![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Is this sentence original research by synthesis or not?
My position is that it’s NOT original research:
1. The text of Seneca clearly makes an association between mice and eating cheese. This is just describing what the text says. That is not OR. Similar examples of using primary sources can be found in good articles such as Pigs in culture:
2. The source also notes that Seneca lived in the Roman period. Since Seneca makes this association in the Roman period then concluding that the association appears in the Roman period is an immediate undisputed logical step, akin to 1+1=2. This is not forbidden synthesis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
so why did he choose this behaviorI don't know and nor do you. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place here about whether or not the use of this source to claim the Libertarian Party (Australia) follows the ideology of conservatism is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Further input would be much appreciated. Helper201 ( talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "
... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPath talk 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?
For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion ( talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite 1 on the page is Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell, ed. (1 March 2023).
The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170.
ISBN
9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.
How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 ( talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
References
On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.
The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.
I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 ( talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be full of syth and making generalizations from random articles and quotes, i'm not really sure how what the best way to deal with it is— blindlynx 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios ( talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
A dispute has been ongoing for nearly a month at Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling regarding the insertion into the article of information regarding polls on the Canadian monarchy. There seems to be agreement that no one should engage in WP:SYNTH. However, there's either unawareness or misinterpretation of what "no synthesis" means. An appeal for more editors to get involved was made at WP:CANADA; however, few have jumped in. Input from those who're active here would be appreciated. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I have tagged "Overview / Statewide" section of 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California because I don't think it is verifiable. The tag was removed, citing WP:CALC.
The table includes several columns. One is "votes", which totals the number of votes for all candidates of each party. While this totaling is "basic arithmetic ... such as adding numbers" (from WP:CALC) from referenced sources, my argument is that the verifiability requirement is still not met. No reference is offered that verifies these numbers.
Instead, verification must proceed by examining the votes receive by each candidate for each of 50 districts. There are three to five candidates, or so, for each of those districts -- so something like 240 numbers must be found and summed to verify the totals here.
Additional columns count candidates from each district, then break those down by the number of contested seats and number of candidates advancing. These require more counts and comparisons spread again over the 52 districts.
This is far more converting from one unit to another, or summing even a couple dozen values from the same source in the same table. Here, the values are spread across a giant article, all from different specific sources, and are aggregated into different categories.
Is such a lengthy and tedious process in this state "verifiable"? Does it still qualify as a "basic arithmetic"? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
In general, when editing a biography of a person who died many years ago, should I ruthlessly delete all material marked as personal research, even if that material does not appear controversial? TooManyFingers ( talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is about [1]. IMHO, the demand that "quite conservative" and "mainstream" should be found verbatim in the WP:RS is absurd. We render the meaning of the WP:RS, we don't closely paraphrase it. The deletion is taking WP:OR to absurd extent. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
For someone who is very vocal about their understanding of the rules, you seem to have neglected to review WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Additionally, starting a noticeboard discussion immediately invites questions of forum-shopping. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace. This is not a meta-discussion: you inserted content not in the source. You could have weakly argued it was appropriate per WP:BLUESKY (if this wasn't a contestable claim about a living person). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
you inserted content not in the sourceis a disputed claim, namely that you take WP:OR to absurd extent.
There's nothing in the source about "mainstream" but it does characterize Dever as
one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel.Does that help? Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The article on Muqatta'at, the disconnected letters at the beginnings of several chapters of the Qur'an, has received a large addition connecting these letters with the Tarot and ancient Egypt. At first there were no references, and the addition was therefore deleted. It was restored with footnotes referring in every case to other Wikipedia articles. The material was therefore deleted again, with the explanation that Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources. The material was again restored, with the statement that the references must be accepted. To complicate matters, the contributor seems to believe himself to be the Mahdi (his name is a form of that word). The contributor has now reverted three deletes, and seems determined to persevere. Can anyone calm this situation, or must we freeze the article? J S Ayer ( talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I was discussing some edits in the Min Hee-Jin talk page after various reversion. Specifically the first controversies section. Please note that we reached a consensus after I took the time to talk to everybody and rewrite it but I am still curious about the proper procedure.
The first reliable source of the section is refering to twitter users commenting on instagram posts (since deleted) of Min Hee-Jin where you would be able to see her apartement. She was accused of being inspired by sexual media with minors. The Reliable source only mention one of the movies you could see on her walls. I added all of them to the section. They were reverted as "unsourced". Even if those posts are fabricated, they are archived on archive.org but I think on a static page only, how is the one explicitely mentioned in the article different in status from the others? The article is referring to a twitter discussion and picking one movie just for space or editorial reasons. Is adding the other movies referenced by the twitter users screenshots of instagram an "original research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
If a scientist conducts scientific research by experiment about something he should not include the results in a WP article unless possibly he publishes it in a learned periodical first especially if that magazine article is reviewed by other scientists. That I can understand. If a historian researches a subject he cannot include his own conclusions in a WP article unless they agree with earlier research. If for instance the research is into the causes of the Second World War, if he agrees with say AJP Taylor's conclusions he can cite Taylor's works in the same way as he can cite facts included in Taylor's books. However he cannot cite something he finds in an unpublished diary letter or speech of Adolf Hitler or Neville Chamberlain. If the speech, letter or diary is published as a complete document-perhaps in a book of collected correspondence or a single web published page on say a University website. That I can understand. If a WP page mentions a particular building with which I am familiar and perhaps see every week and that building is demolished or changes its use can I change the WP article or is it called "original research." .There is a published source about the building but saying it exists or has a particular use, but this has not been updated. A sourced WP article says e.g."there is a post office at Smallville" but there is no source to say the Smallville Post Office has been demolished or has been turned into a private house. Can a resident of Smallville .correct the article to say so or simply delete the sentence about it? This can be verified by anybody that visits Smallville. This is mere observation rather than research. No special scientific or historian's skill involved. I have encountered this sort of situation on a number of occasions and it has been difficult to find sources and sometimes the information has been indirect such as a directory that does not include any mention of the building.. . Spinney Hill ( talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the volatility of the URL, you can archive the current page at archive.org then include the archive address as part of the citation. Zero talk 01:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
In September and October 2022, CinemaKnight100 added sections to several dozen articles about the composition and redistricting of different congressional districts. These sections include population information without any citation for the numbers given, and no timestamp information for when the observation might have been made. Further, they don't contain any references for the definition of the district boundaries, so the towns and cities claimed for the districts are also not verifiable.
How can this material best be corrected? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In the article Anna Panagiotopoulou the User:KNIM123 insists - contrary to all reliable secondary sources - on putting as the year of birth of the actress, his own information, as he clearly states on his talk page . The conversation was made in greek but and here is the translation. I know it personally. His name is not Damoulakos, but Damoulakis. And as a source there is an article about her funeral that mentions the name Dimitris Damoulakis as her son. Also, she was born in 1945, not 1947, the electoral registers verify this, citing the following information on the Ministry of Interior's "Find out where you vote" platform: DAMOULAKI ANNA ANDREAS ANDREAS 1945. Please restore my edition D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Two years ago I removed a large amount (~74,000 bytes) of original research and fringe views (I will notify WP:FTN of this thread) from Safa Khulusi. A somewhat longish (sorry!) explanation and diffs of the removals at Talk:Safa Khulusi#Removal of originally researched analysis of Khulusi's works. Basically, the article was using Khulusi's own writings to present his (fringe) views as facts, and more generally providing an evaluation of Khulusi's work without any secondary sources.
Recently, a new single-purpose account StopTheV4dals has repeatedly reinstated [3] [4] the last revision before my removals two year ago (cf. [5]). They refuse to discuss at the article talk.
Which revision should the article feature, StopTheV4dals's reinstatement of the old one [6] or my pruned revision of the last two years [7]? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
User @MonsenorNouel is including the unsourced claim that "Brazil has the largest mulatto population in the world". None of the "sources" he provided explicitly state the claim. He is doing WP:SYNTH/ WP:OR and therefore the claim must be removed. Some of the sources include blog posts, a link to a book store, and book titles with no page given whatsoever. Torimem ( talk) 14:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned at Talk:Ages of consent in the United States#Washington: non-prosecute part, I have derived a truth table from the law regarding age of consent in the state of Washington. The source of this table can either be the actual laws 9A.44.073 - 093 or the Bill analysis. Would this truth table be origional research?
table showing ages of permissible sexual contact
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legend
|
Subanark ( talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
easily checked against the text of the lawisn't good enough. Lots of laws appear to say something obvious, but what if there is another law that interacts with it in some way in some scenarios? It's dangerous territory. If we're going to put a big green tick against something and label it permissible (particularly something controversial, and particularly something that would be highly illegal in nearby similar jurisdictions), I'd want to see a reliable secondary source state unambiguously and explicitly that this is the correct interpretation of the law. I'm also more than a little skeptical that "will not prosecute" equates to "A-OK, go right ahead" (which is what a big green tick usually signifies), if the language of the law still refers to one party as a victim. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not– WHAT??? No, if you don't have a first-class source laying out exactly the answer, then it's better to say nothing at all.
Welcome to the Alaska Legal Resource Center, which is dedicated to providing free access to public legal resources, such as case law, court rules, statutes and regulations. Provided by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc, your computer consultant and Bright Solutions, Computer Forensic Experts. This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business. Last Modified 12/10/2007.
Last Modified 12/10/2007bit might explain why that same page also provides handy links to
Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, two of whom are dead (Stevens since 2010). The entire site is a zombie trapped in a time warp from twenty years ago, and that's what you're drawing on to tell our readers who the can have sex with and still stay out of prison? Are you kidding? And to be clear, such a source wouldn't be a reliable one even if it were nominally up to date.
Humphrey Law Offices ... Rhode Island Statutory Rape Defense Attorney ... Have you been accused of statutory rape?[11] – once again: are you kidding?
Hi, this is about [12]. Please chime in.
Meaning: could not invoke a 1989 document that had already been "annulled" by the 2011 court decision smacks of a priori reasoning. But we have 9 (nine) WP:RS that his defense pleaded he is legally insane during his extradition trial. So, empirical reality goes against her a priori reasoning. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
These are allegations that the press obsessively repeats, even though no official accusations of pimping or prostitution have been made—again, how would Mr. Andreescu know in 2017 what happened in 2023 and 2024? Is he a psychic? tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Is this considered WP:OR?
Example:
Another example:
How about this:
Can we place in the infobox of the article that Suleiman had an army of 100,000/200,000 men? Or is this considered WP:OR? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Numbers seem to have had little meaning for the sixteenth-century mind, before mentioning a source that gives 200,000 vs. 700,000. Setton then mentions Gerhartl's survey but says he
also believes, however, that Suleiman's army consisted of 200,000 soldiers. To me, that "however" is Setton saying "this scholar put together a useful outline but even he's overestimating the numbers". Otherwise, why mention them only in a footnote about wildly inflated numbers? Woodroar ( talk) 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
100,000 men were at the siege. (I can get into that if you're interested.) But it's the same number as Miller so it may not be worth the spoons arguing about it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A number of Muslim Islamic scholars (including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm (994-1064)), believe that belief in Jinn (supernatural beings, the origin of Genies) is essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. I want to add two more scholars ( Abul A'la Maududi (1903-1979) and Fethullah Gülen (1941-), on the basis of what they have clearly written in their own (RS) scholarly work
Quotes from scholars' writing |
Supporting Abul A'la Maududi's belief:
Supporting Fethullah Gülen's belief that Jinn are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran, are quotes from his work, Essentials of the Islamic Faith:
|
... on the same lines. Would it be okay to add such names as WP:SUMMARY in the list or would that be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (with assistance of User:Bookku)
The brief of main
Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion
|
---|
The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover. User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration. |
* Present sentence in the article for consideration here
|
---|
Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. |
Can someone pl. help in finding previous discussions, similar to the case discussed in this section above, from archives of this notice board or any other discussion, if possible? Bookku ( talk) 00:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Since some users dealing first time to such question seem to find the question complex, or difficult to understand. It's much likely that similar issue would have been discussed and some old timers may be aware or at least able to get into the nitty-gritty. Below I could collate few old discussions and active old timers of this notice board from xtools. If user of either side of discussion wishes to request more inputs from them then in case you ping then ping all active ones from following.
Finding active old timers from this notice board for inputs
|
---|
Finding exact similar instantaneously from archives or talk pages is huge task, but in archives I could have few following discussions where users seem discussing some complex aspects:
From this xtools still active among most active users on this notice board: User:Blueboar User:The Four Deuces, User:Viriditas, User:Doug Weller, User:Masem |
Bookku ( talk) 06:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Have you already specifically tried to find a secondary source that talks about their views on the belief in jinns?Yes I have. Commentators on Maududi and Gülen mostly seem interested in their influence on Pakistan and Turkey respectively, which at certain times was considerable. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
While my expertise in Islamic scholarship is very limited, I think its safe to say that
ibn Taymiyya is mentioned because he is a celebrated scholar. the two more modern scholars are mentioned because they indicate that to a large extent current pious opinion has not changed greatly, of course it remains to be seen how well respect for their scholarship will withstand the test of time.
The following is a quotation which appears in the same source at page 33:
|
---|
Dämonenglaube im Islam
Tobias Nünlist, "Dämonenglaube im Islam". p. 33. |
If you have some free time and are interested in lending a hand, please take a quick look at the talk page. You will find there several sources that confirm what is written above in bold. Thank you.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this sidebar used to have a list of events considered genocides, unfortunately this was a source of common disputes about how to follow NPOV (which events could be called genocide in wikivoice by listing in the template). Another editor organized the list into different levels of acceptance—which genocides are "universally", "majority" considered genocides—unfortunately these classifications are neither supported by RS nor particularly accurate. Can we get more input into avoiding OR in this template. Thanks ( t · c) buidhe 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This block of text was recently added to Cat predation on wildlife:
The advocacy group SongBird Survival, a limited company which achieved charitable status in 2001 and funds research into the causes of declining songbird populations, noted on its website in 2006 that "cats are frequently singled out as the primary reason for the disappearance of Britain's songbirds" and described the claim as unjustified. It decried the absence of numbers for cat predation on birds from the 1997 survey by the Mammal Society, and drew a comparison between the figure of 55 million birds killed annually by UK's suggested 9–10 million cats, derived from an estimate by Cats Protection, and the 100 million birds preyed on by the 100,000-strong UK population of sparrowhawks each year. It suggested that the hunting instinct of cats "could be dulled by their reduced need to catch their own food" and by human-sourced amusement, while noting that the total 2002 value of the cat product and service market approximated £1.5bn. [1] However, a 2006 study report commissioned by SongBird Survival blamed grey squirrels and feral cats as responsible for "a sharp decline" in bird populations in combination with sparrowhawks. It alleged that predators were as harmful as factory farming and that their populations were "spiralling out of control". [2] In December 2015, Nick Forde, a trustee of SongBird Survival, denounced the RSPB's position on the grounds that adequate studies had not been done. He accused RSPB of protecting their financial interests and pointed to the difference in income between his charity and the rival RSPB. [3] By 2016, the website of Songbird Survival also alleged that RSPB's position was "no longer tenable". In support of this claim, it now stated that "the recovering sparrowhawk population in the 1970–80s resulted in the decline of some songbird populations" and that "cats kill around 3 times as many songbirds as sparrowhawks", hence it is "far more [sic] likely that cats have an even greater impact on songbird populations than sparrowhawks". [4]
References
- ^ Acting to Save Songbirds: CATS – Love them or hate them!, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 20 June 2006
- ^ Animals 'devastate' UK songbirds, BBC, 29 May 2006
- ^ Webster, Ben (30 December 2015). "RSPB accused of going soft on cats to appease donors". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 27 September 2020.
- ^ Songbird predation by free-roaming domestic and feral cats, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 31 July 2016
Songbird Survival's post-2006 view appears to represent the current scientifc consensus that predation by cats is a global conservation problem. (e.g., [14]) Is it original research to include these contradictory earlier views sourced to Internet Archive versions of their old website? There seems to be an implied conclusion that their views have changed a lot. Geogene ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Here, by contrast, the material is being misused to try to contradict current scientific consensus and to miscast the authoring organization as holding an advocacy position that it does not in fact hold any longer, so it's wrongheaded twice over.
The same editor (VampaVampa), in material [15] related to and longer than the quote above, is also trying to contradict current research with primary-source papers from the 1970s, which is not okay per WP:OLDSOURCES, though that might ultimately be a matter for WP:RSN if we really needed to have multiple, forked noticeboard discussions about this editor's approach. There's a lengthy thread about all of this at Talk:Cat predation on wildlife#Addition of old sources and misuse of primary sources, and it follows on another lengthy thread just above it, about a prior drive-by editor trying to similarly use advocacy op-ed material as if it were a scientific literature review. This article attracts this kind of WP:FRINGE stuff due to its emotionally politicized nature, ultimately a conflict between ecologists, zoologists, and other scientists, versus the more extreme bent in the animal-welfare advocacy camp (who somehow can stomach invasive cats killing billions of small animals per year, but cannot abide the idea of culling of feral cat populations, even if it means the difference between several more bird and other species surviving or going rapdily extinct due to cat predation).
VampaVampa's approach to all of this is outlandish claims that both WP and the scientific sources themselves are "biased", and even an evidence-free accusation that modern researchers are "ignoring" prior evidence/research that VV clearly considers to be WP:THETRUTH. This is leaning strongly in a conspiracy-theoretic direction. Their response to rebuttal has been to play victim and to text-wall their same position again and again in excessive, repetitive detail as if not already rebutted, and this is cannot go anywhere productive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
there are concerns that the below is potentially not relevant. i believe it is but i would like a review from anyone who wishes to read it:
Labour politician and former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said that Labour 'sent out search parties' to bring migrants to Britain [1] at the Blairite think-tank Progress stating "in 2004, when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country." [2] [3] Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class [4] while journalist Alex Hern argues that Mandelson "sounded like he was talking about the sort of programmes which were aimed at getting high-skilled immigrants to come to Britain" and that "the argument that Mandelson’s search parties “made it hard for Britons to get work” isn’t based in fact". [5] Mandelson stated ‘we were almost... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now... we have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin [makes it] hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.' [6]
Lord Mandelson’s remarks came three years after Labour officials denied claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain saying that the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. [7] [8] After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. [9] Labour politician Ed Miliband said that the Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”. [10] Tory chairman Grant Shapps said that the admission that Labour had let immigration “spiral out of control” was “yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.” [11] NotQualified ( talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NotQualified ( talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
References
about the conspiracy theory?Remember, the topic of the article is a conspiracy theory about population replacement, not Labour's immigration policy or even replacement migration. Content for the article, regardless of the terminology it uses, must relate to the topic of the article. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous peoples in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Editors following this board may be interested in editing the above article, which currently purports to straightforwardly present a list of groups indigenous to India with inadequate sources; academic literature on this topic primarily problematizes the category and the difficulties of identifying who belongs to it due to the history of successive empires subjugating India or parts thereof, followed by partition and independence, but none of this aspect of the topic is currently covered in the article. signed, Rosguill talk 15:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
On this article, IP addresses keep adding the same edit regarding donations to the politician Gillian Keegan. I suspect it is the same user as the edit is always identical: "According to the 2023 Register of Interests, Keegan has accepted donations of £5000 from the following named individuals:
Tim Ashley, Charles Lewington of Hanover Communications, former Morgan Stanley bank President Franck Petitgas and David Russell as well as £17,710.60 from the Catholic Bishops Conference England & Wales and two tickets with hospitality to Qatar Goodwood Festival, total value £2,268. [1]"
The edit was reverted several times by myself and other editors in February and March who viewed the content as original research/in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY as it relies only on a primary source with no secondary sources to establish notability. The same exact edit has been added over the last few days but an IP keeps adding it back. Not sure what to do here as I would not like to start edit warring. Thanks in advance Michaeldble ( talk) 18:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Aren’t some of the earlier entries OR? Or am I missing something? Doug Weller talk 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Is this sentence original research by synthesis or not?
My position is that it’s NOT original research:
1. The text of Seneca clearly makes an association between mice and eating cheese. This is just describing what the text says. That is not OR. Similar examples of using primary sources can be found in good articles such as Pigs in culture:
2. The source also notes that Seneca lived in the Roman period. Since Seneca makes this association in the Roman period then concluding that the association appears in the Roman period is an immediate undisputed logical step, akin to 1+1=2. This is not forbidden synthesis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
so why did he choose this behaviorI don't know and nor do you. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place here about whether or not the use of this source to claim the Libertarian Party (Australia) follows the ideology of conservatism is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Further input would be much appreciated. Helper201 ( talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "
... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPath talk 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?
For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion ( talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite 1 on the page is Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell, ed. (1 March 2023).
The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170.
ISBN
9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.
How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 ( talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
References
On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.
The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.
I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 ( talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be full of syth and making generalizations from random articles and quotes, i'm not really sure how what the best way to deal with it is— blindlynx 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios ( talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
A dispute has been ongoing for nearly a month at Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling regarding the insertion into the article of information regarding polls on the Canadian monarchy. There seems to be agreement that no one should engage in WP:SYNTH. However, there's either unawareness or misinterpretation of what "no synthesis" means. An appeal for more editors to get involved was made at WP:CANADA; however, few have jumped in. Input from those who're active here would be appreciated. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I have tagged "Overview / Statewide" section of 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California because I don't think it is verifiable. The tag was removed, citing WP:CALC.
The table includes several columns. One is "votes", which totals the number of votes for all candidates of each party. While this totaling is "basic arithmetic ... such as adding numbers" (from WP:CALC) from referenced sources, my argument is that the verifiability requirement is still not met. No reference is offered that verifies these numbers.
Instead, verification must proceed by examining the votes receive by each candidate for each of 50 districts. There are three to five candidates, or so, for each of those districts -- so something like 240 numbers must be found and summed to verify the totals here.
Additional columns count candidates from each district, then break those down by the number of contested seats and number of candidates advancing. These require more counts and comparisons spread again over the 52 districts.
This is far more converting from one unit to another, or summing even a couple dozen values from the same source in the same table. Here, the values are spread across a giant article, all from different specific sources, and are aggregated into different categories.
Is such a lengthy and tedious process in this state "verifiable"? Does it still qualify as a "basic arithmetic"? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
In general, when editing a biography of a person who died many years ago, should I ruthlessly delete all material marked as personal research, even if that material does not appear controversial? TooManyFingers ( talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is about [1]. IMHO, the demand that "quite conservative" and "mainstream" should be found verbatim in the WP:RS is absurd. We render the meaning of the WP:RS, we don't closely paraphrase it. The deletion is taking WP:OR to absurd extent. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
For someone who is very vocal about their understanding of the rules, you seem to have neglected to review WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Additionally, starting a noticeboard discussion immediately invites questions of forum-shopping. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace. This is not a meta-discussion: you inserted content not in the source. You could have weakly argued it was appropriate per WP:BLUESKY (if this wasn't a contestable claim about a living person). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
you inserted content not in the sourceis a disputed claim, namely that you take WP:OR to absurd extent.
There's nothing in the source about "mainstream" but it does characterize Dever as
one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel.Does that help? Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The article on Muqatta'at, the disconnected letters at the beginnings of several chapters of the Qur'an, has received a large addition connecting these letters with the Tarot and ancient Egypt. At first there were no references, and the addition was therefore deleted. It was restored with footnotes referring in every case to other Wikipedia articles. The material was therefore deleted again, with the explanation that Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources. The material was again restored, with the statement that the references must be accepted. To complicate matters, the contributor seems to believe himself to be the Mahdi (his name is a form of that word). The contributor has now reverted three deletes, and seems determined to persevere. Can anyone calm this situation, or must we freeze the article? J S Ayer ( talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I was discussing some edits in the Min Hee-Jin talk page after various reversion. Specifically the first controversies section. Please note that we reached a consensus after I took the time to talk to everybody and rewrite it but I am still curious about the proper procedure.
The first reliable source of the section is refering to twitter users commenting on instagram posts (since deleted) of Min Hee-Jin where you would be able to see her apartement. She was accused of being inspired by sexual media with minors. The Reliable source only mention one of the movies you could see on her walls. I added all of them to the section. They were reverted as "unsourced". Even if those posts are fabricated, they are archived on archive.org but I think on a static page only, how is the one explicitely mentioned in the article different in status from the others? The article is referring to a twitter discussion and picking one movie just for space or editorial reasons. Is adding the other movies referenced by the twitter users screenshots of instagram an "original research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
If a scientist conducts scientific research by experiment about something he should not include the results in a WP article unless possibly he publishes it in a learned periodical first especially if that magazine article is reviewed by other scientists. That I can understand. If a historian researches a subject he cannot include his own conclusions in a WP article unless they agree with earlier research. If for instance the research is into the causes of the Second World War, if he agrees with say AJP Taylor's conclusions he can cite Taylor's works in the same way as he can cite facts included in Taylor's books. However he cannot cite something he finds in an unpublished diary letter or speech of Adolf Hitler or Neville Chamberlain. If the speech, letter or diary is published as a complete document-perhaps in a book of collected correspondence or a single web published page on say a University website. That I can understand. If a WP page mentions a particular building with which I am familiar and perhaps see every week and that building is demolished or changes its use can I change the WP article or is it called "original research." .There is a published source about the building but saying it exists or has a particular use, but this has not been updated. A sourced WP article says e.g."there is a post office at Smallville" but there is no source to say the Smallville Post Office has been demolished or has been turned into a private house. Can a resident of Smallville .correct the article to say so or simply delete the sentence about it? This can be verified by anybody that visits Smallville. This is mere observation rather than research. No special scientific or historian's skill involved. I have encountered this sort of situation on a number of occasions and it has been difficult to find sources and sometimes the information has been indirect such as a directory that does not include any mention of the building.. . Spinney Hill ( talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the volatility of the URL, you can archive the current page at archive.org then include the archive address as part of the citation. Zero talk 01:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
In September and October 2022, CinemaKnight100 added sections to several dozen articles about the composition and redistricting of different congressional districts. These sections include population information without any citation for the numbers given, and no timestamp information for when the observation might have been made. Further, they don't contain any references for the definition of the district boundaries, so the towns and cities claimed for the districts are also not verifiable.
How can this material best be corrected? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In the article Anna Panagiotopoulou the User:KNIM123 insists - contrary to all reliable secondary sources - on putting as the year of birth of the actress, his own information, as he clearly states on his talk page . The conversation was made in greek but and here is the translation. I know it personally. His name is not Damoulakos, but Damoulakis. And as a source there is an article about her funeral that mentions the name Dimitris Damoulakis as her son. Also, she was born in 1945, not 1947, the electoral registers verify this, citing the following information on the Ministry of Interior's "Find out where you vote" platform: DAMOULAKI ANNA ANDREAS ANDREAS 1945. Please restore my edition D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Two years ago I removed a large amount (~74,000 bytes) of original research and fringe views (I will notify WP:FTN of this thread) from Safa Khulusi. A somewhat longish (sorry!) explanation and diffs of the removals at Talk:Safa Khulusi#Removal of originally researched analysis of Khulusi's works. Basically, the article was using Khulusi's own writings to present his (fringe) views as facts, and more generally providing an evaluation of Khulusi's work without any secondary sources.
Recently, a new single-purpose account StopTheV4dals has repeatedly reinstated [3] [4] the last revision before my removals two year ago (cf. [5]). They refuse to discuss at the article talk.
Which revision should the article feature, StopTheV4dals's reinstatement of the old one [6] or my pruned revision of the last two years [7]? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
User @MonsenorNouel is including the unsourced claim that "Brazil has the largest mulatto population in the world". None of the "sources" he provided explicitly state the claim. He is doing WP:SYNTH/ WP:OR and therefore the claim must be removed. Some of the sources include blog posts, a link to a book store, and book titles with no page given whatsoever. Torimem ( talk) 14:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned at Talk:Ages of consent in the United States#Washington: non-prosecute part, I have derived a truth table from the law regarding age of consent in the state of Washington. The source of this table can either be the actual laws 9A.44.073 - 093 or the Bill analysis. Would this truth table be origional research?
table showing ages of permissible sexual contact
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legend
|
Subanark ( talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
easily checked against the text of the lawisn't good enough. Lots of laws appear to say something obvious, but what if there is another law that interacts with it in some way in some scenarios? It's dangerous territory. If we're going to put a big green tick against something and label it permissible (particularly something controversial, and particularly something that would be highly illegal in nearby similar jurisdictions), I'd want to see a reliable secondary source state unambiguously and explicitly that this is the correct interpretation of the law. I'm also more than a little skeptical that "will not prosecute" equates to "A-OK, go right ahead" (which is what a big green tick usually signifies), if the language of the law still refers to one party as a victim. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not– WHAT??? No, if you don't have a first-class source laying out exactly the answer, then it's better to say nothing at all.
Welcome to the Alaska Legal Resource Center, which is dedicated to providing free access to public legal resources, such as case law, court rules, statutes and regulations. Provided by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc, your computer consultant and Bright Solutions, Computer Forensic Experts. This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business. Last Modified 12/10/2007.
Last Modified 12/10/2007bit might explain why that same page also provides handy links to
Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, two of whom are dead (Stevens since 2010). The entire site is a zombie trapped in a time warp from twenty years ago, and that's what you're drawing on to tell our readers who the can have sex with and still stay out of prison? Are you kidding? And to be clear, such a source wouldn't be a reliable one even if it were nominally up to date.
Humphrey Law Offices ... Rhode Island Statutory Rape Defense Attorney ... Have you been accused of statutory rape?[11] – once again: are you kidding?
Hi, this is about [12]. Please chime in.
Meaning: could not invoke a 1989 document that had already been "annulled" by the 2011 court decision smacks of a priori reasoning. But we have 9 (nine) WP:RS that his defense pleaded he is legally insane during his extradition trial. So, empirical reality goes against her a priori reasoning. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
These are allegations that the press obsessively repeats, even though no official accusations of pimping or prostitution have been made—again, how would Mr. Andreescu know in 2017 what happened in 2023 and 2024? Is he a psychic? tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Is this considered WP:OR?
Example:
Another example:
How about this:
Can we place in the infobox of the article that Suleiman had an army of 100,000/200,000 men? Or is this considered WP:OR? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Numbers seem to have had little meaning for the sixteenth-century mind, before mentioning a source that gives 200,000 vs. 700,000. Setton then mentions Gerhartl's survey but says he
also believes, however, that Suleiman's army consisted of 200,000 soldiers. To me, that "however" is Setton saying "this scholar put together a useful outline but even he's overestimating the numbers". Otherwise, why mention them only in a footnote about wildly inflated numbers? Woodroar ( talk) 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
100,000 men were at the siege. (I can get into that if you're interested.) But it's the same number as Miller so it may not be worth the spoons arguing about it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A number of Muslim Islamic scholars (including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm (994-1064)), believe that belief in Jinn (supernatural beings, the origin of Genies) is essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. I want to add two more scholars ( Abul A'la Maududi (1903-1979) and Fethullah Gülen (1941-), on the basis of what they have clearly written in their own (RS) scholarly work
Quotes from scholars' writing |
Supporting Abul A'la Maududi's belief:
Supporting Fethullah Gülen's belief that Jinn are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran, are quotes from his work, Essentials of the Islamic Faith:
|
... on the same lines. Would it be okay to add such names as WP:SUMMARY in the list or would that be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (with assistance of User:Bookku)
The brief of main
Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion
|
---|
The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover. User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration. |
* Present sentence in the article for consideration here
|
---|
Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. |
Can someone pl. help in finding previous discussions, similar to the case discussed in this section above, from archives of this notice board or any other discussion, if possible? Bookku ( talk) 00:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Since some users dealing first time to such question seem to find the question complex, or difficult to understand. It's much likely that similar issue would have been discussed and some old timers may be aware or at least able to get into the nitty-gritty. Below I could collate few old discussions and active old timers of this notice board from xtools. If user of either side of discussion wishes to request more inputs from them then in case you ping then ping all active ones from following.
Finding active old timers from this notice board for inputs
|
---|
Finding exact similar instantaneously from archives or talk pages is huge task, but in archives I could have few following discussions where users seem discussing some complex aspects:
From this xtools still active among most active users on this notice board: User:Blueboar User:The Four Deuces, User:Viriditas, User:Doug Weller, User:Masem |
Bookku ( talk) 06:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Have you already specifically tried to find a secondary source that talks about their views on the belief in jinns?Yes I have. Commentators on Maududi and Gülen mostly seem interested in their influence on Pakistan and Turkey respectively, which at certain times was considerable. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
While my expertise in Islamic scholarship is very limited, I think its safe to say that
ibn Taymiyya is mentioned because he is a celebrated scholar. the two more modern scholars are mentioned because they indicate that to a large extent current pious opinion has not changed greatly, of course it remains to be seen how well respect for their scholarship will withstand the test of time.
The following is a quotation which appears in the same source at page 33:
|
---|
Dämonenglaube im Islam
Tobias Nünlist, "Dämonenglaube im Islam". p. 33. |
If you have some free time and are interested in lending a hand, please take a quick look at the talk page. You will find there several sources that confirm what is written above in bold. Thank you.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this sidebar used to have a list of events considered genocides, unfortunately this was a source of common disputes about how to follow NPOV (which events could be called genocide in wikivoice by listing in the template). Another editor organized the list into different levels of acceptance—which genocides are "universally", "majority" considered genocides—unfortunately these classifications are neither supported by RS nor particularly accurate. Can we get more input into avoiding OR in this template. Thanks ( t · c) buidhe 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This block of text was recently added to Cat predation on wildlife:
The advocacy group SongBird Survival, a limited company which achieved charitable status in 2001 and funds research into the causes of declining songbird populations, noted on its website in 2006 that "cats are frequently singled out as the primary reason for the disappearance of Britain's songbirds" and described the claim as unjustified. It decried the absence of numbers for cat predation on birds from the 1997 survey by the Mammal Society, and drew a comparison between the figure of 55 million birds killed annually by UK's suggested 9–10 million cats, derived from an estimate by Cats Protection, and the 100 million birds preyed on by the 100,000-strong UK population of sparrowhawks each year. It suggested that the hunting instinct of cats "could be dulled by their reduced need to catch their own food" and by human-sourced amusement, while noting that the total 2002 value of the cat product and service market approximated £1.5bn. [1] However, a 2006 study report commissioned by SongBird Survival blamed grey squirrels and feral cats as responsible for "a sharp decline" in bird populations in combination with sparrowhawks. It alleged that predators were as harmful as factory farming and that their populations were "spiralling out of control". [2] In December 2015, Nick Forde, a trustee of SongBird Survival, denounced the RSPB's position on the grounds that adequate studies had not been done. He accused RSPB of protecting their financial interests and pointed to the difference in income between his charity and the rival RSPB. [3] By 2016, the website of Songbird Survival also alleged that RSPB's position was "no longer tenable". In support of this claim, it now stated that "the recovering sparrowhawk population in the 1970–80s resulted in the decline of some songbird populations" and that "cats kill around 3 times as many songbirds as sparrowhawks", hence it is "far more [sic] likely that cats have an even greater impact on songbird populations than sparrowhawks". [4]
References
- ^ Acting to Save Songbirds: CATS – Love them or hate them!, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 20 June 2006
- ^ Animals 'devastate' UK songbirds, BBC, 29 May 2006
- ^ Webster, Ben (30 December 2015). "RSPB accused of going soft on cats to appease donors". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 27 September 2020.
- ^ Songbird predation by free-roaming domestic and feral cats, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 31 July 2016
Songbird Survival's post-2006 view appears to represent the current scientifc consensus that predation by cats is a global conservation problem. (e.g., [14]) Is it original research to include these contradictory earlier views sourced to Internet Archive versions of their old website? There seems to be an implied conclusion that their views have changed a lot. Geogene ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Here, by contrast, the material is being misused to try to contradict current scientific consensus and to miscast the authoring organization as holding an advocacy position that it does not in fact hold any longer, so it's wrongheaded twice over.
The same editor (VampaVampa), in material [15] related to and longer than the quote above, is also trying to contradict current research with primary-source papers from the 1970s, which is not okay per WP:OLDSOURCES, though that might ultimately be a matter for WP:RSN if we really needed to have multiple, forked noticeboard discussions about this editor's approach. There's a lengthy thread about all of this at Talk:Cat predation on wildlife#Addition of old sources and misuse of primary sources, and it follows on another lengthy thread just above it, about a prior drive-by editor trying to similarly use advocacy op-ed material as if it were a scientific literature review. This article attracts this kind of WP:FRINGE stuff due to its emotionally politicized nature, ultimately a conflict between ecologists, zoologists, and other scientists, versus the more extreme bent in the animal-welfare advocacy camp (who somehow can stomach invasive cats killing billions of small animals per year, but cannot abide the idea of culling of feral cat populations, even if it means the difference between several more bird and other species surviving or going rapdily extinct due to cat predation).
VampaVampa's approach to all of this is outlandish claims that both WP and the scientific sources themselves are "biased", and even an evidence-free accusation that modern researchers are "ignoring" prior evidence/research that VV clearly considers to be WP:THETRUTH. This is leaning strongly in a conspiracy-theoretic direction. Their response to rebuttal has been to play victim and to text-wall their same position again and again in excessive, repetitive detail as if not already rebutted, and this is cannot go anywhere productive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
there are concerns that the below is potentially not relevant. i believe it is but i would like a review from anyone who wishes to read it:
Labour politician and former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said that Labour 'sent out search parties' to bring migrants to Britain [1] at the Blairite think-tank Progress stating "in 2004, when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country." [2] [3] Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class [4] while journalist Alex Hern argues that Mandelson "sounded like he was talking about the sort of programmes which were aimed at getting high-skilled immigrants to come to Britain" and that "the argument that Mandelson’s search parties “made it hard for Britons to get work” isn’t based in fact". [5] Mandelson stated ‘we were almost... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now... we have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin [makes it] hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.' [6]
Lord Mandelson’s remarks came three years after Labour officials denied claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain saying that the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. [7] [8] After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. [9] Labour politician Ed Miliband said that the Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”. [10] Tory chairman Grant Shapps said that the admission that Labour had let immigration “spiral out of control” was “yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.” [11] NotQualified ( talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NotQualified ( talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
References
about the conspiracy theory?Remember, the topic of the article is a conspiracy theory about population replacement, not Labour's immigration policy or even replacement migration. Content for the article, regardless of the terminology it uses, must relate to the topic of the article. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous peoples in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Editors following this board may be interested in editing the above article, which currently purports to straightforwardly present a list of groups indigenous to India with inadequate sources; academic literature on this topic primarily problematizes the category and the difficulties of identifying who belongs to it due to the history of successive empires subjugating India or parts thereof, followed by partition and independence, but none of this aspect of the topic is currently covered in the article. signed, Rosguill talk 15:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
On this article, IP addresses keep adding the same edit regarding donations to the politician Gillian Keegan. I suspect it is the same user as the edit is always identical: "According to the 2023 Register of Interests, Keegan has accepted donations of £5000 from the following named individuals:
Tim Ashley, Charles Lewington of Hanover Communications, former Morgan Stanley bank President Franck Petitgas and David Russell as well as £17,710.60 from the Catholic Bishops Conference England & Wales and two tickets with hospitality to Qatar Goodwood Festival, total value £2,268. [1]"
The edit was reverted several times by myself and other editors in February and March who viewed the content as original research/in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY as it relies only on a primary source with no secondary sources to establish notability. The same exact edit has been added over the last few days but an IP keeps adding it back. Not sure what to do here as I would not like to start edit warring. Thanks in advance Michaeldble ( talk) 18:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Aren’t some of the earlier entries OR? Or am I missing something? Doug Weller talk 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)