This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Nihlus1 has added a reliable source to several articles that says x% of Austro-Hungarian casualties occurred on certain fronts, and Nihlus has then applied these percentages to the (low) numbers for 'Total military deaths' and 'Military wounded' we have cited on
World War I casualties#Casualties by 1914–18 borders, to calculate figures for those articles. Would this amount to original research?
Diffs for the
Eastern Front,
Italian Front and
Romanian Front.
Also the original sources for those numbers on WW1 casualties should really be included with the source Nihlus added, but that's another issue.
Alcherin (
talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Fundamental metric tensor has been constantly edit warring on the article Hindustan and the disambiguation page, insisting the two citations he provided support the statement equating the region of Hindustan with the Republic of India [1] [2]. I have reverted slowly to avoid edit warring, but now I have backed away from the articles intro and dab page to avoid edit warring; especially after a warning was given to both of us, but he continues to insist it supports his statements. He also ignored my edit summaries and discussion on the talk page, only by asking me to discuss, which I already did and had to repeat myself. On the discussion page he also cites a number of companies based in India using the name "Hindustan XXX" but I have told him they do not count as reliable sources, not even close it you ask me.
Just a note to add, there is a section in the article that discusses other uses of the term, with one of them being the modern Republic of India. However, a distinction is still made between the Republic of India and the historic geographic term. This was already mentioned in the other usages section prior to my editing the article. I have also pointed him to WP:RS and WP:OR. From his discussions, it seems he is not familiar with policy on sourcing and original research and continues to ignore this. Having been on Wikipedia for 11 years but having barely 2,500 edits seems to confirm that he needs to be properly informed and corrected on sourcing policy.
I need a review of this ASAP as it's becoming tiresome. Thank you for reading-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
1) Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hindustan
2) Dictionary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hindustan?s=t
3) Free Thesarus: http://www.freethesaurus.com/Hindustan
Additionally, pg 276 of the Lonely Planet book for India, translates "Hindustan Zindabad" as "Long Live India", as does this BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150429-indias-bizarre-border-ritual I have provided other English language sources (Everett) where "Hindustan Zindabad" means "Long Live India". In scholastic usage, Arvind Sharma, in the journal Numen, defines Hindustan as India (Sharma, Arvind. "On Hindu, Hindustān, Hinduism and Hindutva." Numen 49.1 (2002): 1-36.) I think these, in sum, prove that not only is Republic of India an important meaning of Hindustan in English, it is likely to be one of the most common meanings encountered by English speakers and users. My edits reflected this usage, along with its other uses which refer to the entire Indian subcontinent, or its Northern part. User NadirAli, insists on reducing this important use of the term Hindustan to an ambiguous side note in the article, and emphasizing only the other uses. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Disputed content: [3]
Link to article: Secularism in Turkey
Issue: Primary sources, essay style writing, arguing a thesis - the sources do not seem to be discussing scholarly criticism that Turkey is secular, the argument seems to be pieced together from various sources as WP:SYNTH. The editor has reverted twice but without being able to show sources that contains this analysis
Related: The same editor is pushing the same WP:OR in this RfC Talk:Turkey#Secular - the same argument was advanced in a previous RfC by Tiptoethrutheminefield, who has since been indeffed as a sock of a disruptive editor in this topic area. Though this has been discussed multiple times now, no one has produced a source that puts forth this particular analysis. Seraphim System ( talk) 04:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Turkey, secularism has come to represent the control of religion by the state rather than the separation of religion and the state.-- Moxy ( talk) 20:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Turkey is a secular republic, However Turkish secularism is different...I don't think this section can stay in based on that source you just gave without violating WP:SYNTH. This shouldn't be a discussion about my personal opinion, as much as it is a discussion about whether the academic sources support this theory based on analysis of recent developments (which is being pushed on several articles now). Seraphim System ( talk) 20:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The page List of rampage killers clearly meets WP:SAL standards, but I feel there are multiple content issues on the page and on sub-pages. I'm not sure what should be done here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Earlier this year, the Orbit page redefined an orbit from a "path" to a "trajectory". The justification for this change is unclear, since all cited sources explicitly use the word "path". No reason was given for the change at the time, but recent editors are backing the use of "trajectory", asserting that "Trajectory is more accurate" and "path seems unnecessarily less specific". Are they violating Wikipedia's prohibition on original research?
Please see Talk:Rape myth#Improper tone and approach and the three short threads immediately below it (including a big deletion spree in the article); some additional editorial input (especially from NORN regulars) would be of value, since the discussion has turned circular and only involves three editors, but is rather important for this article. The first of these threads mostly focuses on NPOV concerns, but introduced the NOR one, which has developed in the threads after it. This is an old and kind of languishing article that recently got a lot of focused attention, but from too few parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Ezidkhan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was up to July this year an article mainly about a historical region. [5] Since then Niele~enwiki ( talk · contribs) has turned it into an article about " unrecognised de facto autonomous area established in the western part of the Iraqi Sinjar region.[verification needed]".(tag added in September by User:Ahmedo Semsurî. According to the infobox it has its own official language, a government which is a Democratic confederalism and Direct democracy and a Supreme Spiritual Council. Only the last has any sources, [6] which cites the second source [7].
Very little of the article is sourced. Much is about various takeovers and various security forces. This isn't the place to argue about the reliability of the sources, although I'm dubious about the two above. My point is that I can find no reliable sources justifying the claim in the introduction and the infobox, as well as elsewhere, that this is any form of government. If the claim by this source [8] is true, that there is an "Ezidixan autonomy commission under the auspices of the United Nations," - or if any of the basic thesis is true, why can't I find more clearly reliable sources? Doug Weller talk 12:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see there is no evidence of recognition either of autonomy, or of any process to consider it. The proclamation of autonomy should certainly be mentioned, but to present it as established is misleading. Significant clean-up is required, but simple Burden can justify removal much of the problematic text. Batternut ( talk) 10:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This article looks to me to be arguing a case entirely from primary sources, largely by the person who coined the term (around 2/3 or more of the references). Incidentally, I think Mre env ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly closely associated with Adrian Bejan, or at least a massive fan, because that is his sole topic of interest. Guy ( Help!) 22:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion about deletion of Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa) partly revolves around whether or not the channel is made up/synthesized. Given that this is a deletion discussion please post there. Spshu ( talk) 22:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've run into a situation where a source is cited, but the information cited is not in the text of the source, it is derived from observing a photograph in the article. Would this qualify as original research? One issue that springs to mind immediately is the fact that the image could be mirrored. Gabriel syme ( talk) 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a presentation of the work of Dr. Naugler, by a user with no other contributions, relguan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Naugler backwards. I removed some cites to OMICS, I am pretty confident this is not a policy-compliant article.
The article National trauma has no references, and I can't find any that define the term "national trauma". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Query for deleted entry in /info/en/?search=False_accusation_of_rape
The final 2 sentences of the following quote were deleted. The editor said it contained original research. The 3% and 12% figures were from a cited document and in line with other estimates from other sources cited in the article. The 13,774 figure is from government reports (which perhaps I should have cited). I made a simple arithmetic calculation of these 2 non-controvertial numbers to estimate actual numbers of incidences per year. Is this really Original Research?
"They found that 12% of rape allegations fell into the broader definition of false accusations and that 3% of the false rape allegations were identified as malicious. There were 13,774 reported rapes in 2008, suggesting 413 instances of malicious false accusations of rape with a possibility of a further 1,240 instances falling in the "questionable" range determined from the 12% bracket. The authorities convict about 20 false accusers per year.[10]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.136.72 ( talk) 11:47, 21 November 2017
It seems to me that this is precisely what surveys and statistics are used for. To sample a population in order to predict how the entire population will behave. In most (real) cases, both sample distribution and population are 'estimates'. In my case, the estimates of the sample are roughly similar in several surveys (2% is the lowest estimate and others go as high as 8). Is it really unacceptable to make such an estimate? Do you have suggestions how to provide an acceptable number? 189.172.136.72 ( talk) 06:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
On page of polyandry, original research is used which is not contained in the source. The source does not state that a woman can hove more than one husband at the same time, as per the definition of polyandry. But state that after dissolution of marriage and after ensuring that she is not pregnant she can marry. I have also explained on the talk page of polyandry but an editor idunious refuses to listen. Please help.for further discussion xplaination see talk page of polyand y. Source is online, anyone can see. Smatrah ( talk) 12:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Being "married again" is different from being married to multiple people simultaneously. The former is called serial monogamy, the latter would be polygamy. Reliable academic sources say that Islam prohibits polyandry, as far as I can tell, none of those academic sources mention this passage being an exception to that rule. If you can find a source that does mention that this is an exception, then cite it and we can move on. Otherwise, this is OR. Regarding the commentary quoted above, it appears to have left out the preceding sentence. The full quote seems to support the notion that the previous marriage would ordinarily be nullified:
Women who come as captives of war, leaving their husbands behind in Dar al-Harb (Domain of War), are not prohibited, for their marriage is nullified by virtue of their entry into Dar al-Islam (Domain of Islam). A man may marry such women and, if they happen to be his slave-girls, he may have sexual relations with them.There is disagreement, however, among jurists as to what should be done if both husband and wife have been taken captive together. Abu Hanifah and the jurists of his school are of the opinion that their marriage should remain intact. Malik and Shafi'i, on the other hand, argue that their matrimonial contract should be rendered void.
source: note 44
There appears to be general agreement that the passage is about marrying women whose previous marriages have been nullified (despite a lack of a formal divorce) because they were no longer in contact with their previous husbands. No anthropologist would call this polyandry - the previous marriage isn't considered legitimate, the previous husband and wife are no longer live together. (see footnote c-24 page 110-111 here). WP:OR prohibits using a source "to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". If you want the discussion to end, all you need to do is dig up a single academic or scholarly source that says "this passage endorses polyandry" - I find several that explicitly say it is is prohibited. Simply find one source that disputes that claim.
Regarding the note from Abu Hanifah: Idunius, is your contention is that this means, if the couple is captured together, Abu Hanifah believes that the previous marriage should remain intact, but that (for some reason) the women should also be able to remarry and both marriages remain simultaneously valid? The logical interpretation is that Hanifah believes a new marriage would not be lawful because the previous marriage isn't nullified. This is plainly obvious if you look at other translations of that text.
That is, those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah and those of his way of thinking are of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik and Shafi 'i, are of the opinion that it would also break.
In other words: it's only lawful if the previous marriage is nullified. Abu Hanifah thinks it isn't nullified if the spouses are captured together, and so he disagrees that it is lawful. Nblund talk 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Idazmi:
The question is whether you can use artwork alone to argue whether a fictional character ( Fox McCloud) had his legs removed despite statements from the Star Fox's programmer ( Dylan Cuthbert) and the game's main producer ( Shigeru Miyamoto) saying the legs were not amputated. Please see the thread at: Talk:Fox_McCloud#Legs_not_prosthetic WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Idazmi added back the robotic legs they to the article. I don't think this is good form as he discussion is still going on. IMO it's full of OR. @ Icewhiz:@ Sergecross73:@ Masem: - I am in favor of a single sentence about this, but he's insisting on saying the robotic leg theory is true, which is out of line. WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
One thing WP:OR is unclear about is the use of original research to challenge information on wikipedia? In the case of Macrophilia there have been several edit wars about the wording of "typically a male fantasy". While cited sources do state that, the sources appear biased by reporting only on material typically marketed to the male demographic. From personal experience in the community and having attended sizecon, there appears to be close to equal representation of both the female and male demographics. Sizecon was organized by a female artist [22] who appears to have participated in the edit war Talk:Macrophilia/Archive_1#Taking_a_stand. I wish those involved used the proper channels to make their points, but the past can't be helped. So my question is can an aggregation of user data (many profiles displaying gender) and poll data be used to settle a long standing argument about whether text should be Removed from a wikipedia article?
Any response positive or negative on this issue is appreciated, especially if from someone with an authoritative 'final' say such as an admin or bureaucrat. Thank you in advance. Eaterjolly ( talk) 16:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Could I request some input on the article Cogewea. I have been identifying and tagging significant original research in the article, and the author, Trentprof, has been removing the problematic passages, but is contesting that gathering course syllabi to support a claim that "This edition is used widely in post-secondary classrooms" is original research. As far as I am concerned, it is clearly original research, because the source is Trentprof's own research, rather than something that has been published. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to take this issue. The article has literally no sources and the claims about type of government don't always match those of the country's own article. The ideologies section ditto, it appears to be mainly an analysis of the main article. The main editor now points out that User:Sjö says sources aren't needed for the list just that " if the article says it is or was totalitarian or words to that effect the regime can be included. That eliminates the need for edit wars here." But of course articles change, and I the first few I looked at the main article didn't say totalitarian. In any case, WP:SOURCELIST clearly says "Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked." Doug Weller talk 19:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Cold_War#Request_for_Comment
On the Cold War Talk page, I've been accused of engaging in OR on numerous edits because I used more than one secondary source. I've also been accused of misrepresenting sources. My own perspective, after extensive debate, is that there may be political issues clouding my fellow editors' judgement—but of course I could be wrong.
The RfC linked above is something of a test case. It's developed into a debate on whether the pre-World War II period should be included in the article at all, but it originated with this contribution of mine:
In some respects, I've left myself open by using so many citations, and by using the provocative phrase "imperialistic war aims." Yet "imperialistic war aims" is actually a quotation from this source in relation to exposure of the treaties. Pages 131-133 of this source harmonizes with the above in its portrayal of the Allies' quest for "indemnities and territory [which] hardly squared with noble ideals..." The Bolsheviks' desire to "unmask capitalist duplicity" and the subsequent "embarrassment to the Allies and...calamity for [Woodrow] Wilson" mark this as a proto-Cold War episode.
I don't want to go on at length here, but I'll note that the core of my statement in the second clause, about the secret treaty on the Middle East (Sykes-Picot Agreement) and the origins of the Cold War is a summary of this article. The other citations are just supporting and aren't really even needed for summary, much less synthesis.
Please weigh in at the RfC. I'd really like to know if I've overstepped my bounds on this.
Best, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 02:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
References
At Earth 2 (TV series)#Episodes, the listed episode order is unsourced, and several editors are insisting that strict airdate order must be used. This would seem to be WP:SYNTHESIS - taking airdate information and forming that into an "episode order". Now, for most series, using the airing order is a good shortcut to listing the episode order, as they tend to be one in the same. For some series, Firefly (TV series)#Episodes very notably, the airing order was conflated due to network machinations, usually because a series is being shelved or contractual airing obligations have to be met before killing the series. When this happens, either the producers will communicate the "right" viewing order, or perhaps the order will be fixed on a future home media release. This is the case with Earth 2. As it stands, the article as ZERO sources for the "episode order". The episode order was previously correct, but an undiscussed edit in 2010 changed the order, and that unsourced order persists. I had attempted to update this with sources for the correct order. I ask that others please look at this through the lens of Wikipedia:Verifiability and achieve consensus that we should not WP:SYNTH the order by simply assuming it from airdates. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Recent edit by User:Constant314 I don't understand how original research pertains to an image? Vinyasi ( talk) 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Hello, I'd like to have some input/consesus about the possible WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in the State atheism article: a couple of us have opened a discussion about it since some time, and one contributor has even compiled a source analysis for one section as evidence of this, but the article authors don't seem very interested in addressing the issue.
State atheism is the name of the article, and its content describes events that themselves are verifiable, but almost all of the article's sources do not describe these events as, or use or even mention the term, "state atheism". So since the cited source does not call these events by that label, I don't see how the article can (this would mean that it was the wikipedia contributors applying it (without supporing sources)), but I would like a second (or more) opinion/confirmation about the WP:SYNTH (or WP:OR) quality of this.
Thanks, TP ✎ ✓ 20:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
We need some input regarding text and citations in the
Ann Powers article. We've had a discussion at
Talk:Ann Powers#The_Dreaming and have reached an impasse. The article text under discussion is In 2007, Ann Powers wrote a proposal for a book on Kate Bush’s album The Dreaming that was intended to be part of the 33 1/3 series; however, the project was abandoned when Powers started her work at the Los Angeles Times and the book was never written.
The second part of the sentence was added in
this edit whose summary indicates that the BLP subject wanted the text clarified. The text currently has two citations: one to an online description of the book and one to the list of the series this book would be a part of if it existed (it is not in the list).
My position is that the subject's communication to the editor is not a reliable source and that since there are no reliable sources discussing this book situation, the text is OR. The position of the other two editors BrillLyle and Innisfree987 is twofold: first, to invoke IAR because although the book appears to exist ((it has an ISBN, etc), it does not, and Wikipedia should not publish false information; second, the article should reflect the subject's wishes as communicated to the editor.
Is the disputed text OR? Thanks for your help and guidance. Ca2james ( talk) 06:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Because the page for this site requests input, I endorse the site because it is a "source" by its publication (The Tracker) that identifies my surname immigrating ancestor in Volume 7, Number 2, pages 1-4, 1962, to defend adding that ancestor's name as a Personlichkeit (a Personality) who lived (for 12 years) in a specified village in Germany on de.wikipedia.org as well as a church citation for the baptism in 1824. VatievonHans VatievonHans ( talk) 23:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
A bunch of our articles on individual episodes of
Game of Thrones include some variation on "The Dragon and the Wolf" marks Aidan Gillen's final appearance as Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish
or Indira Varma made her final appearance as Ellaria Sand
with no citation attached, and the implicit assumption that the fact the character died in the episode (which in the latter case isn't even true) justifies saying the actors are done playing the characters as well, despite the occasional use of flashbacks and the fact that several spin-off (like prequel) series are in development.
Should these be tagged, blanked, or what?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious about something. If it is factual information, is it okay to cite directly from a company's website for minimal information (e.g Roku's website to verify the countries that they distribute to. JacobPace ( talk) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone please check the following point:
The second paragraph in the
background section in 2017–18 Iranian protests is cited to
a 2016 source which is naturally not related to an incident happening in 2018. I think this is against the OR policy which says "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
Any ideas? --
Mhhossein
talk 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
References
This discussion tangentially relates to a current existing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple. One of the issues involved in that discussion is whether a group which originated in about 2012, which is more recent than any of the reference books I checked on in gathering the data for List of new religious movements, can be counted as a new religious movement in its own right. Right now, we have one source which counts Satanism as an NRM, and this group is in a sense a Satanist group, but most of the other entries in the reference works I used in generating the list are for specific denominations. This question may not be particularly important in this particular instance, but there may well be others which arise in the future. Anyway, thoughts on whether a religious group too new to be included in available reference works on new religious movements can be counted as one? John Carter ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
None of the sources in article rogue state claim that the United States has classified Rhodesia and South Africa as a rogue state. The sources refer sanctions that these countries experienced during the Cold War. The User:Gregorius deretius, who added such information, had already been rolled back several times in the past: 1, 2, 3. I ask that the page go back to the previous version of the editions of Gregorius deretius because it is a case of WP: SYNTHESIS.-- 201.1.43.76 ( talk) 17:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Fabrickator: Defining what age of consent for Texas is tricky because there is a law prohibiting sexual activity with those under 17 but there is also a law against inducement of sexual conduct from someone under 18 (one does not need to be doing this for a performance). Effectively that makes the 18 the minimum age in which the person's partner won't be prosecuted for a felony; the question is whether that should be interpreted as the "age of consent" using Wikipedia's definition of age of consent in that article (and stating directly that it is 18), or whether doing so is Original Research and therefore the article can't clearly define an age of consent for Texas.
Articles in the popular media usually state the age of consent in Texas is 17.
To quote User:John M Baker:
The problem is that people don't really care all that much whether engaging in sex with someone under a certain age will result in prosecution for statutory rape, as opposed to prosecution for some other felony; if it's a serious crime, it's a serious crime. Our articles probably should clarify this in some standardized way, although that seems like it would be a substantial job. John M Baker"
In Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Please_fix_Texas_on_the_map there is a question. Do we:
How do you convey useful information while avoiding original research? WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
In hopes of salvaging something from this NOR discussion, would any "third parties" care to address the issue of whether providing a specialized definition requires a source? In other words, if a definition is provided indicating how a term is used within a Wikipedia article, is it sufficient to provide the definintion of the term, or must the definition that is used within the article come from a reliable source? Fabrickator ( talk) 02:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
An IP has twice tried to add a supposed race of evil black-eyed children in their tribe's mythology to this article, speculating that the person who made this up out of whole cloth in Texas must have heard of this New York State tribe's similarly-labeled beings. I don't want to edit war, but WP:OR is clearly relevant here, as is WP:RS. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
We could use some new voices in the debate at Talk:Appeasement. Specifically I've proposed a section on economic appeasement in the 1930s, and we are voting on whether it is OR or not:
Numerous scholars have explored the trade aspects of appeasement. Britain's commercial relationship with Germany was steady throughout the 1930s, extending even beyond the invasion of Prague. Germany was, after India, Britain’s largest exporter. "In consequence," The Economist notes, "the German war machine continued to be fueled with oil and armed with metals from British sources" up until the declaration of war in September 1939. It has been argued that trade in strategic materials with the Nazis was necessary for Britain's rearmament. [1]
Even as appeasement seemed to collapse in the aftermath of Kristalnacht, economic appeasement escalated. In January 1939, London and Berlin representatives helped negotiate an Anglo-German coal cartel. [2] A major trade conference commenced in Dusseldorf that March, although government participation was disrupted by the Prague crisis. The Federation of British Industries and other trade groups proceeded with the meetings nonetheless. By the eve of the war, the two countries had 133 trade agreements in effect. [3]
The American policy of neutrality at this time could sometimes lapse into appeasement. [4] This was particularly true economically; with no serious sanctions on the rising Axis powers until 1941, top US firms like IBM and General Motors were extremely active in Nazi Germany for years, and exchange controls ensured that most of their profits were cycled back into the country, thereby strengthening Hitler's regime. [5] This also meant that Nazi-associated businesses like IG Farben and Thyssen industries did extensive dealings with elite US banks like Brown Brothers Harriman and Union Banking Corporation up through the outbreak of the war. [6] With the knowledge of the US government, the American film industry catered consciously to Germany. Most major Hollywood studios worked directly with the German Consul Georg Gyssling up until 1940 to censor films for anti-Nazi or pro-Jewish sentiment, even for versions distributed outside of Germany. [7] [8]
It's been argued by some there that the theory of economic appeasement isn't widely accepted, however, it's actually well established:
- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I've just come across File:Brontoscorpio.png in Brontoscorpio. While it's a great image, I'm unsure whether it is appropriate for us to include, as the only specimen of this species is one 10cm piece. The original description estimated it's size from that, but the illustration is not based on anything previously published, which in my opinion makes it OR. What do you think? SmartSE ( talk) 10:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
On this section WP:SYN is used but no one is trying to know the truth. Please help remove it I cannot see any source claiming to allow polyandry it is WP:SYN. I do not know why such blunder only for one religion but not others. I have already explained here and also Nblund on its talk page. Please help block such vandalistic editors. Smatrah ( talk) 15:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has complained about this sentence in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 1987:
However, the official vote count does establish that the MUF polled 31% of the votes cast in the Valley.[note 1]
[note 1}: The Muslim United Front polled 470,580 votes by the official count, [1] out of 1,477,250 votes cast in the Valley, [2] making it roughly 31%.
References
- ^ Hussain, Masood (23 March 2016), "MUFfed", Kashmir Life, retrieved 17 February 2018
- ^ Statistical Report on the General Election, 1987, Election Commission of India, New Delhi.
The complaint was:
It gets worse in that there is added WP:SYNTHESIS between (even worse) WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. See this edit where you have synthesized content between a secondary source and an official election commission paper.
What is your view? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The basis for this estimate appears to be that, since the MUF won a third of the officially declared vote state-wide, its vote share in the Valley would have been far higher. [1]...is content from a secondary scholarly source. So it is fine. The same cannot be said for the contested sentence, which is a futile attempt to refute the scholarly-sourced content, because it is not sourced to secondary sources, it is half-sourced to a WP:PRIMARY source. Also, WP:SYNTHESIS is not allowed with WP:PRIMARY sources. Read policy. Your arrogance that WP:SYNTHESIS is not a problem is a very, very serious matter. JosephusOfJerusalem ( talk) 05:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
References
according to the official results the opposition alliance got one-third of the statewide vote (which meant that its official vote in the Valley was much higher than one-third)" is quite speculative and wishy-washy. I would have completely omitted it if not for the fact that he draws some quite drastic conclusions from it, which have strong adherents. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I will assume WP:GOODFAITH and put aside the WP:CANVASSING you have responded to. The argument is about using a WP:PRIMARY source for WP:CALCULATION. The policy explicitly says not to. Please don't pluck up arguments from the air to give an impression that you have rebutted anything on the table. JosephusOfJerusalem ( talk) 07:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY gives no allowance for
WP:SYNTHESIS, which is what
WP:CALC is. No analysis and evaluation is allowed either with
WP:PRIMARY materials. Read policy...Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
...There is nothing wrong in being keen to keep
WP:SYNTHESIS of
WP:PRIMARY material out of an article. If Kautilya3 is so keen to hold on to this figure in mainspace he needs to
WP:CALCULATE using
WP:SECONDARY sources. If you still do not
WP:LISTEN I will have to regard this as
WP:DISRUPTION.
JosephusOfJerusalem (
talk) 10:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
"The Muslim United Front polled 470,580 votes by the official count,[28] out of 1,477,250 votes cast in the Valley,[1] representing 31.9% of the vote share. Its share of votes in the whole state was 18.9%."
A phrase on a late 19th century colonial treaty is being used on the Mohamoud Ali Shire page to justify the claim that this ruler's official royal title in the colonial documents was "Elder of the Warsangeli Tribe"-- "the British government and the Elders of the Warsangli Tribe who have signed this agreement" [29]. The url does not mention this sultan by name, but he did apparently sign a treaty with the colonial authorities. Isn't this title, then, original research? Also, please take into consideration that this ruler seems to have been relatively young during the late 1920s and not yet in the elder age range-- "this man is still young" [30]. Soupforone ( talk) 05:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Links describing this ruler as an elder ca. 1966 [34] and an elderly descendant of his as such ca. 2003 [35] are obviously not equivalent to the original claim that an early colonial treaty qualified him as an elder ca. the late 19th century [36]. There is no source that describes him as an elder in the late 19th century, apparently because he was still a young man at the time. A normal human being also cannot remain an elder for 60+ years. Soupforone ( talk) 14:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
That is not what the OP is about. The actual issue is over your original claim that the word elder should be used in the lead instead of ruler because "per official British treaty "The British Government and the Elders of the Warsangli Tribe" goo.gl/bNFEsU" [38]. However, that goo.gl url does not mention this sultan by name, and he also was apparently still young during the late 1920s, around 20 years after that treaty. Therefore, he could not have been an elder in the late 19th century, though he certainly was by 1966. Also, Sultan is a royal title - see Category:Royal_titles. Soupforone ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears that although the power of most of the sultans was limited to their respective clan territories, they were locally regarded as sultans in the ordinary titular sense [43]. Elder is indeed a title, albeit one that comes with age, when one is elderly. It is not typically bestowed upon the young. A work that describes the sultan as an elder in 1966 thus cannot be equated with elder status for this individual in the late 1800s, during his youth. Soupforone ( talk) 04:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That work indicates that "the emphasis placed on seniority in age and on experience is evident in the title given to the man who in any particular hamlet tends to direct its affairs. Whatever its kinship composition, its leader is always referred to as 'elder', or 'old-man'". Older age is therefore indeed an inherent aspect of the elder title, as it is only bestowed upon elderly men. According to the author, sultan is a different title and it does approximate the ordinary titular sultan, even though most of the contemporary sultans wielded little significant power. He elucidates on this elsewhere [45]-- "Most clans, although not all, have titular leaders dignified beyond their actual power and authority by the Arabian title Sultan." He also indicates that although the sultan title is now interchangeable with various other titles, some of these titles were previously distinguished by different ranks [46]-- "Suldaan, Boqor, Ugaas, Garaad, and Islaam are all used in the North with much the same sense. Formerly some of these titles seem to have distinguished different ranks." Also, he writes that the 'aaqil title is not equivalent to the sultan title, but instead denotes salaried representatives, as in the Ottoman Egypt Khedivate [goo.gl/QuJcjp]. Soupforone ( talk) 04:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Repetition aside, that url also explains that the aqil office is distinct from that of the sultan-- "the aqil[...] could also emancipate himself to some degree from the sultan" [49]; "in the colonial period the position of Aqil was stabilized as an intermediary authority between the elders and the sultan" [50]. Soupforone ( talk) 03:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Not going anywhere.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
I would like to get a few opinions from this noticeboard regarding an edit at Alex Jones ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The description of Jones's opposition to gun control is described as "aggressive", on the basis of editors watching a video and evaluating the way he responds as "aggressive", but without any of the sources making any mention of the term "aggressive". Please see edit 1, edit 2, and talk section Jones's "aggressive opposition to gun control". Thank you. Dr. K. 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Hi, I've had a long-term problem with an IP who keeps changing numbers at weight plate inconsistent with the cited sources ( example 1 2 3). I'm not going to revert war with the IP but I also can't use my admin tools given that I'm the creator the article. I would appreciate help.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
First sentence in the third paragraph of the Clitoris article found at < /info/en/?search=Clitoris> "Sociological, sexological and medical debate have focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." I am concerned that this may be "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" < /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research> My primary concern is that there is no reliable source to verify the claim that "Sociological... debate [sic] have focused on the clitoris..." and also no reliable source to verify the synthesis about debates in the fields of sociology, sexology, and medicine. I am a new editor, and would appreciate assistance in resolving this issue. AnaSoc ( talk) 02:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between myself, Spacecowboy420, and a IP 124.106.137.248. There is a quote in the article Jake Zyrus that states Zyrus was dubbed by Oprah Winfrey as "the most talented girl in the world" (before his transition). Spacecowboy420 and the IP want it removed and I believe it shouldn't be as it provides context and isn't OR. I took it to the Talk page because I believe consensus should be gained, but IP hasn't discussed it and Spacecowboy while writing a comment, just took out the comment, deciding they were right. Another user Hariboneagle927 thought the comment was appropriate but thinks it should be taken out of brackets which I agree also but wasn't going to change until the consensus on if it stays or not is reached. Can we get others input on if this is OR or not. NZFC (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a question about WP:SYN related to a section of an article. The article 2018_NRA_boycott is just a month old as it describes a boycott in response to the school shooting in Florida. The article contains a background section with two parts. The primary part is clear background mentioning the crime and early protests. There is a subsection talking about an NRA list of companies that are anti-gun [ [53]]. The mention of this list seems unconnected to the rest of the article. While the section is supported by reliably sourced material, all the references predate the Boycott that is the subject of the article by several years. When is it OR to include material in a background section? I don't think the material logically fits and we have no RSs that tie the material and the article subject together. Here is the talk page discussion [ [54]]. Am I correct in thinking this material is WP:SYN? Thanks Springee ( talk) 03:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The first half of the "Development" section of our article on Black Panther (film) relies fairly heavily on sources from the 1990s and mid-2000s, a decade or more before the actual film was even announced, and I kinda suspect the same is true for other similar pages ( this article has apparently had essentially the same problem since at least 2008). While this kind of discussion provides interesting background to the film our article is actually about, it kinda feels like SYNTH to be doing so when the connection is not explicitly made by recent sources that were aware of the 2018 Ryan Coogler film.
Some of the citations in that section are recent, but the material that is cited only to 1990s sources is suspicious: should it be required that more recent sources giving that information in the context of background to the 2018 film be cited as well as the original 1990s sources?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Seraphim System has placed a "non-primary source needed" tag on Nation of Islam [57] for the statement of fact "The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks the NOI as a hate group". This seems wrong and out of line with our definition, but since I've reverted his removal of the statement once when he removed it as primary (among other things) I'm bringing it here. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
including the SPLC just because they say so would be a problem as a primary-only source.It would be better to include a brief summary of the majority view of multiple WP:RS (especially for the LEDE)
Kosovo: A Moment in Civilization is a film made by filmmaker Boris Malagurski and financed by Serbian govt agencies. The film is basically about Serbian cultural heritage within Kosovo and accuses the current Kosovo govt of failing to protect that heritage.
A response to the film from the present Kosovo PM's office, among other criticisms of the film says "The Kosovo prime minister's office also disputed the idea that Serb monuments and churches in Kosovo were Serbian property". source for PMs response here.
An editor added the text "though they are listed as Serbia's cultural heritage under UNESCO protection" as a 'reply' to the PM's remarks. I reverted giving as my edit reason "Improper use of a primary source ... being listed as Serbian heritage does not establish ownership and is not a response to the film". edit and revert here.
This was itself reverted, edit reason " Material is properly sourced, facts are facts". It is incidental to whether this content belongs in the film article, but in fact Unesco refers only to the specific named group of buildings as "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo", thereby side-stepping any issue of ownership, and makes clear that they are 'Serbian' in the sense that Serbia was the nominating country. It makes no comment at all about legal ownership of Serbian heritage in Kosovo.
I don't doubt the Unesco designation of these buildings, though it has little bearing on 'ownership' in the legal sense (as opposed to cultural ownership), but I claim it is OR as it seeks to refute the PM's response, rather than neutrally report responses to the film. If Unesco had issued some direct response to the film, that would be valid content, but this is clearly not the case here. The edit IMO is seeking to argue the rights and wrongs of "ownership", rather then neutrally report the film's claims and responses to the film. Pincrete ( talk) 10:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Would appreciate it if someone can look at this file [59] used in the Haplogroup_T-M184 article. It appears to be an original image based on self-reported results from commercial sites FTDNA and Yfull (as per legend), and used in the article to illustrate unpublished content. Does the use of self-reported results from commercial sites to illustrate unpublished ideas constitute original research? Regards-- Kzl55 ( talk) 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure this is the place for this, but:
This strikes me as less an encyclopedia article than it does a college undergraduate essay. Agree or disagree? If yes, it is salvageable? -- Calton | Talk 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
On the article professional wrestling an editor User:Galatz has repeatedly tried to show sources that do not refer to wrestling as a performing art and use a defintion of performing art in violation of WP:SYNTH stating that because it matches the definition I can't ask for a source. - Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
writers work on plots and storylines well in advance, and every match is another chapter in the story. Who wins and who loses is all in the script.It also says
It's true that the plots are predetermined and the moves are choreographed.Its a script and its choreographed. Just because it doesnt use the term "performing arts" it doesn't mean that using that source is WP:SYNTH. this is all one source, not multiple as SYNTH would require. Per m-w
ypes of art (such as music, dance, or drama) that are performed for an audience. There is no question that the source clearly shows its an art form, no different than a choreographed play. There is also no question its performed in front of an audience. - Galatz Talk 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.emphasis added Your definition of performance art is from an online dictionary. Your description of wrestlers' and writers' cooperation is from an openly-edited web page. Neither says "wrestling is performance art" or anything like it. You are putting A+B together to say something neither explicitly says itself, which is textbook synthesis. Rainbowofpeace is correct in their assessment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.Isn't that exactly what I am doing? - Galatz Talk 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate extra eyes at a controversial article: Tabarnia The sources used are in Spanish or Catalan.
the problem is with the contents of this edit to the lead of the article where it is claimed that the Tabarnia movement is supported by some associations. The edit seems biased to me. The sources don't directly state such support. just support for one of its demonstrations against the independence of Catalonia from Spain. The edit also claims that Societat Civil Catalana (an anti separatist platform) is a right-wing organization when they define themselves as independent and according to the cited source have in their boards of directors politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, including various from the Socialists' Party of Catalonia. When I told filiprino that making that claim was original research and misrepresentation of the sources he responded: "Just look at what they do, not who are they or in what political party are some of their members". Another IP editor tried to fix the article by reverting his edits but gave up to avoid an edit war. I removed the edit myself trying to explain the reasons with edit summaries first and then at the talk page ( see here) but had little success in reasoning with the editor. Help will be much appreciated as I would also prefer to distance myself if possible. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Dirty Subsidy is a brand-new article and the product of one of Wiki-Ed's programs, and it appears to be not an overview of a existing concept but a college paper promoting a neologism. The top hit on Google for this term is the article itself -- which is only one day old, so already a bad sign. -- Calton | Talk 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Academic reference works such as the Handbook of British Chronology pp.30-31(Frdye et al, 1986) and the Handbook of Dates (Cheney, 2000) date the reigns of English Monarchs from the coronation of the monarch from 1066-1272. In 1272 the principle of immediate succession was introduced and reigns were then dated from the day following the death of the predecessor in 1272-1483 and from the day of the death of the predecessor consistently from 1547 onwards. Some editors are convinced that the later rule of immediate succession has always applied but have not provided a source for this claim. I believe it is original research to apply a rule that only existed later to an earlier period, especially when it is contradicted by reliable sources. Am I correct in thinking this? A RfC has now been opened at Talk:List of English monarchs#Proposal to change reign dates and the previous discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#Reign dates. Jhood1 ( talk) 22:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Event | Collins Gem [1] | Wikipedia |
---|---|---|
Accession of William I | 14 October 1066 | 25 December 1066 |
Accession of William II | 10 September 1087 | 9 September 1087 |
Accession of Matilda | April 1141 | 7 April 1141 |
End of Matilda's reign | (None given; reign length 7 months) | 1 November 1141 |
Death of John | 18 October 1216 | 19 October 1216 |
Accession of Henry III | 18 October 1216 | 19 October 1216 |
Reign of Louis | Not included | Included |
Accession of Edward I | 20 November 1272 | 16 November 1272 |
Abdication of Edward II | 20 January 1327 [2] | 24 January 1327 |
Accession of Richard II | 22 June 1399 | 21 June 1399 |
First accession of Henry VI | 1 September 1422 | 31 August 1422 |
Accession of Henry VIII | 22 April 1509 | 21 April 1509 |
References
TBBC is insistent on adding a line into the Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling article which is unsupported. They are stating that every wrestler who appeared on the show has been elected to the WWE Hall of Fame however when I removed their WP:OR, they added it back with just a generic link to all WWE wrestler pages which I again removed. They attempted to add it back with [62] however I explained to them that this is the exact definition of WP:SYNTH. They are refusing the discuss the issue and are ignoring comments I have left for them on their talk page. They have been blocked for similar styles of edit warring before. - Galatz Talk 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well the official website of the WWE hall of fame also has a site dedicated to the cartoon, so how about just add the WWE website as a whole-- TBBC ( talk) 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
See, and there's no website that can be considered a reliable source that'll state that. And yet everyone who looks at that page will see every WWE employee to be featured in this cartoon are in the WWE hall of fame, but YOU (no one else) are so insistent we just ignore that fact.-- TBBC ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok then, so it's settled, I'll add citations to the official hall of fame website and the official photo gallery and not violate the original research, but unfortunately violate the whole no synth policy.-- TBBC ( talk) 15:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Then in that case, it's impossible not to violate WP:OR-- TBBC ( talk) 15:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Social Causation VS Downward Drift is what I would call an essay. The bulk of the article consists of presentations of views expressed in a variety of sources, all of them cited. But it seems to be that the very nature of the article is to choose what sources are relevant to the purported debate and to reach some conclusions.
I worked through the removal of conclusions and remarks that were clearly superimposed by the author on the source material. What's left is largely factual, in the sense of "It's true that these sources say these things", but I can't help thinking that the very nature of this article is still a WP:Synthesis piece. I'm hesitating to submit it for AFD, though. I thought I'd step back and see if anyone can take a fresh look and let me know whether this is a genuine Wikipedia article or something that should be somewhere else. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Lot of original contents without any reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkrishnan ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I am asking for advice on a user who gives the impression, through edits over a series of articles, to be using OR. They also have a COI issue which they refuse to address but I will take that up separately.
I have deleted numerous additions they have made as, on investigating the citations, there is no, or very low quality evidence to support their assertions.
Article in question is here. [1]
Here is an example deletion I made to article, please note the justifications I have given. There has been in excess of 20k of text I have deleted from this one article [2]
I raised the issue in the associated talk - [3]
His response to this was effectively "Meh" and an attempt to claim I had an agenda. This is true in one way, I have an agenda to correct blatent errors.
The same concerns on OR and COI were raised in a different article [4], as well as associated talk [5] , and were also denied with no evidence offered. [6]
When I corrected errors in first article the same user then went to the referenced titles articles and inserted the deleted citations and assertions in those.
[7]
I have also noticed they have deleted the external tag for the cancelled games article while inserting it in all other games he believes existed so as to remove it from the category. [8]
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by StraightDown ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This book is a collective volume that combines the works of several experts in their fields. According to our criteria, each chapter is a secondary source. In addition to the chapters, the Book is supplemented with an introduction, where no independent research have been presented. The introduction draws conclusions from some data taken from BB chapters.
Is the introduction a secondary or tertiary source? -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've just realised I posted this question on the wrong noticeboard. Does anybody think I should repost it on WP:RSN?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a map at
Cold War II that claims to describe which countries are on which sides in "Cold War II". I believe this map is original research and synthesis, and must be removed. The criteria for inclusion (such as countries opposing the
Syrian government on the
Syrian Civil War
) are arbitrary, and there's no reason to believe that the sources describing a "cold war" between the US and
Russia, and the sources describing a conflict between the US and
China are referring to the same conflict. (courtesy ping @
DemocraticSocialism,
Odemirense,
Firebrace,
George Ho, and
Fenetrejones:)
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 04:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
May someone review
Special:Contributions/94.210.116.247? At
Darius the Mede, the IP has been pushing a crackpot POV through
WP:OR, namely that the Hebrew word Koresh does not mean
Cyrus. Diff:
[64]. The IP stated Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Koresh is.
This translates into English as "Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Cyrus is."
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 07:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
JDC808 insists on adding information into the article WWE Money in the Bank which is not supported by a source, see [65] as an example of their edits. I attempted to explain to the user here User talk:JDC808#MITB as to their issues however they are insistent that because its not rocket science it is ok to add it. They are combining pieces of information from multiple sources to draw their conclusion, a clear WP:SYNTH violation. Currently the WWE has 2 world champions, and the users only source says "A World Championship" and does not specify which. They have concluded this means both are eligible but they do not have one clear source which states this, making it a clear case of WP:OR. Although their conclusion is the probable eventuality, nothing has been announced officially so there is no way to confirm this information is correct or not. - Galatz Talk 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
* Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.That is exactly what you are doing. They do not say what World Championship, only it will be for one. You are coming to the conclusion.
I'm having a bit of an issue on IEEE 802.11ax. An editor, or several (and presumably coordinated, because I seem to be reverted more often than one would expect without coordination), are adding a large chunk of primary-sourced content WP:SYNTHisizing (mostly) the minutes of the committee for the standard (in a WP:POVPUSH fashion especially for the non-technical content related to the standard). Some of it strays into questionable BLP-related discussion. I've removed the content and at least one other editor has issue with it, yet we have been reverted multiple times.
I'm on wikibreak, so I don't want to spend a lot of time checking in for the appropriateness of the content. Other editors are encouraged to participate, watch, and whatnot (and validate my actions, of course! ;). I will probably cross-post this thread to one or two other noticeboards. -- Izno ( talk) 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I hope you are doing well. I have cited the following hadith on Ta'wiz:
Whoever wears an amulet, may Allah not fulfill it (i.e., his want) for him, and whoever wears a sea-shell, may Allah not give him peace
I do not believe it is original research because I have cited a source, citation #7 in this pre-rollbacked revision right above it, which states that Ta'wiz is impermissible based on a scholarly interpretation of the hadith, followed by a direct quotation of the hadith. Therefore, I have not interpreted anything, but am simply writing and citing the interpretation of the scholar.
Thank you. – Batreeq ( Talk) ( Contribs) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Nihlus1 has added a reliable source to several articles that says x% of Austro-Hungarian casualties occurred on certain fronts, and Nihlus has then applied these percentages to the (low) numbers for 'Total military deaths' and 'Military wounded' we have cited on
World War I casualties#Casualties by 1914–18 borders, to calculate figures for those articles. Would this amount to original research?
Diffs for the
Eastern Front,
Italian Front and
Romanian Front.
Also the original sources for those numbers on WW1 casualties should really be included with the source Nihlus added, but that's another issue.
Alcherin (
talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Fundamental metric tensor has been constantly edit warring on the article Hindustan and the disambiguation page, insisting the two citations he provided support the statement equating the region of Hindustan with the Republic of India [1] [2]. I have reverted slowly to avoid edit warring, but now I have backed away from the articles intro and dab page to avoid edit warring; especially after a warning was given to both of us, but he continues to insist it supports his statements. He also ignored my edit summaries and discussion on the talk page, only by asking me to discuss, which I already did and had to repeat myself. On the discussion page he also cites a number of companies based in India using the name "Hindustan XXX" but I have told him they do not count as reliable sources, not even close it you ask me.
Just a note to add, there is a section in the article that discusses other uses of the term, with one of them being the modern Republic of India. However, a distinction is still made between the Republic of India and the historic geographic term. This was already mentioned in the other usages section prior to my editing the article. I have also pointed him to WP:RS and WP:OR. From his discussions, it seems he is not familiar with policy on sourcing and original research and continues to ignore this. Having been on Wikipedia for 11 years but having barely 2,500 edits seems to confirm that he needs to be properly informed and corrected on sourcing policy.
I need a review of this ASAP as it's becoming tiresome. Thank you for reading-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
1) Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hindustan
2) Dictionary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hindustan?s=t
3) Free Thesarus: http://www.freethesaurus.com/Hindustan
Additionally, pg 276 of the Lonely Planet book for India, translates "Hindustan Zindabad" as "Long Live India", as does this BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150429-indias-bizarre-border-ritual I have provided other English language sources (Everett) where "Hindustan Zindabad" means "Long Live India". In scholastic usage, Arvind Sharma, in the journal Numen, defines Hindustan as India (Sharma, Arvind. "On Hindu, Hindustān, Hinduism and Hindutva." Numen 49.1 (2002): 1-36.) I think these, in sum, prove that not only is Republic of India an important meaning of Hindustan in English, it is likely to be one of the most common meanings encountered by English speakers and users. My edits reflected this usage, along with its other uses which refer to the entire Indian subcontinent, or its Northern part. User NadirAli, insists on reducing this important use of the term Hindustan to an ambiguous side note in the article, and emphasizing only the other uses. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Disputed content: [3]
Link to article: Secularism in Turkey
Issue: Primary sources, essay style writing, arguing a thesis - the sources do not seem to be discussing scholarly criticism that Turkey is secular, the argument seems to be pieced together from various sources as WP:SYNTH. The editor has reverted twice but without being able to show sources that contains this analysis
Related: The same editor is pushing the same WP:OR in this RfC Talk:Turkey#Secular - the same argument was advanced in a previous RfC by Tiptoethrutheminefield, who has since been indeffed as a sock of a disruptive editor in this topic area. Though this has been discussed multiple times now, no one has produced a source that puts forth this particular analysis. Seraphim System ( talk) 04:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Turkey, secularism has come to represent the control of religion by the state rather than the separation of religion and the state.-- Moxy ( talk) 20:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Turkey is a secular republic, However Turkish secularism is different...I don't think this section can stay in based on that source you just gave without violating WP:SYNTH. This shouldn't be a discussion about my personal opinion, as much as it is a discussion about whether the academic sources support this theory based on analysis of recent developments (which is being pushed on several articles now). Seraphim System ( talk) 20:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The page List of rampage killers clearly meets WP:SAL standards, but I feel there are multiple content issues on the page and on sub-pages. I'm not sure what should be done here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Earlier this year, the Orbit page redefined an orbit from a "path" to a "trajectory". The justification for this change is unclear, since all cited sources explicitly use the word "path". No reason was given for the change at the time, but recent editors are backing the use of "trajectory", asserting that "Trajectory is more accurate" and "path seems unnecessarily less specific". Are they violating Wikipedia's prohibition on original research?
Please see Talk:Rape myth#Improper tone and approach and the three short threads immediately below it (including a big deletion spree in the article); some additional editorial input (especially from NORN regulars) would be of value, since the discussion has turned circular and only involves three editors, but is rather important for this article. The first of these threads mostly focuses on NPOV concerns, but introduced the NOR one, which has developed in the threads after it. This is an old and kind of languishing article that recently got a lot of focused attention, but from too few parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Ezidkhan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was up to July this year an article mainly about a historical region. [5] Since then Niele~enwiki ( talk · contribs) has turned it into an article about " unrecognised de facto autonomous area established in the western part of the Iraqi Sinjar region.[verification needed]".(tag added in September by User:Ahmedo Semsurî. According to the infobox it has its own official language, a government which is a Democratic confederalism and Direct democracy and a Supreme Spiritual Council. Only the last has any sources, [6] which cites the second source [7].
Very little of the article is sourced. Much is about various takeovers and various security forces. This isn't the place to argue about the reliability of the sources, although I'm dubious about the two above. My point is that I can find no reliable sources justifying the claim in the introduction and the infobox, as well as elsewhere, that this is any form of government. If the claim by this source [8] is true, that there is an "Ezidixan autonomy commission under the auspices of the United Nations," - or if any of the basic thesis is true, why can't I find more clearly reliable sources? Doug Weller talk 12:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see there is no evidence of recognition either of autonomy, or of any process to consider it. The proclamation of autonomy should certainly be mentioned, but to present it as established is misleading. Significant clean-up is required, but simple Burden can justify removal much of the problematic text. Batternut ( talk) 10:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This article looks to me to be arguing a case entirely from primary sources, largely by the person who coined the term (around 2/3 or more of the references). Incidentally, I think Mre env ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly closely associated with Adrian Bejan, or at least a massive fan, because that is his sole topic of interest. Guy ( Help!) 22:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion about deletion of Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa) partly revolves around whether or not the channel is made up/synthesized. Given that this is a deletion discussion please post there. Spshu ( talk) 22:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've run into a situation where a source is cited, but the information cited is not in the text of the source, it is derived from observing a photograph in the article. Would this qualify as original research? One issue that springs to mind immediately is the fact that the image could be mirrored. Gabriel syme ( talk) 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a presentation of the work of Dr. Naugler, by a user with no other contributions, relguan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Naugler backwards. I removed some cites to OMICS, I am pretty confident this is not a policy-compliant article.
The article National trauma has no references, and I can't find any that define the term "national trauma". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Query for deleted entry in /info/en/?search=False_accusation_of_rape
The final 2 sentences of the following quote were deleted. The editor said it contained original research. The 3% and 12% figures were from a cited document and in line with other estimates from other sources cited in the article. The 13,774 figure is from government reports (which perhaps I should have cited). I made a simple arithmetic calculation of these 2 non-controvertial numbers to estimate actual numbers of incidences per year. Is this really Original Research?
"They found that 12% of rape allegations fell into the broader definition of false accusations and that 3% of the false rape allegations were identified as malicious. There were 13,774 reported rapes in 2008, suggesting 413 instances of malicious false accusations of rape with a possibility of a further 1,240 instances falling in the "questionable" range determined from the 12% bracket. The authorities convict about 20 false accusers per year.[10]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.136.72 ( talk) 11:47, 21 November 2017
It seems to me that this is precisely what surveys and statistics are used for. To sample a population in order to predict how the entire population will behave. In most (real) cases, both sample distribution and population are 'estimates'. In my case, the estimates of the sample are roughly similar in several surveys (2% is the lowest estimate and others go as high as 8). Is it really unacceptable to make such an estimate? Do you have suggestions how to provide an acceptable number? 189.172.136.72 ( talk) 06:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
On page of polyandry, original research is used which is not contained in the source. The source does not state that a woman can hove more than one husband at the same time, as per the definition of polyandry. But state that after dissolution of marriage and after ensuring that she is not pregnant she can marry. I have also explained on the talk page of polyandry but an editor idunious refuses to listen. Please help.for further discussion xplaination see talk page of polyand y. Source is online, anyone can see. Smatrah ( talk) 12:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Being "married again" is different from being married to multiple people simultaneously. The former is called serial monogamy, the latter would be polygamy. Reliable academic sources say that Islam prohibits polyandry, as far as I can tell, none of those academic sources mention this passage being an exception to that rule. If you can find a source that does mention that this is an exception, then cite it and we can move on. Otherwise, this is OR. Regarding the commentary quoted above, it appears to have left out the preceding sentence. The full quote seems to support the notion that the previous marriage would ordinarily be nullified:
Women who come as captives of war, leaving their husbands behind in Dar al-Harb (Domain of War), are not prohibited, for their marriage is nullified by virtue of their entry into Dar al-Islam (Domain of Islam). A man may marry such women and, if they happen to be his slave-girls, he may have sexual relations with them.There is disagreement, however, among jurists as to what should be done if both husband and wife have been taken captive together. Abu Hanifah and the jurists of his school are of the opinion that their marriage should remain intact. Malik and Shafi'i, on the other hand, argue that their matrimonial contract should be rendered void.
source: note 44
There appears to be general agreement that the passage is about marrying women whose previous marriages have been nullified (despite a lack of a formal divorce) because they were no longer in contact with their previous husbands. No anthropologist would call this polyandry - the previous marriage isn't considered legitimate, the previous husband and wife are no longer live together. (see footnote c-24 page 110-111 here). WP:OR prohibits using a source "to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". If you want the discussion to end, all you need to do is dig up a single academic or scholarly source that says "this passage endorses polyandry" - I find several that explicitly say it is is prohibited. Simply find one source that disputes that claim.
Regarding the note from Abu Hanifah: Idunius, is your contention is that this means, if the couple is captured together, Abu Hanifah believes that the previous marriage should remain intact, but that (for some reason) the women should also be able to remarry and both marriages remain simultaneously valid? The logical interpretation is that Hanifah believes a new marriage would not be lawful because the previous marriage isn't nullified. This is plainly obvious if you look at other translations of that text.
That is, those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah and those of his way of thinking are of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik and Shafi 'i, are of the opinion that it would also break.
In other words: it's only lawful if the previous marriage is nullified. Abu Hanifah thinks it isn't nullified if the spouses are captured together, and so he disagrees that it is lawful. Nblund talk 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Idazmi:
The question is whether you can use artwork alone to argue whether a fictional character ( Fox McCloud) had his legs removed despite statements from the Star Fox's programmer ( Dylan Cuthbert) and the game's main producer ( Shigeru Miyamoto) saying the legs were not amputated. Please see the thread at: Talk:Fox_McCloud#Legs_not_prosthetic WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Idazmi added back the robotic legs they to the article. I don't think this is good form as he discussion is still going on. IMO it's full of OR. @ Icewhiz:@ Sergecross73:@ Masem: - I am in favor of a single sentence about this, but he's insisting on saying the robotic leg theory is true, which is out of line. WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
One thing WP:OR is unclear about is the use of original research to challenge information on wikipedia? In the case of Macrophilia there have been several edit wars about the wording of "typically a male fantasy". While cited sources do state that, the sources appear biased by reporting only on material typically marketed to the male demographic. From personal experience in the community and having attended sizecon, there appears to be close to equal representation of both the female and male demographics. Sizecon was organized by a female artist [22] who appears to have participated in the edit war Talk:Macrophilia/Archive_1#Taking_a_stand. I wish those involved used the proper channels to make their points, but the past can't be helped. So my question is can an aggregation of user data (many profiles displaying gender) and poll data be used to settle a long standing argument about whether text should be Removed from a wikipedia article?
Any response positive or negative on this issue is appreciated, especially if from someone with an authoritative 'final' say such as an admin or bureaucrat. Thank you in advance. Eaterjolly ( talk) 16:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Could I request some input on the article Cogewea. I have been identifying and tagging significant original research in the article, and the author, Trentprof, has been removing the problematic passages, but is contesting that gathering course syllabi to support a claim that "This edition is used widely in post-secondary classrooms" is original research. As far as I am concerned, it is clearly original research, because the source is Trentprof's own research, rather than something that has been published. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to take this issue. The article has literally no sources and the claims about type of government don't always match those of the country's own article. The ideologies section ditto, it appears to be mainly an analysis of the main article. The main editor now points out that User:Sjö says sources aren't needed for the list just that " if the article says it is or was totalitarian or words to that effect the regime can be included. That eliminates the need for edit wars here." But of course articles change, and I the first few I looked at the main article didn't say totalitarian. In any case, WP:SOURCELIST clearly says "Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked." Doug Weller talk 19:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Cold_War#Request_for_Comment
On the Cold War Talk page, I've been accused of engaging in OR on numerous edits because I used more than one secondary source. I've also been accused of misrepresenting sources. My own perspective, after extensive debate, is that there may be political issues clouding my fellow editors' judgement—but of course I could be wrong.
The RfC linked above is something of a test case. It's developed into a debate on whether the pre-World War II period should be included in the article at all, but it originated with this contribution of mine:
In some respects, I've left myself open by using so many citations, and by using the provocative phrase "imperialistic war aims." Yet "imperialistic war aims" is actually a quotation from this source in relation to exposure of the treaties. Pages 131-133 of this source harmonizes with the above in its portrayal of the Allies' quest for "indemnities and territory [which] hardly squared with noble ideals..." The Bolsheviks' desire to "unmask capitalist duplicity" and the subsequent "embarrassment to the Allies and...calamity for [Woodrow] Wilson" mark this as a proto-Cold War episode.
I don't want to go on at length here, but I'll note that the core of my statement in the second clause, about the secret treaty on the Middle East (Sykes-Picot Agreement) and the origins of the Cold War is a summary of this article. The other citations are just supporting and aren't really even needed for summary, much less synthesis.
Please weigh in at the RfC. I'd really like to know if I've overstepped my bounds on this.
Best, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 02:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
References
At Earth 2 (TV series)#Episodes, the listed episode order is unsourced, and several editors are insisting that strict airdate order must be used. This would seem to be WP:SYNTHESIS - taking airdate information and forming that into an "episode order". Now, for most series, using the airing order is a good shortcut to listing the episode order, as they tend to be one in the same. For some series, Firefly (TV series)#Episodes very notably, the airing order was conflated due to network machinations, usually because a series is being shelved or contractual airing obligations have to be met before killing the series. When this happens, either the producers will communicate the "right" viewing order, or perhaps the order will be fixed on a future home media release. This is the case with Earth 2. As it stands, the article as ZERO sources for the "episode order". The episode order was previously correct, but an undiscussed edit in 2010 changed the order, and that unsourced order persists. I had attempted to update this with sources for the correct order. I ask that others please look at this through the lens of Wikipedia:Verifiability and achieve consensus that we should not WP:SYNTH the order by simply assuming it from airdates. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Recent edit by User:Constant314 I don't understand how original research pertains to an image? Vinyasi ( talk) 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Hello, I'd like to have some input/consesus about the possible WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in the State atheism article: a couple of us have opened a discussion about it since some time, and one contributor has even compiled a source analysis for one section as evidence of this, but the article authors don't seem very interested in addressing the issue.
State atheism is the name of the article, and its content describes events that themselves are verifiable, but almost all of the article's sources do not describe these events as, or use or even mention the term, "state atheism". So since the cited source does not call these events by that label, I don't see how the article can (this would mean that it was the wikipedia contributors applying it (without supporing sources)), but I would like a second (or more) opinion/confirmation about the WP:SYNTH (or WP:OR) quality of this.
Thanks, TP ✎ ✓ 20:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
We need some input regarding text and citations in the
Ann Powers article. We've had a discussion at
Talk:Ann Powers#The_Dreaming and have reached an impasse. The article text under discussion is In 2007, Ann Powers wrote a proposal for a book on Kate Bush’s album The Dreaming that was intended to be part of the 33 1/3 series; however, the project was abandoned when Powers started her work at the Los Angeles Times and the book was never written.
The second part of the sentence was added in
this edit whose summary indicates that the BLP subject wanted the text clarified. The text currently has two citations: one to an online description of the book and one to the list of the series this book would be a part of if it existed (it is not in the list).
My position is that the subject's communication to the editor is not a reliable source and that since there are no reliable sources discussing this book situation, the text is OR. The position of the other two editors BrillLyle and Innisfree987 is twofold: first, to invoke IAR because although the book appears to exist ((it has an ISBN, etc), it does not, and Wikipedia should not publish false information; second, the article should reflect the subject's wishes as communicated to the editor.
Is the disputed text OR? Thanks for your help and guidance. Ca2james ( talk) 06:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Because the page for this site requests input, I endorse the site because it is a "source" by its publication (The Tracker) that identifies my surname immigrating ancestor in Volume 7, Number 2, pages 1-4, 1962, to defend adding that ancestor's name as a Personlichkeit (a Personality) who lived (for 12 years) in a specified village in Germany on de.wikipedia.org as well as a church citation for the baptism in 1824. VatievonHans VatievonHans ( talk) 23:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
A bunch of our articles on individual episodes of
Game of Thrones include some variation on "The Dragon and the Wolf" marks Aidan Gillen's final appearance as Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish
or Indira Varma made her final appearance as Ellaria Sand
with no citation attached, and the implicit assumption that the fact the character died in the episode (which in the latter case isn't even true) justifies saying the actors are done playing the characters as well, despite the occasional use of flashbacks and the fact that several spin-off (like prequel) series are in development.
Should these be tagged, blanked, or what?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious about something. If it is factual information, is it okay to cite directly from a company's website for minimal information (e.g Roku's website to verify the countries that they distribute to. JacobPace ( talk) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone please check the following point:
The second paragraph in the
background section in 2017–18 Iranian protests is cited to
a 2016 source which is naturally not related to an incident happening in 2018. I think this is against the OR policy which says "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
Any ideas? --
Mhhossein
talk 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
References
This discussion tangentially relates to a current existing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple. One of the issues involved in that discussion is whether a group which originated in about 2012, which is more recent than any of the reference books I checked on in gathering the data for List of new religious movements, can be counted as a new religious movement in its own right. Right now, we have one source which counts Satanism as an NRM, and this group is in a sense a Satanist group, but most of the other entries in the reference works I used in generating the list are for specific denominations. This question may not be particularly important in this particular instance, but there may well be others which arise in the future. Anyway, thoughts on whether a religious group too new to be included in available reference works on new religious movements can be counted as one? John Carter ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
None of the sources in article rogue state claim that the United States has classified Rhodesia and South Africa as a rogue state. The sources refer sanctions that these countries experienced during the Cold War. The User:Gregorius deretius, who added such information, had already been rolled back several times in the past: 1, 2, 3. I ask that the page go back to the previous version of the editions of Gregorius deretius because it is a case of WP: SYNTHESIS.-- 201.1.43.76 ( talk) 17:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Fabrickator: Defining what age of consent for Texas is tricky because there is a law prohibiting sexual activity with those under 17 but there is also a law against inducement of sexual conduct from someone under 18 (one does not need to be doing this for a performance). Effectively that makes the 18 the minimum age in which the person's partner won't be prosecuted for a felony; the question is whether that should be interpreted as the "age of consent" using Wikipedia's definition of age of consent in that article (and stating directly that it is 18), or whether doing so is Original Research and therefore the article can't clearly define an age of consent for Texas.
Articles in the popular media usually state the age of consent in Texas is 17.
To quote User:John M Baker:
The problem is that people don't really care all that much whether engaging in sex with someone under a certain age will result in prosecution for statutory rape, as opposed to prosecution for some other felony; if it's a serious crime, it's a serious crime. Our articles probably should clarify this in some standardized way, although that seems like it would be a substantial job. John M Baker"
In Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Please_fix_Texas_on_the_map there is a question. Do we:
How do you convey useful information while avoiding original research? WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
In hopes of salvaging something from this NOR discussion, would any "third parties" care to address the issue of whether providing a specialized definition requires a source? In other words, if a definition is provided indicating how a term is used within a Wikipedia article, is it sufficient to provide the definintion of the term, or must the definition that is used within the article come from a reliable source? Fabrickator ( talk) 02:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
An IP has twice tried to add a supposed race of evil black-eyed children in their tribe's mythology to this article, speculating that the person who made this up out of whole cloth in Texas must have heard of this New York State tribe's similarly-labeled beings. I don't want to edit war, but WP:OR is clearly relevant here, as is WP:RS. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
We could use some new voices in the debate at Talk:Appeasement. Specifically I've proposed a section on economic appeasement in the 1930s, and we are voting on whether it is OR or not:
Numerous scholars have explored the trade aspects of appeasement. Britain's commercial relationship with Germany was steady throughout the 1930s, extending even beyond the invasion of Prague. Germany was, after India, Britain’s largest exporter. "In consequence," The Economist notes, "the German war machine continued to be fueled with oil and armed with metals from British sources" up until the declaration of war in September 1939. It has been argued that trade in strategic materials with the Nazis was necessary for Britain's rearmament. [1]
Even as appeasement seemed to collapse in the aftermath of Kristalnacht, economic appeasement escalated. In January 1939, London and Berlin representatives helped negotiate an Anglo-German coal cartel. [2] A major trade conference commenced in Dusseldorf that March, although government participation was disrupted by the Prague crisis. The Federation of British Industries and other trade groups proceeded with the meetings nonetheless. By the eve of the war, the two countries had 133 trade agreements in effect. [3]
The American policy of neutrality at this time could sometimes lapse into appeasement. [4] This was particularly true economically; with no serious sanctions on the rising Axis powers until 1941, top US firms like IBM and General Motors were extremely active in Nazi Germany for years, and exchange controls ensured that most of their profits were cycled back into the country, thereby strengthening Hitler's regime. [5] This also meant that Nazi-associated businesses like IG Farben and Thyssen industries did extensive dealings with elite US banks like Brown Brothers Harriman and Union Banking Corporation up through the outbreak of the war. [6] With the knowledge of the US government, the American film industry catered consciously to Germany. Most major Hollywood studios worked directly with the German Consul Georg Gyssling up until 1940 to censor films for anti-Nazi or pro-Jewish sentiment, even for versions distributed outside of Germany. [7] [8]
It's been argued by some there that the theory of economic appeasement isn't widely accepted, however, it's actually well established:
- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I've just come across File:Brontoscorpio.png in Brontoscorpio. While it's a great image, I'm unsure whether it is appropriate for us to include, as the only specimen of this species is one 10cm piece. The original description estimated it's size from that, but the illustration is not based on anything previously published, which in my opinion makes it OR. What do you think? SmartSE ( talk) 10:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
On this section WP:SYN is used but no one is trying to know the truth. Please help remove it I cannot see any source claiming to allow polyandry it is WP:SYN. I do not know why such blunder only for one religion but not others. I have already explained here and also Nblund on its talk page. Please help block such vandalistic editors. Smatrah ( talk) 15:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has complained about this sentence in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 1987:
However, the official vote count does establish that the MUF polled 31% of the votes cast in the Valley.[note 1]
[note 1}: The Muslim United Front polled 470,580 votes by the official count, [1] out of 1,477,250 votes cast in the Valley, [2] making it roughly 31%.
References
- ^ Hussain, Masood (23 March 2016), "MUFfed", Kashmir Life, retrieved 17 February 2018
- ^ Statistical Report on the General Election, 1987, Election Commission of India, New Delhi.
The complaint was:
It gets worse in that there is added WP:SYNTHESIS between (even worse) WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. See this edit where you have synthesized content between a secondary source and an official election commission paper.
What is your view? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The basis for this estimate appears to be that, since the MUF won a third of the officially declared vote state-wide, its vote share in the Valley would have been far higher. [1]...is content from a secondary scholarly source. So it is fine. The same cannot be said for the contested sentence, which is a futile attempt to refute the scholarly-sourced content, because it is not sourced to secondary sources, it is half-sourced to a WP:PRIMARY source. Also, WP:SYNTHESIS is not allowed with WP:PRIMARY sources. Read policy. Your arrogance that WP:SYNTHESIS is not a problem is a very, very serious matter. JosephusOfJerusalem ( talk) 05:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
References
according to the official results the opposition alliance got one-third of the statewide vote (which meant that its official vote in the Valley was much higher than one-third)" is quite speculative and wishy-washy. I would have completely omitted it if not for the fact that he draws some quite drastic conclusions from it, which have strong adherents. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I will assume WP:GOODFAITH and put aside the WP:CANVASSING you have responded to. The argument is about using a WP:PRIMARY source for WP:CALCULATION. The policy explicitly says not to. Please don't pluck up arguments from the air to give an impression that you have rebutted anything on the table. JosephusOfJerusalem ( talk) 07:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY gives no allowance for
WP:SYNTHESIS, which is what
WP:CALC is. No analysis and evaluation is allowed either with
WP:PRIMARY materials. Read policy...Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
...There is nothing wrong in being keen to keep
WP:SYNTHESIS of
WP:PRIMARY material out of an article. If Kautilya3 is so keen to hold on to this figure in mainspace he needs to
WP:CALCULATE using
WP:SECONDARY sources. If you still do not
WP:LISTEN I will have to regard this as
WP:DISRUPTION.
JosephusOfJerusalem (
talk) 10:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
"The Muslim United Front polled 470,580 votes by the official count,[28] out of 1,477,250 votes cast in the Valley,[1] representing 31.9% of the vote share. Its share of votes in the whole state was 18.9%."
A phrase on a late 19th century colonial treaty is being used on the Mohamoud Ali Shire page to justify the claim that this ruler's official royal title in the colonial documents was "Elder of the Warsangeli Tribe"-- "the British government and the Elders of the Warsangli Tribe who have signed this agreement" [29]. The url does not mention this sultan by name, but he did apparently sign a treaty with the colonial authorities. Isn't this title, then, original research? Also, please take into consideration that this ruler seems to have been relatively young during the late 1920s and not yet in the elder age range-- "this man is still young" [30]. Soupforone ( talk) 05:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Links describing this ruler as an elder ca. 1966 [34] and an elderly descendant of his as such ca. 2003 [35] are obviously not equivalent to the original claim that an early colonial treaty qualified him as an elder ca. the late 19th century [36]. There is no source that describes him as an elder in the late 19th century, apparently because he was still a young man at the time. A normal human being also cannot remain an elder for 60+ years. Soupforone ( talk) 14:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
That is not what the OP is about. The actual issue is over your original claim that the word elder should be used in the lead instead of ruler because "per official British treaty "The British Government and the Elders of the Warsangli Tribe" goo.gl/bNFEsU" [38]. However, that goo.gl url does not mention this sultan by name, and he also was apparently still young during the late 1920s, around 20 years after that treaty. Therefore, he could not have been an elder in the late 19th century, though he certainly was by 1966. Also, Sultan is a royal title - see Category:Royal_titles. Soupforone ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears that although the power of most of the sultans was limited to their respective clan territories, they were locally regarded as sultans in the ordinary titular sense [43]. Elder is indeed a title, albeit one that comes with age, when one is elderly. It is not typically bestowed upon the young. A work that describes the sultan as an elder in 1966 thus cannot be equated with elder status for this individual in the late 1800s, during his youth. Soupforone ( talk) 04:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That work indicates that "the emphasis placed on seniority in age and on experience is evident in the title given to the man who in any particular hamlet tends to direct its affairs. Whatever its kinship composition, its leader is always referred to as 'elder', or 'old-man'". Older age is therefore indeed an inherent aspect of the elder title, as it is only bestowed upon elderly men. According to the author, sultan is a different title and it does approximate the ordinary titular sultan, even though most of the contemporary sultans wielded little significant power. He elucidates on this elsewhere [45]-- "Most clans, although not all, have titular leaders dignified beyond their actual power and authority by the Arabian title Sultan." He also indicates that although the sultan title is now interchangeable with various other titles, some of these titles were previously distinguished by different ranks [46]-- "Suldaan, Boqor, Ugaas, Garaad, and Islaam are all used in the North with much the same sense. Formerly some of these titles seem to have distinguished different ranks." Also, he writes that the 'aaqil title is not equivalent to the sultan title, but instead denotes salaried representatives, as in the Ottoman Egypt Khedivate [goo.gl/QuJcjp]. Soupforone ( talk) 04:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Repetition aside, that url also explains that the aqil office is distinct from that of the sultan-- "the aqil[...] could also emancipate himself to some degree from the sultan" [49]; "in the colonial period the position of Aqil was stabilized as an intermediary authority between the elders and the sultan" [50]. Soupforone ( talk) 03:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Not going anywhere.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
I would like to get a few opinions from this noticeboard regarding an edit at Alex Jones ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The description of Jones's opposition to gun control is described as "aggressive", on the basis of editors watching a video and evaluating the way he responds as "aggressive", but without any of the sources making any mention of the term "aggressive". Please see edit 1, edit 2, and talk section Jones's "aggressive opposition to gun control". Thank you. Dr. K. 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Hi, I've had a long-term problem with an IP who keeps changing numbers at weight plate inconsistent with the cited sources ( example 1 2 3). I'm not going to revert war with the IP but I also can't use my admin tools given that I'm the creator the article. I would appreciate help.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
First sentence in the third paragraph of the Clitoris article found at < /info/en/?search=Clitoris> "Sociological, sexological and medical debate have focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." I am concerned that this may be "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" < /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research> My primary concern is that there is no reliable source to verify the claim that "Sociological... debate [sic] have focused on the clitoris..." and also no reliable source to verify the synthesis about debates in the fields of sociology, sexology, and medicine. I am a new editor, and would appreciate assistance in resolving this issue. AnaSoc ( talk) 02:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between myself, Spacecowboy420, and a IP 124.106.137.248. There is a quote in the article Jake Zyrus that states Zyrus was dubbed by Oprah Winfrey as "the most talented girl in the world" (before his transition). Spacecowboy420 and the IP want it removed and I believe it shouldn't be as it provides context and isn't OR. I took it to the Talk page because I believe consensus should be gained, but IP hasn't discussed it and Spacecowboy while writing a comment, just took out the comment, deciding they were right. Another user Hariboneagle927 thought the comment was appropriate but thinks it should be taken out of brackets which I agree also but wasn't going to change until the consensus on if it stays or not is reached. Can we get others input on if this is OR or not. NZFC (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a question about WP:SYN related to a section of an article. The article 2018_NRA_boycott is just a month old as it describes a boycott in response to the school shooting in Florida. The article contains a background section with two parts. The primary part is clear background mentioning the crime and early protests. There is a subsection talking about an NRA list of companies that are anti-gun [ [53]]. The mention of this list seems unconnected to the rest of the article. While the section is supported by reliably sourced material, all the references predate the Boycott that is the subject of the article by several years. When is it OR to include material in a background section? I don't think the material logically fits and we have no RSs that tie the material and the article subject together. Here is the talk page discussion [ [54]]. Am I correct in thinking this material is WP:SYN? Thanks Springee ( talk) 03:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The first half of the "Development" section of our article on Black Panther (film) relies fairly heavily on sources from the 1990s and mid-2000s, a decade or more before the actual film was even announced, and I kinda suspect the same is true for other similar pages ( this article has apparently had essentially the same problem since at least 2008). While this kind of discussion provides interesting background to the film our article is actually about, it kinda feels like SYNTH to be doing so when the connection is not explicitly made by recent sources that were aware of the 2018 Ryan Coogler film.
Some of the citations in that section are recent, but the material that is cited only to 1990s sources is suspicious: should it be required that more recent sources giving that information in the context of background to the 2018 film be cited as well as the original 1990s sources?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Seraphim System has placed a "non-primary source needed" tag on Nation of Islam [57] for the statement of fact "The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks the NOI as a hate group". This seems wrong and out of line with our definition, but since I've reverted his removal of the statement once when he removed it as primary (among other things) I'm bringing it here. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
including the SPLC just because they say so would be a problem as a primary-only source.It would be better to include a brief summary of the majority view of multiple WP:RS (especially for the LEDE)
Kosovo: A Moment in Civilization is a film made by filmmaker Boris Malagurski and financed by Serbian govt agencies. The film is basically about Serbian cultural heritage within Kosovo and accuses the current Kosovo govt of failing to protect that heritage.
A response to the film from the present Kosovo PM's office, among other criticisms of the film says "The Kosovo prime minister's office also disputed the idea that Serb monuments and churches in Kosovo were Serbian property". source for PMs response here.
An editor added the text "though they are listed as Serbia's cultural heritage under UNESCO protection" as a 'reply' to the PM's remarks. I reverted giving as my edit reason "Improper use of a primary source ... being listed as Serbian heritage does not establish ownership and is not a response to the film". edit and revert here.
This was itself reverted, edit reason " Material is properly sourced, facts are facts". It is incidental to whether this content belongs in the film article, but in fact Unesco refers only to the specific named group of buildings as "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo", thereby side-stepping any issue of ownership, and makes clear that they are 'Serbian' in the sense that Serbia was the nominating country. It makes no comment at all about legal ownership of Serbian heritage in Kosovo.
I don't doubt the Unesco designation of these buildings, though it has little bearing on 'ownership' in the legal sense (as opposed to cultural ownership), but I claim it is OR as it seeks to refute the PM's response, rather than neutrally report responses to the film. If Unesco had issued some direct response to the film, that would be valid content, but this is clearly not the case here. The edit IMO is seeking to argue the rights and wrongs of "ownership", rather then neutrally report the film's claims and responses to the film. Pincrete ( talk) 10:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Would appreciate it if someone can look at this file [59] used in the Haplogroup_T-M184 article. It appears to be an original image based on self-reported results from commercial sites FTDNA and Yfull (as per legend), and used in the article to illustrate unpublished content. Does the use of self-reported results from commercial sites to illustrate unpublished ideas constitute original research? Regards-- Kzl55 ( talk) 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure this is the place for this, but:
This strikes me as less an encyclopedia article than it does a college undergraduate essay. Agree or disagree? If yes, it is salvageable? -- Calton | Talk 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
On the article professional wrestling an editor User:Galatz has repeatedly tried to show sources that do not refer to wrestling as a performing art and use a defintion of performing art in violation of WP:SYNTH stating that because it matches the definition I can't ask for a source. - Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
writers work on plots and storylines well in advance, and every match is another chapter in the story. Who wins and who loses is all in the script.It also says
It's true that the plots are predetermined and the moves are choreographed.Its a script and its choreographed. Just because it doesnt use the term "performing arts" it doesn't mean that using that source is WP:SYNTH. this is all one source, not multiple as SYNTH would require. Per m-w
ypes of art (such as music, dance, or drama) that are performed for an audience. There is no question that the source clearly shows its an art form, no different than a choreographed play. There is also no question its performed in front of an audience. - Galatz Talk 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.emphasis added Your definition of performance art is from an online dictionary. Your description of wrestlers' and writers' cooperation is from an openly-edited web page. Neither says "wrestling is performance art" or anything like it. You are putting A+B together to say something neither explicitly says itself, which is textbook synthesis. Rainbowofpeace is correct in their assessment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.Isn't that exactly what I am doing? - Galatz Talk 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate extra eyes at a controversial article: Tabarnia The sources used are in Spanish or Catalan.
the problem is with the contents of this edit to the lead of the article where it is claimed that the Tabarnia movement is supported by some associations. The edit seems biased to me. The sources don't directly state such support. just support for one of its demonstrations against the independence of Catalonia from Spain. The edit also claims that Societat Civil Catalana (an anti separatist platform) is a right-wing organization when they define themselves as independent and according to the cited source have in their boards of directors politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, including various from the Socialists' Party of Catalonia. When I told filiprino that making that claim was original research and misrepresentation of the sources he responded: "Just look at what they do, not who are they or in what political party are some of their members". Another IP editor tried to fix the article by reverting his edits but gave up to avoid an edit war. I removed the edit myself trying to explain the reasons with edit summaries first and then at the talk page ( see here) but had little success in reasoning with the editor. Help will be much appreciated as I would also prefer to distance myself if possible. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Dirty Subsidy is a brand-new article and the product of one of Wiki-Ed's programs, and it appears to be not an overview of a existing concept but a college paper promoting a neologism. The top hit on Google for this term is the article itself -- which is only one day old, so already a bad sign. -- Calton | Talk 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Academic reference works such as the Handbook of British Chronology pp.30-31(Frdye et al, 1986) and the Handbook of Dates (Cheney, 2000) date the reigns of English Monarchs from the coronation of the monarch from 1066-1272. In 1272 the principle of immediate succession was introduced and reigns were then dated from the day following the death of the predecessor in 1272-1483 and from the day of the death of the predecessor consistently from 1547 onwards. Some editors are convinced that the later rule of immediate succession has always applied but have not provided a source for this claim. I believe it is original research to apply a rule that only existed later to an earlier period, especially when it is contradicted by reliable sources. Am I correct in thinking this? A RfC has now been opened at Talk:List of English monarchs#Proposal to change reign dates and the previous discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#Reign dates. Jhood1 ( talk) 22:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Event | Collins Gem [1] | Wikipedia |
---|---|---|
Accession of William I | 14 October 1066 | 25 December 1066 |
Accession of William II | 10 September 1087 | 9 September 1087 |
Accession of Matilda | April 1141 | 7 April 1141 |
End of Matilda's reign | (None given; reign length 7 months) | 1 November 1141 |
Death of John | 18 October 1216 | 19 October 1216 |
Accession of Henry III | 18 October 1216 | 19 October 1216 |
Reign of Louis | Not included | Included |
Accession of Edward I | 20 November 1272 | 16 November 1272 |
Abdication of Edward II | 20 January 1327 [2] | 24 January 1327 |
Accession of Richard II | 22 June 1399 | 21 June 1399 |
First accession of Henry VI | 1 September 1422 | 31 August 1422 |
Accession of Henry VIII | 22 April 1509 | 21 April 1509 |
References
TBBC is insistent on adding a line into the Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling article which is unsupported. They are stating that every wrestler who appeared on the show has been elected to the WWE Hall of Fame however when I removed their WP:OR, they added it back with just a generic link to all WWE wrestler pages which I again removed. They attempted to add it back with [62] however I explained to them that this is the exact definition of WP:SYNTH. They are refusing the discuss the issue and are ignoring comments I have left for them on their talk page. They have been blocked for similar styles of edit warring before. - Galatz Talk 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well the official website of the WWE hall of fame also has a site dedicated to the cartoon, so how about just add the WWE website as a whole-- TBBC ( talk) 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
See, and there's no website that can be considered a reliable source that'll state that. And yet everyone who looks at that page will see every WWE employee to be featured in this cartoon are in the WWE hall of fame, but YOU (no one else) are so insistent we just ignore that fact.-- TBBC ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok then, so it's settled, I'll add citations to the official hall of fame website and the official photo gallery and not violate the original research, but unfortunately violate the whole no synth policy.-- TBBC ( talk) 15:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Then in that case, it's impossible not to violate WP:OR-- TBBC ( talk) 15:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Social Causation VS Downward Drift is what I would call an essay. The bulk of the article consists of presentations of views expressed in a variety of sources, all of them cited. But it seems to be that the very nature of the article is to choose what sources are relevant to the purported debate and to reach some conclusions.
I worked through the removal of conclusions and remarks that were clearly superimposed by the author on the source material. What's left is largely factual, in the sense of "It's true that these sources say these things", but I can't help thinking that the very nature of this article is still a WP:Synthesis piece. I'm hesitating to submit it for AFD, though. I thought I'd step back and see if anyone can take a fresh look and let me know whether this is a genuine Wikipedia article or something that should be somewhere else. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Lot of original contents without any reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkrishnan ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I am asking for advice on a user who gives the impression, through edits over a series of articles, to be using OR. They also have a COI issue which they refuse to address but I will take that up separately.
I have deleted numerous additions they have made as, on investigating the citations, there is no, or very low quality evidence to support their assertions.
Article in question is here. [1]
Here is an example deletion I made to article, please note the justifications I have given. There has been in excess of 20k of text I have deleted from this one article [2]
I raised the issue in the associated talk - [3]
His response to this was effectively "Meh" and an attempt to claim I had an agenda. This is true in one way, I have an agenda to correct blatent errors.
The same concerns on OR and COI were raised in a different article [4], as well as associated talk [5] , and were also denied with no evidence offered. [6]
When I corrected errors in first article the same user then went to the referenced titles articles and inserted the deleted citations and assertions in those.
[7]
I have also noticed they have deleted the external tag for the cancelled games article while inserting it in all other games he believes existed so as to remove it from the category. [8]
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by StraightDown ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This book is a collective volume that combines the works of several experts in their fields. According to our criteria, each chapter is a secondary source. In addition to the chapters, the Book is supplemented with an introduction, where no independent research have been presented. The introduction draws conclusions from some data taken from BB chapters.
Is the introduction a secondary or tertiary source? -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've just realised I posted this question on the wrong noticeboard. Does anybody think I should repost it on WP:RSN?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a map at
Cold War II that claims to describe which countries are on which sides in "Cold War II". I believe this map is original research and synthesis, and must be removed. The criteria for inclusion (such as countries opposing the
Syrian government on the
Syrian Civil War
) are arbitrary, and there's no reason to believe that the sources describing a "cold war" between the US and
Russia, and the sources describing a conflict between the US and
China are referring to the same conflict. (courtesy ping @
DemocraticSocialism,
Odemirense,
Firebrace,
George Ho, and
Fenetrejones:)
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 04:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
May someone review
Special:Contributions/94.210.116.247? At
Darius the Mede, the IP has been pushing a crackpot POV through
WP:OR, namely that the Hebrew word Koresh does not mean
Cyrus. Diff:
[64]. The IP stated Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Koresh is.
This translates into English as "Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Cyrus is."
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 07:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
JDC808 insists on adding information into the article WWE Money in the Bank which is not supported by a source, see [65] as an example of their edits. I attempted to explain to the user here User talk:JDC808#MITB as to their issues however they are insistent that because its not rocket science it is ok to add it. They are combining pieces of information from multiple sources to draw their conclusion, a clear WP:SYNTH violation. Currently the WWE has 2 world champions, and the users only source says "A World Championship" and does not specify which. They have concluded this means both are eligible but they do not have one clear source which states this, making it a clear case of WP:OR. Although their conclusion is the probable eventuality, nothing has been announced officially so there is no way to confirm this information is correct or not. - Galatz Talk 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
* Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.That is exactly what you are doing. They do not say what World Championship, only it will be for one. You are coming to the conclusion.
I'm having a bit of an issue on IEEE 802.11ax. An editor, or several (and presumably coordinated, because I seem to be reverted more often than one would expect without coordination), are adding a large chunk of primary-sourced content WP:SYNTHisizing (mostly) the minutes of the committee for the standard (in a WP:POVPUSH fashion especially for the non-technical content related to the standard). Some of it strays into questionable BLP-related discussion. I've removed the content and at least one other editor has issue with it, yet we have been reverted multiple times.
I'm on wikibreak, so I don't want to spend a lot of time checking in for the appropriateness of the content. Other editors are encouraged to participate, watch, and whatnot (and validate my actions, of course! ;). I will probably cross-post this thread to one or two other noticeboards. -- Izno ( talk) 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I hope you are doing well. I have cited the following hadith on Ta'wiz:
Whoever wears an amulet, may Allah not fulfill it (i.e., his want) for him, and whoever wears a sea-shell, may Allah not give him peace
I do not believe it is original research because I have cited a source, citation #7 in this pre-rollbacked revision right above it, which states that Ta'wiz is impermissible based on a scholarly interpretation of the hadith, followed by a direct quotation of the hadith. Therefore, I have not interpreted anything, but am simply writing and citing the interpretation of the scholar.
Thank you. – Batreeq ( Talk) ( Contribs) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)