Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

2021 Canadian church burnings

Could someone please cast eyes on 2021 Canadian church burnings? It appears to be based on a list compiled by the unreliable source True North. The reference has been removed but the material remains. Elinruby (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The description of what fires occurred probably looks like the list from True North because True North listed the fires that occurred. Since True North is a deprecated source, it's not used. Instead, numerous reliable sources (around 20 in total) are used that independently verify the fires and the relationship between them. By the metric you describe, any accurate statement could be discounted if it is accurately described in a deprecated source. In any case, that also wouldn't be original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As you know quite well, since we have now discussed this multiple times, it is the implied attribution that I am questioning, as well as your framing of the fires as some sort of retaliatory attack on the Catholic church. None of that is ANYWHERE in the sources. And when you find yourself saying things like 'accurately described in a deprecated source" then it may be time to revise your metric for accuracy. Yes, there are one or two sources for each specific fire saying that it happened. The entire premise of the article is still however undemonstrated, three years after the fact. Elinruby (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect: every reliable source, investigators, and tribal officials all say the most likely cause was retaliation for the gravesites. See this 2024 CBC News report on the church fires, this NYT story, this Guardian story, and every other cited piece on the article. Trudeau even made a statement unambiguously connecting the two. In the meantime, you have suggested that the fires were just natural occurrences. If you can provide a reliable source that says there isn't a connection, go for it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, you are asking me to prove that an unproven theory is unproven. *You* need to prove it is not, by proving it. Also I do not claim the fires all had natural causes. Or even any of them for that matter. I simply do not know, and I am saying that there is no evidence that they are all retaliatory arsons. Three years later when some portion of them would surely have gotten through the criminal justice system by now if that were the case. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Furthermore, please describe Justin Trudeau's credentials as an arson investigator, and discuss how "I could understand why someone might do this" supports the proposition that someone of a given ethnicity in fact did. And please stop misquoting me; it's a really bad habit Elinruby (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that a major take away of everything here is that the Canadian government has, for more than a century, had a propensity towards failing to address crimes against Indigenous peoples. The good news is that your personal denialism does not prevent the utilization of RSs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You are accusing me of denialism. Please illuminate me as to the train of thought that led you there. Elinruby (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, yes, you did suggest that this could just have been natural, most recently here. You then inserted actual original research into the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a diff, what is its point here? I am quoting you. You said that less than a month ago at ANI, do you remember that? What I get out of it is that you have absolutely no idea about a wildfire season. Meanwhile, Lytton is an example of an extremely large fire in the immediate time period that was neither an accident nor an arson, since it was started per local consensus by a train.[1] It is classified as "man-made" btw, and so is the fire that was started by the upstanding citizen off the Coaquihalla who while having an argument with his girlfriend drove at top speed down a forest road with a barbeque grill going in the back of his pickup truck. In drought conditions surrounded by wildfires. [2] I do not object to an article about retaliatory arsons if we can find some to write about, incidentally. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Canadian church burnings. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 02:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article was created based on list published by Aleteia, the Catholic on-line newspaper.[3] We avoid OR by reporting possible connections published in reliable sources.

Your mention of True North btw links to a direction. TFD (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah welll the reliability of Aleteia is currently being questioned at RSN based on some other examples of the excellence of their reporting. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I might see if I can get some more reliable support for a potential list, e.g. from local (reputable) news sources from the areas where incidents took place.

I'd be interested in if there could be some sort of consensus for the criteria that make an incident 'count' for potentially being part of a list - e.g. a specific time period they occurred in, whether they were believed to be arson, if they occurred in a specific region, etc.

I'd like to see some description and delineation of how the incidents have been lied about (e.g. by disinformation sources like True North) and misrepresented to whip up fear and furor to support far-right conspiracies. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fluorescent Jellyfish: I would say go to town, but this is clearly not the article Pbritti wants to write. He just categorized it as an article about Catholicism, which is, yes, mentioned, but that is what he thinks the article is about. It would actually be quite interesting to recast this as a journalism article, and maybe that would even save us all from typing the same thing over and over again for the rest of our lives. There didn't use to be an active journalism project but maybe that has changed. Elinruby (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As for what would count: if this is a spinoff of the gravesites article I think the standard should be quite high. If this is a list of fires in June 2021 in Canada, you wouldn't have that. At least, when I worked on wildfire articles before, it was, I think, a category --2018 wildfires in California. If this is a list of suspected arsons in late June 2021 in Canada, the next question is why. Why would you have that category? I don't think you should, unless there are a whole lot of other lists like it. And by the way I keep meaning to look up the sample size on that CBC poll. The point I am making with the nationwide scope however is that things are being grouped into single sentences with no indication of why. These are groups of people who may or may not have ever even heard of each other. Elinruby (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fluorescent Jellyfish: maybe the place to start is where the church burnings (we can't even call them arsons for crying out loud) first became discussed in the context of the graves. Probably it is something like what happened with "mass grave", I suspect, but that is just a theory. Some reporter assumed that this was helpful context. But in terms of Wikipedia that definitely *would be* OR, is the problem. Useful question for disinformation research though. Do the academic journals discuss this fire idea, do you know? I have only seen a discussion of the "they said mass graves" trope, but I haven't searched specifically for this. 18:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

for discussion:[4][5] and aha, our good friends RT [6] But we are looking for "earliest" -- maybe a leading question here? Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Then there is [7], which quotes something called the Catholic Civil Rights League. which, aha, maintains a database of "church attacks". Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC) This early report [8] on the other hand specifically says Chief Crow, who is in his eighth year as chief, says he can only speculate on why the fires are being set.Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC) He is quoted elsewhere as saying the fires are "suspicious," without specifics. A lot of the early reports mention a Sgt. Jason Bayda of the Penticton South Okanagan Royal Canadian Mounted Police said in a statement that the police were “looking to determine any possible connection to the church fires. Links to the statement are now giving 404 errors. Elinruby (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Castanet, which is an RS for the BC interior, quotes Crow more fully [9]: I really don't condone the actions of whoever's done this, but it is under investigation. We'll have to wait and see," Crow said Something called churchleaders.com [10] picked up their story framing it this way from something called "RNS", which I so far have not identified.

Major observation so far: if you seach on "kamloops graves church fires" you get a whole bunch of Catholic media in the search returns. Elinruby (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused. What's the issue here? Pbritti has supplied sources for the contested claim. Nobody's challenged those sources. So what OR are we discussing exactly? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

giggle. Yes, you are confused. Several of the sources have in fact been challenged, see RSN. Some excellent sources remain, but only for the fact that some people three years ago said that they would be mad too. And that the local RCMP put out a press release. The story evaporated. Only person ever convicted for anything was mentally and and mad at her boyfriend. But we have an article that says that three years ago there was speculation that something or other -- it isn't entirely clear what, but it's obviously Bad....so we have a list of fires in June 2021 that might or might not have something to do with bodies in Kamloops. Maybe. An elder or an academic says I can Understand why someone would -- this is not proof that someone did.

At least some of The fires in the article obviously happened. The question is why and what happened then. Elinruby (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

When you manage to get the CBC, BBC, NYT, Guardian, WSJ, and NPR deprecated as sources at RSN, feel welcome to reopen discussion. In the meantime, feel welcome to personally stick to your theory that the 200+% increase in church fires is just a fluke. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a theory and neither should you. That is the point here. All those are very fine sources but they don't support the idea that there is anything here to have a theory about. Meanwhile since my position that you are misrepresenting is immediately about your comment, I am letting go of the idea that your repeated problems with this have something to do with your memoryaking tem merely has t. Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I spot-checked the BBC, CBS and WSJ sources. They all draw a connection between the fires and the gravesites story. This is speculation, but it’s speculation being done by reliable sources and the people they are quoting - not speculation by Wikipedia editors. So it does not look like WP:OR. The premise of the article is that there has been an unusual pattern of fires, and notable people have commented on it. This is not the article to document every Canadian church that caught fire in 2021. It’s an article about a notably unusual pattern of fires. If the article includes mention of a fire that has not been linked to a wider pattern, then that would be WP:SYNTH. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

edit conflict six times trying to get something said in the past 10 minutes.... I give up.Moxy🍁 20:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies @Moxy: I am done now and the floor is yours. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is doing the linking though? The RS tends to mention the proximity in time, only. The Federalist isn't shy about drawing a connection [11] mind you but this is not RS. The "unusual pattern" is that at a time when literally half of British Columbia was on fire [12], there were "suspicious" fires that sparked some speculation. The OR is in framing the fires in particular as a group of related events when there is no evidence of that whatsoever, at least not in the article, or that I have been able to find so far. Elinruby (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) The Daily Mail is also pushing an explicit revenge motive [13] The New York Times linked them merely as coming at a particularly raw moment, just weeks after the unmarked graves of 215 children were found and said While the circumstances remained murky, investigators said one line of inquiry was arson, including the possibility that the Indigenous communities had been targeted although it does not rule out anger as a cause either. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Last, the Penticton Western News, part of a chain of local RS publications, gives a fuller RCMP quote: “Should our investigations deem these fires as arson, the RCMP will be looking at all possible motives and allow the facts and evidence to direct our investigative action,” said Sgt. Jason Bayda, media relations officer for the Penticton South Okanagan RCMP. “We are sensitive to the recent events, but won’t speculate on a motive.” Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, Elinruby pressed for the removal of the only arson (that of St. Gregory Coptic Church) that explicitly contradicted the RS consensus that this is likely retaliation for the gravesites. Indeed, the reason they supporting removing it was the perpetrator's claim that that it was over domestic strife, despite an overwhelming amount of coverage in RSs initially suggesting there was a relationship to the other fires. If Elinruby really wanted to challenge the established narrative, they wouldn't have insisted on excluding that particular fire. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources which speculate that the cause of the pattern of fires was due to natural wildfires / climate / similar? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

there are literally thousands of sources but to answer that question I need to know which fires. The two in the southeast that are close together? Elinruby (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I just want to know if any reliable source has offered the theory that the pattern of fires has a natural explanation (in which case that can be mentioned in the article), or if that’s just your theory (in which case it’s OR). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What pattern? There are a lot of sources, yes. None of them say that these is a link except for the NY Post and the Daily Mail and some really obscure other sites, either Catholic or right wing. By the way "Kamloops graves church fires" produces zero relevant results at JSTOR. It's all about hits like "Church St" in addresses. Plus one American site ranting about blood libel, just to double down on the inappropriateness. Since a now-topic-banned editor essentially gutted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites, I have been going through sources for the reconstruction. Pretty confident in saying that in 2021 RS were saying things like "these two fires came on the heels of the announcement of ground-penetrating radar results." Now these fires are completely off their radar and the top hits about graves in Kamloops right now are all whackadoodle sources. Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Is CBC a reliable source? [14]:

Thirty-three churches have burned to the ground across Canada, since the discovery of possible unmarked children's graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in May, 2021. In most cases, officials have blamed arsonists. CBC’s Terry Reith details his investigation into the pattern of arson, and how it’s tied to Canada’s dark residential school history.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're still saying "pattern". Maybe this will help:[15]. The pattern of fires in the British Columbia exterior was that they were so extensive all public infrastructure broke down and this was preceded by an extended period of temperatures in the 50 degree Celsius range and followed by extensive landslides. The stores ran out of food and no more could be delivered because all the highways broke. They stopped running trains to avoid setting even more fires. There is a pattern there if only that these events were close in time. These fires Pbritti so desperately wants to highlight are also related in that they were in the same time frame.

The entire province was under a state of emergency [16] and they were sending food up here by helicopter. Much the same was true where those fires were, probably, but no, no source singles out the four or five fires Pbritti claims are linked even though some of them are hundreds and hundreds of miles apart and any link would imply actual organized terrorism. That's not completely impossible, but it's really unlikely and it it did exist I think it would be more effective. I mean, an organized conspiracy to damage a door. Think about it.

What insurrection we did have in that timeframe involved tractor-trailers blockading the national capital. Why would anyone mess around with an abandoned church in the truly remote and obscure Hazelton? Vancouver Island is also literally another world from Hazelton, but we're already having trouble with the concept that stuff burns in British Columbia all the time. But A) "man-made fire" is not synonymous with "arson", for one improper synth, and includes trains, power tools, poorly attended campfires and yes, arson, as well as yahoos who consume too much grievance porn on YouTube perhaps. B) you are asking me for my own synth to counter his apparently uncritical acceptance of religious materials and whacko sources, and Wikipedia is not a matter of faith. It goes by RS. If there are no RS there is no topic. You did hear me say there are no journal articles about this alleged pattern, right? Yes, he keeps waving that cbc link around, but *it* doesn't say there is a link either. It is, yes, reliable. For the fact that there were fires and some of them were suspicious. It isn't reliable for saying that all these fires were post hoc ergo proctor hoc, because it simply doesn't say that. Sigh. I of sort expected the PR noticeboard to know what OR is. It isn't 'we need to update the article if we really must keep it,", OR is "of course there is a conspiracy, check out all the fringe sources that agree with me!" Double sigh. Elinruby (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I said pattern because we have RS that says pattern. I haven’t seen you cite any source which disputes this. Your reasoning above is OR. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The CBC said "pattern" as in, "a pattern of increase in a certain type of fire in a small sample of fire events". Maybe I even believe them given it's the CBC, but something in the back of my mind is telling me that I should look up degrees of significance. Assuming the sampling is valid, though, and the calculations are gold standard, for the sake of the argument, because again, I have questions, but let's pretend: it's still three-year-old speculation that possibly didn't age well. No matter what. Certainly in three years time, some fire investigator somewhere found something out. That is the problem with articles about this type of breaking news story. They have to be updated or they start to be worse than not having an article at all. So the article needs to be updated if we keep it.

And what is the current topic of this article? Maybe I am missing something. Selected police blotter items from 2021? One of these patterns is not like the other. If it wasn't notable enough for the hyper-local online news outlets then, or more likely the RCMP were all drafted to direct traffic or whatnot, then why why why are we hosting an article based on these really really subpar sources now? (partial answer) see comment below where Pbritti says I should have let the mentally ill woman who started a fire because she was mad at her boyfriend stay in the article, because then I would have had a better argument. This is what we are dealing with here. Yes, that happened, and the clearly unrelated episode is already gone, and now we are dealing with those where we just do not know and should not guess. WP:ONUS still applies and yes the article pointlessly discusses one less fire.

Pbritti also still has not answered the question about his affiliations with the Catholic Church btw. Elinruby (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it's an absurd, false accusation that warrants no reply. Nor does your WALLOFTEXT or persistent 1AM struggle. Seeing consensus that there's no issue, we're done here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)'

a) it is not an accusation.

b) to the extent that I am accusing you of anything at all at the moment, it is of being unaccountably stubborn about this strange little synth that seems to be happening here.

c) Oh and then there is flinging wild accusations, but that's to the side for the moment. Right now I just want to know the topic of this article, please. I mean, the church burned down in Lytton, but I don't see it in this article. So what is the category? List of fires some guy called suspicious once? Scottish law has a possible verdict of "not proven", I hear, and that is where I am on that, personally

d) seriously, what is up with all the Catholic sources?

e) are you saying you never worked for, interned with, attended or volunteered at any organization that might have a stake in how these events are perceived? All I need is yes or no. You seem to be saying no, but I am not quite certain. In which case, I eagerly await an explanation for your strong interest in a string of fires on the other side of the continent. It feels like a very specific interest.

There may be many reasons for that of course and no doubt a lot of them are none of my business. I am getting from RSN that a couple of them the sources might not be bad, just very devout. But why would you use them here? Is this your primary reading list here in the sources? Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I was compensated while contracted to the United South and Eastern Tribes, an inter-tribal non-profit representing 33 US federally recognized tribes that promotes Native sovereignty and lobbies to improve conditions in the US's Indian Country. I was also contracted to work with the US Department of the Interior to teach Native students civics skills to better advocate for restitution of damages caused by American government policies, including the US boarding school system. Both teaching positions have been my favorite experiences working. Since working in these positions, I have performed few edits related directly to the residential school system, as my extreme bias against the schools could interfere with my ability to be impartial. I have never been financially compensated by any organization related to the school burnings but I've been aware of them since they began in June 2021, hence my focus on them. Whether you still believe the attacks on Indigenous churches were fake news that was only voiced by click-bait websites ([17]) despite dozens of reliable sources being furnished to connect them, I don't care. Do not bother me again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

template it is for the additional misrepresentation of the positions of another editors, after multiple warnings. I do thank you for the above reply, but I did not limit the question to paid positions. Are you certain you didn't miss something? I am sure you enjoyed answering it even less than I enjoyed asking it. Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have missed nothing. I am also aware of your statements about me on other websites. Cut the badgering. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

if that is your final answer then that is your final answer. I have no idea what you are talking about. So shall we remove some unsourced leaps of logic from the article then? I'll start after supper. Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have to agree with @Pbritti that many reliable sources do mention the possibility that the church arsons may have some sort of link to the findings of potential unmarked graves at residential schools. For instance, beyond the articles in CBC, etc., which mention such a possibility, some Indigenous leaders have also suggested there may be a link. For example, in this article from Global News, both Chief Clarence Louie (chief of the Osoyoos Indian Band, where a church was burnt) and Grand Chief Stewart Phillip (of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs) appeared to suggest that some church arsons may have been associated with anger about the findings at residential schools.

If that theory is correct? No idea. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, or if it wasn't, or if a few were and a few weren't! The events themselves - a number of arsons of churches, which made the news - did occur, though we don't know if they were connected. However, many people speculated they were connected. I also think the events were taken up and folded into a conspiracy theory (mostly about the idea of Christianity, and white people, being under attack) and the number and facts were misrepresented by many far-right sources. It can be valuable to mention that some people theorised the churches were burnt for reasons of anger in response to the findings at residential schools, because, well, that theorizing occurred. It also allows us to discuss how that possibility was used and lied about by the far-right.

So, two things can be true at once.

We should certainly take care to ensure the accuracy of the article, which I think we can all agree. Also, part of the circumstances around these arsons was the conjecture, by many people and sources, that it may have been driven by anger. Whether that's true or not? Unclear. But the suggestions certainly did exist. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: So let's write that article not the Church-under-attack article that Pbritti is trying to write here. I think this noticeboard is living up to its reputation and there is little point in further discussion here, especially since some people now seem to have automagically gotten the idea that I am attacking Pbritti for his faith. Just a coincidence of course and certainly not retaliation for the level-2 template for aspersions I gave him moments before. I am going to ping you from somewhere else. This (I guess?) is now at Arbcom but I think it is being conflated into something else about the Mormons along with some other stuff about Muhammed. Anyway, if these two still do not see how cherry-picked the sampling is, I don't think I will be able to convince them of that myself, and maybe this should be at Arbcom. Save your carpals, and let's talk p-values at the the other article.Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Mormons and Muhammed..... what does this have to do with anything we're talking about. I'm wondering if this account has been compromised? Moxy🍁 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny, I was wondering the same thing about you. You never used to refuse to read before. Go ask Clovermoss; it's her clarification request. Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby is talking about this. I only added the first seven parties to the clarification request, another editor added more (to include Elinruby among others). Essentially, I was asking ArbCom if a principle from a previous case is still applicable in certain circumstances, since people have linked to it in three different matters recently. It's not a case request and I doubt ArbCom is going to do anything more than say "yes, this principle is still applicable" or "no, it's not". The principle in question states: Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

I think this is the first time I've posted to the no original research noticeboard. I'm hesitant to get myself super involved here because this discussion looks incredibly heated and I'm not sure I want to sign myself up for that but maybe having an extra set of eyes will help add a new perspective. There's a bunch of background reading I'd like to do first so I don't accidentally make things worse. After that, I'd probably want to set up some kind of table on relevant talk pages where I compare statements made in wikivoice to what a source actually says since at least one editor is concerned about original research. At least that's my plan. I have some other things on my plate right now and it might take me awhile to actually do all that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

the short version here is that in a context where thousands of fires were burning an editor has created an article sourced to militant-faith-under-attack publications to try to have Wikipedia say that the church is under attack. Based on a half dozen of those thousands of fires. There are some good sources for individual fires but they are for the individual fires only.This really is just a sideshow to the main issue though and I think we should see what if anything Arbcom does about the private evidence. Not really upset about being added, as it saved me a trip to COIN maybe, but Moxy is very invested in portraying me as unworthy of being read for whatever reason (see WikiProject Canada) so I was just answering that. I personally strongly doubt we are going to get a yes or no answer on such a broad request, and I personally think Horse Eye's Back should have refrained from the point of view of his position, since afaict this falls under one of the delineated exceptions. But I am happy to leave this in Barkeep's hands. If you are interested in the topic I would not start here; this discussion was primarily BEFORE and is mostly notable for the mind-bending assertion that it is the editor saying that the sources don't support that who is doing OR. A table such as you described would be useful, and if you are taking suggestions I would start with all the source misrepresentation I have been noting in edit summaries at the Canadian Indian residential school gravesites article starting around the last week in May Elinruby (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but every time someone reads the article and the sources, they end up realizing your claims are false. You seem to believe that the article is somehow biased, false, or original research. However, you've failed to convince anyone of this over the last month and a half. Move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No. It doesn't matter how often you say it, your premise is a formal fallacy and although I know you are accustomed to indignation getting you what you want I know it's a tactic. What's the topic of the article? It's just a string of police-blotter items that your defending-the-faith sources used to gin up donations.

You also don't have consensus either, no matter how many times you say *that*. You say a lot of things. Elinruby (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

the point that you are missing is that I am not out to prove anything, just saying that you have not Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If a fire was speculated in RS to be linked to the pattern, but later proven not to be linked, then both of those facts can be covered in the article, with due weight. The initial speculation and the subsequent resolution are both part of the evolution of the story. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a lot of proof of anything. That's kinda the problem. Recent coverage is definitely limited to fringe and Catholic sources. But yes, one idea is to report the distortion of RS coverage in non-RS sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish mentioned that also, which would mean reframing it as a journalism story. I got stuck on what its title would be, though. "Hoax" is not demonstrated either. Well, maybe in journals. I should check that next. Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

CBC News is fringe? Also, such a reframing would be original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not if there are sources for the analysis. I am looking into it, and am still waiting, btw, to see your sources per WP:ONUS that say there is a pattern.

And listen, I think this is the third warning: quit misquoting me. I have previously warned you several times about this and if you ignore this warning as well, I am going to start templating you. People are supposed to be able to believe what you say. By the way, you never answered the question about why your article uses so many Catholic sources when better-known RS are available. I find that odd. Are you affiliated with one of these publications, perhaps? Do you or your present or former employers or schools have any affiliation to any entity with a stake in public perceptions of June 2021? Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No original research says that articles cannot present opinions that are not sourced to reliable sources. It does not say that opinions published in reliable sources cannot be reported. So long as reliable sources report comments on possible links between residential schools and church fires, it is not OR to mention them. TFD (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

not as individual fires, no. But this is not that. Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

? TFD (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to answer a question you are gyoing to have to use your words. The OR is the vast conspiracy to attack churches, in case that is what you are not understanding. If that's not it. you are going to have to tell me. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Our article does not mention a vast conspiracy to attack churches. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

They keep claiming there's an issue, but haven't provided evidence for those claims. When you point out what they've said, they claim they're facing retaliation or personal attacks. We can move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

ooo ooo I found an article about arsons in 2021!

oops it's not about churches. Does that make it not part of a pattern? Summer of 2021 is our timeframe though, aww. Seriously, I am looking for an article like this.which was published in the home area of those two fires in the southeast, so... arrest, followup, trial as to any of the fires in the article??? I don't know where you were in the summer of 2021 but I was in the British Columbia interior obsessively tracking the out of control wildfires in the area and volunteering to help wildfire refugees -- almost entirely indigenous, but that is just the local demographics --anyway, helping wildfire refugees get food and find out where they could go or even get to. Anyway, back to this article. I said the publisher was Black Box Media before. My mistake, it is Black Press Media. I have discussed their reliability over at RSN; I said I relied on them for stuff like road closures and think they are excellent to good for local news. Did not get an argument about it, but here is an example of their work, for the record. There are quite a few related small-town papers like this with the same format, look, owner and policies. They are professional and when I say they are reliable for road closures, DriveBC is not, btw, and road closures can be really really important around here. They might not immediately have every incident but if they say a road is closed, it is closed unless they updated it and you really do have to do the 200-mile detour. Seriously, where are the stories about these fires at churches? It's been three years now. These outlets are online but it isn't exaggerating much to say they would put out a special edition for the santa's parade. A new park bench would be front-page material. It beggars belief that they would not cover arrests or statements about a fire at a church anywhere in or around their distribution are. Where is the RS coverage like this of these church fires? Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have genuinely no idea where you’re going with this. Time for a break? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(ec)You're the one asking questions. I did come in here to append a note however, which is below.Elinruby (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

btw I found an acquittal for one of the alleged arsons on the True North list

This source isn't real informative but it clearly says that one of the two men arrested for arson in Fort Chipewyan one was acquitted and the other one had previously received a suspended sentence [18] Source is Postmedia and should be at be very least ok btw Elinruby (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Being acqa juitted sounds like something the Spanish Inquisition might do to you. EEng 10:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

bad mousepad. Fixed Elinruby (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Those on this noticeboard may wish to read Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings#Text source integrity analysis. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is using sources to write about the existence of sources OR?

See Rust (programming language)#In academic research paragraph 1. I wrote it, but I'm a little bit unsure about whether it would be WP:SYNTH to use the existence of sources to imply something and not the content of them, or how I categorized some sources in the sentence for properties of the language itself as well as the utility the language provides for writing software used for research. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, this is par for the course. JDiala (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Is using sources published before the topic event OR?

On Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (specifically the "Mentioning NATO in lead" and "Misrepresentation of WP:ONUS" sections), we are having an ongoing discussion about interpretations of WP:OR. Some of the sources in that article, particularly in the "background" section, utilize sources from prior to 2022, which was the year the invasion began. The user Mr rnddude has stated that he believes, whenever editing an article about an ongoing or recent event, it is WP:OR to make use of any sources published prior to that event. His logic seems to be that any reliable source authored prior to 2022 would not know there would be an invasion in 2022, and so attempting to connect their work to the invasion is an instance of OR. On the basis of this belief, he is attempting to remove all pre-2022 sources from the article altogether and is also reverting edits which introduce pre-2022 sources into the article.

Myself and another editor, Chino-Catane, expressed a concern that his viewpoint on this matter may not be mainstream, as many other articles regarding ongoing or recent geopolitical events (including homepage-linked articles and GA articles) do not follow this standard and allow for some sources published prior to the event's occurrence especially in the "background" (or similar) sections. Mr rnddude however is insisting that his position is the correct one.

Is Mr rnddude correct? And if so, does this mean that existing articles which make use of pre-event sources need significant overhauls? Thanks. JDiala (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specific discussion or material that is contested there, but there are background statements for which it would be fine to use older sources. A hypothetical example: one can cite a reliable source from 2021 that says that Putin began his fourth term as President of Russia in 2018.

It depends on the nature of the statements for which the pre-2022 source is being cited. Editors should definitely be careful of synthesis directly relating pre-2022 sources to post-2022 events. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I know a lot of people who hold Mr rndude's view. More broadly, they (not necessarily including Mr here anymore) hold that every source used in an article should be about that article's subject. It's a consistent and reasonable position. I disagree slightly in most cases and strongly in a few exceptional cases (none of which are relevant here). For this article, I think those folks are mostly right, since the invasion is such a well covered topic. There might be a hundred or more reliable sources that describe the background to the invasion. If one can't be found that mentions a particular background detail, it probably should not be included.

I'd be unlikely to challenge obvious, uncontested, entirely neutral facts, like Mark's example, but if someone did challenge them, I'd fall back pretty quick. Maybe Putin's 2018 election isn't a detail worth mentioning, if no RS are mentioning it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that editors should definitely be careful of synthesis. But wouldn't this kind of rule have rather problematic consequences in all sorts of areas, for scientific topics for example, the ongoing event of scientific research, where you have 'pre-event' conjectures/hypotheses and experimental results/discoveries. It doesn't seem like OR to connect published hypotheses about gravitational waves, for example, that pre-date observations/results, to the experimental results. A post-event only rule for sources seems too restrictive. Obviously, it's all context dependent. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think sources published before the outbreak of the war about the possibility of a war could (or even should) be cited in a background section. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think one needs some modern-day RS that connect directly the subject of the page (the invasion) with specific events of past that appear in the "Background" section. Otherwise, this will be WP:SYN. However, as soon as we have and use such RS, nothing prevents from using additional older sources that only describe events in the "Background" section. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is for such specific example. But in general, no, there is no such requirement. An article on subject X may include various aspects or subcategories, A,B,C (for example, an article about enzymes can include parts about hydrolases, transferases, etc.), and the sources can be about these aspects A,B,C, not necessarily directly on the whole subject X. Well, in this example no one will dispute that hydrolases and transferases are enzymes (hence belong to the page). This may be much less clear for historical events. In some cases, the connection may be so trivial that it does not require supporting references. But if the connection was disputed, then providing some supporting RS is necessary to avoid WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not have time to address this whole section. I will briefly reproduce my actual statements, as having read the talk page response, I do not for a moment trust that Jdiala has accurately summarised them here. My statements at the talk page regarding OR are as follows:

The way to write a background for this article is to cite present, up-to-date sources that provide the background information and analyses themselves. You do not need, nor should you be referring to, outdated sources to achieve this. You will be hard pressed to present a convincing argument for how a source that cannot so much as discuss the article's subject is directly related to it. - The last comment here refers to the abundant use of sources that pre-date not only the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the whole war that started in 2014.

Compile a selection of sources on the Russian invasion of Ukraine that provide background coverage on NATO-Russia / NATO-Ukraine relations and an analysis on their impact leading up to the invasion. Write a paragraph or dedicated section about it from those sources.

You may not use sources that do not discuss an article subject to make claims about the article subject. Present that statement to any admin you like, they will tell you some variant of: no shit. - You can feel the frustration of dealing with this user at this point. Particularly their incessant insistence on abusing the word 'fringe' with regards the preceding statements.

The 'pre-invasion statements' section is a composition of original research through the use of sources unrelated to, and without comment on, the article topic: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented". None of that should be transferred here, and all of it should be removed from the prelude article. Do not base whole sections of an article on sources that do not and can not comment on the article topic. - This was a comment I made in an unrelated discussion that cites the specific wording of WP:OR. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

JDiala - You say that [o]n the basis of this belief, he is attempting to remove all pre-2022 sources from the article altogether and is also reverting edits which introduce pre-2022 sources into the article. I have done neither of these things. I have not removed or attempted to remove all pre-2022 sources from the article, nor have I been reverting additions to the article. This is, as you have presented it, a bold-faced fabrication. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I perhaps should have been more circumspect with my wording, and I should also have been clear that it is not just you but rather a few other editors as well (e.g., My very best wishes) involved in the discussion; these latter editors were the ones reverting the new edits by Chino. I can also concede that this was not always the only argument for removal, but it was a significant one as indicated by how many bytes of text were spent discussing it. I apologize if you felt I misrepresented your views.

Putting aside these quibbles, I maintain that I made a good-faith attempt to describe your point of view based on what you said in the talk page discussion. The user ManyAreasExpert stated "please don't base [the NATO discussion] on outdated sources, as, after the start of the invasion, every pre-2022 source is outdated, and will be deleted", which was based on his interpretation of OR. This struck me as a strong, absolutist position, and it was what led to that user's discussion with Chino and I. You then later chimed in saying that you felt ManyAreasExpert's citations of OR were "accurate" and that "outdated" sources should not be referred to. You offered no qualification in your support for ManyAreasExpert's position. Based on this, I inferred that you too felt that "every pre-2022 source is outdated" and should "be deleted", as the person you were defending, ManyAreasExpert, said exactly this. JDiala (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say mostly yes, sources should be in the context of the article's subject outside of obvious essential facts. Sources are just as necessary when verifying relevance as they are when verifying facts. I recently wrote a short essay about how I think articles like this should be written. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• If a recent source indicates that topic A is relevant to the article, then there is nothing wrong with using an older source to flesh out content about topic A. It isn't automatically SYNTH. In the example of the Ukraine invasion, I don't see anything wrong with using an older source for information on how Ukraine achieved independence from the USSR, because these two things are frequently presented together in modern sources. It would only be SYNTH if editorial conclusions regarding the invasion were drawn from the older source. The underlying confusion here derives from the "directly related to the topic of the article" clause which is an example of poor wording that does not unambiguously express either the intent of the policy or of common practice. The "topic of the article" is not just what is narrowly defined by its title, and in this example past events which, according to RS, are relevant to the invasion are included in the topic of the article. Zero^talk 05:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Mr rnddude is incorrect. Adding sources from prior to an event in a background section is not automatically WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (to be more specific). TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not automatically, agree. But it's easy to imagine that happening, and UNDUE stuff may creep in as well. I have not looked at the specific article under discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that background sections can get a bit long and some editors may then attempt to COAT in their view of history. But if the argument is that having background sections, which use sources prior to an event in that the article is in relation to, is necessarily original research then I think that's patently wrong and far off common practice. TarnishedPath^talk 05:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath - I'll try to be brief. It is not my contention that the mere presence or inclusion of sources from prior to an event is automatically WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. My contention is that basing large tracts or whole sections of an article on such sources constitutes original research. The presence of a stray older source in the background is a distraction, particularly as at present there is a stray current source in that section. Of the present citations: 16 pre-date the event (~half are older than the whole conflict itself), 5 are contemporaneous, and a few are undated but I'll assume they are contemporaneous. That is an over-reliance on sources that don't and can't comment on the present conflict. Contrasting with the other presently on-going major conflict, the background section to the Israel-Hamas war has a mere 2 pre October 7th, 2023 sources and approximately 40 post October 7th, 2023 sources. That is a chasm in approach and without doubt the latter is far superior in quality to the former.

I don't think any pre-2022 source is necessary for the article, there are ample current sources that cover all of the relevant subject matter, but if there is a reliable source from 2021 that says that Putin began his fourth term as President of Russia in 2018 or other such minutiae as MarkH21 presented as an example it doesn't matter remotely to me. I'd prefer – and were I writing such a section myself would employ only – those sources that either 1) speak directly on the topic of the article or 2) are referenced by sources that speak directly on the topic of the article. That's reflective of my actual editorial approach. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look later. TarnishedPath^talk 05:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We are in no need to generalize here. And the vice versa, if we can't generalize, it does not mean that we are allowed to dive into OR and synthesis on which sources are relevant to the event and which are not.

We have a specific article and a situation where a huge amount of post-2022 analyses are available for use. If some editor wants to keep pre-2022 sources to make a conclusion which post-2022 sources do confirm? Just use post-2022 source! If we want to use pre-2022 sources for a conclusion for which there is no post-2022 sources? The answer is obvious. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It is OR. The reason you include what preceded the event is to explain what caused the event. Saying something caused the event is OR and must be sourced. If something is relevant to the invasion, then you should be able to find a recent source that says that. TFD (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Late modern period"

The article late modern period (currently a redirect) was originally created without any actual sources defining the topic. It was just assumed that the existence of the early modern period meant there had to be a late "equivalent". But the term is actually very marginally used among historians and is often specific to the a period of English literature. It seems to be mostly based on the misunderstanding of how the modern period is defined, which is either c. 1500 until today or c. 1800 until today, depending on the context.

Almost a year ago, there was a clear and umabigious request[19] to provide sources to define the "late modern period" at talk:late modern period up for several months. No sources that actually describe the term unambiguously as "the period following the early modern period" have been provided, only references to search hits for the phrase "late modern" or "late modern period" in prose.

From what I can tell, there are several users who want to flat-out ignore WP:OR and even WP:N in order to keep late modern period because it "feels" logical and convenient. Periodization is in my view treated as though it was merely a subjective layout issue rather than something has to be verifiable and balanaced. It's as if a lot of Wikipedians think it's okay to disregard sources in favor of their own take on how history should be written and organized.

I would appreciate input on this over at talk:late modern period to help build a more sensible consensus around this. Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that the BLAR is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late modern period. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Peterson

There is a dispute on the Jordan Peterson article Talk page concerning the climate change section of the article. One key question is: how should editors use primary and/or secondary sources to decide what the article should say about Peterson's contributions to the debate on climate science and climate policy? Additional input from experienced NORN contributors would be appreciated. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Oldest institute for agricultural research?

In the wiki on INRA it is stater that this is (or maybe) the first institute for agricultural research in Europe. However, in the wiki on the ‘history of Wageningen University and research you can read that the institute DLO (governmental Agricultural Research Service) was founded in 1877, and several new sub-institutes from 1888 onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A456:35A:1:B4A4:136B:BFEF:40EF (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Paraphrasing official legal texts

I'd be interested to get more thoughts on where to draw the line between what qualifies as "original research" vs "reasonable paraphrasing" on articles about Law, when quoting directly the actual text of law (e.g., quoting the constitution, or a text of law).

For example, in "Draft talk:Contravention in French criminal law", one paragraph states:

Article 34 of the Constitution, which pertains to the scope of the law, does not include provisions concerning contraventional offenses, in contrast to crimes and misdemeanors: "The law establishes the rules concerning: [...] the determination of crimes and misdemeanors, as well as the penalties applicable to them.

My opinion was that it would be acceptable for this paragraph to rely only on a primary source (article 34 of the constitution), since the first sentence only makes non-controversial statements that can be easily checked by opening the actual text of the law (i.e., that article 34 doesn't contain any statement related to contraventions but contains statements related to crimes and misdemeanors), and the second paragraph is just a translated quote from that article.

However, in this discussion, @Mathglot was of the opinion that this would qualify as original research unless it is supported by a secondary source.

I agree that other parts of the draft are likely problematic, but I'd be interested in getting more opinions on that particular paragraph, to get better lens on how I should think about OR on legal topics in general. I feel like law (especially in civil law countries) typically relies a lot more on primary sources than other domains such as science where primary sources cannot always be trusted (e.g., due to bias of the authors). Hence I would have expected a lot more weight be given to primary sources given they are the "source of truth" of an entire legal system.

7804j (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot is right here. As Wikipedia editors we should not be assumed to have the legal expertise to understand the important factors of laws and court rulings to be able to quote or directly paraphrase them. Thus we must rely on secondary sources that are reliable for this type of reporting to help us explain laws or the importance parts of court rulings that we can include. — Masem (t) 14:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 7804j, I plan to leave this discussion primarily to others unless called upon, but wanted to clarify something. In your OP above, you said: "...when quoting directly the actual text of law", but then later you talk about having a paragraph "...to rely only on a primary source", and that seems quite different to me. I read the former as meaning you want to copy the law word-for-word and double-quote it (no problem), and in the second, you want to have a paragraph that "relies" on the law, by which I understand not word for word, and not double-quoted, i.e., somebody's rewording, or interpretation (big problem).

So I think we need to be clear about which situation you are talking about here. As the linked discussion was solely about the second case (paraphrased), I'm assuming that is your main intent here, but if I'm wrong about that, please clarify. In connection with an article that is well-sourced to our standards, I have no objection to copying text from a law or Constitution directly into a Wikipedia article, as long as it is word-for-word exact, enclosed in double quotes, properly cited, and reasonably brief. (Long extracts, or even the entire French criminal code is public domain, and you may copy the whole thing if you wish—if it isn't already—to Wikisource, and then link to it from the article.) But I believe you are not asking about that case, but a loose paraphrase of the law, a very different situation, and in my view, that is off-limits. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sgian-dubh

There is a dispute at Sgian-dubh around original resarch and sourcing. Short version, I removed an amount of text that I considered OR, synthesis or wasn't actually in the sources cited. One or two editors have repeatedly reverted, with reasoning that IMO amounts to "it doesn't need to be sourced". I would appreciate others taking a look. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

OR at White ethnostate

White ethnostate has an entire section listing "Historical attempts to create White ethnostates". The problem is that there are zero sources describing any of these as "attempts to create White ethnostates". Editors came to the conclusion that they are by taking the definition of "White ethnostate" from one source and then applying it to historical events described in other sources, which is textbook WP:SYNTH. The entire section needs to be removed. I proposed doing so on the talk page, but editors there don't consider this an OR problem, even though they admit the term "White ethnostate" was coined recently and there are no sources applying it to the historical events in question. Un assiolo (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

for context i highly recommend reading the whole discussion at Talk:White ethnostate#Nazi Germany as a "White ethnostate", especially User:Grayfell comment "One of the problems here is that the article is not about the term 'white ethnostate', it is about the concept of a white ethnostate. We requires that sources directly support attached statements, but we do not require that they use any specific wording to do so. "Ethnostate" is a relatively recent term which appears to have been coined around 1990, and reliable sources are free to use other terms to describe this concept." wikipedia is not a dictionary Gooduserdude (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Suppose this were about a different term – for example, fascism. Would it be acceptable to take a definition of fascism from one source and combine it with a source describing a politician's words or actions, and then claim the politician is a fascist, without a source explicitly saying so? Clearly not. How is this any different?

"Ethnostate" is a very specific term with a very specific meaning, while the "historical attempts" described are generic racism. That is why I am nitpicking about sources: there are no sources because these historical events do not fit the definition. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is textbook OR. Editors are not to connect past events with modern concepts unless a source does so for them. In this particular case, it's particularly dubious. Nazi Germany didn't believe in "white" supremacy (ask the Slavs); they believed in Nordic/Aryan supremacy. JDiala (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger effect

I think an editor is trying to create their own "term" with the incel related "Elliot Rodger effect", which I cannot source to anything. Suggestions the article should be renamed Legacy of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, were ignored and a redirect created. I suspect there is OR in this article (the title is OR), and that this should be merged with 2014 Isla Vista killings. Thoughts? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this term straight up does not exist. It barely even exists on incel message boards, never mind any reliable source. Its clearly an attempt at riffing off the Columbine effect, but it just does not exist and should not be the name of the article. Macxcxz (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also think that as well as renaming to Legacy of the 2014 Isla Vista killings is should also be merged with 2014 Isla Vista killings as it is a contentious topic (i.e. 2014 Isla Vista killings is ECP locked). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely should be renamed but I'd even argue the article should be deleted entirely / merged into the main page of its parent article, which is what I've argued on the AfD someone created. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Jammu (1808)

I was having another look at this article, is this a possible hoax, trash article? Govvy (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The battle itself looks like fiction, but a campaign does seem to have occured in Jammu during that year. In fact it's odd this has an article and not Battle of Sialkot, which does seem to have happened based on the sources from Hari Singh Nalwa. Seems a new article for Sialkot is needed with an aftermath section detailing events in Jammu during 1808. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Sources and their use on Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike

Feedback on what the reliable sources allow us to say about the motivations and goals of Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike is requested at: Talk:Mahatma Gandhi RfC on Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Political marriages in India

I think this is a very problematic article written like an essay and seems to have been concocted from various sources - almost none of which are about the topic "Political marriages in India" - and thus feels like WP:OR. Would appreciate more views on it. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Screams Without Words

The article Screams Without Words has a couple of disagreements on its talk page, including ones that hinge on whether there is SYNTH in the article. A very small number of editors are involved and fresh eyes would be beneficial. Please see the talk page section "Yura Karol" in particular. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Tim walz

The page states that Tim Walz achieved the rank of Command Sergeant Major however this is inaccurate because he did not complete the requirements to maintain and keep that rank and was instead later demoted. For further information see: https://youtube.com/sVMkvv8PQhk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2090:105F:5DD2:8686:3633:9D5B (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The page states that Tim Walz achieved the rank of Command Sergeant Major

He did attain that rank.

to maintain and keep that rank and was instead later demoted

How can you be demoted from something you never attained?

Answer should be proof enough for you. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The article does not mention the demotion. It should. Blueboar (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Why should it? Noting the highest rank attained is the policy for infoboxes.

2) It does mention it. Lostsandwich (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this original research? Seems like it's directly from multiple sources that are cited. It's also mentioned in the article that he didn't fulfill the requirements to retain the position.

Per the Tim Walz Wikipedia page: "public affairs officer for the Minnesota National Guard in 2018 said it was "legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major", while Walz's former battalion commander, John Kolb, described his usage of the title as "frocking"."

This isn't the place for this dispute, rather, you should use the talk page to gain consensus for changing it. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, the National Guard will reduce someone's rank after retirement because of their short service in that rank. But how is that different from Donald Trump who achieved the rank of commander in chief but lost that rank when he left the presidency? It certainly doesn't mean he was never commander in chief. TFD (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Commander in chief" is a title, not a rank. It is attached to the office, unlike rank, which is attached to an individual (enlisted) or their commission (officers).⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Broad-concept article

Please see Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article#WP:SYNTH. --Altenmann >talk 23:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Monolatry and LDS section

I have summarized this at Talk:Monolatry#LDS_section_OR. My contention is that the entire section on LDS is textbook OR. The dispute is with @Nathantibbitts13579:. I believe that, if you look at the diff edit summaries, there is no point in trying to debate content. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

From a quick look, you appear to be correct. We'd need secondary sources discussing the topic in detail and describing the LDS as monolatrous to justify inclusion of anything in relation to that organisation in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content from Early life of Joseph Stalin

Recently, editor LenLen499833 has removed a large, well-sourced chunk of content from the article Early life of Joseph Stalin, specifically related to an affair between Stalin and an underage girl. The editor argued that the removed content did not stem from reliable sources, despite the fact that it was based on the work of several highly respected Stalin biographers such as Simon Sebag Montefiore and Stephen Kotkin. In my opinion, their arguments against the researchers (see the 2nd section titled "Relation with Lidia Pereprygina" on Talk:Early life of Joseph Stalin) are original research: They basically say that they know better than the published researchers because of a) a dubious birth record for an alleged child of Stalin's affair, and b) doubts about some of the sources used by the biographers.
I tried to explain WP:No original research to them, without much success. Then, I requested third-party opinions from other editors who had often edited Stalin articles. One responded, and suggested that we rewrite the section to clearly attribute claims and showcase any valid concerns over the historicity of the affair. I agreed to the idea, but LenLen499833 opposed any restoration of the sourced content because they believe that all of it is just false / lies, based of their own interpretation of the matter.
As I cannot find common ground with LenLen499833, I wanted to ask here whether their removal of content is indeed original research or whether I'm in the wrong in this regard. Thanks in advance. Applodion (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If there are sources that discuss the alleged affair and child, and you are merely reporting what they say (without going beyond what they say), then you are not in violation of WP:NOR. The material does not originate with Wikipedia. There may be issues with other policies and guidelines, but not NOR. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar: My question concerned whether LenLen499833's arguments constituted OR - i.e. whether it was fine to remove an entire well-sourced section of content based on LenLen499833's interpretation of birth registers and primary sources. Applodion (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Any arguments in talk page is not OR: this policy is about article content. Regarding primary sources: our policies say that primary sources should be used only as a corroboration of the article content based on secondary sources. Because a Wikipedian is not in a position to judge primary sources. Heck, today we even cannot be sure that the sources found online are authentic.:-) That said, yes, the issue is NOT OR, but article content and must be discussed on article talk page. We have a procedure for dispute resolution. Initially it was between you two, then you had a third opinion. Pleas suggest a compromise solution along the lines I outlined in the article talk page (provide the suggested text in the talk)). If this will not help, the next step is invoking broader community via WP:RFC. --Altenmann >talk 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ellen G. White

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At Ellen G. White#Theology there is a mention she was the "lone exception". I don't know where those words come from, neither whether they should be stated in the voice of Wikipedia. I don't know whom to notify about this thread. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Number one, you don't start here at a noticeboard. You use the article's talk page. You also look in the contribution history and find out who made that addition, then you civilly ask them about it. There is no need for dispute resolution at this stage. So go back to the talk page and start there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: The sentence has a footnote and it is supported by the previous text. Why you are questioning this? --Altenmann >talk 19:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lengthy OR at the Stellar engine article

~40% of the article Stellar engine consists of a section, primarily written by one editor, on why published designs for star-moving megastructures contradict physics and could never exist in the real world. There are no references to sources, reliable or otherwise, for the assertations made in the section.

It seems like the entire section should be removed as original research, but since I haven't edited Wikipedia before and the starter guides recommend only doing small edits at first, and later edits to the article have not removed the section but instead modified it to state that these are opinions not yet supported by scientific literature, I thought maybe I should ask about it here first? I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about this, sorry if not. Mhazandaren (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mhazandaren, I understand your hesitancy in removing the content yourself. I've removed it and notified the editor of the need for reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright! Mhazandaren (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Alastair Sweeny

Alastair Sweeny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was posted directly or indirectly by the subject himself, as a self-promotional item. There is no external documentation because no one external has ever written about him. This article has been deleted before in the early 2000s, again because it was only self-promotional.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate a topic for Articles for Deletion than here, since it concerns the whole article and not just a part. Reconrabbit 15:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

New Democratic Party

There is an edit war in New Democratic Party about its political position, with multiple users breaking the 3-edit rule. In the talk page, it looks like some users are trying to change the political position based on original research and based on other wikipedia pages (ie. by arguing that certain ideological words correspond with certain political positions on other pages), and that the words in RS "don't have absolute meanings". Argenator (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)

Spworld2 has added 1989 as the year of formation in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) citing a source that does not say about the year of year of formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), while Spworld2 added 1926 as the year of formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction). Is this original research?. Having nothing to discuss Spworld2 resort to the use of the WP:CONFLICT which Spworld2 clearly has since Spworld2 is not ready to produce the sources for Spworld2's claim, which is also EK Samastha's claim of being itself the original or real Samastha. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The source Spworld2 used to say the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was in 1989, in the infobox, is this one. This source does not say about the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), rather the split of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama in 1989. So kindly remove it from the infobox. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have informed Spworld2 about this discussion. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

a discussion going on - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_faction)_&_Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(EK_faction) Spworld2 (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Asking about the same dispute on two noticeboards is not helpful.

That said… I don’t see an Original Research issue here. BOTH of the modern organizations claim to be the “true” continuation of the original. There are plenty of sources that note that this is the case. There are also sources that support the claims of one or the other. What I am getting at is this: none of the “foundation” dates originate here on WP, with a WP editor. It is a dispute that exists out there, in the real world. So it isn’t “original” for WP to state any of these dates.

As for the WP:NPOV question regarding which which “foundation” date should go with which faction - I would ask others to assist at the other discussion (over at that noticeboard). I won’t address that question here. All I am saying here is that I don’t see a WP:NOR violation in any of this. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

But the sources Spworld2 cited do not support the claim. If there is no source to support it it is original research. If it is not original research, both Samasthas should have the same date of formation. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There several other unsourced content in the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Neutralhappy (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Why this discussion on WP:ORN started is that WP:NPOVN says:

This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source.

Because it is not permitted to discuss the matter of orginal research on WP:NPOVN, the aspect of original research on the matter was taken to WP:ORN Neutralhappy (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator has an RfC

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Vells (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Nicosia Airport

An editor has carved out an event on a day in the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974 to create the Battle of Nicosia Airport. No credible sources that anybody can find - including the editor in question - uses the term "Battle of Nicosia Airport". Would appreciate any other input into this. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Zionism

Is the lead WP:SYNTH? Talk:Zionism#WP:SYNTH_in_lead Andre🚐 23:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this SYNTH

Moved from WP:AN § may I have a ruling on SYNTH?

 – Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I often see instances of SYNTH being invoked in what I believe to be a fallacious manner to justify exclusion of content. Like UNDUE, I perceive that SYNTH is often invoked in CT articles in a way that suggests the actual objection is IDONTLIKEIT. that said, I might be wrong.

SYNTH says:

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

so, if one reliable source says:

Former President Trump has for several days now spread lies and spouted conspiracy theories about the federal government’s response to Hurricane Helene. The disinformation is causing confusion among those most desperate for help and answers.[20]

and another reliable source says:

Former President Donald Trump has delivered a barrage of lies and distortions about the federal response to Hurricane Helene ... Over a span of six days, in public comments and social media posts, Trump has used his powerful megaphone to endorse or invent false or unsubstantiated claims.[21]

while a third reliable source says:

Republican and Democratic politicians and officials have in recent days resorted to pleading with people to stop spreading false information related to Hurricane Helene, with many saying that rumors and conspiracy theories are hampering recovery efforts ... The false claims have primarily taken hold among media, politicians and influencers who support former President Donald Trump and come at a particularly crucial juncture, with less than a month until the 2024 election. Trump used his high-profile return to Butler, Pennsylvania, where he was nearly killed by a gunman, to continue to spread false claims about FEMA.[22]

would it be SYNTH for an edit to say:

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts

in my view, citing multiple sources which together create a composite edit is not the same as SYNTH. soibangla (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not an issue for AN. You should bring this to WP:NORN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's an example of SYNTH.Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, soibangla, we need a source that explicitly links the misinformation that Trump has spread to the misinformation hampering recovery efforts. From only the text of the sources, there could be some specific things A that Trump is saying, and some specific thing B that's hampering recovery efforts, both of which are misinformation, but with different content. To link A and B without a source saying so would be original research. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is a dispute regarding a particular article and edits (as you seem to be citing), then you should also link and include them. Context does matter.

But given the text read on its surface, and if the sources are in fact RS for the article, and that they are a representative sample of "press outlets", then your final sentence is fine to summarize. However, in my opinion, again without any context (because you haven't given it), it should take a more conservative approach to summarizing a combination of sources fairly -- one should think more towards intersection rather than union. Not all three sources used the same descriptors, but your summary listed all the descriptors with an "and" connector -- this seems like too much. If each source says two words, then maybe you should only say two words; if each source uses a different word, maybe connect with "or" instead of "and".

Edit: reading User:Alpha3031's addition above: this is why I need context, to find out what shades of meaning are at issue, and how much info is in the sources, given that I'm not gonna be reading them. If the NBC News source is the only one saying that the rumors are "hampering recovery efforts", but it does not tie any of that to Trump's public information apparatus and his own conspiracy mongering, and if the other sources do not make that connection either, then the sentence is simple synth. I.e. PBS reports Trump spreads conspiracy theories; NBC reports conspiracy theories hamper efforts; wikitext says Trump spreads conspiracy theories which hamper efforts = Synth. 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC) SamuelRiv (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

but PBS reports "The [Trump] disinformation is causing confusion among those most desperate for help and answers" and CNN reports "Trump has used his powerful megaphone to endorse or invent false or unsubstantiated claims," while NBC reports "The false claims have primarily taken hold among media, politicians and influencers who support former President Donald Trump" and "rumors and conspiracy theories are hampering recovery efforts." I do not see the resultant edit as synth. soibangla (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the easiest way to eliminate OR concerns would be the two sentence version, without stating in wikivoice that disinfo A and disinfo B are the same. The first sentence can say that there are lies and distortions are 1) spread by Trump and 2) causing confusion, and the second can say disinformation is hindering efforts, without attributing the disinformation. The particular article and article talk discussion seems to be here, by the way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the link for context: Talk:Hurricane Helene#there is no SYNTH in this edit.

I came to the same conclusion as Alpha3031 and SamuelRiv. There is synthesis here. We can say:

• Trump has spread disinformation about the federal response[1][2] and FEMA.[3]
• By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had spread disinformation about the federal response for several days.[1][2]
• Disinformation spread by Trump about the federal response is causing confusion for those affected by the hurricane.[1]
• Trump spread misinformation about the federal response through public comments and social media posts.[2]
• Public officials have asked those spreading false information about the hurricane to stop and that it has hindered recovery efforts.[3]

So then we could come up with text like "By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had spread disinformation about the federal response for several days,[1][2] in public comments and social media posts,[2] and that it was causing confusion for those affected by the hurricane.[1]" You could also use "Public officials have said that disinformation about the federal response hindered recovery efforts.[3]" But you can't put those next to each other in a way that implies they're the same exact disinformation, because implied synth works the same way as any other synth. I'd also discourage using "lies", because that doesn't fit with Wikipedia's impartial tone, which is going to be slightly different from a journalistic tone. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

what is the difference between "implied synth" and "any other synth?" I'd also discourage using "lies" except that's what two reliable source actually say, and one says "disinformation" which is deliberate, rather than "misinformation" which can be inadvertent. I suppose there could be strong consternation by some that after years of reporting Trump speaks "falsehoods," reliable sources now report he's lying. this consternation gives rise to my concerns of some editors using any means, including allegations of synth, to exclude well-sourced content because they just don't like it. soibangla (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's explain wp:synth in the abstract as it applies here. RS #1 says "A is causing B". RS #2 says "B is causing C". We can summarize #1 and #2, but we cannot say "A is causing the B that is causing C".

Why not? It seems like basic logic, right? Well the real world doesn't work like that, because every real statement has particular scope with particular omission. "A is causing B" as said by a real source RS #1 about a real event does not necessarily mean it is causing all known B, such that when real source RS #2 talks about B, it must be encompassed within the set defined by RS #1. There are many ways to exploit this kind of logic-language disconnect to simply lie (using only true statements), which is part of why synth rules can seem pretty strict. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

the edit does not say A causes B and B causes C. rather, it says A causes part of C and B causes another part of C.

A = lies, disinformation, conspiracy theories

B = lies, distortions

C = lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories soibangla (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

A = Trump, B = disinformation etc, C = hampering recovery efforts. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is synth because it is saying something not stated in any of the sources, that public official say Donald Trump's spreading of misinformation has hindered recovery efforts. In fact, it is probable that the officials specifically chose not to lay the blame on Donald Trump.

Also, per WEIGHT, if we want articles to state a conclusion, then there should be a source that explicitly says that.

In fact, while you can say that Trump spread misinformation in articles about him, you cannot add that spreading misinformation has harmed recovery efforts, because that would be implicit synth. It would imply that Trump had hindered recovery efforts through spreading false information.

Wikipedia articles should not make accusations against Trump, or any other subject, but should report explicit accusations that have been reliably reported. TFD (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is pure synth because no source says that Trump ... created confusion and hindered recovery efforts. TarnishedPath^talk 10:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes one does, the second source. It's even in the quote above, but here's an even more explicit part of the transcript:

Geoff Bennett: As you note in the piece, the spread of rumors and misinformation has always been a problem during major disasters, especially when the usual channels of communication break down. But what's the real-world harm inflicted by lies and conspiracy theories about the hurricane relief effort?

Juliette Kayyem: Well, there's a couple of direct impacts. The first is how the government works and functions. It needs the support of communities and populations. If there's distrust, rumors, all sorts of rampant lies being spread, in particular by the former President Trump, it makes the work of government more difficult.

In the context of an interview about hurricane relief I feel that's pretty clear. Loki (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! That's a perfect example of why we like RS that do the SYNTH for us. We must not do it, but we can quote them connecting the dots because that is not forbidden. They provide the connection, then we write it. Then we also provide more sources that describe who is providing the disinformation, and we also provide more sources showing how authorities and aid workers describe the problems caused by all these lies. In the end, we may also add evidence that Russia is also spreading these lies, if that is the case, and since Trump often repeats Russian disinformation almost immediately after it appears, that information would also be good to add if it can be cited to RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about what the totality of all sources on the topic say, but if you are talking about only the three sources quoted in the original post of this thread, then yes, this is obviously synthesis under any sane reading of policy. This is almost exactly the same thing as the examples given at WP:SYNTH.

The extreme obviousness with which this violates the policy makes me suspect that the question is not being asked in good faith. jp×g🗯️ 11:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The original content was added by them here to the Hurricane Helene article. PackMecEng (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

it is a good faith question, but you can go ahead and question my sanity if you like. soibangla (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to "question your sanity" [sic]. I simply note that you have been here for eleven years and made twenty-six thousand edits, many thousands of them in extremely contentious current-events articles, and thousands more in intense arguments about arcane nuances of policies. It seems, to me, quite unlikely that you are unaware of what WP:SYNTH says. jp×g🗯️ 07:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have participated in a good number of PAG discussions over the years in which even seasoned admins have disagreed in their interpretations. Some insist the interpretations are plainly obvious and unambiguous, while others disagree and suggest alternative interpretations. I do not claim to have comprehensive understanding of PAG as many of them never arise during the regular course of my contributions of content, and I spend minimal time hanging around the back rooms to watch the latest drama. I have observed a good number of disputes over the specific interpretation of synth, which can seem nettlesome to some, including me, as it does not seem among the most unambiguous of PAG. Now, people can think that makes me an idiot, but I fail to see how my request for a clarification might have some bad faith component to it. soibangla (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand why people think it's WP:SYNTH, and also your reading of WP:SYNTH isn't right either, but I do think that it's actually not WP:SYNTH because the second source (the PBS one) does explicitly say that the misinformation spread by Trump is hampering the hurricane relief effort.

Even the quote you posted does (or at least I don't know how else to read The disinformation is causing confusion among those most desperate for help and answers), but if you click through to the interview it's even more explicit. Loki (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is a more relevant quote from the article, then I would be glad to read it, but there is no world in which "those most desperate for help and answers" is equivalent to "the hurricane relief effort". That isn't just a logical jump, that is some Evel Knievel stuff. Are the aid workers the most desperate for help and answers? Don't they generally know the most about the state of the disaster? There was a wildfire near my house a couple months ago, and people were posting random dumb speculation about it on Facebook, and as far as I can tell the sum total of the effect on the firefighting process from this was zero. Why is it such a problem to just write something that accurately represents what the sources say? I get that there is an election coming up, and it's really important, et cetera, but I really think we should just try to follow the policies rather than break them on purpose. jp×g🗯️ 07:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly a reference to the hurricane relief effort in context.

Also, I think that before you roll in saying that ssomeone's position is so absurd they aren't acting in good faith, you should at least read the sources they're basing it on yourself, right?

Loki (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: you write "as far as I can tell the sum total of the effect on the firefighting process from this was zero." That may have been the case with that fire, but in this case, these lies are motivating people to threaten the lives of FEMA aid workers and officials. That's one reason this is so important. It is serious business, and your concerns that we get it right are very warranted. Now we just need to agree on how to do that. No one is trying to deliberately "break" policies, so AGF. Good faith editors can disagree, discuss, and come to a consensus, maybe a compromise, and we can all do it civilly and remain friends. Don't give up on your fellow editors too quickly. So keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

this slight rephrasing has been suggested. is this synth?

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories. Public officials said this disinformation created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

soibangla (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢:

You are attributing some negative action to a living person - something which should cause you to exercise caution. Contentious material about living people, that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In my rulebook if you are unsure if the sources unequivocally support what you are trying to say, you should drop this altogether.

No information about living people should carry insinuations about these people unless the foundation is rock-solid. Only the first source supports the suggestion that Donald Trump's misinformation is hindering efforts, and even then the dialogue does not attribute it to "public officials", only to the former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security. In the other two, the relation to Trump is at best tangential. The second source only says that he spread bullshit about the response to Hurricane Helene, while the third source only says that Trump spread bullshit about FEMA in general during his second rally in Butler, Pa. Neither the second nor the third source says about the impact his words may have had.

At most you can write that PBS anchor Geoff Bennett and Juliette Kayyem, a former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security, assessed that through multi-day efforts at spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories about the federal government response, former President Donald Trump was sowing confusion and hampering recovery efforts. But then again if it's due is another good question. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are citing this to the sources that you gave in the initial post of this thread, then yes, as has been said at great length, that is synthesis -- and not some kind of confusing tricky edge-case situation, but the most obvious and straightforward possible example. jp×g🗯️ 07:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You are saying that public officials said that disinformation from Trump created confusion and hindered recovery efforts. The problem is that public officials did not say that. Presumably they made a conscious effort not to say that, so the statement is a BLP violation against them. TFD (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 AFL Women's season

Could someone else please explain to Rulesfan why the following statements added to 2024 AFL Women's season (and several follow-up statements at the article's talk page) are original research, given that none of the sources they've provided at the talk page explicity state them:

• Brighton Homes Arena had scheduled Brisbane's men's team being to unveil their premiership cup at at the end of the AFLW match with AFLW ticketholders and club members receiving admission [...]
• Many of the 6,102 in attendance at the Brighton Homes Arena were there for the premiership cup reveal which directly followed the conclusion of the women's game.

I'm being accused of gatekeeping and having an agenda, but Rulesfan is still refusing to provide sources that explicity state what they're trying to add. I don't see how the content is needed anyway – this is all about a larger (but not record) home crowd that could come down to a variety of factors, including that the Brisbane v Adelaide rivalry is up there as the biggest in the AFLW, not just those mentioned at the talk page – so I don't think that it's notable/relevant enough to be included regardless, but I would still like to resolve this; thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for crowdsourcing your affirmation 4TheWynne. This may finally justify your consistent deleting of sourced information. As for the Brisbane Adelaide rivalry you may wish to review crowds for Brighton Homes Arena. https://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/springfield-central-stadium/crowds Last year's crowd for this "rivarlry" was 2,544 ... well below average for the venue. Perhaps actually reading the references provided, applying some common sense and a little Occam's razor is preferable to the Ostrich effect here. Just saying. --Rulesfan (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rulesfan: we don't use our "common sense" or "Occam's razor" to make claims on Wikipedia articles. We need reliable sources for any claims we make. If you're not happy about this, you're welcome to join some other project, start a blog or whatever where you can do such things. Unless a reliable secondary source has compared this years crowd to last year's crowd and said that this year's crowd was unusually large, we cannot make such a claim in our article; let alone that it was unusually large because of the unvealing of men's team. If reliable sources have mentioned that the unvealing happened after the game, you might be able to mention it subject to WP:UNDUE etc without connecting it to the crowd size. This would be largely be based on the level of coverage in reliable secondary sources and similar factors. If you only have few reliable secondary sources which mentioned it compared to the number which mentioned the match, this might very well be undue especially for the lead. Even if you aren't suggesting we include it in the article, your OR that the reason for the large crowd size is because of this connection is ultimately only of limited consideration when it comes to due weight consideration when RSes haven't made such a connection. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out and have provided sufficient reliable sources to support the claims you've mentioned above, including the notability of the crowd size, but despite this, 4TheWynne has deleted them multiple times. 4TheWynne is well aware of the numerous articles which highlight the problem of poor AFLW crowds this season. I think it needs a counterweight as the article gives readers the false impression that one off large crowds are due to the current popularity of the AFLW competition whereas they are most definitely not.

The facts from the cited sources:

• Several communications were sent from the club and venue themselves that indicated this was not a standard AFLW match but a combined AFL AFLW event. The club sold tickets specifically to witness the unveiling of the men's 2024 AFL Premiership Cup at Brighton Homes Arena which was officially known as "Sunday Fan Day". "QLD: We'll see you after the AFLW game at Brighton Homes Arena. Sunday 5pm-7pm. QLDers will need to purchase a ticket to the AFLW to manage stadium capacity." They were clearly expecting a larger than usual AFLW crowd and much larger than last year's 2,544 if they were expecting the venue to be at capacity which is 8,000.

• The crowd was described as "huge" and directly attribed to the unveiling of the men's premiership cup described as "impossible to deny" - "But it was impossible to deny the infectious momentum of an AFL premiership as a boisterous maroon crowd packed Brighton Homes Arena. Those who stuck around welcomed Brisbane’s victorious AFL team home after they touched down during the second half." "The Lions have a three-point lead going into the final quarter with a huge crowd building up at Springfield ahead of the arrival of the men’s side following their premiership win in Melbourne on Saturday."

Rulesfan, you need to clean up your act and stop speaking for me.

• Several communications were sent from the club and venue themselves that indicated this was not a standard AFLW match but a combined AFL AFLW event. OK, where are they? You've been asked multiple times to provide them.
• The club sold tickets specifically to witness the unveiling of the men's 2024 AFL Premiership Cup. You still haven't provided a source that explicity states this.
• "[I]mpossible to deny the infectious momentum of an AFL premiership" ≠ The crowd was [...] directly attribed to the unveiling of the men's premiership cup.

Read WP:SYNTH:

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

Rulesfan has continued to add this disputed content wthout consensus, this time wording it: "The match at Brighton Homes Arena was a designated as the Brisbane Lions Fan Day with AFL members requiring tickets to the AFLW match to attend the men's official 2024 AFL Premiership celebrations scheduled for the conclusion of the match". Yes, we can agree that the Lions' fan day took place that day, but that's the only thing explicity stated in any of the sources, with only one (the Age source) adequately connecting it to the match, but not the rest; for one, as above, they still haven't provided a source that any of this was to do with premiership celebrations/unveiling the cup, and my other point remains: even if they did, is the content really needed? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

So in summary, even if someone takes out any "perceived" conclusion that hurts your butt you still remove it (without acknowledging the sources provided), because "YOU don't think its not needed" because you don't like the facts or want anyone else editing the article. That has nothing to do with original research, its just classic gatekeeping. What is your actual objection? At this point who cares about the crowd, yes it was a record home and away crowd for the venue (does this have citations besides Austadiums no because the stadium is only two years old and averages more than half empty), the point is that it wasn't solely an AFLW event, which I think is a pretty important one in keeping an event about the AFLW impartial. Otherwise its like saying that a band is popular because it was support act for a big name performer. FWIW multiple of these sources connect it to the match, you're just choosing to ignore them.

• Several communications were sent from the club and venue themselves that indicated this was not a standard AFLW match but a combined AFL AFLW event. The club sold tickets specifically to witness the unveiling of the men's 2024 AFL Premiership Cup. The cup is part of the celebrations, but yeah since its implied in the news... I'm happy with "celebrate the premiership" thats kind of the point of the fan days really. Here you go straight from the source:

References

Hazaras of the Turkman valley

Need some help please. there is a person on the Turkmun Hazaras tribe page keeps reverting my edits and deleting my sources essentially saying that his sources contradicts me. He says "A number of writers have dealt and considered this Hazara tribe to be of the Turkoman race or descent" and he then further says "which if you force me, I will present them to you,". I asked for these writers/sources and he refuses to show them to me or even cite them in his edit. Theres alot more to be said... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mioncraft (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Can't Catch Me Now

Two statements I included at Can't Catch Me Now have been flagged as potential WP:NOR issues by Pbritti at its FAC. These include "Dan Nigro returned as her principal collaborator on the follow-up album, Guts (2023)" (cited to Billboard, USA Today, Variety; Nigro produced and co-wrote every single track on the album) and "The album was released to critical acclaim in September 2023" (currently cited to BBC News; can potentially be cited to Metacritic, where it is designated with "universal acclaim"). From my understanding, Pbritti interprets the sentence "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" to mean that a source used to include details in the Background section must have been published after the song "Can't Catch Me Now" was released and include a mention of it too. Would appreciate uninvolved opinions on this. Thank you.--NØ 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Unmentioned above is that there appears to be little basis for the inclusion of multiple sentences cited solely to sources well pre-dating the release of the song the article is about. If reliable sources do not find a need to draw certain connections, then those connections are necessarily original to the editor who adds them to Wikipedia. Particularly objectionable is the mention of "critical acclaim" about a previous album, sourced not to anything about the article's subject. The FAC in question is a strong candidate, but I do not see why a this kind of article can dispense with policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti, I have changed the referencing for Guts being critically acclaimed to this source and this source, which state "The new track from Rodrigo comes just two months after the release of her critically acclaimed second studio album, 'Guts'", and added this source which begins by talking about Can't Catch Me Now for the statement that Nigro was the main collaborator on Guts, which also states "Rodrigo and her co-writer and producer Dan Nigro assembled 'Guts' as the follow-up to Rodrigo's Grammy-winning 2021 debut, 'Sour'". Happy with this as a compromise. Let me know if this resolves your issues.--NØ 17:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: On the move at the moment but, AGFing that these sources are as described, this would be more than acceptable solution to my concerns. I'm deeply appreciative that you took that step and look forward to seeing your hard work receive a much-deserve promotion at FAC. Thank you for your diligence, cooperativeness, and communication and apologies for any ire my concerns caused, especially since they appear poorly communicated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Until such time that you have gone through the sources and revised the comments at the FAC accordingly, it is best we keep seeking third party opinions. We still need clarity on the general policy interpretation since your interpretation of it is inconsistent with what I have seen enforced at FAC. I can't say I agree with the original criticisms just because it was possible to find replacements here.--NØ 04:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1600m and 3200m equivalent times

Hello. On the articles on the 1600 meter and 3200 meter track events, I added an equivalent world bests section which converted the world record indoor and outdoor mile or two mile times to a 1600m or 3200m equivalent time (also adding these to the list of world records in athletics section). Does this count as Original Research? I used the MileSplit Conversion Calculator that gave equivalent times, which is cited for its ease of use and accuracy.

To clarify, these are equivalent times, not necessarily the actual split the athlete came through at for 1600m or 3200m en route to 1 mile or 2 miles (though given the distances are nearly the same the times wouldn't be too different). Bringing up this point, if I were to go back into the video of a mile or two mile world record race and estimate what the athlete split at 1600m or 3200m based on the clock, would that count as OR? Better yet, what if I went into the official splits section of a world record run to pull the 1600m or 3200m split? Is that original research?

I feel like this is a gray area as times are technically calculations. Please advise. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How would the equivalent be calculated? Did you just adjust the distance (1 mile = 1609 meters)? That does not work!

A track time is always significantly faster. A rubberized track has energy-restorative properties (think like a spring) and water drainage, optimized for track running shoes, while road or turf have none of that.

(This is also why track times from the 1930s, on crushed cinders, were so much slower btw -- one can do a comparative adjustment by taking modern runner's times on tracks versus other surfaces and finding a functional distribution, and they did that with like the 1930s Olympic runners, demonstrating that say Jesse Owens would likely still be an Olympic-level runner today -- that's the difference of modern tracks. If you find such an adjustment function online, you may or may not get away with applying it (editors will probably consider that WP:Synth), but at least you can link it). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @SamuelRiv. I appreciate the input, but you misunderstood my post. What I mean by equivalent is that, upon plugging in the mile or two mile world record time, the milesplit calculator took the average speed of the mile or two mile world record and then converted what the equivalent time at that pace would be for the shorter distance, with 1600m being 9.344m short of 1 mile, and 3200m being 18.688m short of 2 miles. Therefore, it is an equivalent world best and the equivalent time would be similar to the actual time given 1600m and 3200m are not far from 1 mile or 2 miles respectively. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

When I say equivalent I do not mean, for instance, what Hicham El Guerrouj's mile world record would be today on modern tracks in modern spikes. In this example, I am referring to what Hicham El Guerrouj's equivalent time would be when he comes through the 1600m mark at his mile world record tempo (3:41.84 thru 1600m, 3:43.13 for mile). The equivalent and actual time will be within several tenths of a second of each other given the 9.344m difference. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You can give a distance adjustment maybe in a table, for purposes of sorting, but where it's in prose in that separate section it's just misleading. (While I'd say a 1-mile-to-1600m adjustment is perfectly defensible on a table with both on a standard track, the calculator becomes patently ridiculous when it has distance-adjusted times for the indoor short tracks.) The correct way to do it in prose, if you have the source, is as it is said for Webb: Webb was timed in 3:51.83 for 1600m (en route to the high school mile record in 3:53.43). 1500m-to-1600m btw also cannot be adjusted in this way, and would require a statistical table for conversion. (Again, if you can find such a good proper calculator, then you can try linking it.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you have high school records, I'm not sure why you wouldn't include indoor and cross-country records. They're slower, but that's because they're different races. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Tic Tac Toe Variant Ideas

Hi! I've been getting into Tic-tac-toe variants and testing them out with friends. Most of them are interesting, and we've refined them to be more complex, fair, and fun! An example of a small modification is Tilt-Tac-Toe, which is played like a game of Ultimate tic-tac-toe, except the center game is rotated 45 degrees. This means that, for example, playing in the top corner of the center game will send the other player to the top edge game. Center corners are more powerful as a result! This can also be combined with ulimate^2 TTT, also known as ultimate TTT level 3, for even more craziness! Another more complicated variant is Trifect Tac Toe, played with 3 people on a 5x5 board. The concept is that each symbol counts as the next in a cycle, allowing one player to incorporate another's into their 5 in a row. (for example, if the cycle was O->X->S->O, OOXOX would be a win for X). I would like to share these variants on Wikipedia, but they don't have sources. And as a high school student, I can't make anything more than a blog post. Can these types of unopinionated original creative ideas be added? Primius Maximus (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your original research, which this clearly would be. Remsense ‥ 论 21:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the Tic-tac-toe variant page not supposed to display a list of variant ideas? I, again, created a few entirely on my own that aren't found anywhere else (that I know of). If Wikipedia is not the place, what is? Primius Maximus (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, which roughly means that we present topics in a way that reflects how they are discussed in existing reliable sources. Actually, if you would like to create an educational resource discussing and exploring this subject, I recommend our sister project Wikiversity! Remsense ‥ 论 22:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Frederiksberggade 1

User:Ramblersen2 has created many articles on notable buildings in Denmark, containing very detailed information about all known previous inhabitants (of the current and former buildings on the same location), compiled from census records. Frederiksberggade 1 is the most recent example. Example paragraph:

At the 1801 census, No. 140 was home to 45 residents in eight households. Jacob Rosted resided in the building with his wife Frideriche Dau. a maid and two lodgers (carpenters). Anne Christine Linne., a widow, resided in the building with two sons (aged 12 and 15), a maid and two students. Gertrud Marie Greis, a widow teacher, resided in the building with a maid, Peder Armstrøm (a planter from Saint Croix and the latter's 11-year-old black servant. Johan Gotlieb Blau, a pharmacist, resided in the building with his wife Christine Winkler, their two children (aged three and five), two maids, three pharmacists, two pharmacist's apprentices and a caretaker. Philip Gebhart von Thun (1756–1828), a captain in the Royal Danish Navy, resided in the building with his wife Anette Mathisen, a two-year-old daughter and two maids. Rasmus Larsen, a beer seller (øltapper), resided in the building with his wife Marie Hansen and their eight-year-old daughter. Ole Hansen, a barkeeper, resided in the building with his wife Juliane Hobroem their trhree children (aged 13 to 18) and a maid. Niels Andersen, a beer seller, resided in the building with his wife Anne Cathrine Jensen and their two children (aged two and three).

We have a disagreement whether such information is acceptable or should be removed. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fram, is there a discussion anywhere other than in edit summaries? I think it's unencyclopedic trivia that should be excluded, but I'd like to hear Ramblersen2's argument for inclusion first. Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Ramblersen2#WP:OR. I had also informed them of this discussion, as their input is of course necessary. Fram (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have for quite some time worked on creating articles on all heritage listed buildings in Denmark. In some cases, typically in inner Copenhagen, it is difficult to find sources with more than very basic information. As a supplement to other available sources, I have then relied on information from the earliest available census records (typically 1787, 1801, 1840 and sometimes a few more) in piecing together the early history of the property/building. I think the information from the census records is instrumental in highlighting what sort of people lived in the building, what sort of businesses were operated from the premises etc. In many cases, the same people have contributed to the evolution of the property by adapting then, constructing warehouses etc. If we have an article on a marginally notable (typically heritage listed) building, I think we may just as well make it an informative one, rather than leaving it as a fairly uninformative start-class article. The information from the census records is always supplemented by all the other sources I can dig up, old illustrations etc. I don't think it is correct to refer to published information from census records as "primary sources" or "original research". But I have been in doubt as to how I should present the information to avoid it turning into something that might qualify as original research. And I have then ended up going with the form that seemed to get the best ratings by a range of different reviewers over a quite long period of time. And I have wanted to stick to a somewhat consistent approach. In some cases, I can see that it seems more relevant than in other. In some cases, it would no doubt be better to provide a summary of the composition of residents.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I could see an argument for a brief paragraph summarizing "what sort of people lived in the building, what sort of businesses were operated...". But a prose-list that is merely a directory of residents from over 200 years ago? How is that relevant or helpful? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be removed. That amount of excessive intricate detail is not related to how or why the building is notable in the first place. This type of detail - Peter Christian Kierkegaard resided in the first-floor apartment to the left with the theology student Otto Harald Benedictus Boisen - is not relevant or notable information about the building.

In order for any named resident to be included in the article, they must be notable themselves. For example, see: Notable residents of the Dakota or Notable residents of the Brentmore or Notable residents of The San Remo. Also see WP:NBUILDING for the guidelines on notability for buildings. And danishfamilysearch.dk is a questionable source as well, since it appears to allow user generated content. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to comment the same, but it's already been done. danishfamilysearch.dk appears to be user generated content (you can create an account here[23]), so shouldn't be used for any verification purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with using danishfamilysearch.dk. Creating an account gives you access to more daily page views and you can transcribe untranscribed census records but the page publishes the original census record which is not user generated content.Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, danishfamilysearch.dk is an unreliable source and when are you going to remove all those excessive details from the article? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And even if the transcriptions or images of census records is unimpeachable, they're WP:PRIMARY and not normally used as sources. EEng 06:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a giant world of these articles, all sourced primarily to danishfamilysearch.dk. Can somebody go through [24] and assess these articles? There seems to be oodles of WP:CRUFT in need of removal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I will try again: Danishfamilysearch is not a user-generated source. The page publishes the original census records, you just need to press "original kilde" ("original source") to see the original census record. Another thing is that the information is also published by the Danish National Archives (see for instance here. Surely what matters for the information to be a valid source is weather it has been published and it has. The link makes it easy to check the source but is not what makes it a valid, published source (just like you can use a book as a source even if you don't provide an online link to the book. Information from census records are routinely used by recognised historians in articles on individual buildings in Copenhagen, see for instance Ida Haugsted's article Gips og voks på Østergade og Værnedamsvej' or Allan Tønnesen's Et hus i Amaliegade (I can provide you with lots and lots of other examples). Why wouldn't Wikipedia accept a source which is good enough for historians and scientific magazines?Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally avoids primary sources unless absolutely necessary. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Even that's an overstatement. We don't use primary sources as some kind of last resort because nothing else's available, but rather we use them in very narrow circumstances (generally, to illustrate some point make in a secondary source). If those circumstances don't hold, we don't use the primary source, even if absolutely nothing else is available. EEng 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramblersen2, there are a lot reasons we don't use primary sources except in very narrow circumstances. For example, census records are often just plain wrong. An historian writing a bio of person X will not only look at the census record for where X lived, but will also use letters, business documents, and other sources to confirm what the census says; in their publication, they'll present their scholarly understanding of the best reconstruction of the historical facts, and our article can then draw on that. But we editors lack the resources to do such sifting and research, and indeed it's beyond our remit to do so even if we had such resources. So we don't use census records directly -- we wait for a secondary source to do so, and if that doesn't happen, then that material doesn't go in the article.

Beyond just the question of the accuracy of a census record, there's a question of, well, just plain what belongs in an article. If secondary sources on a particular building haven't seen fit to list its every occupant over the centuries, there's a reason for that: it's trivia.

A final point: Let's say that an historian says his research shows that Mr. Famous Person lived at 14 Wissenspoor in 1750. In addition to reporting that in the article, that would be a good time to go the the census and get the original handwritten census record, and include it as an image in the article. That's an OK use of the primary source, because we're using it for illustration, not as a fact source. There's a great example at Phineas_Gage#Death_and_exhumation -- a cemetery record. It's there for illustration, but NOT as a fact source. Indeed, the cemetery record gives the subject's middle initial as B, which is incorrect -- again, that's why we don't use primary sources for facts.

I hope the above helps. EEng 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

EEng says it a lot nicer than I could. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had my grumpy pills yet this morning. EEng 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's guidelines: "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[e] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only 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.". I can easily understand the point that I have provided "excessively detailed information" but I have done so in an effort to make absolutely sure that I was only making "traightforward, descriptive statements of fact". And I do think that the information contains a lot of relevant information about the history of a given building: The type of residents, associated businesses (In Copenhagen, membership of a given craftsman's guild or merchant's guild, was typically attached to the ownership specific properties), notable residents or the hierarchy between different floors etc. In articles on notable buildings (typically because they are heritage listed) that are not major landmarks and where few other sources can be found, I really don't get the problem withy including such information. And having produced a lot of articles on buildings over a long period of time (several years), I can conclude that a wide range of new-page patrollers and page-raters have not seemed to have a problem with the approach either.Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, we realize this is disappointing, and it's annoying that you've put so much effort into this aspect of hundreds of articles (see this search [25] of article space), but even repeating what the census entry nominally asserts is an interpretation -- you're taking it as fact. Look, again, at my example (linked above) of Phineas Gage's cemetery record -- it's got his very name incorrect. These kinds of records are often just wrong, and that's why we don't use them in the was you are using them. Furthermore, your very statement contains a lot of relevant information ... type of residents ... notable residents ... hierarchy between different floors etc shows you're trying to imply stuff that we as editors are not supposed to be implying. If a notable person lived there, then there will be secondary sources on that person mentioning that; we don't come to that conclusion ourselves. If there's something interesting about the hierarchy between floors, then when some social historian comments on that in a secondary source, we can include that; but we don't marshall data to imply that ourselves.

And to be perfectly blunt: your articles are great! The architecture, the history! But the long sections on Jan Marinsen and his wife and their three kids and their two maids and their cow and their chickens are nothing but cruft-trivia. They need to go. EEng 19:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And I can see that lots of other perfectly relevant information based on other sources have to go as well. Yes that is indeeded super "disappointing".Ramblersen2 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC) How can the deletion of the entire History section of a page such as Nyhavn 17 not qualify as vandalism (compare here)? I get the point that mentioning random tenants at diffent census records is considered irrelevant but just deleting all information on the origins of the property, cadastral numbers (the building's only address until 1859), information on notable previous owners based on other sources, notable former residents based on other sources, map details, images...everything? Does such an approach really leav e it as a better article?Ramblersen2 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, and I don't have time to look into it. It does happen that when an article is full of cruft, the cleanup throws some good stuff out with it. What I suggest you do is use that article as a vehicle for working out with other editors what is and is not appropriate for that kind of article in general. Open a discussion on the talk page. EEng

Things like cadastral numbers are trivia though. And considering Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Ramblersen2, getting rid of most text and only adding relevant, copyvio-free text back afterwards may well be the wisest approach. Fram (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So now pretty much everything is just rejected as trivia. In spite of the fact that it is covered in secondary sources and is the sort of information that is covered in lots of published articles on individual buildings. Weather the information violates any copyrighted material should be pretty easy to determine, considering that the secondary sources are so limited.Ramblersen2 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's covered in secondary sources we can probably use it; if it's merely "the sort of thing" that's covered in secondary sources, then we probably can't use it. EEng 09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:EEng: But the secondary sources are there. Take Nyhavn 67 as an example: User Allan Nonymous has simply deleting the entire history section of the article on the basis that it is "fandom". This book has been published about the history of the book. And the deleted section contained a number of other secondary sources, supplemented with some primary sources used in acorance with Wikipedia's guidelines (withy care and without interpretations). And yet all coverage of the history of a historic building is rejected as "fandom"? I can see from User:Allan Nonumous' talk page that an administrator (User:Liz) has criticized him for listing way too many articles for deletion. As I see it, he is still applying his own, eclectic criteria for what to delete. An article about an individual building is am article on a quite specific subject, it will obviously only interest a very limited number of people. But I do think that the average reader of an article about a historic building will expect to find information on the history of the building. Yes the relevance of some informations can no doubt be debated. Other information could no doubt be presented in another way. And an extra source should and could no doubt be added. But simply deleting the entire section on the basis that it is "famdom" is absurd. And it makes it impossible to fix the mentioned issues in a way that improves the article.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Having only momentarily glanced at what was removed, it does seem that possibly some might be appropriately restored -- as I said already, It does happen that when an article is full of cruft, the cleanup throws some good stuff out with it. But I'm not sure what your statement that But the secondary sources are there refers to. It looks like most if not all of the removed material was sourced to this Danishfamilysearch site, and so can't be included.

Look, let me suggest this: of all these articles you're talking about, pick the one on the most famous building -- the one other editors are most likely to take at least some interest in. Then ask a few editors to join you in a discussion on that article's talk page about what does and doesn't appropriately belong in the article. (This is likely to be a lot less than you'd like, but that's the nature of the collaborative process.) Then try to apply that experience to another article, and ask one of the friendly editors from the first article to take a look.I wish I could offer to participate, but I just haven't got the time. Good luck. EEng 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:EEng: Thanks for the constructive reply and tone. It would have been a good suggestion if this discussion had come up a little (or rather a lot) earlier) but it is simply too many articles and too little that will be left (if only some new-page patrollers or page raters had raised these concerns a little earlier). So I have decided simply to quit Wikipedia. And if everything is deleted, so be it. Sorry to have wasted your time with this.Ramblersen2 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Marco Polo and family origin

Information from the article: "Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice, but the exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown."[26]

Part of the source says that Polo "was born around 1254 in Venice", other part of the sources says that "exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown".

I assume that the editors combined those two groups of sources and and put informations into one sentence, however in my opinion this is where the synthesis and OR took place. Given that not all sources ie probably none say what the quote from the article says(full context). Some say that Polo was born in Venice, others say that his place of birth is archivally unknown. This wording from the article (given that the context of the birth in Venice is presented as a fact) can also mean that Polo was born in Venice but the exact place (part of the city, suburb, street, etc) is not known archivally.

To avoid the OR context and synthesis and ultimately to respect the sources, I suggest that formulation of the second part of the sentence be like this: "however, there is no archival material which would prove that Polo was born in Venice". I would love to hear your opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that such emphasis would be inappropriate WP:DOUBT and appropriate attribution would be to follow the last paragraph of that subsection ("general consensus") and not give equal validity to options that, as far as I'm aware, have not gained acceptance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Try to explain a little more clearly because I didn't understand you. Some authors claim that Polo was born in Venice, others that it is not known from the archives where he was born. Otherwise, it is primarily historical information used by some historians. According to you it shouldn't be in the article ie this information? Mikola22 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to phrase the second sentence in a manner that casts doubt on the first unless the source used explicitly does so, and it should be appropriately attributed to indicate the relative prominence of that doubt. If you want to state obliquely that the subject might not be born in Venice, find a secondary source that says that as well as how common that view is. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You can see from the article that there are several sources that talk about Korcula ie Dalmatia as the place of birth. However, this is about the fact that there are no archival sources that say where he was born, and this is stated by a couple of sources. Someone put that information in the context of first part of the sentence and his birth in Venice. All together it should be synthesis and OR.

The problem is if it is all together in the context, it is not clear which place is not archivally established, birthplace in Venice, part of Venice, etc. If it cannot be written more clearly, then the two pieces of information should be written separately.

1. "Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice". 2."Exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown, according to some sources it could be Dalmatia, according to others could be Korcula or neither Korcula nor Venice."

This is what can be confirmed from the sources and in such formulation is not a synthesis or OR. Mikola22 (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

SEGM and conversion therapy

There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Arbitrary break (Conversion therapy) concerning the source linking SEGM and promotion of conversion therapy. The quote from the relevant source is as follows:

Dr. Malone and fellow SEGM member Dr. Colin Wright have asserted, “Counseling can help gender dysphoric adolescents resolve any trauma or thought processes that have caused them to desire an opposite sexed body.” In my opinion, these statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth. [... rest of the quote is MEDORG notes]

It is asserted that the entire source, post In my opinion, should be excluded as WP:RSOPINION, and that it is WP:SYNTH to consider the quote from Malone and Wright as verifying favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth as a factual statement. Editors are invited to join the discussion on the article talk page. I have also posted this at WP:NPOVN#SEGM and conversion therapy since both noticeboards seem relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note here as well that the quote as presented in this source removes the opening proviso "But in most cases", which changes the tone somewhat.

Also, I think you are not accurately describing my objection to the subsequent MEDORG statements. It is not an arbitrary claim that "everything after the opinion is opinion". The issue is that what relates the subsequent statements to the quote is a statement of opinion. The form is (paraphrasing):

• Here's a quote
• In my opinion it is conversion therapy
• Here's information about conversion therapy

The MEDORG information is all totally factual - but the basis for presenting the two alongside each other as if they are related is opinion. That added, I welcome some outside input.

Void if removed (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)