP would be the first to have a note about this; Google may turn up addl. sources: [14] (I'm out of time to pore over all that).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: for background George is currently proposing a RM to the version title - the page isn't Whatta Man and the version doesn't include the "do the James Brown" line. So searching for Whatta Man won't produce anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, well, fix up the search then. Anyway, if the concern is simply that the Lyndell/Crawford song referring to James Brown is somehow in any way connected (obviously) to Lyndell having worked directly with James Brown needs a source directly stating something to this effect, one shouldn't be that hard to find. An alternative would be to mention Lyndell having worked with James Brown and that the [orignal] song refers to James Brown (in either order) and letting readers draw their own conclusion. There's no point try to suppress either fact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, the "do the James Brown" quote is only used in a citation of the song lyrics. However, that citation doesn't support the associated statement it's tied to, which says Lyndell was associated with Brown and the Turners. That statement is true and is backed up by the AllMusic cite. The song lyric cite is unnecessary and should just be removed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the lyric line per your advice. George Ho (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Image captions about album and single of the same name

I added captions in both Voices Carry and Voices Carry (album) to help readers differentiate the two products and to ease their confusions. I was told by Marchjuly that the image captions may been seen as "original research". However, both products use the same artwork, which might confuse readers. The single was distributed this way; so did the album. If image captions are original research, how else can I help readers get less confused? --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion referred to above can be found at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Using other images of albums and singles that have similar front covers, and I think it's probably helpful to see the whole discussion in its proper context since it pertains to the non-free use of album/single cover art in the Voices Carry articles. FWIW, my comment about captions being "original work" had to do with trying to justify the non-free use of a image by simply adding a caption to the file. GeorgeHo seemed to be asking about adding additional non-free images (e.g., the backs of the album/single covers) to the articles, and my comment was in reference to those images; It was not about the captions being used for cover art being used in the infoboxes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Would this constitute original synthesis?

The context for this question is the avant-garde metal article. Avant garde metal is also known as experimental metal. There are several sources that explicitly state that avant-garde metal is known as experimental metal, or vice versa. Now, the point of contention is whether this style is also known as "avant-metal." I have not found any source treating "avant-metal" as a separate genre, and the term is found when describing bands described elsewhere as experimental metal or avant-garde metal. Finally, Jeff Wagner's Mean Deviation uses all three terms interchangeably. Within the same page, he will switch from "avant-garde metal" or "experimental metal" to "avant-metal" and back, and use the terms interchangeably in discussing the same band or same record label. Yet, he doesn't explicitly state "avant-garde metal, also known as avant-metal" or "experimental metal, also known as avant-metal." Is it original synthesis to understand the terms as completely interchangeable, and use this source as a reference supporting that claim on Wikipedia? Or is this reading into the next?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This source explicitly declares the three terms as synonyms. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is based off the Wikipedia article as I wrote it, and thus is unusable per WP:CIRCULAR.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Muslim women in sport

This article in general contains good encyclopaedic information about issues like hijabs and patriarchy in sport. However, it makes synthesis points, such as saying that Turkey, Indonesia and Kazakhstan are emerging tennis countries - the relation of this to Islam is not supported by sources, and all three countries are secular and multicultural. In addition, club dominance in volleyball by Turkish and Azeri teams is mentioned - clubs are open to everyone, these two countries are secular and no source mentions the players being Muslims. I have been discussing this but progress is slow. I would like new voices, in any opinion Le new account (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Derivative melody--Original Resarch

A good faith, and probably knowledgable, editor working on Waterloo (Stonewall Jackson song) has included in the article an assertion that the melody derives from Leave It There. I suspect that's correct, but the assertion is the editor's own conclusion, forthrightly stated. The editor hasn't addressed the issue of OR, just defended the thesis. Commentary may help the editor to understand. The article now "ascribes" the song to its registered writers. Please see the Talk page discussion. Tapered (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sati

An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. Whether NOR is being violated in the disputed material (through a misreading of the source material) forms an important component of the dispute. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a definitive absence-of-evidence considered OR?

Can the claim that a given person has never published or submitted any scientific or research papers be verified by the fact that no such papers can be found to exist? Bear in mind that any paper published anywhere is indexed by search engines, and all such search engines come up empty for the person in question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If you as the WP editor are making that assertion, no, it's not appropriate (eg it is original research), since you can never prove a negative (even some peer-reviewed papers may be published in places not indexed online) On the other hand, if a reliable source makes that claim, then while it still might not be 100% true (since you still can't prove a negative) it can be appropriate to include an attributed statement to that source that notes the absence of such. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pet peeve time. As a general point on "you can never prove a negative"; I know it's a popular saying, but it's one of the really wrong ones. "Negative" statements do not live in some epistemologically distinct universe that makes them somehow more intrinsically unverifiable than "positive" ones. The rules of probability -- that are the rules of correct inference -- are the same either way. Example of negative statement: "Mary is not in the Kitchen / there is no Mary in the kitchen": If Mary was in the kitchen, I would (certainly) see her; I don't see her, therefore she (certainly) isn't. Though if Mary were an illusionist, I would be less certain of seeing her even if she were here, and therefore less certain that she's not actually here, lurking. Regardless, if I see her in the dance club (and I'm confident it's really her), then I'm equally confident she's not in the kitchen. Positive statements are not intrinsically easier to prove; if Mary is an illusionist, seeing her is not clinching evidence that she's here. In all cases, it's always degrees of certainty, never "100% certainty". (But when you get to 99%+, it's okay to say "I'm certain". If you ever somehow get to 100%, your brain is broken: you would now need an infinite amount of evidence to rationally change your mind from that.).

Regarding peer-reviewed papers. I can't speak for all fields but in mine (TCS), if a paper is published, is is indexed in various places, both by automatic and manual processes. The only papers that might not be are very old ones (though those generally are) and very recent ones (<1 year). And of course papers in preprint stages, which is why academics maintain lists on their professional pages, and or Researchgate profiles or such. For everything else, and barring circumstances such as researchers having changed their name, not finding papers in the databases is pretty conclusive evidence that none were published. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It is original research. Furthermore it runs afoul of weight, since facts should be presented in relation to their reporting in reliable sources. If no reliable sources consider a fact significant enough to mention, then neither should we. Consider the following: "Opposition Leader John Smith, who has never submitted any economic research papers, says that the government's economic polices are flawed." The implication would be that Smith was wrong, although no source had been presented to say that. TFD (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Usually we assign WP:WEIGHT in articles about alleged new theories of physics to the physics mainstream. In this case, mainstream physics has not even commented on the alleged theory of the subject. If they had, we could reference the reaction of mainstream physics. But for the purposes of the present article, we must say that the subject has not published any astrophysics for there even to be a mainstream reaction in the first place. That is essential to maintaining a neutral point of view, particularly in light of the WP:FRINGE claims that were made in "reliable sources" that he developed a novel theory, disproved the Big Bang, and is in line for a Nobel prize. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems like that draws a conclusion (since there were no search results, there are no papers) from a primary source (search engine regarding its own results) without a secondary source, contrary to WP:OR. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I do think that the dispute has not really accurately been summarized in the bold-faced phrases at the top of the discussion. The article currently cites a secondary source concerning the lack of peer review and publications of Barnett's alleged ideas. It is a bit dated, however, so we refer to the subject's curriculum vitae to verify that he has not published any groundbreaking theory since that secondary source was published. The trouble here is that the "reliable secondary sources" say that Barnett "developed a series if mathematical models expanding Einstein's theory of relativity", that he disproved relativity and the Big Bang, and is in line for the Nobel Prize. These statements are all verifiably false. Yet there are simply no reliable scientific secondary sources rebutting the "theory", quite simply because there is no theory! For an article to suggest otherwise by omission (or, worse, by repeating claims made in the supposedly "reliable sources") is contrary to maintaining a neutral point of view. One might wonder whether it is appropriate at all to have an article about a researcher whose primary claim to fame is an unpublished theory, all trace of which has been removed from the Internet. Indeed, this was one of the points raised at the AfD. But the consensus of the community appears to be that an exception must be made. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the Jacob Barnett article currently reflects that the reports in the media were false. So your concern of wanting to refute the quotes (which are after all only quotes) is served by the current version of the article. What specific text is in question? —DIY Editor (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no specific text I want to add to the article. The original poster, who is an IP address, objects to the article pointing out that the subject did not publish any papers in astrophysics, alleging that this constitutes original research. It is supported by at least one secondary source, and in addition by the subject's own curriculum vitae. Moreover, no specific fact in the article has actually been challenged. So it's rather hard to see what the problem is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for explaining the background. This is apparently the text in question:

Barnett had not published or submitted any research contributions to the subject.

References

Looking at the sources and their notes I can see how one might get the impression that a conclusion was drawn rather than the sentence simply being paraphrased from the two sources listed. —DIY Editor (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

From my read, the source implies the unlikelihood of publication in peer-reviewed journals, based on an asserted lack of coverage of peer review in the media of the time—but peer review is possible without alerting the media. As unlikely as it may be that the family wouldn’t have alerted the media immediately, can claims be verified by what a source implies but does not explicitly state? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Please know that the article now reports where no relevant publications could be found, and echoes the source’s statement that no peer review has been reported, rather than making blanket statements in an apparent grey area. But I still think the answer to my last question is important. Is implied verifiability a thing? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You could use in-line citation for the assertion. For example, writing in the Skeptic, Chris Edwards noted that none of the coverage of the theory in news media said that it had been published in any academic journal." However the current phrasing in the article seems adequate: "Barnett's belief that the theory is wrong has not been accepted by mainstream physicists." If you have any reliable sources where Barnett's theory is critiqed, that would be worth adding. But repeating over and over that a theory is fringe makes articles appear polemical. TFD (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

K-pop list

For the article in question, we have a "List of 20 most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube".

The table itself does not cite a source for the selection of individual songs. An editor defending the list cites [15]. However, they have identified a song or two that are somehow missing from the source and added them to the list. View figures are then updated from the individual video pages on YouTube. While the source is dated October 20, 2016, the chart says it is "Last Update: December 20, 2016".

The other editor suggested spinning off the chart to its own article. It had previously been killed as a trivial metric at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_4#List_of_most_viewed_kpop_music_videos and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most_viewed_kpop_music_videos. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ranked list of languages

The article List of languages by number of native speakers aims to provide a ranked list of the top 100 languages. However, beyond the notorious unreliability of speaker counts, it's not possible to obtain a ranking by using specialized sources for each language, since they use different criteria and give figures for different dates. The solution chosen is to use a ranked list of the top 100 languages published by the Swedish encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin. Although Nationalencyklopedin does not specify its methodology, it is at least a single (tertiary) source that is trying to be internally consistent.

Problem: entry #80 (Northern Min) is obviously wrong – 4 times bigger than the figure in a reliable secondary source or the total population of the counties in which it is spoken – see Talk:List of languages by number of native speakers#Northern Min. But how can we fix this? Just deleting the entry would confuse readers, but any explanation would be OR. And what of the entries ranked #81 to #100? Kanguole 13:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe some articles just can't be created. Yes, you can't use multiple sources to make such a list. If we can use the Swedish encyclopedia without it being a copyvio issue, we could have the top 50. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Original research in La Amistad

An editor keeps trying to insert original research in La Amistad based on (a) what he believes he can see in a reproduction of a 180-year-old painting, (b) a Facebook page, and (c) ancient maps. While our article is poorly sourced, the Amistad incident is far from obscure and finding reliable secondary sources is not difficult. I refuse to continue to argue with somebody who will not read, or cannot understand, WP:No original research. Eyes would be welcome. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm in good faith but seem impossible to talk to Mr. Shabbazz who is just bullying citing policies. I've started to read the page and I've made a edit regarding the Ship flag, after being reverted I was pulled by my self me to investigate the matter. Well ok, after several research I was wrong regarding the ship flag, no problem, anyway since the fact a ship cannot fly Spanish flag if registered to a different country, and Honduras was no longer Spain since 1821, on this sources: [16]; [17]; The Amistad, set sails from Havana to the port of Guanaja, Cuba [18], nowadays part of Esmeralda (es:Esmeralda (Cuba)#Desarrollo del territorio) municipality, Puerto del Principe wich is today called Camagüey, not the omonym Guanaja (Honduras) just because of an unsurced wikilink. Thank you in advance and sorry again. This not an original research, anyway it's impossible to talk or to try to make edits on that page. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Here on page 27: [19]:

"sailed from Havana for the port of Guanaja, in the island of Cuba"

— Page 27; Africans Taken in the Amistad: Congressional Document, Containing the Correspondence, &c., in Relation to the Captured Africans, U.S. Dept. of State, 1840.

Wich is not Honduras. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Same source, page 37:

"The Amistad is a Spanish vessel; was regularly cleared from Havana, a Spanish port in Cuba, to Guanaja, a Spanish port in the neighborood of Puerto Principe another Spanish port;"

— Page 37; Africans Taken in the Amistad: Congressional Document, Containing the Correspondence, &c., in Relation to the Captured Africans, U.S. Dept. of State, 1840.

--Nicola Romani (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And many other sources: Josep M. Fradera, Christopher Schmidt-Nowara, Slavery and Antislavery in Spain's Atlantic Empire or others like: Howard Jones, Mutiny on the Amistad or Barbara A. Sommervill, The Amistad Mutiny: Fighting for Freedom. --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican

More eyeballs are needed at Libertarian Republican; a user has inserted and reinserted content into this article that is not supported by any reliable sources. (The user is also inserting citations to the Libertarian Party's website and to a libertarian advocacy website, but even these (unacceptable) sources don't support the claims made).

More eyes on this would be appreciated. Neutrality^talk 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've responded to this at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

He's had a DS for American Politics, he should know better. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom

The following wikitext on Amhara people appears to be synthesis: "The medieval Adal Sultanate seized slaves during jihad expeditions in Christian outposts in the old provinces of Amhara, Shäwa, Fatagar,[20] and Dawaro [21]. Many of the slaves seized by Adal were assimilated, others exported or gifted to rulers of Arabia in exchange for military support [22]." It is cited to two works on expeditions in various historical multi-ethnic provinces of Ethiopia (viz. Amhara Province, Shewa, Fatagar, Dawaro); however, neither citation is population-specific (i.e., they do not indicate that the sultanate expeditions were against Amhara Christians). As such, the wikitext appears to breach WP:SYNTH since it "combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Please advise. Soupforone (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the section, as the cites include relevant embedded quotes. To allege OR:synthesis, one must identify (a) how the two sources are being combined, and (b) what is "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" in the above. Neither are offered. If you see the edit history, you will note that the article originally had two separate sentences, but @Soupforone combined and merged the two sentences into one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I had to tweak the phrasing because the synthesis was even worse before. A wikiphrase attributed to Ehud R. Toledano claimed that "Amhara were a part of major Afar slave caravan trade routes from the southern and southwestern regions to the northern and eastern Ethiopia", when what Toledano actually indicates is that "the first section of this trade was in the hands of Ethiopian dealers who drove the slaves from the southern and southwestern Galla, Sidama, and Gurage principalities to the central Amhara provinces.[...] While the caravans from the area south of Showa were perhaps as large as those crossing the Sahara, the average Afar caravan consisted of thirty to fifty merchants and about two hundred slaves" [23]. That same wikiphrase was also attributed to Richard Pankhurst, who similarly writes instead that "later in the century Mähfuz, the amir of Zayla, no doubt taking advantage of the wealth and power of the port, began a series of annual incursions, into Amhara, Shäwa and Fatagar" [24]. Here too there's no mention of Afars enslaving Amhara, but rather expeditions by the Adal kingdom in the old multi-ethnic Amhara province and other zones. The only place where Pankhurst does allude to Amhara Christians is to indicate that many embraced Islam-- "'a great multitude' of Amhara Christians at his exhortation embraced Islam" [25]. Likewise, Ulrich Braukämper only mentions Adal sultanate raids in the Dawaro and Bale provinces, not by the Afars against Amahara-- "Harb Jaus, a general of the Adalite sultan Djamal al-Din (d. AD 1433), before he continued his campaigns against the Christians in Dawaro, also achieved a successful attack on Bale. Makrizi's document reports, 'So much booty fell into his hands that every poor man was given three slaves; indeed by reason of the vast numbers of these the price of slaves fell'" [26]. The foregoing is on expeditions by the Adal sultanate against old multi-ethnic provinces. Soupforone (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

FamilySearch usage in Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta

Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta uses FamilySearch as a source multiple times. Is it Original Research? It's used to link to a scanned image of a passport, a scanned image of records of marriage, a census, crew lists, passport applications.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 05:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked at WP:PRIMARY - it seems largely to allow primary sources - including familysearch I would assume - even while saying that they are easy to misuse.

From there I was linked to policy on primary sources in biographical articles - WP:BLPPRIMARY which states: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." - seems pretty definite against this kind of use.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed now that WP:BLPPRIMARY is about Biographies of living persons, which Rafael Díez is not, he died in 1939, so maybe the injunction against using public records is null. -I almost posted this in the BLP noticeboard. :/ --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions in "Cold War II"

I have limited the sources to just explicitly mentioning "Cold War II" and/or any other interchangeable term. To make the article less about EU/NATO–Russia relations, I added China–US and "Early usages" to balance the article. The recent addition by XavierItzm (reverted but then reinserted by me) and other additions by Fixuture had me worried. The sources added by them do not use the phrases, like "new Cold War" or "Second Cold War". Rather they used old "Cold War" and recent events as comparisons to justify inclusion of added information. Are these additions "original research"?

Also, there has been disagreements over what the article should be about. However, the subject they referred to was the EU/NATO–Russia relations, I think. Should the article discuss the term "Cold War II" or the subject describing (or described by) the term (probably EU/NATO–Russia)? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to make a small note with the relevant talk page discussion. I recommend to read it first but in very short terms I do think the article should be about the subject, not the term (at worst case it would need to be moved to a more appropriate name but I don't think that would be needed) and that its inclusion criteria for any relevant event etc. should be WP:RS using (any variation of) the term "Cold War" in a way that suggests a possible future or perceived renewed/new Cold War.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not keen on renaming the article, Fixuture, though I respect your thoughts. How about creating a new article? Maybe move some portions to another article, like Russia–United States relations? By the way, there have been past discussions about the article itself. You can read the Archives. George Ho (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to rename it - I just wanted to make a sidenote about that also being an option if people think another term would more appropriate for the subject. Also imo an additional article would mean duplicate content. Also one could also think of a subsection of the "EU/NATO members vs. Russia"-section titled something like "Events compared to the Cold War". This info just should not miss in the article. --Fixuture (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What about other sections, "Early usages" and "United States vs. China"? George Ho (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The Exodus

This is about [27]. It is not clear at all what a wall around Jericho has to do with the Exodus. Wall around Jericho therefore the Exodus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The previous sentence states Jericho was "small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified". Being unfortified makes a direct reference to a wall not being around Jericho, thus evidence to the counter perspective should also be relevant. Maldives107 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It means small and poor, almost insignificant and unfortified at a specific time, it does not mean ever/forever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See Jericho#Bronze Age. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflation of the Bronze Age with the Iron Age. Typical for WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

So, the Exodus discussed the small and poor Jericho of the Iron Age, and Maldives107 cited a book by Kenyon which discussed the fortified Jericho of the Bronze Age. I don't understand why a reality of the Bronze Age could refute a reality of the Iron Age. The sources which verify those claims don't even speak of the same historical period, so obviously the wall of the Bronze Age does not contradict the unfortified Jericho of the Iron Age. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The beginning of the The Exodus#Dating the Exodus section states "Attempts to date the Exodus to a specific century have been inconclusive" meaning The Exodus, if it happened, does not have an established date. However, if it did occur during the Iron Age, C14 dating of the same debris Kenyon found has been dated to the Iron Age documented here: Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2. Maldives107 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Maldives107: Could you please give us a quote from the document so that we can see what specific C14 dating you are referring to? Which phase, etc. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Before he gives such quote, it still is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to quote Kenyon's book for begging a conclusion which Kenyon herself did not subscribe to. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC

Yes it is. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The story here, including the claims about what appears in "Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2", comes from an article that creationist archaeologist Bryant Wood published in Biblical Archaeology Review in 2008. Wood wants to align the archaeological record with the bible by means of two devices: one is to move the date of the destruction of Jericho later and the other is to move the date of the exodus earlier. However, "Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2" does not support the first claim and is indifferent to the second. You can read what "Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2" actually says at Talk:Jericho#Radiocarbon. The authors of that study (who were the excavators of the site) do not believe in an Iron Age wall in Jericho, not in that paper or in later papers I could find. This is just for information, since Maldives107's edit is forbidden by policy as others have pointed out. That paragraph in the article is very poor though and could use a complete rewrite. Zero^talk 03:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Exodus, Joshua blew his horn, causing the walls of Joshua to fall and the Israelites to take the land of Canaan, completing the Exodus story. Archeological evidence about the city and its walls can therefore provide evidence about the degree of truth of Exodus. TFD (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. However the edit being challenged suggested that a wall had been found which supported the account. The problem is that the wall was destroyed a couple of centuries earlier than the usually accepted date of the exodus (i.e. accepted by those who think it happened at all) and about one century earlier than even Wood's much earlier date. The issue could expanded in more detail in the article if that's what the consensus is, but isolated misleading sentences are not good. Zero^talk 07:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Maldives107: Have you actually read Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2? If so, I want the text you are referring to. If you don't do that it will appear you are relying on someone else as your source, probably Wood, and should not be citing Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Look you can argue that Bryant Wood is not a good source and I tend to agree still he is widely cited although mostly by academic theologians. The chronology is wrong but I don’t think anyone disputes that the site is the biblical Jericho. Many details match the biblical description the walls possibly destroyed by earthquake or war, then the city was burn after the harvest when the store houses where full.

What scholars dispute is that the city was destroyed by invading Israelis during the exodus.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC at Collective punishment

Is a US drone strike that killed the child of a suspected terrorist, added here, an example of collective punishment, or is this original research?

Please contribute at Talk:Collective punishment#RFC on US drone strike. Bradv 20:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OR checking myself

On an article I am working on, Iazyges, I found a source (ISBN 9781900188470) that mentions that 1. The salt mines near to the Iazyges were owned by Rome, and 2. The Iazyges did not have salt of their own, and needed it, because they bred cattle. Would it be too far of a stretch to say that they relied upon the Romans to get this salt? I have another source (OCLC 891848847) that says that the Iazyges' trade route to the Pontic Steppe was cut off. These two factors would logically imply that the Iazyges would have to get it from the Romans. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your question answers itself: If you have to make an argument or use logic to show that source A and source B combine to support point C, then it's prohibited original research via SYNTHESIS. Per that policy, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You might also notice the "imply" in that sentence: It's also prohibited to state what's said in A and what's said in B if the purpose or result would be that an average reader would imply C. In your case, mentioning your point 1 in the article would be doing just that since it is otherwise irrelevant to the Iazyges without that implication. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Every movie, video game, play or book review on Wikipedia

It seems to me that the "no original research" provision must, of necessity, exclude the summaries of every "literary work of art" (work) which I will define broadly as the plot summary of any

• fiction book,
• play
• TV program (or the summaries of the full season of a series), and
• motion picture or
• the playing summary of any computer program which is a video game

described in an article on Wikipedia.

Most plot summaries (or play summaries for video games) of these works are presumably written by the editor of that article at the time they create (or update) the article about the work, based upon their own memory of the plot of the work or how they played the video game. That summary has almost certainly never appeared anywhere else for that work and almost certainly has no reference to third-parties for the content of the summary.

Thus the plot or play summaries of these works are by definition original research having no third-party references at all. I have checked and there is no exception in the prohibition on original research for the summaries of the plot, or video game play, of works of art.

Therefore I think a qualifier should be added to the "no original research" provision to state that for obvious reasons of necessity (as I have stated above), the plot summary of a fiction book, play, television program (or series) or motion picture, and the play summary of a computer program is permitted to be original to Wikipedia, is permitted for this limited purpose to be original research, and to that extent is not required to contain or include references to third-party content.

In the alternative I believe it is necessary to flag every single article on Wikipedia about any fiction book, play, motion picture or television program (or television series) that contains plot summaries, or computer programs having a play summary, which are not references of, and not indicated by a reference as derived from, a third-party source, as containing forbidden (prohibited) original research. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The descriptions you talk about are not original research - the source is the creative work itself, an example of self published sources as sources about themselves. The description of a movie carried on the Wikipedia article about that movie has never appeared anywhere else, but that's the case with every article. Our description of Donald Trump has not appeared ver batim anywhere else, and indeed that has to be the case, or else it's a copyright violation. You can describe a movie without committing original research just as you can summarize a news article without committing original research. The originality of the text does not imply originality of the thought, which is what OR is meant to prevent. The only way a plot summary could be original research is if it drew conclusions that were not blatantly obvious from the source, or attempted to interpret the source. There is no contradiction in policy here, and most long-time Wikipedians understand this. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a situation where a WP:PRIMARY source is acceptable as long as no analyses or conclusions are made. Obviously this would have come up before if it were a policy problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Another way to put it, following from Someguy's response, is that a plot is presumed to be implicitly sourced to the work in question. This does not mean a plot cannot be explicitly sourced to third-party works, or in the case of very long works, using direct citations to the work itself. But again, this summary should only be apparent and obvious, and definitely not interpretative. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I will chime in and say that the movies can be used as a primary source but that reliable secondary sources that summarize the source should be used if available. One concern I don't see voiced here has to do with WP policies concerning NPOV. If an editor chooses to focus on only certain parts of the movie while omitting others, then they can create a narrative that may or may not be intended by the original source. Think about the movie Deadpool, and if an editor minimized the amount of coverage of fighting, shooting, torture, and blood to focus the majority of the summary on Wade's girlfriend. It would read as a romance film and where is to say what should/shouldn't be included in the summary? Just something to keep in mind.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Funny, but every comment here seems to be saying the exact same thing that I said but trying to dance around the rule so as to allow original research of the declaration of the plot of a work / play of a video game without calling it original research. Let me quote from the article on No Original Research:

“ 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... The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. ”

The WP:ABOUTSELF referenced above by someguy does not fix this problem because in that case we are still using a third party source.

You can't claim the plot summary is a primary source because it is using the work - book, film, play etc. -- as its source, and the summary isn't coming from the work, it is the Wikipedia editor's opinion of the work expressed as the summary.

The plot summary of any movie (or other work) is by definition original research, again, not sourced to a third party resource. Nothing you can find in a book, play, TV program review, or video game play review placed here, can be sourced back to anything but the editor's opinion. It is, almost always, not the summary of some published review of the film, it is itself the review and therefore it's original research.

You can tapdance around and spin-doctor this all you want, just to try to hide what your own admissions in your examples state is obvious: reviews of entertainment will almost always be first-party declarations of what the editor believes to be the plot, not a summary of what someone else said. There is no third-party reference someone can go back to and see if the summary fairly represents the conclusions of the third-party work, all we can do is look at the source work and see if the plot summary on Wikipedia matches it.

I don't see why all the spin-doctoring and tapdancing needs to be made to avoid the inevitable conclusion: plot/gameplay summaries often have no third-party sources available and sometimes original research for these items is unavoidable. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You're the only person insisting the reliable source must be third party. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what the references say. Wikipedia:Verifyability says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Now, if what you're saying is the original work can stand on its own as the source and then the summary can use the work as the source without requiring any prior third party material then this point should be made clear. It still sounds like an attempt to "backdoor" original research because if you didn't backdoor it you'd have to admit it was original Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The same policy (WP:V) that says to base content on third party material also outlines exceptions to this rule. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We've made this point clear. The movie/episode/book itself can be used as a primary resource. WP policy is very clear that reliable secondary sources should be used when available, but primary sources can be used without interpretation. WP policy admits to the pitfalls this presents, but still okays it. This is literally what I previously said. You can quote directly from the movie or screenplay, both of which are published sources. Original research only applies when a person tries to include their own inferences into an article that isn't directly and explicitly supported by the source. This is usually seen when an editor tries to give, provide, or explain a reason why a character behaved a certain way or tries to elaborate about the director's intentions when there is no direct evidence for this. A video game summary which stats "In stage 5 player 'X' travels to planet 'Y' and is tasked with stopping person 'Z's' plan" could be directly verified with the video game itself. Ultimately these descriptions all come down to consensus, but it's pretty hard to argue with something that's so easily verifiable. Also, you seem to be saying that any summarizing is original research, and that's not what the policy says at all. The whole point of Wikipedia is to accurately summarize what sources say. It doesn't matter if the source is primary or tertiary, we're suppose to summarize them using limited quotes to avoid copyright violations. So a summary is not "by definition" original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Romanian protests

Hello. People keep re-adding unsourced material on 2017 Romanian protests, as I said here: Talk:2017 Romanian protests#Unsorced material.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

200.223.199.146 I've requested for the page to be protected here, and reverted to the last acceptable version. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 11:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Printing

Last 13 february I removed a unsorced claim on Printing. It was unsourced for 7 years. Then, Johnbod re-added as unsourced as it was before.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, I had always "known" this to be true, but can't remember where I learned it. But it may be an anti-Catholic myth [28]. It's suggested that because the Church banned certain vernacular translations of the Bible due to perceived inaccuracies, this was contorted by the Church's opponents into an alleged ban on any non-Latin bible, to keep its knowledge restricted from the uneducated. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So, Someguy1221, what do I do in order to remove the unsourced claim? If I removed again, Johnbod will re-add again.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is an enormously common claim, that I think is at least partly true. Someguy1221, how about actually doing some research and try to work out if there is considered to be something to it, then editing appropriately. There's a lot more to editing WP than just wandering around adding tags or removing stuff. Unfortunately we have more taggers and removers than people actually willing to improve the encyclopedia by writing or referencing. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you actually do some research? I came across this source, which mentions Catholic Church attempts to censor printing presses, and that this was simply an extension of existing censorship programs. The Church did what it could to restrict access to "dangerous" material before and after the printing press. It does not appear there was every any official Church concern about uneducated peasants reading a bible in any language, as long as it was deemed accurate. The text in the article should be changed to what verifiable, not to what we think is true, and that statement is disgustingly weasely to begin with. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I find the comparison of this recent edit and this recent edit both by Johnbod to be interesting. It would at least appear that he finds the restoration of unsourced information — in violation of BURDEN I would note — to be fine in one instance when he does it but objectionable in another when another editor does it. Perhaps he would care to explain the difference. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod, this is an inversion of the burden to prove: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."--200.223.199.146 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oviaivo's polyhedra : annoviaivo

See my concerns on the article talk page. The main source is the user's website (which is in French), and the reference given doesn't seem to actually support the article. The user is also a user on the French wikipedia, and that seems to be his native language. I don't speak French, so I'm hoping someone here does. -Apocheir (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The user also has a lot of edits (on the English wikipedia) adding links to his 3d models of things to various pages, which seems a little spammy. -Apocheir (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be original research. There are no Google Scholar hits whatsoever for "annoviaivo". There is already a separate article for Toroidal polyhedron, and I see no published evidence that the family discussed in the article has been discussed elsewhere in the literature. It is certainly not discussed under the neologism "annoviaivo". I would propose this article for deletion. There seems to be nothing worth keeping. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oviaivo's polyhedra : annoviaivo. -Apocheir (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Space colonization series

I stumbled upon a huge area of WP:SYNTH: space colonization and daughter articles navigated by {{wpspace}} and {{Space colonization}}. The texts contain lots of plausible and referenced info: orbits, athmospheric composition, surface, minerals, etc., but often collected from various astronomical sources which do not actually discuss colonization. In my book it is all one huge synthesis to be severely pruned. I started trimming the "main" article, but I would also like some extra opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Worldwide energy supply

For a long time I try to get the article Worldwide energy supply. It contains a lot of do-it-yourself-sources, that force you to start searching for the information needed. The author User:Rwbest refuses to give proper sources. Rwbest also refuses to give page numbers for easy access of the information.

The same article is removed from the Dutch Wikipedia as Own Research, and to my opinion this article is also Own Research. As the author is now plain and clear refusing to act (see: Talk:Worldwide energy supply), I give up and ask help. These unclear sources are making the article to an essay with WP:OR as you have to search for the info yourself. Are those do-it-yourself-sources acceptable? The Banner talk 16:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)The Banner talk 16:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, your real objection is not either that (a) the sources do not support the material for which they are cited or that (b) they engage in original research, per se (i.e. "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."). Your objection is that the citations are not specific enough, via page or paragraph references or the like, to determine whether the sources support the material without extensive examination of the source. Is that correct? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In fact, yes. In a number of cases you have to do your own research in the sources given to find the results RWbest claims that there are there. It gives me the idea that by making the sources as difficult as possible, he is trying to hide WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The Banner talk 17:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but without other evidence it is a failure to assume good faith. Moreover, while general references are deprecated and are ordinarily listed in a section at the bottom of an article rather than being cited inline, they are not disallowed, see WP:GENREF. Unless you have other reasons to believe that the references do not, in fact, support the material or require OR in order to support it, the lack of specific page references or other location aids is not, in itself, impermissible (and certainly is not, and cannot be implied to be, OR). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent refusal to give better sources/give them a better format? The Banner talk 21:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ow, and among others, there is this case. The source does not back up the percentages mentioned. You have to compare the numbers of 2012 and 2014 yourself. The Banner talk 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Banner, the discussion on the Dutch WP was polluted by nasty suspicions about my intentions and the sudden removal of the article was criticised by several people, as you know. Your suspicion here that by making the sources as difficult as possible, he is trying to hide WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. is a failure to assume good faith, to say it mildly. My intention is to indicate the source, not to detail technicalities. Let me clarify this with the source of the percentages mentioned by you.

In section 1.1 Trend growth percentages are sourced in Note 4: Compare World: Balances for 2012 and 2014. The reader can click on Balances which links to an IEA page, select region World, topic Balances and year 2012, click on Search and find Total Production 13385446 in the upper right corner. Repeating this for year 2014 gives 13805443 which is 3.1% more.

I consider this verification easy, but a non-technical reader, not familiar with energy statistics, may think otherwise and trust that numbers are checked and corrected if necessary, by more technical readers. Rwbest (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Statistics

Hello, the Airports Authority of India publishes PDFs every month with traffic statistics for the airports it manages. For example, here are the passenger statistics for January and for February. Would it violate WP:SYNTH to add statistics from different PDFs, ultimately calculating, say, an airport's passenger count for the whole year? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Censorship by Google - SYNTH problems

A new editor is inserting a fairly large volume of unreliably sourced material on Censorship by Google, cited to references that don't mention "censorship" at all. Given the WP:SYNTH issues, I'm hoping for wider attention. (In addition to the OR problems, there's also separate reliable sources issues - the same user is using opinion pieces and self-published sources that are improper as well).

More eyeballs on the article, and comments at Talk:Censorship by Google#Unreliable sources / improper self-published sources / WP:SYNTH, would be most welcome. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of Smith & Wesson M&P15 in 2012 Aurora shooting, 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting, and 2015 San Bernardino attack

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Issues of original research and synthesis have been raised in discussion. The content proposed by the request for comment is a concise summary over numerous reliable sources. Participation from experienced editors familiar with our original research policies is requested. Thank you in advance. 35.164.119.4 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible WP:SYNTH at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

In revising the lede of the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article in this edit, I also corrected an obvious misrepresentation of facts concerning the fundamental findings of the HSCA report (while reiterating and even expanding on the implications of the subset of facts given). User:Canada Jack proceeded to formulate what appeared to be WP:SYNTH statement to much the same effect as before, so I reverted (with concise references in the comments to corroborate) and followed up with a brief explanation on the talk page just to clear up any confusion. This user then counter-reverted, leaving a response on the talk page without so much as addressing the points I had raised.

At the heart of the matter is this: HSCA issued a series of findings, which are broken down into categories (so-called "paragraphs"). Each of these furthermore detail the issues considered in reaching the conclusions of said paragraph.

- Paragraph 1.B. concludes that "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations". It goes on to discuss the studies (of these "dictabelt recordings") conducted by the commission in support of that finding. Well, it turns out now that several studies have since called into question that very evidence. Fine, and this is indeed addressed amply in our article.

- Paragraph 1.C. concludes that "the committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy". To support that finding, many connections between Oswald and various other people and groups are drawn. Nowhere, however, in this specific finding is there any reference to the acoustical evidence.

So my contention is simply this: taken as a whole, the findings of the HSCA are only partially based on the acoustical evidence, and so our article should state as much insofar as the scope of the newer revelations regarding the validity of the committee's original assessment of the dictabelt recordings is concerned. Any attempt to coalesce these findings (as User:Canada Jack did in referencing certain comments made by dissenting members) would thus be tantamount to WP:SYNTH.

Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Earl of Arundel has this exactly backwards. He cites no source to back his claim that the HSCA's conclusion of "conspiracy" in regards to the Kennedy assassination was "partially" driven by the acoustic evidence. It's not there in what he posted, indeed the only actual evidence cited... is the acoustic evidence. So he is the one engaged in original research - actually, not even that, as he cites no source for his claim, and what he has posted heavily implies that it was the sole driving force behind the conclusion.

The dispute here arises because I omitted "partially." In fact the conclusion was driven solely by the acoustic evidence, and I presented the reference which states exactly that. From the Report's dissent by committee member Robert Edgar:

Was there a conspiracy? I agree with the December 13, 1978, first draft of our final report which states on page 64

"The committee finds that the available scientific evidence is insufficient to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."

Up to that moment in the life of the committee, we were prepared to go to the American people with this conclusion. Only after the report of Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy [i.e. the dictabelt :evidence], in the 11th hour of our investigation, was the majority persuaded to vote for two gunmen and a conspiracy. I respectfully dissented.

I didn't post the following, but from the same HSCA Report, a dual dissent by Samuel Devine and Robert Edgar which buttresses my contention:

"The testimony of acoustical experts was given such weight that most committee members were persuaded that a fourth shot was fired at Kennedy." and "Based on this evidence and testimony [the acoustic evidence], a majority of the select committee concluded there was a 'high probability of a conspiracy.'" And, from Edgar's separate dissent, an even more explicit link to the evidence and the "conspiracy" conclusion: "We found no evidence to suggest a conspiracy. We found no gunmen or evidence of a gunman. We found no gun, no shells, no impact of shots from the grassy knoll. We found no entry wounds from the front into any person, including President John Kennedy and Gov. John Connally. We found no bullets or fragments of bullets that did not belong to the Oswald weapon. And we found little, if any, evidence of partnership with Lee Harvey Oswald. Few credible ear-witness accounts back up the marginal findings of our acoustics experts." Further, in asking questions about the acoustic evidence, he says this: "Do we know enough to make our judgment on conspiracy accurate? To the last question, I say no." This again underlines the fact that the acoustic evidence drove the conclusion. And... "Did we rush to a conspiratorial conclusion? I believe that exhibit "A" will clearly demonstrate a rush to conspiratorial conclusions." For Exhibit "A," see below.

Edgar in his dissent reproduced in several columns the changes in conclusions from the initial Dec 13 1978 draft.

DRAFT REPORT: "There is insufficient evidence to find that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."

FINAL REPORT: "Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that 2 gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of 2 gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."

The only evidence which they had been presented between the Dec 13 draft and the Dec 29 final report wa the conclusion regarding the dictabelt evidence. The witness testimony was only cited as it generally corroborated that revised conclusion - it didn't suffice on its own to warrant that conclusion as is clear from the draft report.

There is no "original research", no "synthesis" here, my point that the acoustic evidence drove the conclusion of "conspiracy" is explicitly from the Report itself, and Earl of Arundel has thus far posted nothing to back his contention that the dictabelt only partly drove the conclusion. Canada Jack (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – A consensus was finally reached on the issue. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on potential WP:ORIGINALSYN or WP:COATRACK

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. This doesn't concern the list directly, but only a small part of the lead. Participation from experienced editors familiar with our original research policies is requested. Thank you in advance. Obsidi (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The original RfC was withdrawn due to confusion as to the question and reissued with a clarified question. You are invited to join in the new discussion at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Obsidi (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template: Specific

Please see Template talk:Specific#Wording for a suggestion on rewording this template message to make the purpose and meaning clearer, especially regarding the use of secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Racism in Africa

(Cross-posted from Talk:Racism in Africa)

69.121.8.140 has cited this for the claim that Islam introduced racism to Africa -- even though the source doesn't really discuss race or racism.

He is also trying to add material about Islam to the rest of the article even though other sources do not discuss Islam.

Making claims that a source is not explicit about, and making claims not found in sources, is original research and needs to be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Recombining data from automotive production data source

There has been some debate as to how to handle automotive production figures. This is primarily in the article List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production (see talk page discussion here [[29]]. Related discussions have taken place on the GM [[30]] and Toyota articles [[31]]. The issue is how should the production volumes from various manufactures be combined. For example should Mazda numbers be added to Ford's (during the time of Ford control)? The agreed source of the numbers is the OICA. I believe all involved parties agree that this is a reliable source. The part in question is should the raw data from the OICA be combined. For example, here is the 2004 OICA data [[32]] and the table as presented in the article with footnotes explaining the regrouping of manufacture data[[33]]. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to take the raw data from a trusted source and regroup it in the article tables? Springee (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this is more or less what you did at Smith & Wesson M&P15 with this edit.[34] I think it was wrong then, especially since you replaced reliable secondary sources with primary sources that require interpretation. The best answer for this is the same: use secondary sources where possible, but if you have to use primary sources make sure they explicitly draw the conclusion you're adding to the article. See WP:PSTS. Felsic2 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please limit your content disputes to that page. Springee (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm addressing the question you raised here. Using a combination of primary sources to support a conclusion that isn't made by a secondary source is original research. Felsic2 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked proxy IP

Many diverse reliable sources weigh in on automobile manufacturer production rankings, including reports from industry associations, industry journals, the business press, and main stream media. For a simple example, from The New York Times: Toyota knocked the Ford Motor Company from its longtime position as the world's second-largest automaker last year, according to Toyota's final sales results, which were released on Monday. Now all that stands between Toyota and first place is General Motors, setting up a challenge to America's dominance over the global auto industry that has been years in the making. References No one source is definitive; when reliable sources disagree among themselves, we are asked to summarize the disagreement. Rankings stated in Wikipedia voice should clarify which subsidiaries are included or excluded. Also relevant is that simple arithmetic is not original research. Further, context is important, so we cannot imply an endorsement of any one source and a definitive interpretation of that source by specifying a formula for combining manufacturers in such a way that it will settle all issues of rankings across all automotive articles. We are not industry analysts; the interpretation of the raw production numbers is best left to our sources. In addition, the article at issue might more clearly be titled "Ranking of automobile manufacturers by OICA production numbers;" as a single-source (OICA) list article it is of dubious encyclopedic value. 34.205.54.93 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC) The above is one of many Amazon proxy IPs used by a disruptive editor suspected of being HughD.Springee (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC) The IP editor's comments might have confused the issue. No one in the discussions in question is saying that additional sources can't be used. As I read it, we can not say data in a table comes from a source (OICA) then recombine the data in a way that is different from the source. One example is the OICA reported Ford and Mazda separately in their 2005 table. Wiki editors decided that was an error and reported Ford's results as the sume of OICA's Mazda and Ford numbers. I see that as a NOR issue because the wiki article is not reporting what OICA reported (regardless of what secondary sources might say) and as is the wiki article doesn't cite a secondary source stating Ford and Mazda's numbers should be combined. If a secondary source is found (and I suspect they exist) then I still believe we need to reproduce the OICA numbers without alteration and then add a footnote that some sources combine the Ford and Mazda numbers. Ford and Mazda are used as an example but there are several cases beyond Ford and Mazda. Springee (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Some additional context for this ORN query. An underlying issue is the sourcing of claims of the ranking of automobile manufacturers. Some automotive editors are insisting that all automobile manufacturer articles must use the same source for claims of productivity, and that that one source is the Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d'Automobiles, even to the extent of using the OICA to exclude other reliable sources as incorrect or biased. Already, article List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production has been implemented as a single-source transcription of raw OICA numbers into Wikipedia. Other editors have noted that things are not quite so simple and have raised issues with this approach, including that our policies and guidelines clearly require us to include disagreements between reliable sources, and that even simple attempts to apply the raw OICA reports require some interpretation beyond basic arithmetic; for example, the annual OICA reports inconsistently bucketize alliances, ownership relationships, partial ownership relationships such as a 30% stake, and partial year relationships, such as an ownership stake finalized in mid-year. Nominally a list article, the ranking in List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production is a subject of dispute. The article is organized by year, and for different years include production numbers for as many as 50 and as few as 15 manufacturers. Where the article includes just OICA's top say 15 manufacturers, a manufacturer may have a subsidiary below the top 15, and the ranking in List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production may be expected to be disputed with respect to reliable sources. This ORN query asks an implied endorsement of a fundamentally flawed approach to sourcing claims of automobile manufacturer rankings. 34.205.54.93 (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC) The above IP editor had been blocked. Springee (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In which way is it incorrect to include Mazda's vehicle production in Ford's though it was a Ford affiliate as Ford owned one-third of Mazda? If you read this news article which says Toyota (including its subsidiaries Daihatsu and Hino) overtakes Ford as the world's second-largest automaker in 2003, you may find the following citation:

"Of note, Toyota's numbers include Daihatsu and Hino, two subsidiaries more than half owned by Toyota. Ford's numbers do not include Mazda, which it effectively controls, though it owns about a third of the company. If Mazda were added in, Ford would still be on top."

When reading that citation, one may see that Mazda WAS a Ford subsidiary/affiliate at that time, why Ford and Mazda would be listed together rather than separately as Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino. However, OICA lists Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino separately in 2003-2007 which results in Toyota being No.2 rather than No.1 in 2006 and 2007 though it usually IS No.1 'cause Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino together are larger than G.M. which is listed as No.1 which usually is wrong.

Ford and its (at that time) subsidiary/affiliate Mazda produced more than Toyota and its subsidiaries Hino and Daihatsu in 2004, which means it is usually wrong to list Toyota as No.2 and Ford as No.3 in 2004. I don't know why there has been a "mistake", is it possible to contact OICA to ask why Mazda has been listed separately from Ford though being a Ford affiliate? BjörnBergman 14:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The numbers in the article are based on an industry group, the OICA. The way you have combined the numbers is a violation of NOR since you have regrouped the data in a way that isn't what the OICA did. It would be reasonable to add to the article that some analysts have combined the data differently but we should say we are getting OICA numbers then change the numbers. Springee (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

::An article drawn exclusively from a single source with dubious editorial processes is certainly highly unusual and of little encyclopedic value and probably an ill-advised effort, but if you insist on this idiosyncratic sourcing regime would you please support adding "...according to the OICA" to the title of the article so that our readers will be aware that a lowered sourcing standard is in effect, and warn our fellow editors that contributions from other reliable sources are not welcome? Our readers come to Wikipedia expecting the consensus of reliable sources, if they want the OICA numbers they can go to the OICA website. Thank you. 54.236.45.190 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN removed the comment by 54.236.45.190, stating it was from a block editor. I have restored it because I believe both sides should be able to present their side of the discussion.  Stepho  talk  23:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

BjörnBergman and 54.236.45.190 are working under the belief that Mazda was a division of Ford at the time, which therefore makes it ok to add Mazda's production numbers to Ford's production numbers, ignoring how OICA ranks them separately. They make a similar case for Toyota owning Hino and Diahatsu. This is the main point that we differ on. To keep it simple, I will talk further about Ford and Mazda but the same basic argument applies to the Toyota side as well.

From the Mazda article, we learn that Ford owned 33% of Mazda shares at the time. This probably constitutes the majority for voting stock, thus giving Ford control over Mazda. However, I don't see anywhere that outright states that Ford owns Mazda. OICA seems to agree that they remained separate companies. Thus, Björn and 54.236.45.190 need to supply some proof that Ford owns Mazda. Without this proof we cannot override our source and recombined the raw numbers to provide a ranking that differs from what our source explicitly says.

Björn and 54.236.45.190 have tried putting in footnotes similar to "Ford includes Mazda which is an affiliate of the Ford Motor Company as of 2008. However, OICA lists Ford and Mazda separately." This is still trying to declare that Ford owns Mazda - without proof. An acceptable alternative would be something like "OICA lists Ford and Mazda separately. ORANISATION_XXX lists Mazda as part of Ford to rank Ford as #XXX[supporting ref]" - with a supporting reference of course.

Note also that there is an edit war on these articles. WP:BRD advises us to restore the original and then for both sides to refrain from further editing until discussions have been resolved., Björn and 54.236.45.190 keep reinstating their claims and Springee and myself revert it back to the original text. I fear that both sides have broken BRD.  Stepho  talk  23:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Microscope article, ultramicroscope without references in lead or anywhere in article

I believe this is purely original research. The introduction of the Microscope article contains the sentence:

Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), the ultramicroscope, and the various types of scanning probe microscope.

I can't find a source for this, and it is not discussed or mentioned anywhere else in the article. The word "ultramicroscope" only appears in the lead of the article. The Ultramicroscope article does not make a similar claim about it being a "major type of microscope." Please feel free to source and/or discuss if you thnk this is not original research.

Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_ultramicroscope

Thank you, --2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Fraunces

User:GramereC is posting original research to the Samuel Fraunces article. She claims to be a descendant of Fraunces, and asks that others stay out of the way for a week so she can complete her work (approaching 200 edits): User talk:GramereC#3RR.

Yesterday, User:Tuckerresearch cautioned her on this behavior, and pointed out her conflicts of interest: Talk:Samuel Fraunces#What is happening?

I think it is time for an administrator to intervene.

Thank you. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research would be unsourced You have asked that I not use sources I published so I have added the primary sources.GramereC 14:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Self-published works should not be used, with a few exceptions. Primary sources can only be used when you are summarizing facts that are clearly stated in them. You are interpreting individual primary sources, sometimes even arguing with them, synthesizing your multiple interpretations of them, and sometimes even asking your family to do the same. We strictly limit that type of original research.

If you could do everybody a favor, would you for the time being write up your complete version of the article in a sandbox page e.g. User:GramereC/Fraunces. That way you can write exactly what you want to write and we could see exactly where you are trying to take the article. We could then include any reliably sourced, non-original research into the article, or even replace the entire article with your work, if that is consistent with our RS and NOR rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not the one who added my work to the article. so we do not have a problem there. The article is up there are corrections to the references to be made in format. I am not interpreting anything I have supplied the actual references in many case from the Founders papers. Which is a HUGE improvement to the statements made previously with no "Real" references. Beyond repeated and continued reference to two works the Pre-Visit paper by Jenny from the FTM and the brochure by Kym Rice. PLEASE cite an actual book by KYM that would be nice. Using the same to paid for by FTM pieces of work not listed on an authors page is where the problem is. Where do I get that source? Oh yes I have to go to the FTM and ask Jenny.

There are still statements up there right now with regard to staffing of the Washington households both in Philadelphia and NY there is no citation. Yet all but a few of the papers of Washington have been digitized and are accessible. If that is not original work I do not know what is. I did not do that. Someone other then Mt Vernon or Founders Papers has either added receipts of record and it is unpublished or published this who is it and where can we find it????GramereC 16:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are entirely missing the point. You are editing with no regard for our rules. Please read WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:COI, and WP:AGF. If you read these you'll do a lot better in getting your material into Wikipedia. You can then practice your editing skill in an area that you are less passionate about. You can also do a complete reworking of the Samuel Fraunces article in your user space and we can see what you really want to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No I am entirely getting the point. The article in it's previous state used the same two secondary sources for almost everything. When other secondary sources are introduced the same two or three editors throw the information out and revert it. It became necessary to place the primary sources. In this article you also had primary documents cited that were not what they said they were and were using it to express there opinion. Example of Washington's letters as documentation order of Mass arrest. Then followed Samuel Fraunces himself was arrested but let go for lack of evidence. What source was there for that? What secondary source was used? Whay do things like this get placed up and left. Placing the reference of the Will for Fraunces is necessary yet you yourself keep deleting the file number for retrevial so that it would take 3 days for any person educated or not to obtain the source. Then you tell me I can not use a primary document someplace else even if I have it in listing with active links to find it immediately. In this case there are two or three of you bullying at this point.

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 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, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

GramereC 17:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"I am not the one who added my work to the article" — User:GramereC claims above. Note that all the additions quoted in the complaint below were posted by User:GramereC or under one of her aliases. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Much of this text is not mine but is what was there to begin with by some unsigned editor who is never identified. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)"

The complaint below includes links to the article immediately before each of User:GramereC's strings of edits, and immediately after. Anyone can compare the versions and see that all the quoted additions were posted by User:GramereC or under one of her aliases. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect User:GramereC may be posting under a new alias.[35] User:2600:8803:3400:8200:2590:8c3c:59a7:70f4 today added details to the article that only someone intimately familiar with her work would know. (Note also the edit summary.) BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether I was wrong or right about this alias, I regret posting the above comment. I will not delete it because I believe in preserving the complete discussion. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Complaint

User:GramereC – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 – has flagrantly used the Samuel Fraunces article to disseminate her theories about Fraunces’s parentage, ancestry and descendants; to discredit the documentary record and legitimate scholarship on Fraunces; to promote conspiracy theories about and imply racists motives to those with whose work she disagrees; and to promote her self-published Fraunces biography.

Some of her most outrageous claims and accusations have been made on the talk page. But this complaint will be limited to original research added to the article. Below are some examples of original research added during periods in which she was the only editor of content:

• Additions made between 18 September 2008[36] and 10 February 2009[37], a period in which User:Coroinn was the only editor.
  • "Fraunces was born in Jamaica West Indies of African, French and English ancestry."
  • "Samuel Fraunces is most often remembered as the Jamacian [sic] born mulatto steward of George Washington's household."
  • "His son Samuel was always described as Negro in U.S. Census and Trinity Church, New York records, his daughter Sophia Fraunces Gomez was enumerated as a free black in 1840 and his son Andrew G. Fraunces was enumerated as mulatto in 1800."
  • "It is during this earlier time when Fraunces' daughter Elizabeth "Phoebe" Fraunces is creditied [sic] with exposing an atempt [sic] on Washington's life."
  • User:Coroinn ends the article by listing her self-published biography: "A Biography: Samuel Fraunces 'Black Sam' ISBN 978-1-4363-9104-7"

• Additions made between 15 April 2009[38] and 29 April 2009[39], a period in which User:Coroinn was the only editor (except for a spelling correction by User:LilHelpa).
  • "Samuel Fraunces born in Jamaica, the year of his birth when calculated from baptismal records is placed at 1734 when calculated from obituary it is 1722. The informant for the obituary in the “Gazette of the United States”, October 13, 1795 is unknown. The informant for his baptism at age 14 is himself."
  • There are portraits of Samuel available to look at on line. The portrait which can be authenticated and was owned by the family is found at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/other/ABL/etext/stagetavern/images/p184i.jpg . This portrait was in the possession of Edith Bucklin Hartshorn Mason who's DAR record can be seen at: http://books.google.com/books?id=7wnvsrbxPcsC&pg=PA54&dq=David+Pye+Fraunces&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html . There is another portrait which cannot be authenticated and is found at Fraunces Tavern which can be viewed on flicker [sic] at http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539913@N00/1115086538 .
  • "Samuel was born in the West Indies of French and African ancestry. The French ancestry is the same French ancestry as his cousin's the Jacquelin and Ambler families of Jamestown Settlement Virginia."
  • "The 1790 United States Census for New York page 63 of the Dock Ward lists Samuel Fraunces as a free white male with four females and one enslaved individual in the household, the enslaved individual is his son Samuel. Who ever [sic] the informant or enumerator was certainly was not familiar with the family. At the time of his baptism Samuel Fraunces the elder is listed as a mulatto."
  • "Samuel Fraunces was always remembered as mulatto in racial references until the turn of the 19th century. At that same time the building of Fraunces Tavern was in danger of demolition. The Daughters of the American Revolution went on record with protest to the demolition. The city of New York designated the area as park. The Sons of the Revolution eventually acquired the site and rebuilt the building we see today. At some point in time during this process it appears a campaign to do away with Samuel ‘s ethnicity occurred. At the same time because of the tradition that Phoebe was of color the traditions linking Phoebe to Samuel begin to be called into question. One of the first arguments against his ethnicity is from Mrs. Melusina Fay Pierce of the Women’s auxiliary of preservation of Scenic and Historic places and objects in New York City. Henry Russell Drowne later in A Sketch of Fraunces Tavern and Those Connected with Its History (New York: Fraunces Tavern, 1919), p. 8. States if a Phoebe existed she may have been a woman enslaved or employed by Fraunces, rather than his daughter."
  • ”Many of the informants for the recollections including him were children at the time. His daughter Elizabeth "Phoebe" and her contemporaries were only about 10 years old. George Washington "Wash" Parke Custsis [sic] was about 9 years old.”
  • ”Some have even stated that Trinity Church had no African American members. Among the many records which include some with race noted at Trinity Church are records for Samuel Fraunces Jr's marriage found at:http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/history/content/registers/display_detail.php?id=4373&sacr=marriage. If the census records for NYC and the Trinity Church records are compared examianing [sic] race they are found to be consistent with each other less than 50% of the time. Race was subjective and was not always noted on either record.”

• Additions made between 20 March 2017[40] and 4 April 2017[41], a period in which User:GramereC/User:71.58.105.199 was the only editor (except for spelling corrections by User:Arjayay, User:Terrek and User:192.184.113.252).
  • ”Samuel Fraunces mother was a plantation worker named Maria Margaret on the plantation of Edward Fraunces in Jamaica and was remembered in his will of 1741 filed in London.”
  • ”Samuel Fraunces had a maternal grandfather Oliver, who was enslaved by Hamilton as noted on the Christ Church Philadelphia baptism records of 31 Nov 1766.”
  • ”Samuel Fraunces ethnography would include all of the aforementioned dependent on which person you want to look at. The name Fraunces is seen with one family from England dating back to Henry VII and that is the family if Edward Fraunces who died in 1741. The french extraction so often referred to is that of the Jaquelin family from Vendee France and the grandmother of Edward Fraunces.”[42] [Note – Edward Fraunces died unmarried, left his Estate to his brother, “Madge” and “Maria” were different persons (not a single “Maria Margaret”), and there is no proof that any of them had any connection to Samuel Fraunces.]
  • ’’Maybe coincidentally, when the Washington's Headquarters was purchased by the SR [Sons of the Revolution] and renamed Fraunces Tavern the information changed. He was no longer mixed racial or negro he was now a white man.’’
  • ’’With regaurd [sic] to race genealogies show us that not all of Samuel's children passed as white all of the time. At marriage Samuel Jr is Negro, Trinity Church Database.[43] Sophia and her children are enumerated as Negro while in NYC, Mulatto when they leave for France and White when they return to Louisiana. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington D.C.; NARA Series: Passport Applications, 1795-1905; Roll #: 96; Volume #: Roll 096 - 26 Apr 1861-31 May 1861. Elizabeth "Phebe" is noted as colored when she is buried. Trinity Church Database[44]
  • ”A closer look at the family reveals that sister and mother lived in Santo Domingo now Hati, as indicated on census records for John Frances, a descendant of Louis Francis and nephew of Fraunces. Year: 1880; Census Place: Warrington, Escambia, Florida; Roll: 127; Family History Film: 1254127; Page: 1B; Enumeration District: 041; Image: 0005

User:Tuckerresearch confronted User:GramereC on some of her most outrageous and undocumented claims.Talk:Samuel Fraunces#Edward Fraunces → Samuel Fraunces? Talk:Samuel Fraunces#What is happening?, and User:GramereC deleted the items. But how can Wikipedia tolerate this behavior? BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Complaint (with comments by User:GramereC)

User:GramereC – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 – has flagrantly used the Samuel Fraunces article to disseminate her theories about Fraunces’s parentage, ancestry and descendants; to discredit the documentary record and legitimate scholarship on Fraunces; to promote conspiracy theories about and imply racists motives to those with whose work she disagrees; and to promote her self-published Fraunces biography.

Where has this happened??? again here is Boring History Guy going off on anyone who tries to remove anyting he says about Fraunces.GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of her most outrageous claims and accusations have been made on the talk page. But this complaint will be limited to original research added to the article. Below are some examples of original research added during periods in which she was the only editor of content:

So if we use the talk page Boring History Guy gets angry and turns everything personal.GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Additions made between 18 September 2008[45] and 10 February 2009[46], a period in which User:Coroinn was the only editor.
  • "Fraunces was born in Jamaica West Indies of African, French and English ancestry."
  • "Samuel Fraunces is most often remembered as the Jamacian [sic] born mulatto steward of George Washington's household."
  • "His son Samuel was always described as Negro in U.S. Census and Trinity Church, New York records, his daughter Sophia Fraunces Gomez was enumerated as a free black in 1840 and his son Andrew G. Fraunces was enumerated as mulatto in 1800."
  • "It is during this earlier time when Fraunces' daughter Elizabeth "Phoebe" Fraunces is creditied [sic] with exposing an atempt [sic] on Washington's life."
  • User:Coroinn ends the article by listing her self-published biography: "A Biography: Samuel Fraunces 'Black Sam' ISBN 978-1-4363-9104-7"

All three things are true but have often been removed because YOU Boring Old History Guy say so. That is fine remove the birth certificate because the dates vary remove burials for the same reason. Which is what you do. Even when it is replaced with some other work you blank it out. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Additions made between 15 April 2009[47] and 29 April 2009[48], a period in which User:Coroinn was the only editor (except for a spelling correction by User:LilHelpa).
  • "Samuel Fraunces born in Jamaica, the year of his birth when calculated from baptismal records is placed at 1734 when calculated from obituary it is 1722. The informant for the obituary in the “Gazette of the United States”, October 13, 1795 is unknown. The informant for his baptism at age 14 is himself."
  • There are portraits of Samuel available to look at on line. The portrait which can be authenticated and was owned by the family is found at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/other/ABL/etext/stagetavern/images/p184i.jpg . This portrait was in the possession of Edith Bucklin Hartshorn Mason who's DAR record can be seen at: http://books.google.com/books?id=7wnvsrbxPcsC&pg=PA54&dq=David+Pye+Fraunces&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html . There is another portrait which cannot be authenticated and is found at Fraunces Tavern which can be viewed on flicker [sic] at http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539913@N00/1115086538 .
  • "Samuel was born in the West Indies of French and African ancestry. The French ancestry is the same French ancestry as his cousin's the Jacquelin and Ambler families of Jamestown Settlement Virginia."
  • "The 1790 United States Census for New York page 63 of the Dock Ward lists Samuel Fraunces as a free white male with four females and one enslaved individual in the household, the enslaved individual is his son Samuel. Who ever [sic] the informant or enumerator was certainly was not familiar with the family. At the time of his baptism Samuel Fraunces the elder is listed as a mulatto."
  • "Samuel Fraunces was always remembered as mulatto in racial references until the turn of the 19th century. At that same time the building of Fraunces Tavern was in danger of demolition. The Daughters of the American Revolution went on record with protest to the demolition. The city of New York designated the area as park. The Sons of the Revolution eventually acquired the site and rebuilt the building we see today. At some point in time during this process it appears a campaign to do away with Samuel ‘s ethnicity occurred. At the same time because of the tradition that Phoebe was of color the traditions linking Phoebe to Samuel begin to be called into question. One of the first arguments against his ethnicity is from Mrs. Melusina Fay Pierce of the Women’s auxiliary of preservation of Scenic and Historic places and objects in New York City. Henry Russell Drowne later in A Sketch of Fraunces Tavern and Those Connected with Its History (New York: Fraunces Tavern, 1919), p. 8. States if a Phoebe existed she may have been a woman enslaved or employed by Fraunces, rather than his daughter."
  • ”Many of the informants for the recollections including him were children at the time. His daughter Elizabeth "Phoebe" and her contemporaries were only about 10 years old. George Washington "Wash" Parke Custsis [sic] was about 9 years old.”
  • ”Some have even stated that Trinity Church had no African American members. Among the many records which include some with race noted at Trinity Church are records for Samuel Fraunces Jr's marriage found at:http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/history/content/registers/display_detail.php?id=4373&sacr=marriage. If the census records for NYC and the Trinity Church records are compared examianing [sic] race they are found to be consistent with each other less than 50% of the time. Race was subjective and was not always noted on either record.”

Again much of this was removed by Boring Old History Guy. Not corrected with any type of note added. Much of this text is not mine but is what was there to begin with by some unsigned editor who is never identified. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Additions made between 20 March 2017[49] and 4 April 2017[50], a period in which User:GramereC/User:71.58.105.199 was the only editor (except for spelling corrections by User:Arjayay, User:Terrek and User:192.184.113.252).
  • ”Samuel Fraunces mother was a plantation worker named Maria Margaret on the plantation of Edward Fraunces in Jamaica and was remembered in his will of 1741 filed in London.”
  • ”Samuel Fraunces had a maternal grandfather Oliver, who was enslaved by Hamilton as noted on the Christ Church Philadelphia baptism records of 31 Nov 1766.”
  • ”Samuel Fraunces ethnography would include all of the aforementioned dependent on which person you want to look at. The name Fraunces is seen with one family from England dating back to Henry VII and that is the family if Edward Fraunces who died in 1741. The french extraction so often referred to is that of the Jaquelin family from Vendee France and the grandmother of Edward Fraunces.”[51] [Note – Edward Fraunces died unmarried, left his Estate to his brother, “Madge” and “Maria” were different persons (not a single “Maria Margaret”), and there is no proof that any of them had any connection to Samuel Fraunces.]
  • ’’Maybe coincidentally, when the Washington's Headquarters was purchased by the SR [Sons of the Revolution] and renamed Fraunces Tavern the information changed. He was no longer mixed racial or negro he was now a white man.’’
  • ’’With regaurd [sic] to race genealogies show us that not all of Samuel's children passed as white all of the time. At marriage Samuel Jr is Negro, Trinity Church Database.[52] Sophia and her children are enumerated as Negro while in NYC, Mulatto when they leave for France and White when they return to Louisiana. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington D.C.; NARA Series: Passport Applications, 1795-1905; Roll #: 96; Volume #: Roll 096 - 26 Apr 1861-31 May 1861. Elizabeth "Phebe" is noted as colored when she is buried. Trinity Church Database[53]
  • ”A closer look at the family reveals that sister and mother lived in Santo Domingo now Hati, as indicated on census records for John Frances, a descendant of Louis Francis and nephew of Fraunces. Year: 1880; Census Place: Warrington, Escambia, Florida; Roll: 127; Family History Film: 1254127; Page: 1B; Enumeration District: 041; Image: 0005

User:Tuckerresearch confronted User:GramereC on some of her most outrageous and undocumented claims.Talk:Samuel Fraunces#Edward Fraunces → Samuel Fraunces? Talk:Samuel Fraunces#What is happening?, and User:GramereC deleted the items. But how can Wikipedia tolerate this behavior? BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this recent round of edits can be researched on their own. Again If you are going to use other Tertiary sources such as the museum pre visit or the booklet Kym Rice did for the FTM and SR you need to look at what references they used to begin with. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Prime problems are representing the current building as having been there since colonial times. It was a rebuild. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The portrait that FTM uses was purchased at auction in 1913 and although they say it is Fraunces they offer no provenance. The only way to verify where it came from is from SR published minutes. The way the portrait is continually put up front without recognizing that there is another earlier published sketch of Samuel Fraunces provided by family. Plus written description in conflict with the description is reprehensible in that they are in need of reproof. There are other places where the documents are just as reprehensible.GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Limiting the secondary sources acceptable in your eyes necessitate exposing the primary documents because the primary documents are in conflict. Most of these conclusions were reached many years ago. You actual took WEB DuBois statement and had it written that Fraunces had no African blood. That just is not true all anyone has to do is read the final letter in the discussion. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You continue to go back to Fraunces Will and you do not give a viable source to find it. Then when I place one in your text as correction you take it back out. GramereC 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:BoringHistoryGuy on this Samuel Fraunces article is an entire section that has NOTHING published about it. This poisoning attempt – if it occurred – would have taken place in late June 1776 at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in Manhattan. The housekeeper there was a widow named Mary Smith,[85] although there were other female servants. Fraunces's tavern was about two miles away and provided catered meals for the general and his staff. The reference included here is for the wrong thing.

This Wikipedia article then goes on to argue why Lossing's story is incorrect based on the assertion that the events took place at Richmond Hill. This is original work.GramereC 01:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Walls of words don't work here

Particularly when a response is interleaved with the complaint. Editors here will not be able to work through all of the above content disputes. The only thing that is clear is that the two editors completely disagree on the content and that they cannot communicate with each other. GramereC, you cannot insist that only your version be included in the article. User:BoringHistoryGuy is a respected editor here and seems to have very good knowledge of the general area. If you cannot reach agreement with him on what should be included in the article, or find other editors who back your version, then you just cannot force your version of things into the article. We do things by consensus here.

I strongly urge you to write up your own version of the article in your own user space, then we'll be able to properly judge both the overall content of the "two" articles and individual sentences and paragraphs. If you are only willing to give us a choice between "your article" or "his article", my feeling is that editors will choose "his article." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have left as much of the old article as possible and if you look at just the Phebe edits you can see that. Boring History Guy wants his version and no other. You keep insisting that this is a thing between he and I which is not my feeling at all. I have not insisted mine is the only version and if you go back and look that is true. Boring History Guy has the agenda it is not me. I removed sources referring to me or my publications. Tried to leave his stuff there as much as possible. GramereC 23:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I can do that tomorrow. The article right now has both sides which was never the problem.

Currently the only thing left is those numbers for the Presidential household which have no citiation. They are obviously the work of someone adding things up themselves but since there is no cite it is hard to tell what they are saying it is on the talk page under presidential household. Mt Vernon sent a list of known sources to cite the size of household and none match the numbers given.

As far as your consensus goes send it to an admin or an arbitrator. The gang of three is ridiculous.GramereC 23:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok it is all in the sand box I think I got everything folks sent me overnight. I left spaces where I have issues not sure how you wanted that. There are still an awful lot of BAD REFERENCES. GramereC 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And then this: I suspect User:GramereC is posting under a new alias.[8] User:2600:8803:3400:8200:2590:8c3c:59a7:70f4 today added details to the article that only someone intimately familiar with her work would know. (Note also the deceptive edit summary.) BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Is he talking about the overnight puncuation and text corrections someone did? They were fine.

Is this OR?

I was just wondering about my new article The Old Axolotl. I inserted the following claim there: "It is Dukaj's first book, and therefore longest work, translated to English as of this date." I also added the claim "The Old Axolotl is the first book of Dukaj published in English (in 2015)" to Jacek Dukaj. It is true (cue shaking of the head, I know), but I haven't found any reference stating so directly, I base this claim on the fact that the list of his works I (cited [54]) shows clearly which of his works were translated to English. There are only four, it is the only one classified under novels/novellas and the other three are classified as short stories. At what point, I wonder, do we leave WP:BLUE and enter WP:OR? Is my conclusion that this is his only book translated to English, and his longest work to be translated yet, OR, or BLUE? If you reply here, do ping me back. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think your actual issue is the ambiguity of the word "book", which may refer to either a physical volume or a literary composition, which may or may not be published in a single volume. You can avoid this ambiguity by simply writing that The Old Axolotl is Dukaj's first novel translated into English, which is directly supported by the source you are citing. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Piotrus for response. George Ho (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kpalion: Thanks. Through it is also listed under books at [55]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)