Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 46

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

SYNTH and summary table in US presidential rankings

Hi. I'm arguing on the talk page of Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Scholar survey summary about how to treat the overall-summary column at the end of the summary table in that section. It's at least partially a SYNTH problem.

The table is a list of how various polls of historians over time have ranked the presidents. The last column is "most-frequent quartile". This is the "most-frequent" among the polls we've chosen to include in the table, not in any absolute sense, which itself might be a SYNTH issue.

There are two issues we've been arguing over: sorting and how to sum up the overall results.

Sorting

The first problem (IMO) is that the table is sortable, and sorting by the rightmost column produces misleading results. For example, it typically places George W Bush 2nd from bottom; one time I sorted, it placed Grant dead last. Yes, I understand that this is because the 2ary sorting is whatever the previous sort was (by default, the historical order of presidents); the question is what to do about it. I don't see how the results are encyclopedic, and they are potentially misleading. The obvious solution (for me at least) would be to disable sorting in that column. However, I've been reverted twice, both times with the claim that not making the column sortable is a violation of SYNTH.

My problem is that the sort order is inherently evaluative. If we sorted cities by country, then there would be no expectation that the resulting order of the cities within each country would be meaningful. There's no evaluation or judgement implied in their order. However, because the poll table ranks presidents according to how historians rate them, and all the other columns with quartile coloring sort according to how they've been rated by historians, and because the quartile colors are intended to make those evaluations immediately visible, with 'best' on top and 'worst' on bottom (or vice versa), it seems to me that it is seriously misleading for the sort order to be jumbled within that overall evaluation, in a way that cities sorted randomly within countries would not be.

Counting quartiles

The other question is how to decide which quartile (and quartile color) each president should be assigned for their overall ranking in the rightmost column. That is, which presidents should be colored blue, green, yellow and orange, and labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the last column.

The argument (if I understand it correctly) is that, to avoid SYNTH issues, the overall ranking and quartile color must reflect the modal quartile among the polls of each president. But that can produce some bizarre results. Suppose we have two presidents and nine polls. One is ranked Q3 in 4 polls and Q2 in 5. We label him a Q2 president and color him green. The other is ranked higher: he's Q3 in the same 4 polls as the first, but the other 5 polls are Q2 in 3 and Q1 in 2. We'd label him a Q3 president and color him yellow -- a lower ranking overall despite him having higher rankings in the polls. If we instead sorted by the most frequent half (whether he's rated by historians as above or below average), he'd still be in the top half: if he had been ranked lower by the historians who rated him highly, he would rank higher in our table. Would it be a violation of SYNTH to list the average quartile instead (which would be Q2 for both), so we don't get screwy results like this?

Averaging rankings

In order for the sorting order of the rightmost column to be sensible, I proposed listing the average rank in the polls instead of most-frequent or average quartile. (There's a table of what that would look like on the talk page.) It was objected that averaging poll results violates SYNTH, and I suspect those of you here probably agree. I'm not arguing for it here, but I'm not clear on how a count of most-frequent poll results would not violate SYNTH if an average of them does -- both are simple ways to report aggregated information. Another possibility would be to use the averages for 2ary sorting, with the {{hs}} tag, which wouldn't be visible to the reader. That way we wouldn't tell them that e.g. Grant is on average ranked 33rd out of 44, but when the table was sorted by that column, the resulting order would reflect how the presidents have been evaluated.

(BTW, I don't know or care much about Grant in particular; I initially chose him as an example on the talk page because I was taken aback when the table sorted him in 44th position, well below presidents that are generally evaluated as worse.)

— kwami (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I don't get why it has summing up quartiles when the polls over-time have different sets of quarters (eg. quarters of 30 does not seem comparable to quarters of 40) -- and do quarters constructed by pedians have any meaning, certainly no meaning pedians can give them. I also don't think average makes much sense when, you have someone who can be 30 in one poll, and 44 in another, just because the units counted in each poll is different. Has a median column, and separately a mode column (for presidents who have a mode) been discussed? Otherwise, doing no summing up column, at all? --Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and this should be moved to WP:ORN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
[moved — kwami (talk)]
That whole table is an attempt at a meta-analysis of what historians say, and I don't think we should be doing editor-generated meta-analysis on Wikipedia at all. If I was ruler of Wikipedia, the only time editors could do statistical calculations would be when it was verifiable that all the statistics came from sources that used exactly the same methodology.—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The whole table? Isn't part of the table just listing what 'historians' have done? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
That's why the standing consensus is NO AGGREGATES of Historian generated data in the table. Only basic counting methods are allowed. It's been that way for at least a year by my count. there was a long, drawn out RfC about it, but this user accusing me is very stubborn and demanding to put WP:SYNTH content in the article. Then, when I revert per consensus, they come to my personal talk page to yell at me about it. I have repeatedly asked the user to stop. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

[moved from SYNTH — kwami (talk)]

PS. User there, User:Sleyece, has repeatedly deleted the POV tag I've added to the section. I'd also announced a couple weeks ago that I would be adding 2-3 UK polls to the table, to balance what had been all-US polls. I've finally tracked down the 3rd, from the Times, by subscribing so I could access their archives. He had no problem with the first two, but now that we're arguing about the summary column, he's deleted the 3rd without providing any reason. There seems to be an WP:OWN problem here. — kwami (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the POV tag once per Wikipedia policy, and we aren't arguing for the record. I would like to make it clear that I blanket REFUSE to engage in this. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
You deleted the POV tag twice, and there is no such policy. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami WP:SYNTH, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:3RR. User is NOT here to build an Encyclopedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Most frequent quartile is synthesis and should be removed. In order for it to be meaningful, we would have to weigh the various studies. Some studies, I assume, are more respected than others. Note that Nate Silver in his average of polls does that. Also, since more than a quarter of presidents (12 out of 46) have been elected since the first study in 1948, the quartile ranking seems questionable. I also don't like all the colors used for quartile rankings, which is distracting. TFD (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
You just said two different standing consensus on the article should be removed... which is fine, but for the love of God do an RfC! -- Sleyece (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
There was a similar discussion now at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Popular castles of Scotland. The article aggregated various lists to determine an order of popularity. The vote for deletion was unanimous. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular castles of Scotland.} But just because I think the list violates OR doesn't mean I have to write an RfC. TFD (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Your logic is inverted, my good user. Most Frequent Quartile is simple counting, which it is why it was decided on as the consensus. It was specifically put in to avoid any aggregates in the table. Thank you for defending my position, although I didn't need it. I've simply been reverting per consensus. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Then I may not have made myself clear. "Most frequent quartile" is synthesis because it implies that the rankings are of equal weight. Nate Silver, as I mentioned, collates polls for elections. When doing that he weighs the polls according to reliability. He determined for example that the Zogby poll routinely overstates Republican support by on average 1.2% and adjusts them before including in his aggregate.[1] Whether we weigh these surveys equally or adjust them is a matter of judgement, i.e., original research. We cannot do that ourselves, but need a source that does that.
My objection to the color coding of quartiles is not an issue of no original research but mostly aesthetics. The other issue is that more than a quarter of all presidents served after the first study was released. the studies are using different lists.
TFD (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
You're still not getting it. Unless we do something like directly remove all the polls and replace it with Nate Silver's aggregate, replacing MFQ with our own aggregate will be replacing a not perfect solution w/ a far grater WP:SYNTH violation... I also have to admit that you're probably right that this is a situation that may not require an RfC if admins determine a replacement solution that better suits Wikipedia Policy. I don't think making the article the "Nate Silver Display Case" is a good solution, but it would solve the problem on the bleeding edge of technicality. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The color coding of quartiles is to accommodate colorblind readers. Something that is required by Wikipedia policy to the greatest extent possible. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Accommodation for colorblind readers should not be a reason to have important info indicated only by background color. Color-only data is also inaccessible to blind readers. For those reasons, it's strongly recommended against by MOS:COLOR. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Missed this but yes Firefangledfeathers is correct. It's an explicit WCAG violation. We shouldn't be figuring out which color schemes are the most accessible to blind or colorblind users because the simple act of indicating information using background colors is a major accessibility issue. You cannot possibly account for everyone with a disability; the best you can do is adhere to a set of standards to create content that is accessible to the broadest application of people as possible, which is the entire purpose of WCAG, and why WCAG is the gold standard in several countries and international standards. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
TFD's reference to the Popular Castles of Scotland was spot on. Any metric invented by Wikipedia editors (e.g. most frequent quantile or average ranking) is synthesis. At most, you could probably get away with some qualitative meta analysis in the prose, e.g. "Many historians rank Andrew Johnson among the worst presidents", but creating our own scoring system, even if it's completely derived from reliable sources, is synthesis and therefore original research. Local consensus among the editors of the page doesn't overrule policy. The most frequent quantile column should be removed and it should not be replaced with another aggregating function. pburka (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Just use Nate Silver's aggregation of polls of 538. I don't like it, but to remove the data takes a lot away from the table. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
There are options to have an aggregated table that satisfy WP:SYNTH, so saying "The most frequent quantile column should be removed and it should not be replaced with another aggregating function" is a personal opinion that is ALSO WP:SYNTH -- Sleyece (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, I'm being facetious because I already know that "Most Frequent Quartile" is neither Synth nor Original Research because of WP:AVRC -- Sleyece (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Sleyece, you say that averaging the results violates SYNTH but that counting frequency does not. But both are acceptable per AVRC: averaging results is simple arithmetic. But no-one is arguing that the arithmetic violates policy, only that the comparison does. If counting is acceptable, then averaging is acceptable, and averaging gives better results. My objection to the column is that it can rate an above-average president as being in the bottom quartile. Whether or not that's a violation of SYNTH, it's misinformative and IMO should be removed for that reason.
You refused to allow an average score, which would more accurately reflect the poll results, citing SYNTH as the reason, which didn't make sense to me (if one is a violation, they both are), so here we are. — kwami (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The solution to that problem is not to change the aggregator, but to remove older polls from historians that had outdated (and lets face it, abhorrent) personal views. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Neither aggregation is acceptable. Regardless of how simple the calculation is, neither is "an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." There is no obvious, correct, and meaningful way to aggregate the sources. The fact that you two can't agree on the technique seems to support my position. pburka (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
pburka, Sleyece has said (I think) that he's not opposed to averaging the results, but that he was blocked for doing so, so we must therefore use a simple count. That's why I came to the SYNTH board -- it didn't make sense to me that one simple aggregate would be a violation of SYNTH, but not another, so I wanted clarification on whether that's actually policy. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm not opposed to averaging results, I just haven't found a way that doesn't eventually bump synth (all methods I know have been tried). I think removing all of the six polls from before "Sienna 1994" from the table clears up the problems we're having w/ MFQ quite nicely. However, if there is an acceptable aggregate that fits policy better that a basic count, I'm clearly all for it, just cynical about the prospect. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Lmao, there's two types of people in the world. Again, you technically solve the problem with a nuke, when you could also solve it with a letter. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind restricting the comparison to, say, 21st-century polls.
You said you got indef blocked for this issue, and that from that block you learned that only simple counting of quartiles was acceptable per SYNTH. Your understanding of SYNTH stems from that incident. It would therefore be helpful if you could link to the discussion of how quartile-counting is the only acceptable aggregate calculation. I've looked, but I can't find where that was the reason for your block. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I was speaking is the whole. My indef block came when I was an infant editor, and I was trying to do many changes at once to the table we're discussing. The RfC that lead to the establishment of "Most Frequent Quartile" came a couple of years later. However, my entire experience on English Wiki has involved learning and being punished for the policies revolving around that God forsaken table. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:AVRC. It has a section explaining why averaging values from different sources is discouraged. Counting them is equally invalid. If you want to publish your own meta-rankings, use a blog. pburka (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:AVRC is in this case an extension of what Synth is not. And Synth is clearly stated to NOT be intended to be interpreted to be this rigid. Like I've stated several times, this whole table is a maddening bundle of Policy Paradoxes and Logic loops, and you're not going to hit me with a "gotcha". -- Sleyece (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Clearly you're not going to be convinced, but you introduced that essay to support your position, and now dismiss it when it contradicts your desires. Instead, we can look at WP:CALC (an actual policy), which says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Presidential rankings are statistics from different sources that use different methodologies, so should not be compared. And you can't aggregate without comparing. pburka (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:CALC creates a double violation of WP:SYNTH per above. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Jackson was once considered one of the greatest U.S. presidents because he was seen as a champion of the common man. But his presidency has been reassessed and he has fallen from 6 to 22. Less spectacularly, his VP, Martin van Buren, has slipped from 15 to 34, slipping as low as 40 in one survey. As statisticians will tell us, averages can be misleading when there is a wide distribution of values. When Jeff Bezos walks into an Amazon warehouse for example, the average net worth per employee is in the millions, although most employees are working for low wages. TFD (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
One of the polls commented on that. I think it was Jackson, actually. There was a split in how the surveyed historians ranked him, some quite low and some quite high, so he averaged out as middling, making him indistinguishable from the crowd of so-so presidents. Now with Trump, I expect his reputation might take a further hit. But whatever you think of him, he wasn't humdrum, so yeah, his ranking is misleading. But that kind of limitation is inherent in simplistic surveys like this. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Jackson was unanimously ranked in the top ten in the early surveys and now ranks a lot lower. Why should we give the same weight to a 1948 poll as one conducted in 2021? Obviously the criteria used by historians has changed. And the Democratic Party, which once honored him in Jefferson-Jackson dinners, has backed away and he was adopted by of all people Donald Trump who put his portrait in the Oval Office. Nate Silver would have eliminated the early survey as no longer representative and probably would have given 100% weight to the most recent survey which reflects the most up to date thinking of historians.
It's as if in an article showing support for same sex marriage in the U.S., we averaged the 27% of Americans who supported it in 1996 with the 67% who support it today and said support averaged 47%. Not a useful number.
TFD (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. Though Silver wouldn't give 100% to any poll. He'd weight them, which we can't do. But we could have a cut-off date, say this century. That would probably resolve the few cases when the most-frequent quartile diverges from the average. I'm not sure what that would gain us, though: you can see how things line up just by looking at the rest of the chart. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The colors! I had specifically removed those colors because I had deemed them excessive, imparting no real information atop of the number ranking, and even if they did in a manner that didn't violate WP:SYNTH and WP:IINFO, we'd need some text-based means of quartiling per WP:COLOR. I was reverted by a Lawrence 979 (talk · contribs), who disagreed with my judgement of being unnecessary, before SunnySydeRamsay (talk · contribs) pointed out that WP:COLOR still applied. Even if I'm wrong about the quartiling being superfluous, the column of "Most-frequent quartile" is an obvious SYNTH and WP:NPOV breach.

As a brief aside, I had previously encountered an ANI report about another user who coincidentally started with K, concerning WP:COLOR violations in lists created by them in a series that is now facing batch deletion per IINFO and SYNTH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how COLOR is an issue. The colors don't add any info, but rather are just a way to visually organize the data, and as for accessibility were chosen from one of the primary sources recommended by the WP color help page. If they're not good choices, the fault lies there and should be fixed there first. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The sole use of color to convey is a violation of WCAG 2.1 SC 1.4.1. New information is communicated as as one or more mathematical formulas are performed and the results are only communicated through the use of color. A person who is blind or colorblind may have a more difficult experience obtaining that information, whereas if a text-based alternative is provided, the ability to access the content within the article is increased dramatically. These aren't mutually exclusive options either; you can have both color and a text based alternative, and still remain compliant with WCAG. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we tag the cells the way we add summaries to images for screen-readers? — kwami (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure. Can definitely try it out and then test it with a screen-reading software (NVDA is a free one) to see how it outputs. As long as it communicates the information equitably that would work. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Since the unanimous opinion here is that the last column is a violation of SYNTH, no matter how we aggregate the data, I've deleted it. The table is now a simple list of poll results. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, S Marshall, The Four Deuces, Firefangledfeathers, Pburka, LaundryPizza03, and SunnySydeRamsay: I think this has probably been enough time. Can one of you close this discussion? User Sleyece restored the column, claiming that the removal of aggregated data is a violation of SYNTH! With claims like that, I can't tell if he's editing in good faith. Anyway, if you close this discussion with a finding that the column is a violation of SYNTH, I'll remove the column again and enforce through ANI if need be. If you close with a finding that it's not a violation of SYNTH, then I'll leave it be, and perhaps Sleyece and I can come to an agreement to limit the scope of that column to this century. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Even restricting it to this century is a form of weighting. The only aggregates I would find acceptable are min and max, as no weighting is required. Could Sleyece find a compromise around that? (I don't understand the insistence that some aggregation is required, though. The table is fine, and probably better, without it.) pburka (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Even the choice of which polls we include in the table is a form of weighting. I read the discussion above as clear consensus against having the aggregate column. But Sleyece insists that not aggregating the data is a SYNTH vio, and that there is no consensus here against aggregating the data. We seem to be in post-truth territory here, but perhaps I'm missing something. Rather than edit-warring with him over it, I would appreciate a clear summary judgement here as to whether the column is or is not a violation -- and if you judge it is acceptable, then for my benefit, explain whether listing the average quartile rather than the modal quartile would also be acceptable. With a clear judgement here, rather than me tallying your opinions and finding consensus, I would feel more comfortable enforcing the decision. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll

Let's see if we can find a consensus. Please briefly explain your position below. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep: the aggregate quartile column is acceptable routine calculation

Comment Removing the table is also a severe violation of WP:SYNTH, but do whatever you want. I've done my part. This NoR will lead to policy changes in the long run. Removing the table is basically just short term whining and denial of the paradox presented. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete: the aggregate quartile column is unacceptable synthesis

  • Delete. Averaging implies weighting, which requires judgment that veers too far into WP:OR. Even counting the most frequent quartile has biases (selection and recency), but they're more subtle. Just present the raw data and let readers draw their own conclusions. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV, SYNTH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ab initio I take the position that the most frequent quartile column would be a violation of SYNTH because of the note on WP:SYNTH under routine calculations that editors "should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." There are necessarily different methodologies because history is always ongoing, and something that happened twenty, thirty years ago is bound to be viewed differently post facto to some extent. Time is a variable that cannot be properly managed in this table.
As to the earlier discussion, unless I misunderstood the thread, from a logic standpoint, removing content should not equate to a violation of the no original research rule simply because one cannot possibly create new research by removing content, and if one did so, I can't think of a case scenario where it wouldn't be a malicious edit. Such a discussion seems to be epistemically misframed. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete that column. It violates synth because the poll methodologies are different and the units in the polls are different. Perhaps another way can be found, but not averages, and not this. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: thoughtful aggregation and weighting of polls of expert is research work that should be done by reliable sources, not editors. I see this as a straightforward reading of OR. I can't fathom the counterarguments that removing the column violates SYNTH or that CALC doubly violates SYNTH. I lean toward removing the quartile info entirely for similar reasons. If that data is to stay, it should be communicated in some way besides color. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It's synthesis because it assumes that all the studies have equal weight, although they were taken at different times. The most obvious example is Andrew Jackson, who was once considered one of the best presidents, but has since been reassessed because of his perceived racism. TFD (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:CALC says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies."VR talk 01:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

This NoR has been "resolved" by using tunnel vision to resolve SYNTH by committing SYNTH. The square peg that was forced into this round hole will likely fall faster than Kabul. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement at all. How can removing an aggregate calculation commit SYNTH? If we (hypothetically) deleted the page completely would that also be SYNTH in your opinion? I'm trying to understand your position. pburka (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
No, deleting the entire page would not be SYNTH I assume. Deleting that column is SYNTH because there are outside sources that use an aggregate for relatively the same data. So, you're just saying you know more than reputable sources, deleting whatever you don't like, and calling it a day. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
To which reputable sources are you referring? pburka (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not here to hold your hand. I already said "do what you want". -- Sleyece (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael Collins (Irish leader)

Recommend that unaligned/neutral editors review the Michael Collins (Irish leader) article. Large sections are undersourced or unsourced entirely (see [2], [3], [4], et alia. 2603:7000:1301:281D:2C7B:E55:975E:2648 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Recommend that you raise your concerns at the article talk page first (which you don't appear to have done) and, only if they are rejected without good reason, come back here to escalate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Original research at Novogrudok

Article Novogrudok includes dubious statements: Novogrudok never was capital of Lithuania and no reliable sources support statements that Mindaugas was crowned in Novogrudok.

Sentence (this: "Some researchers identified Novogrudok as the first capital of Lithuania...") in this article includes references to non-online English books, thus it is not possible to verify if they really support such dubious statements which are not supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Because of that, it is certain that these non-online sources were added on purpose to defend WP:OR. The claim that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania is supported mostly by Belarusian tourism websites (definitely fails as WP:V, WP:RS in an encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia) and by some questionable late sources (which obviously can be false and does not automatically qualify as truth, especially Belarusian sources which often includes original research and the opposite theories about the Lithuanian history, thus are not recognized internationally and this is one of these extreme cases). We even do not know the exact location of the Lithuanian King Mindaugas capital city (Voruta is the only mention and it has many, many possible locations; some theories even suggests that he had no capital at all), so attempts to prove that somebody exactly knew where Mindaugas was crowned while writing the late sources is even more ridiculous and is an obvious case of WP:OR (late authors were simply guessing and that is not an encyclopedia-level material), so pushing of a 19th century illustration Mindoŭh. Міндоўг (1824).jpg into this article, which depicts the crowning of Mindaugas, is a yet another obvious case of WP:OR (recently persistently performed by users such as Russian-Belarusian Лобачев Владимир and Belarusian named Johnny Moor). Consequently, I request to completely and permanently remove all the dubious, non-verifiable claims from this article because articles of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) are not an internet forum where we could discuss pseudoscience theories. User Sabbatino was also involved in combating this WP:OR, but the Belarusian-side kept on pushing their opinion, so a third-party intervention is a must.

These articles of Encyclopedia Britannica (the most reliable encyclopedia) do not mention such pseudo theories and I can't see why Wikipedia should include them as it also seeks equally high-level reliability standards: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/place/grand-duchy-of-Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mindaugas. But the first Britannica's article does mention other recognized capitals of Lithuania: Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius. The Lithuanians treats the case of Novogrudok as a pure myth (English language article, published by Vilnius University): https://ldkistorija.lt/stories/myths/the-myth-of-navahrudak/. -- Pofka (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • The fact that Novogrudok was the first capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is one of the many theories that are refuted exclusively by Lithuanian scientists. Since this is contrary to the national policy of Lithuania. In addition to Belarusian scientists, Russian sources, Ukrainian sources and Polish sources agree with this. Nevertheless, according to the participant of the Pofka, this version can not be considered at all, while this participant himself writes that the question is very dicussional and many authoritative English sources are silent about it, as Pofka writes. However, at the same time, in parallel with the fact that Pofka himself writes that the issue is debatable, this does not prevent him from pushing the Lithuanian version, which completely denies the theory about Novogrudok, only for the reasons that the city is not located in Lithuania. At the same time, Pofka removes all sources that somehow indicate this and removes not only Belarusian sources. The article mentioned both Voruta and Kernava. I doubt that there is a lot of information about Novogrudok in the articles about Voruta and Kernava. But in these articles, the theory is actively developing, defending that the city that is described was the capital. The Pofka participant was angry about the same technique in the article about Novogrudok. It can be seen that the Pofka member promotes exclusively Lithuanian national policy, masking it under the protection of Wikipedia's neutrality, removing everything that may contradict his views and focusing on the nationality of other participants. It is strange in general how Vilnius can be the first capital when the city was first founded by Gediminas in 1323. Johnny Moor (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Johnny Moor: My reply to his baseless accusations: 1) I did not removed any verifiable online sources and even kept non-verifiable references to English language sources, but, as already presented by Sabbatino, these non-verifiable English sources simply are one of the Wikipedia:HOAXes, thus should be removed; 2) I based this report not on the Lithuanian sources, but on Encyclopedia Britannica, therefore your ridiculous accusations that only the Lithuanian nationalists wants to exclude Novogrudok as capital of Lithuania are simply baseless; 3) It is an absurd when you attack the Lithuanian sources (who comply with Britannica), but defend Belarusian sources as "reliable", despite the fact that they contradict Britannica; 4) Language of sources doesn't matter if it contradicts such reliable sources as Britannica; 5) Nothing about this baseless theory of Novogrudok as capital is developing as it is just a Belarusian myth, not recognized by reliable international sources and it will not be recognized internationally anytime in the future; 6) History is not a science of: "Please, we, Belarusians, want to have at least one capital of Lithuania", but its about facts and facts show that no contemporaneous sources mentions Novogrudok as Lithuania's capital. Deal with it. You will not change history just by pushing pseudoscience theories; 7) As already mentioned in my initial message, false theories presented by scientists of late times doesn't mean that they are at least slightly true; 8) Encyclopedias, unlike internet forums, do not discuss false theories and exclusively presents facts, but, as already mentioned before, facts simply crushes this pseudo theory, so there simply is no place for such WP:OR in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
We do not try to change the story, unlike you Pofka, you refer to sources where there is no information about it at all. You are talking absolute nonsense, how can you contradict the Britannica you have cited, when there is nothing there at all? How can you refer to something that doesn't say anything about it? But you do it perfectly. All that you have given in the previous paragraph only proves that I wrote in my previous paragraph, you do not respect Belarusians as such in general, moreover, you despise them and their point of view and try to promote the Lithuanian national propaganda masking it under the preservation of the authority of Wikipedia. You purposefully ignore Russian, Ukrainian, Russian and Polish scientists. Those sources that you even deigned to leave anyway, you marked as non-authoritative, since it was not written there that Kernava was the capital. You accuse of the falsity of the theory, while brazenly forgetting that Wikipedia is not a place of original research and your statement about the "stupidity of the theory" has nothing to do with it, because there are sources, sources of scientists, articles and articles are written on them. You teach other participants, try to prove only your own truth, and make loud statements, but at the same time you do not actually comply with them. And as a colleague wrote below, you can live on in your wet fantasies. Johnny Moor (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Nice statement: "...how can you contradict the Britannica you have cited, when there is nothing there at all?", seriously? The answer is simple: it is not true that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania at any time, so there is no need to include it in any way. What do you expect to find in Britannica? Something like: "Novogrudok never was capital of Lithuania, step back?". Encyclopedias do not discuss pseudo theories as they simply exclude them. Britannica mentions all three well known capitals of Lithuania: Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius. That's it. The rest are dubious pseudo theories, which should not be included into high-quality encyclopedias, like Britannica and Wikipedia. Even Voruta is dubious and is not included into Britannica. Once again: it does not matter who made false statements. If they are false or are WP:OR, then the language and nationality of authors does not matter. Just because some Americans would publish books with pseudo theories that Paris or Mexico City is the capital of the United States, nobody would include such WP:OP. -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
You can't impose anything on this theory. If we follow your logic, then in all the sources listed by you, there is no direct indication of any Lithuanian city listed by you, where Lithuanian scientists attribute the coronation of Mindovg. At the same time, you only call the theory about Novogrudok a false doctrine. A dubious pseudo-theory is to call Vilnius the capital when the city did not exist, the same with Voruta, a place that none of the scientists can still say exactly where this city is located and if I am not mistaken, the first theories that Voruta was the capital appeared only in the 20th century. As for the other cities, Lithuanian scientists are ready to consider any city without any problems, even if it did not appear anywhere at all. All that you have written is nothing more than the promotion of Lithuanian nationalist politics, which is covered by the rules of our electronic community. Such pseudo-science has no place here, and the only obvious violator here is you.To be honest, I did not see anything new in such a discussion. The usual clash of national mythologies looks something like this. Johnny Moor (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
First of all, Mindaugas, not Mindovg (Mindaugas | ruler of Lithuania | Britannica). Consider learning some Lithuanian language words if you are analyzing the history of Lithuania. Secondly, the Lithuanian scientists do not claim any location where Mindaugas was coronated. However, Vilnius is possible because the first Catholic Church in Lithuania was built in the Vilnius Castle Complex during the reign of Mindaugas and he was crowned as a Catholic King, not Orthodox King (Novogrudok was an Orthodox city, conquered by Mindaugas). Though, from the contemporaneous sources we do not know 100% where he was coronated, so it is simply unknown and we do not perform WP:OR like the Belarusians. Thirdly, about your statement that: "A dubious pseudo-theory is to call Vilnius the capital when the city did not exist, the same with Voruta, a place that none of the scientists can still say exactly where this city is located and if I am not mistaken, the first theories that Voruta was the capital appeared only in the 20th century", really? Vilnius never was capital of Lithuania? So maybe it was Minsk? Vilnius existed before the reign of Gediminas and it is just a beautiful legend that he created Vilnius following the Gediminas' Dream about an iron wolf. As already mentioned, a Catholic Church already stood in Vilnius, built by Mindaugas, so it was a significant city before Gediminas already. And you call yourself as a historian? I will repeat to you once again: Voruta was mentioned in contemporaneous sources when Mindaugas was still alive (it was written that Mindaugas defended himself in Voruta from the Teutonic Order or Livonian Order attack). Novogrudok was never mentioned in contemporaneous sources and associated with the Lithuanian King when Mindaugas was alive. I will not continue discussing with a pseudo historian because you repeat pseudo theories again and again. As already noted by Sabbatino, discussing with the Belarusian nationalists is pointless because they do not listen to facts and continues to push their fairy tales. Third party must solve this and implement sanctions for those who push WP:OR. -- Pofka (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
First, Mindovg, and secondly, you have brazenly attributed to yourself the history of the common history of Belarus and Lithuania, plus you have touched on the history of Ukraine and a little bit of Russia. Third, for your information, Novogrudok is not a purely Orthodox city, there is still a fairly developed Catholic community there, and if I am not mistaken, the Lithuanians remained pagans even after Mindovg Mindovgas, until they began to actively baptize them in the time of Jagiello. Most scholars agree that Mindovg was baptized only because of political ambitions, and even after that he continued to be a pagan. With Mindovg will be Mindovg not only in Belarusian, but also in Russian and Ukrainian Миндовг and Мiндовг, in Polish it generally sounds Mendog. Maybe then you can also show them your claims in other language sections? Fourth, it is interesting to say that Belarusians do not believe that Vilnius was the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at all. Seriously, how do you draw such conclusions? Did Vilnius exist before Gediminas? Well, of course, if you count the small settlements that were there during the Mesolithic, then, of course, Vilnius can generally be considered older than Rome itself. As a result, I will say that it is ridiculous to hear accusations that Belarusians are "pseudo-scientists and repulsed nationalists" from someone who does not look at himself in the mirror at all. You can promote the policy of the Republic of Lithuania in any other place, because your "historical knowledge" can be attributed to a well-known Russian program "Territory of Delusions", which tells about aliens and the like this. Of course, you don't need anything but your opinion, because you live in your own fairy-tale world, a world where only you rule. You yourself spoke about the meaninglessness of the discussion, while you yourself brought it all up for discussion, insulted and threatened other participants, plus told everyone about your greatness. Well, in principle, I did not expect anything else from the statement of a radical Lithuanian nationalist. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pofka: Good luck dealing with Litvinist editors. One of the reasons why I almost entirely stopped editing the content related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was due to Litvinist editors' brainless approach towards the issues since they tend to ignore anything that comes from Lithuanian editors and just keep repeating themselves by adding the same sources (which are almost always WP:SYNTH and are questionable most of the time) or they just combine multiple sources and create WP:HOAXes. Therefore, I decided that it is not worth trying to reason with them and thought that they should continue living in their fairy tale world. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: That's why such WP:OR should be removed from the article of Novogrudok and those who keep on reinserting pseudoscience theories be immediately presented with sanctions: firstly, a temporary block, then permanent block if the pushing of WP:OR continues. Constant trampling of Wikipedia:Five pillars and other rules of Wikipedia should not be tolerated, no matter how aggressive some nationalists are. Blocking of users stops even the most aggressive individuals. -- Pofka (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Your threats to other participants are pathetic and ridiculous. In the pursuit of defending the Lithuanian national policy and in the absence of arguments, you turn to direct threats of reprisal against other participants. Johnny Moor (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Rules are made to be followed, not to be constantly trampled. Do not insert WP:OR and nobody will impose any sanctions. But if you seek to rewrite history with WP:OR, then sorry, but we have nothing in common. -- Pofka (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Of all of us, only you hide behind the rules while you yourself refuse to join them, accusing other participants of what you yourself are most guilty of WP:OR. At the same time, you still dare to make threats to other participants. Johnny Moor (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
It is you and your fellow Belarusian nationalists who push WP:OR, not me. I respect rules and do not create fairy tales in an encyclopedia. -- Pofka (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Declares, the one who does not want to hear anything while blaming the others for the fact that he is actively engaged. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: As expected, this discussion will be fruitless with the Belarusian nationalists who stubbornly push baseless WP:OR. I request third-party administrators to take actions against spreading of WP:OR at the article Novogrudok about it being the capital of Lithuania at any period and apply sanctions to users if they continue it. I will not continue replying to Johnny Moor because it is truly pointless, as noted by Sabbatino. Neutral users: ping me if necessary. -- Pofka (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: As it should be proved, this Lithuanian participant is an ardent Lithuanian nationalist who defends and promotes nationalist Lithuanian politics, calling versions different from Lithuanian scientists absurd, hiding behind the rules on orginal research, WP:OR, only on the grounds that he refuses to take into account alterative opinions and points of view. The participant disrespectfully treats other participants of Wikipedia, at the same time he started this conversation, he was hinted at several times in the process, including Sabbatino, that it is useless to argue with him because he refuses to take into account any other position at all. He, on the other hand, does not seem to see it at all and again blames everything on others as if he did not notice it on purpose. Plus, he exposes incomprehensible theories and tries to prove his point of view, which just falls under the original research, WP:OR, which he himself is happy to accuse other participants of. I, in turn, ask the administrators of Wikipedia to stop this absurdity, because Wikipedia, thanks to Lithuanian nationalists, becomes a platform for promoting only their national interests, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Johnny Moor (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Lithuania was established in the 14th century and Mindaugas lived in the early to mid 13th century, so it is an irrelevance to whether Novogrudok was the place where Mindaugas was crowned and it also being the supposed capital of Lithuania, as the rulers of Lithuania (including the Catholic King of Lithuania Mindaugas) were not Orthodox during the whole existence of the Metropolitanate. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

He then proceeded to conquer his homeland in the 1240s, rather than the other way around: that is, Mindaugas attacked Lithuania from Navahrudak, rather than attacking Navahrudak from Lithuania (Andrew Wilson. Belarus. 2 Litva)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This sentence is spurious because it is illogical, a problem only worsened by the fact your claim has a source with a paywall. How can the author even make such doubtful claims about Mindaugas' homeland when so much is simply unknown? Lack of sources does not mean that it is allowed to invent nonsense. Even worse for your sentence is that what is known about Mindaugas directly refutes such claims, as Mindaugas was one of the Lithuanian dukes (List of early Lithuanian dukes) and, in the 1240s, Lithuania conquered Novogrudok, not the other way around, so that sentence is straight-up lies. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

support from the people of Navahrudak, Mindaugas conquered Lithuania – the enclave of the Baltic population on the Belarusian lands – and subjugated it to himself, ie to the land of Navahrudak. (The Discourse on Identity in a Global Consumption–Based Society: Between Myth and Reality)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Total nonsense. It is clearly written and sourced in the Novogrudok article, that: "In 1241, Grand Duke Mindaugas conquered Novogrudok." The falsehood of "Baltic enclaves on Belarusian lands" is demonstrable by the fact that there were no Belarusians as such during those times, ergo no Belarusian lands (just as there would be no Belgians or Americans in the Middle Ages). However, Balts are known, due to Marija Gimbutienė's and other's research, to have lived from the Vistula to Moscow (if not an even larger area) since millennia before Christ. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The need to resist the pressure of Tatars and German crusaders forced the people of Belarus to consolidate around the rapidly expanding principality with the capital of Navahrudak (Novogrudok) ruled by a Lithuanian prince Mindaugas. By the middle of the 14th century, all the territory of modern Belarus was attached to The Great Principality of Lithuania, Russia and Zhamoytiya (GPL). By the 15th century, the territory of the GPL expanded from Brest to Smolensk and from Baltic to the Black Sea. The origin of the Belarusian language, the Belarusian culture and the Belarusian nation itself should be looked for in the GPL where 90% of the population were Slavonic and the state language was old Belarusian. The current borders of Belarus in the East, the South and the West almost coincide with that of the GPL in 16th century. (THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH, 1994)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Lithuania was formed on the basis of the ethnically Lithuanian Lithuania proper. The theory of the capital at Novogrudok was mentioned for the first time after centuries had passed since Mindaugas and the relevant time frame. The claim about the capital has no validity, as for now, the only contemporary mention of a 13th-century capital is Voruta, whose location is a matter of debate, but it was certainly not in newly taken over lands.
Any attempt to masquerade that GDL was a Belarusian or Slavic state is a complete misportrayal, as the Kingdom, later Grand Duchy, of LITHUANIA was founded by Lithuanians according to Encyclopedia Brittanica, this research project, this research article and multitudes of other sources. All of these sources are objective and following WP:NPOV, contrary to whatever Лобачев Владимир is quoting. A state can be of a certain ethnicity even if the state is multi-ethnic. e.g. Apartheid South Africa (ASA). The white minority was ruling over the black majority (Zulu people, Xhosa people, etc.). Does having a majority black population make ASA a black state? No - the state belonged to the whites, not to the blacks. So, ASA was founded and maintained by the white Afrikaners - it was a white state. What about GDL? Where there Slavs in it? Yes. Even if they were a majority in some parts of it, which is uncertain due to lack of statistical data and Polonization/Slavicization affecting many Lithuanians, that in no way makes GDL a Slavic State. GDL was founded by Lithuanians, maintained by a Lithuanian elite and is thus a LITHUANIAN STATE. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I've checked 3 English-language sources (which are presumably freer from local biases) from the article and one of them explicitly names Novogrudok "the capital of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy" rebuilt by Mindaugas. Geddie says that Gediminas, a century after Mindaugas, had a residence in Novogrudok but says that Vilna was the capital. Philips does not mention either Novogrudok or Vilna on p. 78. So the sources in the article don't fully support the statement.

I see that additional sources have been provided here, so I would suggest to incorporate them into the article and remove the ones which don't discuss the topic. Also, I think that the concept of capital might be anachronistic for the lands rules by Mindaugas, so maybe it's worth avoiding it in favour of more concrete facts: where he was crowned, where he had his residences, etc. Alaexis¿question? 06:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Russian sources obviously fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources in a Lithuania-related topic due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation. Provide non-Belarusian, non-Russian reliable source. Encyclopedia Britannica do not support this WP:OR. This English source certainly is not a reliable source and is absolutely not comparable with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Novogrudok never was capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is a WP:OR of some Russians and Belarusians, not supported by other reliable sources. The only mentioning of Mindaugas's castle (unknown if it was capital or not) is Voruta. Not surprisingly, location of his crowning is also unknown, thus various modern WP:OR should not be presented. Following the conquest of Novogrudok by Mindaugas, the city was ruled by his son Vaišvilkas(Lithuanian reference about this). -- Pofka (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ru: Государство Миндовга не имело постоянной столицы, правитель со своей дружиной перемещался по дворам и замкам, утверждал свою власть и собирал дань. Историки гипотетически реконструировали домен Миндовга, который располагался в Восточной Литве. Миндовг рано утвердился на землях Чёрной Руси (центр – г. Новогрудок); в Полоцке правил племянник Миндовга князь Товтивил, признававший его власть, что положило начало литовской экспансии на русские земли.

Translation: The state of Mindaugas did not have a permanent capital, the ruler with his retinue moved around the courtyards and castles, asserted his power and collected tribute. Historians hypothetically reconstructed the Mindaugas domain, which was located in Eastern Lithuania. Mindaugas early established itself on the lands of Black Russia (center - Novogrudok); in Polotsk the nephew of Mindaugas ruled, Prince Tovtivil, who recognized his power, which marked the beginning of the Lithuanian expansion to the Russian lands.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Show such statements in Encyclopedia Britannica. :) The fact that you keep reinserting Russian/Belarusian sources only strengthens the obvious fact that you and your friends push WP:OR into Wikipedia and systematically violate its rules on a daily basis. Russian/Belarusian sources can be simply ignored and proves absolutely nothing in a Lithuania-related topic because it is inappropriate to write other countries history from a foreign POV, especially when foreign sources contradict the national historiography, which is supported by democratic countries abroad. This discussion is long enough already, but users Johnny Moor and Лобачев Владимир fail to provide at least one non-Belarusian, non-Russian Wikipedia:Reliable source supporting their statements. Funny, but it was obvious from the start that they will be unable to defend their propaganda with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a policy clarification - if there are Belarusian sources that say Novogrudok was the capital, then saying so on WP can not be called Original Research (as the idea did not originate here on WP). I have no opinion on whether those sources are reliable or not… but their existence means the idea is not WP:OR. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Blueboar: It would not be a problem if it said that Novogrudok was capital of Belarus, but they are ridiculously attempting to prove false statements about a foreign country - Lithuania and the Lithuanian, non-Belarusian, non-Russian sources do not support such pseudo theories, propaganda. I cannot see any reasons why attempts to distort facts about foreign countries should be tolerated in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia), which is based on facts. Would we, for example, accept statements from various Iraqi sources, which would claim that the United States is a terrorist state or just imagine if we would rewrite article United States based on sources from Iran? Toleration of false information about foreign countries would quickly open the Pandora's box in Wikipedia. This discussion has clearly shown that when I asked to provide at least one reliable non-Belarusian, non-Russian source these editors were not able to do that. That's a perfect illustration how fake these statements are and this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but it is not surprising as these sources were published in an authoritarian states. According to Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", so it is clear that no reliable sources were provided as of now, therefore it is a baseless WP:OR. -- Pofka (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Blueboar:, as you can see, this issue is very much politicized by modern Lithuanians. Who refuse to take into account any source that mentions it in any way, saying that it is either evil Russians or Belarusians. In the article about Novogrudok itself, if you noticed, there were not only Belarusian and Russian sources (and after all, the sources may be simply Russian-speaking without reference to Russia itself), nevertheless, the Lithuanian participants refuse to take them into account at all, since this contradicts their doctrine, which they are ready to sift out in any way. It is useless to prove to the Lithuanian participants that either is useless, you have seen for yourself their loud statements and the pressure with which they push their point of view. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
So will you finally provide a reliable online non-Belarusian, non-Russian source supporting statements that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania? Save your and others time. I provided articles from Britannica which are fully neutral and completely reliable. Here is one more which says that the Belarusians had no state until 1918 (Belarus | Britannica). We don't need your walls of texts in which you baselessly blame the Lithuanians for denying your fairy tales. Afterall, Belarus and Russia are currently considered as an authoritarian states, so rejecting unreliable sources about other countries is understandable. -- Pofka (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Your judgments that Belarus and Russia are "authoritarian states" and therefore their opinions cannot be taken into account are worth a lot. You didn't care that many of these sources were written a long time ago, some are even chronicles. That is, if some source was written in tsarist Russia, Kaiser's Germany or Austria-Hungary, then it is forbidden to take them into account, so there were authoritarian regimes there? Do not accuse us of promoting "fairy tales", while you are doing the same thing that you accuse others of. And your link to the Briatnik does not show anything at all, because it is generally empty from your own words. Is it normal to insert a source where there is no information at all about the described event? And you still refer to the original research everywhere here, despite the fact that you have not provided any reliable source refuting this theory to any of your statements. And most importantly, where did you see in the article about Novogrudok that "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is an exclusively Belarusian state", where did you get such interesting statements? You are sitting here all day promoting the Lithuanian national agenda, while "we are still wasting time". You would have done something useful, not rewriting history. Your recent statements are pure Xenophobia, I note that none of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian editors have ever refused or scolded Lithuanian resources, which is what you are actively doing. Your behavior is disgusting and not worthy of Wikipedia. Johnny Moor (talk) 11:09, 09 August 2021 (UTC)
As expected, yet again none neutral sources were provided to support false nationalistic claims about the history of Lithuania. Pure pseudoscience and baseless accusations. -- Pofka (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on SYNTH, OR...

Hypothetically speaking, if I had reliable sources which claimed, for example:

<source 1> " 'Sex' refers to biological characteristics"

<source 2> " 'Sex' refers to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions"

<source 3> "Sex is typically assigned based on a person's reproductive system and other physical characteristics"

Would it be acceptable to summarize thusly: " 'sex' refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy"<source 1><source 2><source 3>

Or is this "SYNTH"? Tewdar (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Or even...

<1> " 'Sex' refers to the biological aspects of an individual"

<2> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as chromosomes"

<3> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as hormones"

<4> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as an individual's reproductive system"

And so summarize as: " 'sex' refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy"<1><2><3><4> Tewdar (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  • This sounds like a hypothetical question crafted to claim pre-approval for inserting transphobic "gender critical" claims into Wikipedia by selectively citing sources. Is there an actual content dispute? pburka (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Pburka was that really necessary.CycoMa (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for failing to AGF. I should have waited for Tewdar to explain the actual content dispute so that we could understand the context for the question without guessing. pburka (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, I was trying to clarify the guidelines more than discuss the actual content dispute. Apology accepted though. Tewdar (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is or was a content dispute. No, I vehemently reject your analysis that this hypothetical looks "crafted to claim pre-approval for inserting transphobic "gender critical" claims into Wikipedia" - this is the most hurtful thing anyone has said to me in years. Tewdar (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


The problem with hypothetical questions is that the most frequent answer is "it depends." It's a strange hypothetical anyway. The sex of crocodiles incidentally depends on the temperature of the eggs. TFD (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, look: if A, B, C, and D are individually listed as examples of a set of attributes X that define a concept Z in 4 different sources, is it SYNTH to write "Z refers to X-type attributes, such as A, B, C"<1,2,3,4>? Tewdar (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
e.g 1) "A cheese factory might make a variety of cheeses, such as brie", 2) "A cheese factory might make a variety of cheeses, such as yarg" 3) "A cheese factory might make a variety of cheeses, such as cheddar and Red Leicester" >>> "A cheese factory might make a variety of cheeses, such as brie, yarg, and cheddar"<1,2,3> Tewdar (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Please link to the actual content dispute instead of describing hypotheticals. pburka (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm no longer interested in the content dispute. I'm also not particularly interested in talking to *you* before you retract your disgusting implication above. I'm interested in if, in principle, sources can be merged in the manner described above, using cheese. Tewdar (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It depends… are the sources considered reliable on the subject of factory made cheeses? Do they all use the same definition of the terms “cheese” and “factory”? Are there other sources that disagree (such as a 4th source that says that proper brie must be made by hand and never in a factory)? In other words, specifics matter in determining SYNTH. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I was at the article with this dispute, full disclosure, but yes, this is SYNTH. Source 2 defines sex based on anatomy which is produced by hormones etc., and source 3 defines it as categorical and again based on anatomy (physical characteristics). Source 1 basically just mentions biology. It is SYNTH to take this and say that sex "refers to" hormones or chromosomes. Someone can have atypical chromosomes (like Trisomy X) or hormone levels due to a medical condition, but they are still members of their sex. Also, one editor's accusation of transphobia above is baseless, as well as being extremely inappropriate and inflammatory; it can only help to create a chilling effect. Crossroads -talk- 03:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay seriously Tewdar I feel like you truly don’t understand the issue at hand. Here’s the thing about the definition of sex, it really depends on the context and who you ask.

Like if you asked a physiologist they might tell you a woman is a person who identifies as one. If you asked a biologist they might tell you a woman is a homo-sapien that can produce ovum. If you asked sociologist they might tell you it’s a person who has a feminine gender role.

The reason this is the case is because one,the topic of sex and gender is currently a controversial issue. Amd two, all these individuals have different expertise on the topic.CycoMa (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I am no longer interested in the content dispute. I am asking for clarification on whether merging content from several sources, in the hypothetical manner described above, is ***necessarily*** always WP:SYNTH, or whether, as Blueboar alluded to, it may be dependent on the specifics. :@CycoMa - Please, can you stop repeating the same thing over and over again and claiming I don't understand and so on. Here's what you said about the contested content, ***BEFORE*** I added a bunch of references: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1039431728&type=revision
You said: "Yup, the tweak that Tewdar made did indeed fix the issue at hand"
Then Crossroads said more sources were needed. So I added more sources that pretty much said, in very general terms, the same thing. So, adding **more** sources, some of which were worded almost identically, makes the claim **less** valid, does it?! Tewdar (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • As an analogy here, go to the Mind–body dualism article. Now, you wouldn't expect to see "mind" as defined by psychologists and "body" as defined by biologists, would you? No (at least, not in the lede, and only marginally elsewhere in the article, which is indeed what the article does). You would expect to see Aristotle and Descartes blathering on about their pre-modern conceptions of "mind" and "body", *within the context of this debate*. Same with the "sex and gender distinction". Within the context of this debate, "sex" and "gender" are *absolutely overwhelming* described in the (very general) sort of language that I summarized in that article. Tewdar (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah you are right your tweak did indeed fix that issue also Crossroads was the one who removed the source from that revision, I didn’t agree with his removal of the source.
But, when you added more sources to that sentence it became SYN. Because the sources you added later didn’t support the statement in the sentence.CycoMa (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads didn't just remove the source, he removed the source *and* the sentence - a sentence that is supported by the article content. A sentence that is so commonly found in the literature and textbooks on this distinction that it doesn't even *require* any references, at least not in the lede. Tewdar (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, I'd like someone from whoever lurks on this noticeboard (i.e. not you or Crossroads) to tell me I committed SYN. Firefangledfeathers didn't seem to agree that it was SYN, for example. Tewdar (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Here’s some advice for citing sources. You don’t need to cite too many sources. When someone asks for more sources for a sentence they typically one two or three sources for that sentence.CycoMa (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Who writes, " "Sex" refers to the biological apparatus, the male and the female - our chromosomal, chemical, anatomi­cal organization. "Gender" refers to the meanings that are attached to those differences within a culture. "Sex" is male and female; "gender" is masculinity and femininity­ - what it means to be a man or a woman." Tewdar (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Who writes, "Sex.The term sex is ordinarily used in a biological context to refer to the anatomical and physiological differences between the female and male and the implication of those differences in procreation. Human sexual behavior is elaborated and modified in a great variety of ways,including those related to learning cultural standards and norms...Gender.The term gender is also used to distinguish the female and male members of the human species but with the emphasis upon social rather than upon biological factors. Implicit is the recognition that what constitutes “women” and “men” may be as much a product of socialization as of biology. Beyond the truly biological level,most of the differences of consequence between women and men are referred to as gender differences." Tewdar (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • And so, with a whole bunch of other, probably unneeded citations, I summarized: "In this context, sex is used to refer to differences in biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy, while gender refers to the significance of those differences within a particular culture." Tewdar (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • First, you must distinguish between definitions and descriptions. The first contain essential characteristics while the second contain accidental ones. Accidental characteristics may not apply to all members. The characteristics you mention are mostly accidental. Since chromosones for example do not determine sex in all species, it is an accidental characteristic and not part of the definition.
Second, combining definitions can be synthesis if the two sources have different concepts of the term. In a very obvious case, one should not combine the definition of Mars the god with Mars the planet. But disagreements can also exist where the topic is the same. There are for example various definitions of fascism that conflict with each other and therefore disagreement on which groups were fascist. One says that it is imposed by the ruling class to stifle dissent, while another says that it is imposed by the lower middle class. One cannot combine the two definitions since the synthesized defintion would contradict both the sources.
You can however add to descriptions when both sources use the same definition. So if one source says domestic cows are raised for beef and milk, while another says they are raised on farms, you can combine the two.
TFD (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
First, the "sex and gender distinction" article, and virtually all the surrounding literature, is about humans. Secondly, almost all of the discussion in the "sex-gender distinction" (which is a thing) usually has very little to do with sex, and everything to do with gender. Hence, "sex" is *described*, often in fuzzy and non-specialist language, as "anatomical-body-type stuff", and not really *defined*. Hence the preponderance of accidental characteristics used in the description. The contrast, "sex==biological-stuff, gender==socio-cultural stuff" is very widely found, even if there is some variance in particular descriptions of this contrast, which certainly, in my view, does not defy summarizability. Tewdar (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Tewdar I noticed how you mentioned that all the literature on sex and gender distinction are about humans. That’s because gender in itself is exclusively a human thing.
Plants and animals don’t have pronouns, gender identity, or gender clothing.CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I said that, in response to TFD, who said, "Since chromosones for example do not determine sex in all species, it is an accidental characteristic and not part of the definition."
You said, "gender in itself is exclusively a human thing". <Sigh> thanks for that. I don't mean to be insulting here, but didn't you say that you weren't really interested in sociology? Tewdar (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Just because it doesn’t interest me doesn’t mean I don’t know that gender is a human concept.CycoMa (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
What I mean is... why are you giving me this "enlightening" information? Do you thing I don't know Gramsci from Durkheim, or what? Tewdar (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
You mentioned that all literature on sex and gender distinction is about humans.CycoMa (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I said that, in response to TFD, who said, "Since chromosones for example do not determine sex in all species, it is an accidental characteristic and not part of the definition." Tewdar (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
In all honesty, for the good of my mental and physical health, I think am going to voluntarily ban myself from any further interaction with you or editing of pages you contribute to. Please someone mark this thread resolved so that I am not tempted to reply any more. Tewdar (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
If chromosomes defined sex, then the term would have had no meaning before they were discovered. We know about the connection between chromosomes and sex empirically, which makes it an accidental quality. And why would it be defined differently for humans and other species? incidentally, nouns also have genders - masculine, feminine and neuter. TFD (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces that’s because biological sex was never defined that way.CycoMa (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Biological sex has been defined by gamete type for a long time, like [this source] from the 1920s defines biological sex this way.CycoMa (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gender isn't exclusively about humans, nouns have genders, just that in English it is usually neutral.

It's more accurate to say that is how we determine sex rather than the definition. As MedicalNewsToday says, "“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition."[5] That has always been true, what has changed is that empirical research has allowed us to discover more of the differences. Your 1921 source for example says, "Now as a matter of fact only one thing has been settled irrevocably, and that is that one individual will have the chromosome composition characteristic of a male and another individual that of a female." It then says, "A male is usually an individual that produces spermatazoa and a female one that produces ova." These are not definitions but observations. It does not say what sex to assign someone who has the chromosome composition of a male and produces ova.

Of course one could define a male as a human that has XY chromosomes and females as having XX chromosomes. But then all other attributes associated with sex become accidental. You cannot combine a source that uses this definition with one that says sex can be determnined by hormones, because they are using different definitions.

You said this was a hypothetical question then narrowed it to humans and biological science. That seems to be moving the goalposts.

TFD (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces MedicalNewsToday isn’t a reliable source, also I recommend you read the article sex. Like seriously the sex chromosome definition is a problematic definition because it only thinks about humans.
The theory of evolution debunked the idea humans are special. Like seriously I feel like I have to repeat myself over and over.CycoMa (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
No Wikipedia RSN discussion has said it is unreliable. In any case what they write accurately represents the literature. If you disagree, present a reliable source that says something different. In fact it is consistent with what you already presented and you never presented evidence those "definitions" were reliably sourced.
What's the relevance of your comment that humans are not special when you just said that they are? That we are talking about sex in humans not living beings in general? It's more like a wind-up than a genuine argument, as you keep changing arguments.
TFD (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces the original poster said the discussion is resolved, there is no need to continue this discussion. If you like to continue this discussion you can do it on my talk page if you like.CycoMa (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay but anyway the original poster stated that this should be marked off as resolved. So I don’t think there is any reason to continue this conversation.CycoMa (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

List of Wikipedias

Just saying. 🙂 I just noticed that this mainspace list would usually deserve a {{third-party}} tag. Except that it perhaps doesn't because we trust our own data. We specifically use Meta and Commons pages as source for statements in the lead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Given its pervasiveness, Wikipedia should probably add an 'except when navel-gazing' clause to WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N etc, for the sake of honesty. Either that, or stop pretending that it can be a tertiary source about itself, and take such content out of article space entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
This is somewhat covered in WP:CIRCULAR, which states "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia." WP:ABOUTSELF could also be invoked, as could WP:PRIMARY: many lists are largely composed of primary elements that have little to no third-party coverage, such as List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters or List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yahwism#Torah appears to be OR

Unfortunately I can't see most of the sources, the couple that I can don't directly back the text. This looks more like an essay making an argument not directly made by the sources. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Aside from that, it looked to be POV in some places and cited the scriptural texts themselves (which also violates OR). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hitler: The Rise of Evil

Hitler: The Rise of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor persists in restoring a "Historical inaccuracies" section" (removed as policy violating five years ago) that is longer than the rest of the article combined without a single source actually criticising the historical inaccuracy of the show, instead relying on John Toland's biography of Hitler published in 1976, a mere 27 years before the show was on TV. Or a primary source document from 1933. That's on the rare occasions there are any sources cited at all.215 not out (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional input is needed

There's currently an editor who goes by the name of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz tagging a massive amount of sources in the article European emigration, here's a diff where the effect of his edits can be appreciated [6]. As can be seen in the article's edit history [7], other editors (Chule87 and John beta)[8][9] and me[10] have reverted him as we think his behavior and reasonings may be questionable but the editor reverts[11] and carries on. I've engaged him in the sources related to Mexico, as are the sources I have expertise on and I've found his arguments to be rather than those of an editor trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy, to be those of an editor incurring overreaching and incurring on WP:HEAR (and this may be the case for most of the other sources he is tagging). For example, he tags (and considers original research) a source that states that "nearly half of the surveyed Mexican population is White" under the argument that the source "does not state what the total population of Mexico was at the time" and that "it was conducted only in adults" disregarding that censuses and surveys are in the big majority of cases conducted only in adults [12]. I bring the case here as the editor himself suggested it in the article's talk page [13] so clearly additional input is going to be needed here. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, Pob3qu3. I have expressed my concerns on the Talk page: Talk:European emigration, in some detail, and would ask that people take a look at my comments there, rather than me repeating them here.
My basic point is that although the infobox in the article gives specific population numbers for a variety of countries, with citations, when you go to those citations and search for those specific numbers, you don't find those numbers. That strikes me as "failed verification" - the reader can't find the cited numbers in the sources being cited. That's what I've been tagging, when I can't find the cited number in the article cited in support. If I've made a mistake in any of my searches, and an article does in fact give the number it is cited for, I hope other editors will draw it to my attention, and I will gladly acknowledge my mistake.
Other editors have said that they take percentages from those articles, multiply them against population numbers from other sources, and then put the results into the infobox. The problem is that that multiplication process is done by editors, without stating that they are doing so, and without giving any source for the population numbers that they are using. The bottom line is that the reader can't find the numbers given in the infobox in most of the articles cited. That seems a pretty clear case of Original research: Synthesis of published material and breach of Verifiability.
I also note, by way of comparison, that the article White Mexicans states that the population estimates for Mexico have a considerable variance: "Estimates range 11 million to 59 million". The number of 59 million is the one that triggered this disagreement on the European emigration page. While Wikipedia isn't a reliable source itself, that fact that a closely related article says that there is such variance is a factor to take into account in assessing the issue raised by this disagreement. It seems to suggest that there is not a consensus amongst experts on the population percentage, which gives a considerable variation in the estimates. Wikipedia editors don't get to choose which estimates are the best ones; when there is such marked variance in the base percentage, we should report that fact, as is done on the page for White Mexicans.
Finally, there are two countries which do give very clear numbers in official sources for populations of European descent: Canada and New Zealand. Those sources are cited in the infobox for those two countries. Those are the types of sources that are needed for the other countries, in my opinion.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like everyone here is acting in good faith, so that's a good start. It's true, as far as I know, that the source does need to explicitly state the figure, or else it is in fact failed verification. @Pob3qu3:, do you agree that the source should state the figure explicitly? There must be reliable sources for population estimates somewhere, right? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes Pyrrho the Skeptic, but I have to point out that this is not the issue here, the sources that explicitly back up figures are there, the core problem I have with Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is in diffs such as this one[14] he claims that those sources shouldn't be used because "they surveyed only people who are older than 18" "do not mention what the total population number of Mexico was at the time" and "the methodology used to perform that calculation is not mentioned" this is something that I consider is overreaching and unreasonable, and may constitute a case of WP:HEAR and WP:BLUESKY. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I agree with you on that point. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not challenging the methodology of the study. I'm challenging the methodology of the Wikipedia editors, who are using that study to extrapolate population figures not given in the study. That's the concern with synthesis and lack of verifiability.
First, with respect to the age range for the study: can it be properly applied to the Mexican population of all ages? I don't know. That seems to be a matter of statistical analysis and theory. That is my concern: taking a study that was designed for a specific age range, and applying it to the entire population, regardless of age. Where do Wikipedia editors get the statistical knowledge to say that is a valid extrapolation? That's not a comment on the methodology of the study; it's a concern with the methodology being used by the Wikipedia editors.
Second, another methodology concern with the Wikipedia editors is when they do their extrapolations from the data in the study. What population figures are the other editors using to carry out their extrapolations? We don't know. What is the source of those population figures? We don't know. Are those population figures reliable? We don't know. None of that information is included in the European emigration article. The figures that they produce by their multiplications are not verifiable, and the methodology they use to produce the numbers in the infobox is not given to the reader. I don't see that as "Bluesky"; population numbers change; statistical methodologies change; reliable sources change. Wikipedians don't get to do the stats; we report on the stats. For me, that is the basic problem of editorial synthesis, and lack of verifiability, contrary to the core principles of Wikipedia.
Third, if the numbers used by the other Wikipedia editors are "Bluesky", why does the article on White Mexicans give such a broad range of estimated population, from 11 million to 59 million? That strongly suggests that the experts in this area are in disagreement about the proportions within the population. How can Wikipedia editors choose one study, which produces the 59 million number by their extrapolations, and ignore the other studies, which produce the 11 million number? Again, that's my methodology concern - not with the methodology of the people who produce the studies, but the methodology of the Wikipedia editors who choose one study, and produce an estimated population of 59 million, but apparently ignore other statistical analyses, which produce an estimate of 11 million.
All of this goes to the bottom line question: how does the reader find the numbers, if they aren't reported in the cited source? Wikipedia will no longer be reporting on the stats; Wikipedia will be generating the stats. It would be a significant change to Wikipedia policy, in my opinion, if editors get to start producing their own stats (even with the best intentions) rather than just reporting on them. That's what turns the numbers in the infobox into original research. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
To put it another way: the editors who are producing these population stats are extrapolating from studies (using additional information which is not included in the WP article), but then cite to the studies. The reader is led to believe that the population numbers come from the studies. Actually, the population numbers come from Wikipedia editors, who cite to the studies in support of their extrapolations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, your insistence on questioning methodologies clearly meets the criterias of WP:HEAR and specially WP:LAWYERING, It's extremely easy to look up, on Wikipedia if you want, what the population of a given country is and calculate from there, this is clearly WP:BLUESKY, it seems as if you wanted the total population of every country to be sourced next to each estimate and you haven't stopped to think about how impractical that is. Your complaint about the age range in the Mexican survey qualifies as WP:HEAR and WP:LAWYERING aswell, as you selctively ignore that most if not all censuses and surveys made in the world are conducted in populations that are over 18 years of age, technically no source will ever meet the criteria for which you are trying to invalidate the sources for Mexico. Regarding the ranged estimate found in the article for White Mexicans, it must be taken into account that the sources that give the lower estimates are largely outdated and even directly refuted by newer research, such as this one, that in the page 9, note 1 directly refutes the World Facbook figures [15]. I haven't removed them myself despite being totally outdated by now because I thoguht keeping them would discourage edit warring, as that article is often targeted by throwaway accounts that want to change the numbers to the lowest end, but I have no problem with them being removed. I hope this seetles that matter, as to spread out the discussion makes it harder to follow for third parties. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think "clearly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and the "refutation" of the World Factbook figures is an article in a predatory journal, so not reliable/usable. In general I'd expect to see population figures reliably-sourced. Such figures are not "sky is blue" type truisms. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I've done some reading on types of journals and I found some disagreement about the status of Clut Journals [16] (although I'm aware Researchgate is not the best source, this is mostly anecdotical). I also have to note that the World Factbook itself has been found to be unreliable and outdated in and out of Wikipedia numerous times. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment This is a lot to read and think about, and I'll step away and let others comment, but my suggestion would be for one of you to (if necessary) take this to a Request for Comment, another relevant project page, or right here, but with a concise summary of the issue and see if it comes to consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment I feel that this is original research. Extrapolating population counts from survey results is fraught with risks, and we should leave that to experts. Even combining a percentage from one source with a total population from another source is risky, as is showing population counts from different countries side-by-side if they come from different sources that might use different methodologies. pburka (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for joining the discussion, it's true that methodologies and standards differ from country to country, it's a shortcoming that articles who deal with ethnic groups as a whole face often. Taking that into consideration I suggested in the article's talk page to add a notice that made clear that this may be the case [17] but my suggestion was ignored and the discussion instead moved to the point that the editor Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is invalidating reliable sources for reasons such as the sources in question "stating percentages, not numbers"; "not stating what the total population of a given country was at the time" and "the source only surveying people who are over 18 years of age" as shown on this diffs [18][19], which are evident examples of WP:HEAR & WP:LAWYERING and is the reason the case in this noticeboard needed to be created, as the editor said that he was not gonna change his mind no matter what [20]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like we all agree that it's original research, and I don't think it's helpful or productive to criticize the other editor's approach to correcting that. If I understand correctly, your proposal is to add a warning and MSB thinks the OR should be removed. Removing the OR is the safest approach: even if you add a warning, it would still be OR, wouldn't it? If it's vitally important to the article, then I imagine that, with enough searching, you could find a reliable source that has already collated the data and could use their numbers instead. pburka (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Sources as you mention them are already there, the problem that led to the creation of this report is that the other editor wants to remove them under the arguments such as the source having "surveyed people that were over 18 years" this I believe is not OR but a case of WP:LAWYERING, given that no national cesus or survey will ever meet said criteria, all are made only on people who are over 18 years of age. The infobox notice is a separate issue. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll dismiss this as lawyering, too, but I stand by my conclusion that it's original research for a Wikipedia editor to take the results of a survey (regardless of the age group) and extrapolate that result to an entire population. pburka (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Even when the survey itself states to have nationwide representativeness and coverage? I in no way want to sound insistent, but the implications of this aproach do concern me. As under it any census, survey or field investigation on Wikipedia could be dismissed as an "extrapolation of results on an entire population" as on all of them an important percentage of the population choses to not answer. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
We can report the results of the survey or census, as well as any extrapolations made by the researchers or other reliable sources. We can't make our own extrapolations. For example, Statistics Canada reports population demographics in absolute numbers. Presumably they made some adjustments based on known sampling biases and other best practices. We can report the results of their calculations without engaging in OR. But if we perform the same calculations ourselves it's OR. pburka (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating on your previous answer, as the way it was put seemed to suggest that any source could be invalidated, which is what MSB was going after. Just to clear this up, when a source says "75% of the population of X nation is Y ethnicity" and the total population of X nation is say 100,000 then it's ok to write it in numbers as 75,000 in sections where that is required right? Given that this is not an own calculation but an outright conversion from percentages to numbers, because the alternative, that would be to write an exact quote from a source in a numerical table would go against Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Combining numbers from multiple sources to extrapolate a third number that doesn't appear in any of the sources is almost always OR. pburka (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1. pburka is right: any such combination is definitely original research.
2. The U.S. census, at least, counts everybody from newborns on up, and yes, the racial distributions are different for different age cohorts. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That was not the case here though, the issue was that MSB tried to invalidate sources with arguments such as "the source not stating what the total population of the country was"; "source uses percentages, not numbers so writing it on Wikipedia as a number is OR"; and "only people over 18 were surveyed" (Mike's reply is insightful, but MSB would invalidate it as the data about children doesn't come from asking children directly but from asking parents or would find any other reason to do so, in fact, the US census source was tagged too[21]) which by the looks of it we agree are an overreach. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The US census source ([22]) was used to support the claim that there are 204,300,000 people of European descent in the United States. I don't see that number anywhere in the cited source, so the tagging looks appropriate to me. pburka (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
But to simply convert those percentages to numbers (think of WP:BLUESKY), so they go in line with manual of style guidelines in places such as a numerical table does not constitute OR right? That's the core question of this case, that's what solves all of this. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm worried that you think this is "simple" and as obvious as "the sky is blue". Here are some of the ways that could go wrong off the top of my head:
  • Was the population data collected at the same time as the survey? If you apply ratios from 2010 to a 2020 census the extrapolation will be incorrect.
  • Do the researchers and census collectors use a shared definition of "population"? One group might be counting citizens and the other residents. If they use different definitions the extrapolation will be incorrect.
  • Is the survey representative of the whole population? If the researchers only polled certain groups, the extrapolation will be incorrect.
  • Did the researchers correct for known polling biases? Some demographic groups are less likely to be reached by, e.g., telephone surveys. If not, the extrapolation will be incorrect.
  • ... and many more ...
Polling is hard. Demographic analysis is hard. You can't dismiss them as BLUESKY. Even if you're an expert in the field, you can't do those calculations in your role as a Wikipedia editor. pburka (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
So for you, to write the percentage from a source as a number is wrong but just writing that percentage is ok, right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Mostly. The big problem is using numbers from multiple sources to produce a derived number. If a single source said pandas eat 30 kg of biomass daily, 90% of which is bamboo, it would probably be a routine calculation to report that pandas eat 27 kilograms (60 lb) of bamboo every day. (And converting the units is ok, because that's completely unambiguous). But if one source says they eat 30 kg daily, and another says that 90% of the pandas' diet is bamboo, it would be WP:SYNTH to combine them to reach the same conclusion. pburka (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not completely convinced regarding your criteria of what is synth (in this case for example, we would have a huge number of sources stating that the total daily consumption of food of a panda is 30kg. so BLUESKY could apply). But let's focus on what both of us agree, that is the fact that the statement "90% of a pandas diet is bamboo" is correct and more than situable for use on Wikipedia; and also the the fact that both procedings ultimately reach the same conclusion. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I'm not fond of seeing "But it's BLUESKY!" type arguments. The second someone raises an objection, it's clearly not covered by BLUESKY, as it apparently isn't obvious to everyone. At that point, if it really is an obvious claim, sources that support that should be plentiful and easily cited. If someone disputes that 2+2=4, it would not be at all hard to find sources to confirm that is in fact correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. And a reminder to everyone that, unlike WP:CALC, WP:BLUE is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Just like WP:NOTBLUE. pburka (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Seraphimblade. So my question here is, what do you think about writing in a numerical table that there are 204,300,000 people of European descent in the United States using this source [23], would it (and the concept of flat converting percentages to numbers in Wikipedia) be Synth or OR?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the term "European" anywhere in that source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Nor does the number 204,300,000 appear on a search of that page. How would that comply with the Verifiability principle? A reader directed to that page who wants to check the number of 204,300,000 would not find it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Seraphimblade, so, prioritizing agreements over differences here: In the case of the US or Australia (which I bring up now for practicity, as US's sources often split Whites on non-Hispanic and Hispanic and that could spread out the discussion further), whose source uses only percentages as well[24], you think that it would be OR to convert that percentage to absolute numbers, but it would be correct to use said percentage as featured in the source right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are driving at. The census source gives no data on "European descent" population in the US at all. So yes, to extrapolate some "European descent" number from that would absolutely be SYNTH and/or OR. "White" does not necessarily mean "of European descent", nor would "non-white" mean the converse. A "white" individual could be of, for example, Russian descent, and a "non-white" person could have substantial European descent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Let me rephrase it a little bit Seraphimblade, the intent of my last question was to know your opinion in regards to writing said info into the article as it appears in source (particularly in the case of Australia which uses percentages and is currently absent of the aforementioned article). This is, I know you think that converting the percentages that appear in the source to absolute numbers is OR, but is it ok to write the percentages as it appears in the source on Wikipedia? For example: "Australia - 76%" instead of "Australia - 19,600,000" which is the way it was writen in the article before. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
You are making no sense. The source you cited above was the United States census. That is completely irrelevant to Australia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, alright, I see where you apparently switched over to Australia. This constant "rephrasing" is beyond unhelpful. Ask in the form of "Should edit X be made to article Y on the basis of source Z?". If you want to avoid making a controversial edit to a live article, copy the article to your user space and make the proposed edit there, and then provide a diff of whatever edit you might want to make. You are, at this point, just talking around and confusing whatever it is you are trying to get at, so please actually nail it down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
No problem Seraphimblade, MSB has answered my question, so all that's left is to discuss some minor adjustments, seems this will be settled in days time. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: Please review WP:CALC which is a Wikipedia policy page. It says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Census and survey results are statistics. You must not compare or combine them. pburka (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

pburka brings an interesting insight, albeit the negative impact that taking WP:CALC too literally would have in several charts of vastly different topics all over Wikipedia calls for a more careful consideration. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I've not contributed for a few days because I wanted to see what other editors were thinking on this issue. However, I do want to correct some statements by Pob3qu3. I have absolutely no trouble with using numbers from official census results. They are reliable sources. If an official government census gives numbers about residents of European descent, Wikipedia can use them. They meet WP:Reliability. I made that point right at the beginning of this discussion, when I noted that Canada and New Zealand do provide those types of numbers in their censuses. Those are reliable sources and can be cited. My problem is when Wikipedia editors use a population number from some source other than the cited article, multiply that population number by a percentage from the cited article, and insert that extrapolated number into the Wikipedia article. That is Synthesis/OR, contrary to the Wikipedia policy cited by Pburka. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, that clears things up a little. Now, I have to ask, if your problem is that "Wikipedia editors use a population number from some source other than the cited article, multiply that population number by a percentage from the cited article..." then it's ok to use just the percentage from the cited source right? For example, re-adding Australia to the article as "Australia - 76%" instead of "Australia - 19,600,000" is ok as there's no longer any extrapolations being made, just cites from the sources right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct. Assuming the source being cited meets the test for Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and states a percentage number, then that percentage can be cited in a Wikipedia article. The Australian document is a joint production of several reputable bodies, including the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Business School of the University of Sydney, so in my opinion clearly meets the "Reliable Sources" requirement. When cited in a Wikipedia article, the cite should give a pinpoint reference to the exact page number or division in the source where the percentage is found, so the reader of the Wikipedia article can check it. That way, the particular citation meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
And I note that the Australian source does not give the 76% figure, but instead says that 58% have Anglo-Celtic background and 18% have European (see p. 01). I see no problem with adding those two numbers together, consistent with WP:CALC: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age is almost always permissible." Since all of the numbers are in the same source, and are being used by that source to consider ethnic origins of Australians, it seems permissible to add those two sub-sets of people of European origin together. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your very well explained reply, it highlights our coincidences of thought. So, nearing the end of this discussion, as we agree it's a source that can be used on Wikipedia, any suggestion in regards to how to add Australia back to the infobox? to use percentages, numbers or something else? Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Meredith Greenfield

The place name in the article about Ballywalter Wind Farm is incorrect. Title of article uses Ballywalter, article uses Ballywater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Green (talk • contribs)

There is no article entitled "Ballywalter Wind Farm". It is entitled Ballywater Wind Farm, in both the title and body of the article. While sources on it appear rather thin, and I'm not sure it's ultimately notable to start with, I did find a few mentions which also use the spelling "Ballywater", so it would seem that is indeed the correct spelling. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka

The article Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, seems to be a list of individual incidents. Although backed up by some reliable sources, the whole article seems to be an original research with primary sources and not an encyclopedic article in nature. The talk page indicates editors with strong opinions of a biases nature engaged in heated debate. Therefore it is best that an unaffiliated editor, do a clean up of the article. Cossde (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The above editor is involved in making several recent contentious edits on Sri Lankan Civil war articles, and is not a neutral observer of this topic. That article is supported by multiple reliable sources, human rights groups, news reports etc. Calling it 'original research' is nonsense. Please be wary that there has been a past attempt to completely remove the article by another user (now banned) who wanted to delete all mention of atrocities committed by Sri Lanka security forces. Oz346 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply: As I mentioned, editors with strong opinions of a biases nature have been engaged in heated debate in the talk page, hence for my request for a rewrite of this article by unaffiliated/neutral editors to bring it up to the level of an encyclopedic article and not a list of OR. Cossde (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Mean Center of the United States Population

I am hereby asking for advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 estimated US population centroid (center) calculation. My contention is that, since the source of my estimation is a conceptually simple calculation involving only the basic arithmetic functions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, it should be allowed under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculations" "Basic Arithmetic" clause, thereby exempting it from Wikipedia's "Original Research" prohibition. Only six basic calculations per state are needed to generate the centroid estimate.

I believe that my annual estimated and projected centroid cacluations have added significant value to this Wikipedia page over the last decade. These calculations have offered a unique real-time summary of the changing settlement patterns in the United States over the years, and have gained acceptance from various researchers. The veracity of my method was first confirmed by comparison of my 2010 predicted centroid to the US Census Bureau's official centroid calculation in 2010. I believe it will almost certainly be re-confirmed once the Bureau releases its centroid calculation for 2020 in coming weeks.

With this message I hope to elicit advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 US population centroid calculated estimate, as well as subsequent annual calculated estimates and projections.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter! Alex.zakrewsky (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: No.
Long answer, still no. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication of original research. And your assertion, that such a centroid, calculated in the manner you suggest, is a valid means to arrive at a meaningful estimate, certainly constitutes original research, given that you claim it gives 'unique' results. It may well do, but that doesn't give your method of arriving at them any particular credibility. If the U.S. Census Bureau is about to publish its own calculations, we can use them. I doubt that the centroid will have moved much in a few weeks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, the "unique" nature of my centroid calculation is primarily because of its frequency. I'm able to produce estimates and projections on an annual basis upon release of the US Census Bureau's state population estimates. In contrast, the Bureau calculates the US population centroid only on a decennial periodicity. So the value of my estimates and projections are at their greatest and most interesting between censuses, and less so on the run-up to official Bureau releases. It is those calculations that I wish to see published in Wikipedia in coming years for the benefit of interested parties. Alex.zakrewsky (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply isn't a publisher of original thought. You will need to get these estimates and projections published somewhere else first. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the Wikipedia Mean center of the United States population starts by stating that the center is "determined by the United States Census Bureau". By them. Not by anyone else. Clearly this isn't an absolutely defined point in space (which would require knowledge of the precise location of each individual in the population), but instead an approximation, arrived at by making assumptions and simplifications. Even so, from the description given by the Census Bureau [25] (and linked in our article), they are working with much more finely-grained data than the 'six basic calculations per state' Alex.zakrewsky specifies, and as such, Alex's calculations are unlikely to give exactly the same result. One could of course argue that Alex's calculations are sufficient to arrive at a close enough result, and that the differences are likely to be small, in a context where either result is an approximation, but that doesn't alter the fact that the methods used by Alex aren't the Census Bureau's so accordingly don't belong in an article stating that the Bureau is the source of the data. If and when Alex's calculations ever get the sort of recognition which would justify inclusion in a Wikipedia article, said article would have to be revised, noting each source, and explaining any differences. For now though, they are unpublished original research, and excluded by policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed that any entity other than the US Census Bureau determines the population centroid. You are correct that the US Census Bureau is working with an enormously larger and more detailed data set and a different method to reach their determination. My much simpler method was never meant to be anything but an approximation for intercensal years and an approximated projection for the next census year, thus giving a preview of changing settlement patterns in the United States. Judging from past performance, I expect my 2020 estimate to be about a mile or two from the Census Bureau's determination, a "close-enough" approximation for understanding settlement trends on the scale of the US. My calculation was meant to be a service to those curious as to where and when the centroid was heading next, and nothing more. An overly strict interpretation of what falls under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculation" exclusion of prohibited "Original Research" policy deprives Wikipedia readers their satisfaction of knowing about where the centroid goes next. Alex.zakrewsky (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is useful and probably an excellent approximation/forecast of the Census Bureau's results, but it's also clearly original research. It would be great to host this on a personal website or github, but not Wikipedia. pburka (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
'Routine calculations', as permitted under Wikipedia policy, don't involve contributors creating their own methods to arrive at approximations to data provided elsewhere. And nor do they need citations, since it is assumed (or should be) that such calculations can be carried out by any reasonably mathematically literate contributor, based solely on sources cited in the relevant article, and can be checked independently by any other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nelson Diversity Surveys

Does anyone have any thoughts on Nelson Diversity Surveys? The article is poorly sourced and it looks like there's COI editing involved, and I wonder if the majority of the article is actually based on insider knowledge? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The COI about hits you over the head with a sledgehammer there, and this may have been a better fit at WP:COIN given that. That said, I've cleaned up some of the more egregious stuff, though a lot more would need to be done. I'm honestly not sure if it's notable to begin with, but I suspect that will become clearer once the fluff is all trimmed away. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Seraphimblade. Yes, I did consider reporting this at COIN and would have reported it at the notability noticeboard if it existed! I might still do the former. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Computer-generated image as OR

Additional input is requested at Talk:Welsh_Not#Request_for_comment_on_including_a_computer-generated_image as to whether the image in question is OR. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A 13 point explanation as to why a HRW article says what I claim it does (HRW regarding BDS)

I've been in long discussions with Nishidani over what I feel is a total misrepresentation of a HRW article in the Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions page's lead and we've been unable to come to an agreement. Here's the most relevant text in the article, vs his current text:

  • "Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign" [26]
  • "Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear."

In the most recent talk section regarding our disagreement, Nishidani lists out 13 different things[27] said in the article and claims that proves his point.

  • "The unambiguous meaning of this in context is that (a) BDS is not antisemitic and to assert it constitutes maligning..."

To me, this is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH. The 13 point list was created because there's no clear or explicit link between two distinct things. Making guesses based on "context" is not the same as a source explicitly stating something:

  • "...do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." (synth)

He has disputed that he's engaged in OR and says he's just "paraphrasing". If this was just a technicality I wouldn't argue strongly against it, but I personally think his interpretation severely distorts HRW's view.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not me. Two other editors agree my paraphrase is fair. Bob is alone in challenging it. The details are on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I've got the gist of the complaint. I think that Goldstein's position is being described fairly, but it would be better if the wording were closer to his actual words to avoid this kind of dispute. I agree with Firefangledfeathers's suggestion on the talk page to use a direct quote, if possible. pburka (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a lead sentence, and I had to balance 53 words for the accusation that BDS is anti-Semitic, with 12 words that it wasn't. Since three sources were used for the former, using three sources, one of which was Goldstein's, meant I had to use terse paraphrase. As it must assume summary form, that was the restriction, and the relevant section then expanded it more completely, with a direct quote. Were I to put that direct quote into the lead, it would strain the NPOV balance and look WP:Undue. These are tricky problems, of course. Thanks for the input.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pburka: It seems like we've expanded the scope of this discussion from WP:SYNTH to what's "fair"? Does anyone object to that? In terms of fairness, I've been saying from the beginning that the text needs some sort of qualification. The article uses language like "SPURIOUS allegations" and "not INHERENTLY anti-semitic". The text must reflect that.
I don't see any value in adding the word "smear" which does not exist in the article, and just adds a fairly loaded word into the lead. According to dictionary.com the two words are not synonymous. There are some pretty big jumps from "government actions malign" to "change of antisemitism [is] a smear". The maligning is almost a side note in the article. The only reason to push for it's inclusion seems be POV reasons.
IMO the basics of the article seems to simply say this: "HRW rejects BDS being labelled as inherently antisemitic"" and that's based on this quote: "Pompeo did more than tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
As exhaustively explained elsewhere, the source deals in a specific, and a general issue. The specific case is BDS, for which what it says about BDS is paraphrased.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Let "as inherently antisemitic" = X. Pompeo did X+. Your expression, HRW rejects X. Nope, HRW rejects X+, not just X.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The problem is your "paraphrasing" (or WP:SYNTH) seems to exclude things you don't like, and words like "inherently" and "spurious" have meaning. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Non sequitur. What point are you making now? Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Here's the transformation of the text Nishidani seems to make:
1) "Pompeo did more than tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic"
2) "Pompeo calling BDS inherently anti-semitic is a smear"
3) "... calling BDS anti-semitic is a smear"
What word is missing in that last version? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


OR has nothing to do with being fair. Don't move the goalposts.Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)(Edit:this was a response to the sentence above beginning "It seems like we've expanded the scope of this discussion from WP:SYNTH to what's "fair"?]Selfstudier (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's a problem. Nishidani absolutely rejected a request for getting input in DSN request. That would have been the right place for it. He insisted that it got relocated here. And it was Pburka who first spoke about what's "fair". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The closer at Dispute resolution also gave you some advice, I think. Nishidani was entitled to decline and you are entitled to use whatever process you would like to use, if it's not really OR why did you file it here?Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I did so at Nishidani's suggestions, and what are the alternatives? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You alleged OR so that's why here was suggested but if your complaint is actually something else or includes other things besides, then you can go to ANI (You've already been there so you know how that works) or AE for Arbpia enforcement, although if you go there you need to be very clear about your complaint. Discussion will not be permitted to wander everywhere and diffs are required for everything.Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD: Abadir dynasty

There is a discussion about deleting the article Abadir dynasty that may benefit from the attention of editors at this noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Montell 74

User:Montell 74 has been here since 2009, and has since then made more than 80,000 edits to the mainspace. It seems though that many, way too many of these are WP:OR. I have tried to discuss this with the editor at their user talk page (User talk:Montell 74#All-time best 25), but to no avail. Can some people please take a look and try to get them to change their approach (or tell me I'm wrong, and why, of course). The result of their edits[28] is that we have e.g. a section on the "All-time top 25: Men short course" which lists the 14th best ever, and the 16th best ever, but not the 15th best ever: no source is given that actually places Johannes Skagius as the 16th best ever, it is what Montell 74 believes tobe the 16th best ever, based on, well, no idea on what: a lot of hard work and record collecting, but no actual reliable sources. This is not a one-off incident: at World record progression 50 metres butterfly, we get an equally strange list for the mens short course all time best, with unexplained gaps and positions. Which of course makes me wonder whether the long course list, which hasn't any gaps, is really correct. Perhaps it is, who knows? The short course list certainly isn't, as it now lists #3 Dressel 22.04, and #4 Cieslak 22.08, even though Oleg Kostin holds the Russian record with 22.07. Then there is one spot free between the 2.08 of Cieslak and the 22.18 of Leveaux, even though Florent Manaudou has 22.09, and Vladimir Morozov has 22.17. Is then at least the top 3 correct? No, e.g. Szebasztián Szabó has twice swum a 21.86. So this whole list is clearly incorrect WP:OR.

Their article creations (which caused them to attract my attention) aren't really any better: recent ones include the completely unsourced Masters W55 4 × 400 metres relay world record progression (which at least seems to be correct though), or the similarly unsourced Masters W60 hammer throw world record progression: both entries were world records, but any evidence that the recent one actually broke the 20 year old record and nothing happened inbetween?

Any help to get this editor to change their approach to editing and sourcing is appreciated. Fram (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Etymology section of Yoruba people page seems to be OR

There is an RFC on the above subject, which seems to be synthesis of published materials, possible violation of OR, by Oluwatalisman. Link provided here.[[29]].
A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link [[30]]Ppdallo (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up Here -Oluwatalisman (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Map in Language section of Yoruba people article seems to be OR

Additional input requested on above subject concerning a map which seems to violate OR. The map was by Oramfe and Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here.[[31]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[[32]] and goes under the heading "Re:RfC on Degree of Presence of The Yoruba and 'Yoruba derived' groups in Nigeria, Benin & Togo at Sub-national levels/Yorubas of Northern Benin sections of talk page". Thank you Ppdallo (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up Here -Oluwatalisman (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

This page begins with a list of tables with no refs. Then it goes into a whole bunch of subsections about the universities and then almost every university listed there's a note that the university's official count is lower than the article's count. Each university's table has a notes section where there is an explanation of why a particular university's affiliate is excluded from the list. This list seems to be heavy on WP:SYNTH if not outright Wikipedia:No original research. Strangely, the article also links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. OCNative (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be the exact same kind of concerns that led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders (2nd nomination), or other similar lists. Nominated for deletion, and I've copied your statement there, since it is quite accurate (and for transparency). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm returning here to try to raise attention to this page because it was so badly damaged by original research that it was nominated for deletion by RandomCanadian as noted above, deleted, and then restored via deletion review. Regardless, it still has serious WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR that need to be resolved. OCNative (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • When it comes to lists like this is, has any other reliable source (including tertiary reference works) ever considered this type of organization of the awards in this manner? When we start creating lists based on a criteria that we are making up, that's original research in of itself and a problem. But if it can be shown that there's interest in how many Laurates came from which schools from other sources, then that core issue on the list OR is solved, though on how affiliates are grouped becomes a question -- though here, that's why looking to how these other RSes group them should help. --Masem (t) 01:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Masem: it seems the nobel website itself keeps such a list[33], although it is a WP:PRIMARY source. This topic is also covered by Forbes[34] but in a different format.VR talk 01:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    That Forbes site is not reliable (its a contributor piece), but I think that since the Nobels themselves have that organization, then the OR issue on the list itself is not an issue. That the Nobels appear to group schools under the top level university and ignore affiliates should be what guides our list then. The only thing I would suggest is that the ordering on the page is a bit POV-ish, and the order should be simply alphabetical by school (ala the Nobel list). A table at the bottom to give count by school, similar to how 73rd_Primetime_Emmy_Awards#Most_major_wins summarizes those awards, would be better and "future proof". --Masem (t) 02:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    My mistake, just saw WP:FORBESCON.VR talk 02:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this particular page (which I haven't even looked at) but I want to comment on the argument that some reliable source must have used this criterion for making a list. All our articles are constructed by putting together information from multiple sources. Provided all the information is supported by reliable sources, simply listing it is not an OR/SYNTH problem. Remember that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. We only break OR/SYNTH if we draw our own conclusions from the combined information that no reliable source draws (making allowance for WP:CALC). In some cases there may be an OR issue in deciding whether a particular item belongs on the list, but that is no different from any decision whether to include something in an article. Zerotalk 03:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: then in your opinion how do we decide if a particular listing is legitimate? I like WP:NLIST's criterion of "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".VR talk 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vice regent: What is "legitimate"? I only commented on the issue of when a list violates OR/SYNTH and I didn't mention notability at all. Even the most policy-compliant articles get deleted if they fail notability. Zerotalk 03:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

World number 1 ranked male tennis players and World number 1 ranked female tennis players

I'm starting this discussion because I have grave concerns there are considerable policy violations in these articles. These articles purportedly list all the players in the history of competitive tennis who were "number one on the world ranking" every year. The problem is though that no official world rankings existed prior to 1973 for men and 1975 for women, yet the articles list numbers one on the world ranking for decades before that. My biggest concern is that these "number one on the world ranking" players, and especially the purported consensi that they are as mainly claimed in the men's article, are being assessed by wikipedia editors through synthesizing the sources. That's why I came here to request assistance from outside editors.Tvx1 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


@Tvx1: If no official world rankings existed prior to 1973 for men and 1975 for women then everything before that is WP:OR and should not be in the article. However I do not know which sources speak of an earlier time and since you mentioned synthesis I guess those tennis players are listed as the best players for the specific season ie year. And it was probably entered into the article by some editorial consensus. But in fact it is OR because sources which mention "number one on the world ranking" as you say the not exist. I took a look at the article and explanation in the section "Between 1913 and 1973: opinion-based worldwide rankings and professional tournament series point rankings" and here exist only one source, which is a little strange for so much information's which exist here. Mikola22 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Maps without citations

What is the policy on wikipedia when it comes to maps that are non-cited.

From my understanding, maps are acceptable when they have a source. This can include an interpretation of a textual description, which would not be original research. It could also be an original conversion or "translation" from a historical map or a map that has citations from a book, to a more legible digital form. This is particularly useful when the image being conveyed is more focused on general labels.

But in all those cases, you still need some sort of source or citation. But some maps have none. Now perhaps they are based off of data. But without the data being cited, how can we know?

And the way maps are depicted, particularly of historical areas, can be very misleading. Particularly when it comes to borders (which is why I appreciate when older maps of cultures have a blur effect on the edge rather than a solid line). This can further bias the difference between areas when one is depicted in their article as having a blurry border, while a comparable group in another article is depicted with a solid border, even though, during that era, borders were effectively just as malleable.

As two examples of maps I'm having issues with: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Egypt_and_Mesopotamia_c._1450_BC.png This map has no citations. On one page, it has a description, but it does not say whether or not the map is based off that description nor where that description came from, and that information is not located on the page for the image itself.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Drink_map_HRoe_2008.jpg That image has multiple issues, notably the writing within the image, but the primary issue I have with it is the lack of any source. Theres no way to know where the information from this image came from. And there is a LOT of elements within that image.

The problem is... if these maps are acceptable without citations, it can gravely distort what is being conveyed from what is actually known.

If they are not acceptable... well then wikipedia has an endemic issue with citations from my quick look at some of the other maps. As I said before, plenty of maps are fine, but tons would be unacceptable.

And, if they are not acceptable, I'm a little lost at how I should make such known. I could post about it on one of the pages that uses said image... but the issue is with the image itself and it's data. At the same time, I respect that its possible an image DOES have citations that were omitted, and it would be reasonable to give the author the ability to add that data. In the mean-time, would the image stay up? Or be taken down until sources are provided? And... how would I go about doing that when it comes to the image itself, not just the articles its used in?

Thanks!

I tend to agree that a map without a source (ie it could be totally made up) is not that helpful. But I think it's a local issue, ie it is content that can be challenged in just the same way as any other, V, NPOV, etc.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Maps are illustrations, and are governed by our rules for illustrations, not our rules for text. One issue is copyright. We often have to use a user generated map (as opposed to a published one) for copyright reasons.
This means that, while any illustration should accurately reflect what is stated in text, it is the text which requires a citation, not the illustration of that text.
Now, we can argue that a specific map does not accurately reflect the cited text, or that some other map would better illustrate it - just as we might argue that a different photo might better illustrate what is mentioned in the article’s text - but that is an article design issue, not a citation issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand that aspect, but should the map itself not cite the text? I'm not saying a map can't be based off a text. I'm just saying there should be a citation when you click on the map that refers to the text. There still needs to be some form of citation... right? Otherwise, there is no way to know if a map is made arbitrarily or refers to no text at all!GalacticKiss (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Would you say the same for (for example) the photographs used to illustrate our article on lancet windows? If not, why not?
We don’t require (or expect) citations for the thousands of photographs used to illustrate our articles. So why should we treat maps differently from these photographs? Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
For the record, its rather funny you picked a photo that actually uses a source, a guide book. Second, in some ways... is that also not an issue? Particularly when it comes to more controversial subjects like history? The fact it is not required for those other photos doesn't necessarily make such a lack of requirement justified. Third, a map is not an 'example' of something which has admitted variation. You don't look at a map of california: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#/media/File:California_economic_regions_map_(labeled_and_colored).svg and believe there are many californias, of which this is only one and the minute details may not necessarily be accurate for all of them. You believe that, as best we know, it's an accurate representation or perhaps an accurate representation of what people thought or percieved things to be like for that specific instance. A picture of a henge doesn't need a citation because when you look at the picture of a henge, it is not all henges and there is not only one henge. Pictures of individuals is an inbetween but in cases where things are more controversial, such as historical figures, you would not be fine with someone's personal contemporary painting of that person, would you? Could I paint a picture of someone for whom there is no wiki image and post it for their wiki? GalacticKiss (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, you CAN draw a picture, upload it to commons, and use it in an article (for example, we used a series of user created drawings at our article on Susan Boyle until we were able to find a photo that was released into public domain). I would say a photo is usually better, but one is not always available. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I would be a terrible artist though lol... But how would you know what a historical figure looked like? If the person doesn't post the citation to the description they are making the image based off of... they could just make it up. Theoretically (and I cannot stress that this is a theoretical proposition and I have no intention of ever harming wiki. I Love this place) I can go find a historical figure, probably some minor one, and submit a mediocre image I made based on nothing, and it would be accepted? Shouldn't we stop that from happening? Or, in the case of the above linked images... just color in a bigger area for a historical civilization and submit the image. I could do such for propaganda reasons, or perhaps it has already been done indirectly through historical bias. In particular, it would be worthwhile to check the citations for these images to see if there are possible biases within their descriptions which might be affecting how we draw the maps of the time periods. It could be perfectly accurate! But it could also not be. But theres no way to check unless we know the source. Disputes over maps and how we view history is a known thing people will alter, on purpose, to suit their views independent of what any sources say. Its just ripe for abuse, both direct and indirect.GalacticKiss (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres for arguments about maps:) Selfstudier (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I must say that the discussions over there are fascinating! But the presumption of having sources is a given. Right? Within my first post I gave two map examples that have no sources. Unless there are sources. Should they not be removed? The default should not be unknown maps, but the lack of a map entirely. It may make the pages look less interesting but thats a short term problem as alternative interesting images can be found or a map with a citation can be put there.
My objection to these maps has nothing to do with any particular elements on them. I have zero knowledge of their accuracy nor do I find them particularly likely to be inaccurate. I have no clue. And when wanting to learn more about where these maps came from, I clicked to the images to find a source. I did not find any, which is concerning to me. I just think it an unreasonable presumption of honesty, accuracy, or having as an objective a view as possible, to allow maps to exist unsourced until a replacement is found. Even if no replacement is ever found, that is itself a more accurate portrayal of our understanding. GalacticKiss (talk) 4:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Just so I know for the future, where/how would be the best way to get them corrected? I only ask because on articles related to Mesopotamia, in my search for understanding the source of maps and their relationship to the archeological record, I've already come across two more maps that are in use without sources.
This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spread_of_Oecumene_Mesopotamia.jpg Only gives a source of "from documentary sources" and as a fan of maps, I'd love to update it, but without a source, thats not possible.
There is also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mesopotamia_6000-4500.png Which is used on the History of Mesopotamia page, and while it looks very professional and trustworthy, and has multiple derivative maps created through it, but in none of them could I find a source.

Should I message the author first? And then if there is no response? Or perhaps there is another method? --GalacticKiss (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  • This two maps are OR and they should not be part of Wikpedia. If the map does not have a source on which it is based, then anything can be drawn on it. Wikipedia is mostly read by amateurs and not by people who know how to recognize if that maps are okay or not ie whether everything is within some geographical boundaries or not. Mikola22 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Dervish, a Dhulbahante Sultanate

For a few months now there has been a debate between myself and users Dabaqabad and Jacob300 over a few pages on whether the the Darwiish State was a Dhulbahante sultanate; I attempted a talk page discussion at 1 and somewhere else I don't recall. As such, I need a 3rd opinion on whether the following quote from the Dervish proclamation of independence letter to James Hayes Sadler indicates that Dervishes on 3rd May 1899 defined themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate (viewable source):

This letter is sent by all the Dervishes, the Amir, and all the Dolbahanta to the Ruler of Berbera ... We are a Government, we have a Sultan, an Amir, and Chiefs, and subjects.

The above is quoted by Mohamed Osman Omar from the UK National Archives record.

Possibly relevant quote from 4th May 1899 reply letter by James Hayes Sadler to a 3rd party

“In his last letter the Mullah pretends to speak in the name of the Dervishes, their Amir (himself), and the Dolbahanta tribes. This letter shows his object is to establish himself as the Ruler of the Dolbahanta, and it has a Mahdist look"

So is my reading correct that the Dervishes described themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate in the 3 May 1899 letter? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Race (human categorization)

The article currently claims human variation is distributed clinally and discordantly, citing variation in two traits to support this. This source looks at overall variation and finds "Overall about 16.2% of the variation in the genetic distances (FST) could be attributed to pre-historical divergence alone, whereas only 5.2% of the variation in genetic distances could be attributed to IBD. In other words, spatial patterns in genetic distances are much better explained by differences between groups of populations than by similarity among adjacent local populations within these groups."[35] I suggested including this source on the talk page[36] but was told it cannot be used since the source does not use the word race. However it is directly relevant to the section on clines. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the papers cited in Race (human categorization), the paper by Ameen Abdullah et al. does contextualize its findings in the obsolete model of racial classification. It is not about races at all, unless you read things into it (like "populations" = "races") which aren't there. So it is completely off-topic, and its inclusion in the article to prove the fringe point that biological human races somehow exist violates several WP policies (WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV).
The papers cited in the article, however, explicitly mention race, but not in support of it. In fact, all agree that whether phenotypical diversity is clinal or occasionally discontinuous, biological racial categories are inadequate to describe human diversity. –Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
It discusses clines and the section is about clines. The conclusion that groups explain human variation better than clines is explicitly stated by the high quality source. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Your 'conclusion' is intended to support an entirely false assumption: that 'population' (the subject of the paper in question) is a synonym for 'race' (the subject of the article you are proposing to cite it for). Since the source doesn't support your assumption (which is also entirely at odds with current scientific thinking on the subject of human genetic diversity) it cannot be used in the manner you propose, in the article you are proposing to use it in. This is elementary Wikipedia policy, which isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The article states that human variation is largely non-clinal, and that's all it is intended to support. It seems fitting in a section called "clines". And I was hoping to hear from uninvolved editors here. And I'm not sure arguments like "race isn't real because of clines (in two traits in 1964) so material showing non-clinality (genomic pattern analysis in 2009) should be excluded" really work. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I wrote this here to seek third party opinions. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Evidently third parties don't feel the need to explain yet again that Wikipedia cites sources for what they actually have to say about a subject, rather than what one particular contributor would like to pretend they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTOR Alan B. Samuels (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, it's also very clear that this new SPA is mirroring well worn rhetorical tactics used by LTA sockmasters in the topic area. As far as I'm concerned the conversation has progressed well beyond the point where AGF requires us to engage. Generalrelative (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added a comment to the talk page. MarshallKe (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@MarshallKe: Thank you for chiming in, but note that the OP's question here actually is about the source discussed in Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#Clines, a study about the genomic diversity in Asia (also linked in first post by the OP in this section) which does not address the question of race. It would be great if you could also make a comment about this one. –Austronesier (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've struck Alan B. Samuels' comments above now that they've been confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Generalrelative (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Questionable disamb page "Minor-attracted person"

page was deleted

I came across this disambiguation page (Minor-attracted person) some time ago but forgot about it. Recently it has started attracting attention and it occurred to me that there is no sourcing for this term existing in common use. It also occurs to me that it's not a true disamb, but rather seems to be a term unto itself, and perhaps may have been created with some sort of agenda. Given the highly sensitive and problematic nature of the terms and content it's associated with, I wanted to bring this to the attention of this noticeboard first before I took any further action or engaged any dicussion. I may be completely missing some prior discussion or bit of policy, but I don't really see the point of this page existing.Legitimus (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It could be made into a redirect page for pedophilia, with a hatnote template on top for the other "minor-philias."
Also, there are some people on Twitter using this term in the context of pedophilia advocacy, but that's not notable.
IMO, delete and redirect. Explodicator7331 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Someone else apparently started an AFD after I posted this. But I agree, this discussion can close in light of this and new info mentioned during the AFD.Legitimus (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OR in 2021–22 World Rugby Women's Sevens Series

The text below, in the notes of the 2021–22 World Rugby Women's Sevens Series#Standings is not supported by the source for the associated table: (World Rugby). It seems to be OR, has no other source provided and IMO should be removed:

England, a core team for the last four series events, were given half of the points accumulated by Great Britain in Dubai I and Dubai II. The points given for the latter event were rounded up giving England a whole total (8 points rather than 7.5 points).

I opened discussion on the talk page which has reached a limited consensus (with only two participants) that adding a 0.5 points for a rugby game based on non verifiable research is obviously not Ok.

To avoid edit warring, I feel this needs more experienced input. Please help to rectify this. -- Ham105 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Felicia "Fe" Montes

I removed what I considered analysis by an editor of a text by the subject of an article as OR, but was reverted by Asilvering. I would appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Was it original research that should be removed or not? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, in this case I don't think it's terribly relevant since I don't think the subject passes notability guidelines anyway. If you were to delete the section because it's irrelevant or because a biography should not exclusively cite its own subject, I'd have no objection. (I put the PROD on it, after all.) But summarizing what someone says in a published work is not WP:OR, or it would be simply impossible to write any plot summaries for any articles on literature, film, etc. That's all these lines are: summaries of what Montes wrote. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I get a 2nd opinion about the citation style in these articles? My gut instinct is that long citations citing so many cases is a red flag for WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Too much WP:PRIMARY, not enough WP:SECONDARY. This appears to go against the guidance at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts. The folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Citations with a lot of cases appear to agree with me. I guess I would like even more opinions to help confirm that I am correct in my interpretation of our policies, and I would also like help cleaning up these articles. The author of these articles reverted me even on small things like fixing this POV lead sentence: Deportation of Americans from the United States violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws. so I am not hopeful that they will assist with the cleanup. Finally, I am concerned that the title Illegal removal of people from the United States is inherently WP:POV and I am considering WP:AFDing it. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I already explained that a published US Supreme Court opinion made by a group of acclaimed legal scholars is to be treated as a law journal. [37] [38] As such, US Supreme Court opinion is a secondary reliable source for Wikipedia purpose. I cite Supreme Court cases as "notes and references" to satisfy WP:VERIFY. About wanting to have these articles deleted, see WP:CENSOR ("Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so.").--Libracarol (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The argument that court opinions are like a law journal is fundamentally at odds with the pre-existing consensus (and also completely contradictory to how legal scholarship works). The project-wide consensus is that court opinions are primary sources, per WP:RSLAW § Original texts. The justices of the Supreme court are not doing scholarship, they are acting in their capacities as government officials and drafting government decisions. At the Supreme court level, they are also creating new and original legal material, hence WP:PRIMARY. JBchrch talk 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
As I explained to Alyo [39], I'll explain to you here. The part about court opinions being primary was added in 2019 [40] by User:Nick Levinson and based on this: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (law)#If caselaw is a primary source.... You call that "pre-existing consensus"? It's basically one Wikipedian's POV on something he or she is not sure about.--Libracarol (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Consensus usually occurs implicitly, as I'm sure you know. JBchrch talk 17:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
That consensus is void now.--Libracarol (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any talk page discussions at RSLAW. Feel free to launch one there if you want to challenge this consensus. And please ping me if you do. JBchrch talk 17:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I will when it's time, I'm currently busy.--Libracarol (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
At the very least, secondary sources are required to establish notability. Once some are found, that would further help in framing and structuring the article. Without any secondary source, the identification that there is a coherent topic and identifying the most important features of that topic are original research. Sennalen (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The lede of the "illegal removal..." article clearly violates WP:OR with WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH for bonus points. Citing court cases to form a sentence that claims deportation is a capital offense is nonsensical to the extreme. Slywriter (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Illegal_removal_of_people_from_the_United_States - FYI. Slywriter (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
It says "illegal removal of people from the United States[1] violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other international law." [41] What part of this do you not understand? I quoted the Supreme Court case in the reference section for laypeople like you who don't understand that the word "removal" in US immigration laws means "deportation", and I'm sure you probably never heard of the CAT before. You shouldn't try to delete an article about something you don't know anything and don't like. WP:CENSOR.--Libracarol (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Libracarol,Do you understand the policies of no original research and no personal attacks? and yes, claiming "lay persons" can not understand is a personal attack. Slywriter (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Sly is clearly referring to the second sentence, which I have since removed. Try to tone down the vitriol a little bit. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I respect all Wikipedians the same way I respect my self. "A layperson (also layman or laywoman) is a person who is not qualified in a given profession or does not have specific knowledge of a certain subject." [42] It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you're a layperson to the topic. I'm a layperson to many topics. Anything you don't like about the style of other Wikipedian is OR? Like I said commonly-known facts do not need citations or be referenced, it's up to the editor to construct the sentence or paragraph. Editors are not robots but humans from different places of the world. Each has a different style of writing.--Libracarol (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Just dropping by to concur that court opinions are secondary sources for purposes other than stating their own conclusions of law with respect to the dispute being adjudicated. For anything else in the opinion (summaries of the state of the law, previous opinions, relevant facts), it is a secondary source. Of course, the conclusions of law, if they are of any moment, will themselves be summarized in later cases. BD2412 T 17:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless cases are directly described by secondary sources in relationship to the topic, it is original research to use court opinions as citations. We are not legal experts and we cannot attribute weight to which cases are relevant or which parts of the opinion are relevant. If a case is sited by a legal expert, we should still only use quotes pulled out of the opinion by that source - or otherwise clearly factual information (eg what the holding was, who concurred and dissented, etc., as well as the facts of the case.) Anything in opinions of decisions beyond the case background and factual stuff should be treated as a primary source which we shouldn't be building articles from. --Masem (t) 18:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    Just want to add that the Supreme Court does not engage in any fact findings, it resolves only one specific question of law (rarely two) per case. Its majority opinions end disputes and they become binding on all lower courts. When that happens, all law journals and other sources recite the Court's opinion. I cite the Court directly instead of the journals and news reports because those sources may not be available for some readers, and they may misinterpret the Court's opinion and then we could have constant edit-wars between editors over which source is correct. Also, law journals usually explain to much stuff about various other topics which lead to confusion, but the Court makes it very easy to follow and understand. Quoting a pertinent indisputable statement the Court makes should not be questioned (e.g., defining a specific word or phrase as commonly found in all dictionaries).--Libracarol (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    No one is questioning did the Supreme Court say it. What's being questioned is whether its original research to combine various court decisions into an article that promotes a specific point of view and uses Primary Sources to do so. Further, not using secondary sources because other editors may "misinterpret" is nonsensical. Wikipedia has no requirement that sources be accessible, only that they exist and support the statement.
    At the end of the day, I don't see how ANY wikipedia article can stand on only Primary sources. If others are't discussing the issue in the way it is being presented to reader then it fails WP:DUE moves into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and potentially even WP:FRINGE territory(which the synthesis of illegal deportation of immigrants is a capital offense clearly met). Slywriter (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    This issue also exists in Aggravated_felony which is primarily written by same editor and cites only primary documents. Slywriter (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    It's not nonsensical, and it's not original research. It's me as a long-established Wikipedian explaining to readers about something I'm an expert on, and I always provide in the section "notes and references" unquestionable sources, which anyone can verify. These articles existed for years without anyone questioning any of their content. Every single sentence in my articles is backed by 100s of reliable sources, of course I don't need to cite all of them. About "illegal deportation of immigrants is a capital offense", where did I write that? I said that 18 U.S.C. § 242 covers such actions and that section explicitly entails capital punishment. [43] Many immigration officers are immigrants from other countries who became citizens and obtained that job, and they need to be aware that we (the people of the United States) don't play when it comes to them violating the rights of others. You don't believe capital punishment in the United States exist? WP:OR "refer[s] to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [44] Why are you accusing me of violating WP:OR? Do you not see the many reliable published sources in the section "notes and references"? Are you here to harass me because you're bored or something? Maybe you're that same government officer who began following my edits in the past. [45] [46] --Libracarol (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Libracarol you see this is why we need secondary source and heavily discourage editors from using primary sources, because your reading of the law is incorrect. 18 USC 242 says that capital punishment is only available if one of the conditions listed in its last sentence is met, i.e. if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. So when you write that deprivation of rights under color of law... is a crime that entails capital punishment, it's factually incorrect. JBchrch talk 00:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    It's obvious to every reader that section 242 can be an infraction in some cases, depending on the sentence imposed. In other words, a person can be found guilty of violating section 242 and given a sentence of a day in prison or even no sentence at all but just probation and a monetary fine. In that case it would be an infraction. That's not important because such sentences are permitted in most criminal statutes. What's important is the capital punishment part because only some statutes entail such a harsh penalty.--Libracarol (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    You need to read the law. It does not depend on the sentence, it depends on the facts of the case. JBchrch talk 13:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    That's the rule before trial. I'm talking about the conviction.--Libracarol (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    This clarification here is exactly why this issue is occurring. Since there is no secondary source backing up the statement, additional knowledge not available from the wikipedia article is required to make sense of the statement. If "the sky is blue" requires years of study to understand as an unambiguous fact it's not an unambiguous fact to wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    Like I said several times commonly-known facts do not need references or citations. The language of section 242 is clear and unambiguous. If someone deprives another of rights based on the reasons provided in the section, that person could be punished softly, severely or in between. It all depends on what he/she actually did. If the damage caused was $100 dollars then the judge could simply make the violator pay $100 only. Nobody can force the judge to impose imprisonment if the judge does not find it necessary. If the violator has caused death to another then he/she could be sentenced to death. After the conviction is entered then we can say if he/she is a felon or not. In the case of George Floyd the officer (Derek Chauvin) was convicted for the murder of George Floyd. Officer Chauvin is therefore a felon. He recently pleaded guilty to the federal charges. So it all depends on the conviction. We don't need anyone to interpret the section, but the Supreme Court has done that anyway in United States v. Lanier (1997). Courts of appeals have also done that. [47]--Libracarol (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    You don't need to wikilink ordinary legal terms when discussing with me. I stand by my comment, and I suggest you research the issue in the secondary literature. JBchrch talk 17:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    Your argument that some legal sources may not be available is not consistent within policy, per WP:PAYWALL. And while the Court's opinion is key, for WP, we need to see how legal experts take the decision. I do a lot of SCOTUS cases, and most of the major news sources get the basic facts of the opinions right, which works for individual cases.
    But the key here is that trying to create a topic that is based on editors' interpretation of court decisions is absolutely a violation of original research. There's no end of law journals that if a case is important enough, you can find such a paper that helps to support interpretation. --Masem (t) 01:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    But the claims must be verifiable. WP:VERIFY. When the Court holds, for example, that a specific section of law does not cover people residing in the US under the temporary protected status (TPS), we don't need legal experts explaining in their long law journals or books that the section does not cover TPS recipients. Those journals and books are often times outdated because opinions of courts sometimes are reversed. The journal will say one thing but a latest court opinion would say the very opposite. News reports would go out of business if they report wrong information, and most news sources don't cover court opinions except very major issues. That's why referencing court opinions are better.--Libracarol (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that court decisions are primary sources and should not be used as sources for articles. TFD (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not the issue here. There is a difference between "court decisions" and "court opinions". The former relate to facts and events while the latter relate to resolving questions of law and constitutional claims. We are discussing here "court opinions", particularly US Supreme Court opinions about immigration related statutes.--Libracarol (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
https://library.highline.edu/c.php?g=344547&p=2320319 seems pretty clear, case is primary, explanation of case is secondary.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source but just a quick search result and it contradicts itself. "Secondary sources [(e.g., Supreme Court opinions)] are used to help locate primary sources of law, define legal words and phrases, or help in legal research. In short, anything that is more than the actual law is considered a secondary source." https://library.highline.edu/c.php?g=344547&p=2320319 --Libracarol (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not what it says, you put "[(e.g., Supreme Court opinions)]" in yourself, so no contradiction at all.Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
That's gotta be intentional at this point. It says right there that Cases (opinions handed down by courts) [United States and state appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and WA State Supreme Court] are primary. If Highline College is not good enough for you, here's Stanford, Yale, NYU and Harvard all saying the same thing. JBchrch talk 14:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
They all say "case law" is primary source but what is "case law" for this purpose? Supreme Court addressing a specific law does not make a new law. It affirms or reverses a lower court's opinion. This fits perfectly in the secondary sources list. "A secondary source is not the law. It's a commentary on the law...." [48] "Secondary sources are materials that discuss, explain, analyze, and critique the law...." [49] "Secondary sources often explain legal principles more thoroughly than a single case or statute, so using them can help you save time...." [50] As I explained elsewhere, law reviews and textbooks are often times outdated when it comes to specific issues of law because court's over time reverse their prior opinion on the same issue. This date part is a game changer. About my use of brackets, it's a normal writing practice.--Libracarol (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Libracarol Unfortunately, this reply is the ultimate confirmation that you fail WP:CIR. Not only did you fail to read the sources provided, you continue to push an understanding of WP:SECONDARY that is at odds with on-Wiki consensus and off-Wiki resources. JBchrch talk 22:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
If we use a typical SCOTUS case, there's really only one part of that that is a decision, which if they reversed, vacated, or upheld the cases that came from lower courts and the action to take after that. Everything else is the opinion. Eg: the bulk of Roe v. Wade is the Court opinion. Of course lower courts and SCOTUS will use such opinions to revise their own rulings but these again are still producing decisions (the actual legal steps that must be followed by order of the court) and opinions (the rationale why those orders were made). That's why we don't want editors citing court case decisions directly unless it is in conjunction with other non-decision secondary sources. For example, I used the decision directly to expand on the evaluate of fair use that was in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., but I have secondary sources that affirmed the decision rested on the court's fair use analysis --Masem (t) 14:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Like admin BD2412 said, only the holding of a SCOTUS case is primary. Everything else in such cases are recounting of facts of the cases, procedural history, issues relating to jurisdiction, reaffirming the definition of certain commonly used words, etc., which is the same as a group of professors explaining that in their published works. To say otherwise creates a conflict.--Libracarol (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), illegal removal of people from the United States[1] violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other international law.[2][3]'
    - Lede of illegal removal of people from the United States
    Libracarol, can you show how the three sources support this statement? Slywriter (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    I think you're not familiar with US immigration laws as I am. I'm one of the leading experts on this. I even correct the US Supreme Court, see, e.g., Luna Torres v. Lynch. In that case the Court forgot that Congress was referring to a "conviction" being described by section 844(i). About your question, CAT is a well known international law. It's mentioned in nearly every deportation-related case. In Article 3 of the CAT, it explicitly states that no person can be illegally removed from the country. IIRIRA is a well known law in the United States, which for the first time introduced this single sentence statement: "No decision on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence." [51] Therefore, if a person is removed illegally it clearly and unambiguously becomes a violation of the CAT. If my introductory sentence is weird then change it to your way. The laws are there and nobody can ignore them. There already are dozens of news reports on this. I figured an article should be written about illegal deportation of people the law does not want them deported.--Libracarol (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for confirming the sources do not support the statement and are original research, synthesis and point of view pushing. Why? because CAT deals with expectation of torture(article notes say so), so an illegal deportation to say Canada would not violate CAT. So your absolute statement is not supported by sources. Anyway, we can deal with the real issue in another venue which is your repeated personal attacks and inability to work in a collaborative manner. Slywriter (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not what article 3 of the CAT says at all. It only makes deportation illegal if there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture [52]. In fact, it seems like pretty settled law that the scope of article 3 CAT is "limited to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".[1] Yet another factual error. JBchrch talk 13:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ammer, Margit; Schuechner, Andrea (2019). "Article 3". In Nowak, Manfred; Birk, Moritz; Monina, Giuliana (eds.). The United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol: A Commentary (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 126.
Illegal deportation would not violate CAT? If you or someone in your family were illegally deported and injured, it would be OK with you? No violation of law has occurred?--Libracarol (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Your strawman arguments are incredibly unhelpful and really seem to suggest that you're either intentionally distorting what the editors here are saying, or else are incapable of understanding the problems with your editing. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You're harassing me. I'm not distorting. If you're really a lawyer then you should know that the use of brackets is a normal writing practice.--Libracarol (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Novem's concern. Without repeating the reasons why, which others have explained above and at the previous WT:LAW discussion, these articles are overcited and are overusing court cases, which should be treated as primary sources (and not used for statements in wikivoice). Articles about legal issues should be built around scholarship and, for current events, top-quality journalism; court opinions are neither. The factual errors that have been pointed out are examples of why court cases shouldn't be used: most editors will not properly interpret them. Levivich 01:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
By the way, this is probably an ANI issue. I see years of complaints on Libracarol's user talk page about OR. Articles that start with, for example, "Deportation of Cambodian immigrants from the United States violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws,[1][2][3] unless it is done rationally and in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)" are totally wrong; that's not at all how a lead is supposed to be (MOS:LEAD); it's written like a law review article instead of an encyclopedia article. This seems to be a pretty long-running issue with one editor... Levivich 01:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich is unnecessarily diverting everyone's attention to my talk page, where years ago a few editors had normal unimportant discussions with me. I didn't create the Cambodian article. I went there to improve it. If you don't like the lead change it. This discussion is not about court cases, it's exclusively about written work of legal scholars that are easily accessible through Harvard Law School. The overcitation can easily be fixed by choosing the better reference over the unnecessary ones.--Libracarol (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Libracarol, let me try to explain this another way. Take a look at some of our law featured articles to get an idea of how great law encyclopedia articles are written. Wikipedia:Featured articles#Law, Sega v. Accolade, Menominee Tribe v. United States. In particular the citations sections. For one, they do not use the |quote= parameter at all, I would suggest you stop using that as 1) it makes citation sections too big and 2) it is a red flag that the citation is too complicated to support what is in the article. Second, you need to switch the sources you're using from cases (primary) to secondary sources. You'll notice that in these FAs, there are many citations to books, a couple to newspapers, a couple to law reviews, and a couple to cases. That is probably the ideal balance in this topic area. Your style of citing all cases probably works great for an attorney in a courtroom, whose job it is to make persuasive arguments using any available precedent they can find, but this does not work great for the job of an encyclopedist, whose job it is to concisely summarize mainstream views and scholarship and obtain the correct WP:WEIGHT. The skillset of an encyclopedist is not identical to the skillset of a great lawyer or legal scholar, please listen to skilled encyclopedists who are trying to teach you their skillset. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    I deal mostly with immigration-related articles. Those cases you cited have nothing to do with immigration. Some of the "quotes" could be removed, including some of the cases, I have no issue with that. I added them for the convenience of readers so they don't have to click on the sources. I also have no issue with sources other than court opinions, and I never stopped anyone from citing them. Immigration-related articles are mostly visited by attorneys and immigrants or aliens. That's the reason why I wrote them that way. "The proliferation of immigration laws and regulations has aptly been called a labyrinth that only a lawyer could navigate." [53]--Libracarol (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The article reads more like a legal paper than an encyclopedic article. In exlaining the law, legal experts will consult case law and explain how it evolved and which parts of decisions are binding. Typically, they will reference numerous cases to show that earlier decisions are still accepted as precedence and the various instances in which they apply. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, articles are not supposed to do this, they are supposed to summarize what these papers say. TFD (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, will you clean up your articles?

Hi Libracarol. By my count, including the WikiProject Law talk page thread, we are at 9 editors stating that court cases (including Supreme Court cases) are primary sources, and 2 editors against (including you). At this point I think we have a very strong consensus that you are incorrect about this. Most of these editors also agree that you are engaging in original research, and some have raised WP:NPOV concerns as well. Are you willing to make a statement that you understand that this is the wrong way to write Wiki articles, and also commit to cleaning up your existing articles? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You're making this as a court opinion where the majority's opinion controls but that's not how things work in Wikipedia. It's the quality not the quantity that matter for resolving the issue here. You know one editor can email all friends and invite them here? And you know that some editors have more than one user name? You saying Supreme Court opinions are primary is unsourced POV. Only admins can decide if I'm engaged in OR but you're not an admin.--Libracarol (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Shrug. I've been trying to convince you of community norms patiently and politely, only escalating to the next noticeboard if/when you are inflexible. You've got 9 editors (8 very experienced, including an admin) and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts telling you that we do things a certain way, yet you are still not convinced. You sound like a subject matter expert so it'd be great to convince you of our community norms via persuasion rather than sanctions. But it doesn't sound like we're getting through to you. Bummer. Sounds like we'll have to go to yet another noticeboard. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll always be ready wherever you take this issue to. May I remind you that everyone might laugh when you say to them that a written opinion by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and accessible through Harvard Law School is a primary source and not a reliable secondary source.--Libracarol (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
No, Libracarol, they will not laugh, I can tell you that for sure. In fact, they might consider that there may be a WP:CIR issue at play here. JBchrch talk 14:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
We shall see.--Libracarol (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Related discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Libracarol original research. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol cleanup

The ANI is over and ended in a topic ban. So I guess all that is left to do is clean up. What approach should we take to cleaning up these articles? At a minimum, probably need to put {{primary}} tags on all of them. We could also do other things if we judge it to be necessary, such as replacing the large citations with {{citation needed}}, TNT, draftify, AFD, etc. By the way, the list above is not exhaustive, I have found other articles in the user's history that have the same issues that are not included in the original list. How shall we proceed? Can a law editor spot check one of the articles and let us know how bad the OR is and what their recommended course of action is? Maybe spot check one of their creations and also one of their overhauls (overhauls are likely to not be as bad. example: [54]). @WilliamJE and Alyo:. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've generated a list of all pages that LC has edited here, with redirects and minor edits removed. Unfortunately some of these single edit pages are still large edits (e.g. here) so we need to check all of these. I'll go through these slowly, but if anyone else takes on any please just remove or strike through the entry on the list when you're done. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
As a first step, I would suggest to stubify the articles for which Libracarol has 90-100% authorship (if they are not eligible for AFD). (We can check one by one the XTools data for each of the article in the data pulled by Alyo: see for instance for Title 8 of the United States Code here, despite a single edit.) Given what has transpired here and at ANI, we know that a significant part of the content will not meet the relevant standards, and I think it would not be cost-effective to sift through every edit and every citation to find what little can be kept. IMO, {{cn}} and {{primary}} imply some sort of AGF by the "tagger", but I don’t think we can assume much here. I'm ready to do it myself and take responsibility, btw. JBchrch talk 16:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

List of right-wing terrorist attacks

List of right-wing terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This very lengthy list has very few inline references. My concern is that a lot of the items in this list are not "terrorist attacks" - they are just racist or other hate crimes. Not all hate crimes are terror attacks. For example, the Murder of Mireille Knoll, the Murder of James Craig Anderson, and the Death of Sean Kennedy were all horrific hate crimes. But nothing about them suggests that they were terrorist attacks. For that matter, I don't see anything in any of these articles that ascribes any particular political views to the assailants, so I'm not sure how these are "right-wing" occurrences either. (They are most certainly "hate crimes". But just being a "hate crime" does not make something "right-wing terrorism".) I think this list needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and anything that doesn't have a reliable source calling it "right-wing terrorism" or perhaps "neo-nazi terrorism" should be stricken from the list. I'm also not entirely convinced that some of the 1960s things belong on here - for example, Medgar Evers was literally murdered by a Democrat and the Democratic governor of Mississippi appeared in support of him (the murderer) at his trial. So I'm really having trouble with this list - it looks like someone cobbled together a list of every hate crime and declared them to be "right-wing terrorist" attacks, with no reliable source for that designation on any of them. --B (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Much the same can be said for most Wikipedia articles on 'ideologically-motivated-terrorism', all across the political spectrum and beyond. Rife with POV pushing, OR, and poor or non-existent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
When we provide this type of list, I think the list itself should be supported in reliable sources. Since right-wing terrorism is terrorism motivated by right-wing ideology, it is often difficult to classify, since we don't necessarily know the motivation, particularly with individuals involved in one event. Most right-wing terrorists, unlike other types of terrorists, are mentally disturbed and act alone, which makes the determination of motivation difficult. They tend to act alone because they are disturbed and unable to trust other people.
The other issue is that other types of terrorism, such as religious, single-issue and nationalist can be committed by people who are right-wing. Orange terrorists for example tend to be right-wing and religious, but the motivation for their terrorism is ethnic/nationalist: they want to keep Ulster in the UK.
Organized terrorism is easier to classify, since in is easier to determine the motivation of a group.
TFD (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Before considering whether each item meets probably undefinable criteria, such as finding an RS that can define 'right-wing' as a coherent ideology, a proposal for deletion might be a better investment of time. ~ cygnis insignis 14:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • CAUTION - This is an area that is prone to original research. First and foremost, labels such as “terrorism” and “terrorist” are extraordinary claims and thus must be supported by VERY reliable sources. And even then, we should use in-text attribution to make it clear to our readers exactly who has applied the label to the event or person. To then add an ideological modifier (whether political, religious, or other), we also need extraordinarily high quality sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, 'must' and 'should' are very nice sentiments. Unfortunately it has been amply demonstrated that the Wikipedia article-creation-and-editing process is incapable of actually maintaining content that complies, when dealing with such subjects. 'Anyone can edit', so the POV-pushers do. AndyTheGrump (talk)
To add, since "terrorism" can have legal implications (acts of terror tried with more penalties that other crimes without that motivation), these should be based on what authorities have classified the crimes as, not simply what reliable sources say (as they will tend to call a lot of things terrorism that aren't actually tried as such). And since rarely do authorities include "right-wing" type aspects in this classification, this entire list is pretty much a violation of NOR. --Masem (t) 15:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that "right-wing" can be established even without the media calling them a right-winger - for example, if they are a member of a "right-wing" organization. But for a whole lot of these (probably the majority), there is no such membership - it's just the assumption that any hate crime must be a "right-wing" perpetrator, which is obviously false. --B (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Just as a point of order, Medgar Evers was murdered by a Klansman, who were very much right wing. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Democrats were very much on the right wing of American politics. His assassination, if not terrorism, was definitely political violence committed by the right wing. BSMRD (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That's more a modern re-interpretation / rewrite of history than anything they would have thought of themselves as being. FDR's New Deal was as progressive or more progressive than anything today, for example. Just because the Democrats were the racist party at the time doesn't mean they were "right-wing". --B (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean if you think Strom Thurmond and his Southern Democrat ilk were leftists I can't stop you, but I think they and anyone who has written in depth about American politics at the time would disagree with you. Regardless, the important thing that makes Evers' killer a right-winger isn't that he was a Democrat but that he was a Klansman. BSMRD (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
If Medger Evers' killer was "right-wing" and a "terrorist", then you should be able to find a reliable source referring to both of those characteristics. Certainly someone who is a klansman today (or a Proud Boy or a member of some other similar organization) is almost certainly "right-wing" and simply their membership in that organization would satisfy the requirement to demonstrate "right-wing". But in the 1960s, the lines were much more blurred. So if a before someone who is a member of such an organization in the 1960s is called a "right-wing terrorist", I think a reliable source for the characterization of them as "right-wing" needs to be provided. Certainly Strom Thurmand's political views are well documented and "right-wing" is appropriate for him. But I don't know (and it needs to be shown) that Medger Ever's killer was "right-wing". --B (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Unitary state

Originally the government types on Wikipedia in the infoboxes came from the [www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ U.S. CIA World Factbook - here] which under "Government" tab listed what each government's type is.

Someone came along and created all new government types, it seems to get away from that convention and has been creating new ones such as for Barbados on Wikipedia they were calling it a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since republic this has become a "unitary state parliamentary republic" To which I stated it needs a reference. Nothing in the government has announced that change to which the unitary state page was pointed to without any firm sources but goes on to call many other states "unitary".

At the time the U.S. CIA World factbook called Barbados a : "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy; a Commonwealth realm".

Guyana [55] is called a : "parliamentary republic" Trinidad and Tobago [56] is called a : "parliamentary republic"

This unitary state page seems to use a single page to say what a "unitary state" is [57] but that site doesn't define every country and only lists a handful. So where are the rest getting their confirmation from in order to not be original research? If this is going to be used as a reference for all of wikipedia shouldn't it have profiles for each country with a designation that they attribute to each country to be conclusive? CaribDigita (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Assange mini-stroke possible synth

At Talk:Julian_Assange#Mini-stroke there is a discussion about inclusion of whether to include that his fiancee Stella Moris said Assange suffered a mini-stroke on the 27th October on the first day of a hearing into his extradition. One objection is that putting it in would amount to synth, "... Moreover, juxtaposition of a statement about Assange's health with unrelated content about his court appearance would constitute SYNTH and could mislead our readers". It seems a bit much to me to remove the information because it happened during the hearing. Is synth really saying that or should it really be put in a seprate paragraph and no mention made of the hearing or what? NadVolum (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

When writing a biography, one normally does so in chronological order. Which generally results in things that happened at around the same time being described in proximity in the text. I suggest that the article merely reports the facts according to whatever reliable sources we have, and leaves it to the reader to decide whether there is any connection between the events described. It is generally better to assume readers have the ability to think for themselves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
The article is not organized chronologically and frankly, I've seen no biographies of controversial living persons that follow such a scheme. Or even bios of the long-departed e.g. Jonathan Swift Isaac Newton Horace.
At any rate, the issue of Assange's health has repeatedly been raised by various of his supporters, attorneys and others in several contexts to plead for denial of the extradition mandate that is the subject of current discussion and the article section in which this content was inserted. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, if his state of health has been raised by his attorneys, it would seem rather strange to omit content regarding said state, since it is clearly relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump:. It has not been raised by his attorneys nor by anyone else other than his consort, as far as we know. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be contradicting yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: Sorry, I was not clear. This claim that he suffered a stroke has not been raised by the attorneys or magistrate in connection with the legal proceeding that is the subject of the section in which the stroke claim was placed in the article. Also, please note that on this noticeboard the issue OP raised is whether this is SYNTH or might promote a synth association between the health claim and his legal standing. As to whether this content is DUE WEIGHT or whether it might qualify for some other section of the article, I believe those are questions for other WP venues. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, we are writing a biography of Assange here, not an article on formal court proceedings. Regardless of whether Assange's attorneys have raised this specific claim or not, multiple reliable sources have chosen to report it, while discussing the trial. See e.g. the Sydney Morning Herald, which not only reports the claim, but draws attention to Assange's "dishevelled" appearance during the hearings, which it seems to think relevant. [58] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Biographies are not required to be in chronological order, particular the way we usually push off Personal Life details to their own section and leaving clear career factors in the "main" section. Unless RSes have tied the mini-stroke to the trial, it would be inappropriate to highlight it there, and within a Personal Life section, could be said "ahead of his October 2021 trial..." --Masem (t) 19:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Assange's state of health isn't just a 'personal life' issue if it is seen as relevant to the trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a small personal life section that gives a bit about his former wife, his fiancee and children. Actually looking at it now I think some of it relating to his imprisonment should perhaps be in the main chronologial part and cut it down even more. The stroke happened on the first day of the hearing. NadVolum (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the notional synthesis? If this implication drawn from a combination of sources exists, we should at least know what this notional synthesis is. It's certainly not apparent from a reading of the proposed article text. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup. I've not seen anything being discussed here which looks like synthesis. No novel conclusion is being drawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Placement in the section relating to his trial will suggest to many readers that there is a connection between this (undocumented) stroke and his legal case. His supporters have insinuated claims of health risks into many of Assange's prior and ongoing conflicts with authorities. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
So, no actual novel conclusion at all then. Just sourced and relevant content you'd rather not see in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting Specifico that there is no synthesis. Were there to be a connecting clause or even merely a conjunction, joining or providing a connection between the preceding content about the hearing and this content about a mini-stroke that occurred during the same hearing, one could make an argument of synthesis (but not a strong one).


No such clause or conjunction has been proposed. The notional synthesis was illusory (or invented). It’s entirely appropriate to place a separate sentence, about an incident that took place at the exact same time in Assange’s biography as another event, in proximity to the description of the latter event. Obviously. What you claim, without any evidence, that "his supporters" (you give no indication how you know who they are) have "insinuated" is of no relevance or consequence to this discussion, except inasmuch as your belief may go some way to explain the exceptionally poor judgement you exercise as to what content policies are relevant to this issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Unless you have reliable sources that tie the stroke to the trial (beyond noting the stroke happened on the first day of the trial), it is absolutely synthesis and coatracking of an undue aspect (medical health) to his legal situation. I don't know if there are sources or not that comment on the stroke and the impact on the trial, but they absolutely need to be there to make that strong a connection outside of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 01:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You write of that strong a connection. There is no connection whatsoever implied in the proposed text. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Placing the information about the stroke outside of a personal life section and alongside the trial is coatracking that information, which is synth and not appropriate. --Masem (t) 04:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
From WP:COATRACK (an essay, not policy, incidentally): "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects". The subject of the article is Assange. Everything in it relates to his personal life. Including his health, and the trial. There has already been much discussion in reliable sources regarding claims over health problems as possible grounds to halt extradition. And there is nothing in policy that dictates a biography arbitrarily divide related content into different sections, purely to avoid placing content together because some contributors would prefer that readers not be allowed to come to their own conclusions about possible connections within it. If such a policy were ever enacted, and enforced, it would make writing biographies impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
With (still) no explanation of where this notional synth or coatrack arises, this remains an unsupported bare assertion. Proximity alone is not a basis for tenuously claiming two unconnected sentences about two events that occurred on the same day to the same person as a synthesis. That’s not in the policy, and as Andy says, such a policy would make writing BLP next to impossible. Which is presumably why consensus has not seen to include that in the policy (nor indeed has anyone ever suggested it). The article subject is Julian Assamge’s life, not the intricacies of a court case. The section subject is also Assange’s life, in the most recent period. The notion that including an event that occurred in the relevant section of his life is a coatrack is not grounded in reality. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Stella Moris certainly did make a connection to the trial and his previous treatment in what she said but the proposal did not include any part of that. That would just be her opinion. I guess others might make that connection too but I think we'd need something better saying there was or was not a connection before going down that path. It is a pity her statement about him having had an MRI scan and being on stroke medication is omitted in the green listed perennial souces at WP: RSP and only in yellow ones currently - there was someone at the discussion saying basically it might all be a lie by Stella Moris, they'd need an MRI to check and why is it not on the BBC site if it is worth putting in the article! NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia won't accept it as wikipedia censors it. But for those who do like the truth. Julian Assange's dad did an interview yesterday on RT America stating his son had a stroke.[59] CaribDigita (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Rosemarie Koczy

Rosemarie Koczy is an American Artist known for her her many works dealing with the Holocaust, who she claimed to be an survivor of. These claims and her Autobiography was examined by German historian in 2017, who came to the conclusion that her biography was forged and neither Koczy nor her parents were subject to persecution by the Nazis. The Historians have since published a broschure in German (which follows scientific standards e.g. presenting sources in footnotes) were they present their research. Both the New York Times and Deutsche Welle wrote articles about their research (there are more articles in german). Both Articles present the forgery-claims not as facts, both also dont contest the conclusions of the historians.

The Wikipedia Article about Rosemarie Koczy currently dismisses the claims of forgery as unproven and false. One of the editors of the articel Yashchi argues, that he read the broschure and didn`t found it convincing. He presents multiple counterarguments on the Talk Page against some of the conclusions of the broschure, which I in turn don´t find convincing, but which also (under my understanding) constitute Original Research. He wrote an Email to the authors of the New York Times and Deutsche Welle Article about the forgery claims which contain the same arguments he presents in the Talk page and presents these as a source for the Wikipedia-Article itself. These Mails, which are provided in form of an Affidavit, and the arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page are (aside from a statement by Rosemarie Koczys husband) the only rebuttal of the forgery claims made by the German Historians. I tried multiple times to propose paragraphs that show the conflict from a Neutral Point of View and show both sides of the controversy. Yashchi currently blocks any changes that try to present the forgery claims from a Neutral Point of View with reference to his counterarguments on the talk page and demands that

"if anybody has issues with the facts or arguments that I used, please present them on this Talk page"

— Yashchi, Rosemarie Koczy Talk Page

He also demands that the authors of the broschure have to defend their conclusions and debate his arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page.

When I removed the claims that are only sourced by his affidavits (containing his E-Mails) and formulated a paragraph that presented the claims by the german historians not as "disproven" but only rejected by her husband, he accused me of "Libel" and claimed that removing his affidavits was "illegal". (you can read my proposed formulation here) I dont want to discuss the forgery claims or Mr. Yaschi rebuttal in depth, because from my understanding this would constitute Original Research but I exchange all my arguments with Mr.Yashchi and could use an outside perspective (maybe I`m in the wrong?). Qwerwino (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia" (quoting WP:SPA).
Yashchi's posts have a clear agenda in relation to Koczy's wikibio that includes treating an affidavit that he has written as an RS and treating his OR conclusions, that dismiss published materials, as definitive in article space and in Wikipedia's voice. I have no idea whether the allegations of forgery are true, nor whether the content is covered in an NPOV and DUE way, but I can see that Yashchi appears unwilling or unable to follow project norms and policies, appears to have a personal agenda, and is creating a legitimate reason to question his neutrality. I agree with Qwerwino that there is a problem with OR and with third opinion contributor Firefangledfeathers that, even as a SPS, Yashchi's affidavit is problematic for inclusion. Yashchi's response is dangerously close to violating WP:NLT, stating to Firefangledfeathers that:
In relation to your comment on libel, the Wikipedia policy also protects "recently deceased" people, so there is nothing metaphorical about my characterization of a false forgery claim against her as libel. Note that this claim appeared within 10 years of her death. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that libel is also defined by the law of the land and not only by the Wikipedia policy. In relation to your suggested compromise, I consider removing Affidavit-2 which exonerates an unjustly accused person as an intentional libelous act - so, it is morally unacceptable (by agreeing to that, I would also be breaking the law).
And then, to Qwerwino, declaring that:
In relation to you question on proposed continuation, you can contact people in Wikipedia dealing with libel. I can see a clear push to smear the name of this prominent artist, and this might be the right time to get them involved in the process.
As I see it, there are two issues here:
  1. What to do about Yashchi, his legal comments, and his agenda? If he does not start to recognise WP policy and norms, this may end up being evaluated at WP:COIN or at WP:ANI.
  2. What NPOV and RS-supported content is DUE for this wikibio?
172.195.96.244 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I dont want to cause Yashchi any problems and recognize his contributions to the Article about Rosemary Koczy.
I just think that the forgery claims should be included in the article without being wrongfully dismissed as "unproven" or "false". I`m new to wikipedia, so I dont really know how to proceed. Should I just edit the page again, knowing that Yaschi will likely just change it back again? That seems like an "Edit War" that should be avoided.
I added a new section to the Talk page about the brochure and the different conflicting sources concerning Koczys life story, that may clarify what content would be NPOV an RS-supported. I still think that my proposed edit from december presents the controversy in a balanced way. It relies on Yashchis depiction based on Koczys Memoir and simply supplements it by the corresponding conclusions of the german historians, without taking a position itself. I would happily discuss critique, suggestions for improvement or alternative formulations based on the Wikipedia guidelines and not Original Research or Refusal to engage with the brochure or the articles reporting on it.
Qwerwino (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_46&oldid=1113235553"