This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.
The sentence has five cited sources, none of which (in my opinion) in fact support this claim. There is a special notice on this article against misrepresenting sources, so this seems particularly important to get right. The same wording cited to the same sources has been copied to at least three other articles: Intelligence quotient [1], Heritability of IQ (twice) [2] [3], and Racial achievement gap in the United States (originally added here [4] and then moved to the new article [5]). Proposed remedies include simply removing the sentence in question, or adding a qualifier (such as no direct evidence for a genetic component, or no evidence for a significant genetic component).
So could we please determine whether the sources support the statement in question, or does it constitute WP:OR? Most of the talk page discussion has focused on one of the sources in particular, Hunt's Human Intelligence. [1] The relevant section is pages 432-447, and a preview is available online [6]. The other sources are Mackintosh, [2] Nisbett, [3] Kaplan, [4] and Ceci & Williams. [5]
To avoid making this post any longer, I will include highlighted excerpts from the sources in a separate follow-up response. Thank you. Stonkaments ( talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
It is worth remembering that no genes related to the difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now.
There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory. Given this, I'm not sure that we need to be quibbling over this statement.
[T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new).Generalrelative ( talk) 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ have a genetic basis. [1] [2] The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]Generalrelative ( talk) 04:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Their high average IQ is well-documented, and the argument that this developed due to genetic selection is compelling and highly relevant to the article, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources.The OP's claim to be "agnostic" on racialist hereditarian theories is disingenuous.
The OP's claim to be "agnostic" on racialist hereditarian theories is disingenuous.I do not think so. Agnostics are often very intolerant of other viewpoints. They typically demand that everything must be kept open, and even when the evidence very clearly points in one direction, they will refuse to accept that because their agnosticism is dogmatic and based on a misunderstanding of how science works: it is Mr. Spock's "scientists must be unbiased" cliché. Actually, science uses specific methods to neutralize the scientists' biases, such as double-blinding.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic. The OP is clearly not that. NightHeron ( talk) 10:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what the truth of the matter is. On some subjects experienced scholars disagree reliably. The sources are reliable and need to be quoted so that Wikipedia canvasses a wide range of views. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC).
there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups, whereas at least 5 others (including myself) have argued that they do. Note that the OP's quotation gallery is incomplete –– and I would argue tendentious. I'm not super jazzed about the prospect of another deep exegetical dive into this literature, but will dive in nonetheless if necessary, and this will mean more quotes.
It's important for everyone to understand that the sources being discussed here don't represent a complete sampling of viewpoints about this topic. More recent secondary sources such as Cognitive Capitalism (2018) In the Know (2020) state in much more unambiguous terms that there is evidence for a genetic component to group differences in average IQ scores. But these sources, and other recent sources that argue for a genetic contribution, are being excluded from the article because they're considered incompatible with the outcome of the RFC. (This was discussed here.) The publisher of the two books I mentioned, Cambridge University Press, has been established as a reliable source with respect to this topic in an earlier discussion at RSN.
So as I said, the question is not whether "there is no evidence for a genetic component" represents an accurate summary of all the views presented in reliable secondary sources, because more recent secondary sources that strongly disagree with the statement are being excluded for that reason. The question is whether, when all sources that strongly disagree with the statement are excluded, the remaining sources adequately support the statement.
Everyone should bear this in mind when judging whether this selective sampling of sources, which are mostly sources from 8+ years ago, are adequate to support statements about the "current scientific consensus". The statement about current scientific consensus appears to be another statement that's based on the RFC rather than on sources, because when editors have requested a source for this statement, the response has been to cite the RFC. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 01:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
[W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. So we shouldn't be swayed by the quantity of research published in second-rate journals with strong institutional ties to racial hereditarianism. We should look instead at the quality of the research and whom among the scientific mainstream it persuades. Which brings me to...
the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races.Indeed, Gardenofaleph felt the need to debate me at length on whether this editorial really represented the views of the Nature editorial board in this thread until the tangent became so disruptive that I was driven to open this RfC at RS/N where they continued to debate the issue.
There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differencesis from 2009, but everything that has come out in Nature and Science since then only confirms their view. I could go on and on with this, but I see that my post is now quite long. If necessary I will be happy to provide more. It would be nice to bring this chapter of Wiki-drama to a close. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
whether some races are genetically superior or inferior to others in intelligence, nor
when comparing groups there's much more evidence that environmental factors...affect results, is an accurate rephrasing of the precise statement being challenged. I agree that there is much more evidence for environmental factors, but that is not what is being argued. Same for the RfC on this topic; it addressed a related but by no means identical claim. As a reminder, the specific claim in question is:
The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups. (emphasis added)
The positive assertion of "no evidence" is the key point of contention, and I haven't seen a credible argument that this assertion is supported by any of the cited sources, much less that it represents the scientific consensus. As I have shown, all of the cited sources seem to indicate there is some level of indirect or circumstantial evidence suggestive of a genetic component to the racial IQ gap. And as Gardenofaleph points out, that is without even considering the sources that more forcefully argue the point that have been excluded as fringe. (I haven't looked at the latest source from Generalrelative, though at first glance it does not appear reliable for our purposes here, as it is looking at how ideas are used and abused online, not a rigorous investigation of the science behind those ideas).
There has been much back-and-forth about editors' views on the current scientific consensus, but very little in the way of concrete support from the cited sources. WP:VNT reminds us that even if you believe strongly that a statement is true, it also needs to meet WP:VERIFIABILITY. Stonkaments ( talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences.[3] That is far from our only source to confirm the existence of this consensus, but it is an especially clear one. Continuing to forget that this source exists, or pretend that it doesn't say what it says, or insist that somehow this statement published in Nature isn't really a reliable source, should be treated as transparent WP:SEALIONing. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
how the world works) are actually discussed quite comprehensively in the recent article "The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence": [14] As discussed in this source, the latest version of Rindermann's survey included a total of four actual geneticists. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Rindermann et al. (2016, 2017, 2020) recently attempted to update Snyderman and Rothman’s survey, and their attempt is a good illustration of how hereditarians construct an appearance of widespread support. Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle surveyed only authors who had published papers in five select journals and the membership of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) (Rindermann et al., 2016, p. 3). As of this writing, they have published three papers out of these data; very few responses are reported in each paper: 71 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2016, p. 3), 75 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2017, p. 244), and 72 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2020, p. 15) meaning the response rate in each paper hovered around 5%. To put these results in perspective, Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle report that only about 20 more people responded to their reported questions than Gottfredson managed for the Mainstream Statement despite asking 10 times the number of people. Again, the data provided by hereditarians of expert support are better evidence that mainstream psychologists would prefer to ignore their agenda.
Sources
|
---|
|
Original research on articles related to the Ifat/Adal pages are being supported by User:Ayaltimo and User:Ragnimo for ex; [15] [16] [17] [18]. The users are restoring the leaders/kingdoms pages with the term "Somali" as their identity however alittle research into these dynasties reveal the contrary; Ifat Sultanate and Adal Sultanate both ruled by the Walashma dynasty were of Ethiopian origin [19]] [20] and run by Ethiopian Semitic speakers [21] see p.14 footnote. [22]. One of the users has even gone to the length of blanking reliable sources that state Ethiopian Semites were affiliated with the Adal kingdoms army by claiming its original research. [23] Magherbin ( talk) 03:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
First and foremost, neither Britannica and brillonline are reliable. They have simply copied versions of an older less referenced revision on the encyclopedia. The Cambridge History of Africa offers many suggestions which I will get onto.
Ifat Sultanate is regarded by the majority of contemporary sources as a Somali Sultanate headquartered in Zeila.
According to Yohannes K. Mekonnen who is a major modern Ethiopian historian had this to say in his book. Ethiopia The Land, Its People, History, and Culture page 43.
The Ifat Sultanate was a medieval Somali Muslim Sultanate in the Horn of Africa. Led by the Walashma dynasty, it was centered in Zeila. The kingdom ruled over parts of what is now eastern Ethiopia, Djibouti, and northern Somalia.
Zeila was the capital and center of Ifat Sultanate. I'll post major sources.
Africa Quarterly - Volum 43 page 108 states:
However, it was not until the 13th century and after it got Islamised that the Somalis led by Yemeni immigrants founded a state which they called Ifat with its principal centre in Zeila.
History of Ethiopian Towns from the Middle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century, Volum 1 page 65 by Richard Pankhurst states:
Zayla ', in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt, was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony. The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones and was surrounded by...
Ifat Sultanate was never based in Shewa/Shoa plateau. It was originally based in the northern Somali city of Zeila.
The Somali Boundary: Dispute and Functional Evolution page 8 states:
At that time the Islamic Sultan of Ifat, based at Zeila, turned sporadic fighting with the " Abyssinian infidels " into a full-scale religious war.
Shewa at that time was under the Shewa Sultanate and in 1285, Sultan Umar Walashma conquered Shewa to consolidate the Sultanate of Ifat, which was based out of Zeila, ruled by the Walashma Dynasty.
Ethiopia: The Land, Its People, History and Culture - Page 44 states:
History Ifat first emerged in the 13th century when its sultan, Umar Walashma (or his son Ali, according to another source), is recorded as having conquered the Sultanate of Shewa in 1285.
Now let us assess the Cambridge history of Africa. Al Umari visited vast regions of Ethiopia during Ifat height which extended its territory deep into Shewa plateau when Ifat conquered the area so of course, he's going to mention different groups including Ethio-Semitic speakers.
But according to the Cambridge History of Africa, the same volume you were using states Zeila was predominantly inhabited by ethnic Somalis and the prominent speakers of the vast lowland and shores where Zeila is suited were eastern Cushitic speakers (Somali).
The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 page 139 states:
But there is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and Al-Dimashqi, another thirteen-century Arab writer, gives the city name its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali.
The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 page 147 states:
This linguistic factor may have provided another dimension for the basic cleavage between the sedentary Muslim communities in the Ethiopian interior and the nomadic peoples of the vast lowlands between the plateau and the coast, who were predominantly speakers of Eastern Cushitic. The rulers are known as the Walashma Dynasty headquartered in the Somali city of Zeila who ruled both Ifat Sultanate and Adal Sultanate and their ancestor was called Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn also known as (Aw barkhadle) in Somali. The Walashma Dynasty claimed Aw Barkhadle was his fifth ancestor.
Divine Fertility The Continuity in Transformation of an Ideology of Sacred Kinship in Northeast Africa page 16 states:
As noted previously, not only is Saint Aw-Barkhadle credited with having spread Islam in this region; the Walashma dynasty is also genealogically linked with Saint Aw-Barkhadle, whom they claim to be the fifth ancestor in their lineage.
The History of Islam in Africa - Page 242 states
As Aw Barkhadle, the ancestor of the founder of the Walashma dynasty, represents "the spiritual legacy of the Islamic state of Yifat/Adal.
Aw barkhadle is regarded as a native Somali saint.
The Writing of the Somali Language page 10 states:
The idea of finding a script first occurred to a certain sheikh, Yusuf Al Kawneyny, better known as Aw Barkhadle. He was a native, who lived in about 1,000 years ago and is buried now in a ruined town named after him.
Macrocultures, Migration, and Somali Malls page 53 states:
They were able to make a living by exacting tolls from new fathers and bridegrooms considered blood payments (diya) for a Yebir who was killed in a contest of magic with a Somali Sheikh (a religious leader) named Aw Barkhadle.
Aw Barkhadle also invented the Wadaad writing script which is the traditional Somali adaptation of written Arabic, as well as the Arabic script as historically used to transcribe the Somali language. This proves his ethnicity. [24]
The founders of the dynasty of Walasma were native to the area they controlled. Umar Walasma, the first to reign, according to the Harari historian, Sheikh Abibakr Ba-Alawi Ashanbali, was a descendent of Sheikh Yusuf Al-Kowneyn. [25]
All these sources I published are reliable and modern. I have way more that I didn't share. The only one who is conducting original research is you. You're literally disputing with many users on those pages based on one source theory using words like "may", "maybe" and "possibly". Ayaltimo ( talk) 18:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
You haven't addressed anything and ignored most of my sources. The second source is not unreliable you misunderstood the context. The Walashma Dynasty ancestrally claimed Arabs just like every other Somali clan. I'll quote the Cambridge History of Africa again this time but with a larger context.
There is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and al-Dimashqi, another thirteenth-century Arab writer, gives the town its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali. By the fourteenth century, the significance of this Somali port for the Ethiopian interior had increased so much that all the Muslim communities established along the trade routes into central and southeastern Ethiopia were commonly known in Egypt and Syria by the collective term of 'the country of Zeila'. Zeila was certainly the point of departure for the numerous Muslim communities and political units in the Ethiopian region, most of which, just like the Somali clan families of Darod and Ishaq, had persistent traditions of Arab origin.
The Walashma dynasty literally claimed Arab ancestor, not "Ethio-Semitic" nor Argobba.
Area Handbook for Somalia Volume 550 page 18 by Irving Kaplan
By the early fifteenth century the Muslim empire of Adal, which had its capital in Zeila and some of its territory in what is present-day eastern Ethiopia, was ready to do battle over territory and religion with expanding Christian Abyssinia. Adal was part of the state Ifat, whose ruling dynasty claimed Arab ancestry, however, mixed they have been with local peoples.
This is a primary source from Al-Maqrizi a notable Egyptian historian and traveler had this to say.
Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527 - Page 124
According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of ' Umar Wälasma first settled in Jabara ( or Jabarta ) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat.
Further backup for the primary source proving the ruler's origin. Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara page 62
Many centuries of trade relation with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyrati Kingdom and these eventually developed into two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, gradually local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled." In due time these converts [Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and Dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera.
Why does it say Somali instead of Somali-Arab you say? It's a very simple answer. If Arabs come to Somalia and integrate they are Somali, it is like saying that for example, that Ahmed Aboutaleb is a Morrocan, but he is Dutch-Moroccan, but we all say he is Dutch, for though he is integrated into the Dutch culture. So what are your current critics?
In fact, if you look up the Gobroon dynasty of Geledi Sultanate. The nobles within the Geledi claim descent from Omar al-Din. He had 3 other brothers, Fakhr and with 2 others of whom their names are given differently as Shams, Umudi, Alahi and Ahmed. Together they were known as Afarta Timid, 'the 4 who came', indicating their origins from Arabia. Claims of descent from Arabia were mainly for legitimacy reasons. The same for the Garen dynasty of Ajuran Sultanate. The Ajuran are said to be descendants of Alama who in turn is a son of Bal'ad who traces descent from Arab immigrant Harmalle Samaale, who traces his descent through Aqeel ibn Abi Talib. [28] Does that mean we should include every Somali kingdom as (Somali-Arab state) just because each dynasty claimed to have an "Arab" origin?
I.M Lewis and other well-known historians viewed them as either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis [29]. These aren't "Arab lineages"-> they're Somali ones which in turn like all Somali genealogies claim to have Arab origins.
By the way, both Tadesse Tamrat and Alklilu Asfaw are not reliable. These two outdated historians are based on the work of Braukamper who himself did not believe they were Argobba. Ulrich Braukamper who is cited by this source for example merely entertains the idea that the Walashma were possibly Argobbas [30] in a book of his but then shortly after does not hold to this view and uses the usual view [31] that’s been shared on Wikipedia about their Qurayshi & Hashemite genealogical origins suggesting that they were Arabians. He does not then tie this dynasty to the Argobba. It was simply a claim with no string of evidence.
To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after providing an endless list of sources by tying them to such figures is practically disingenuous. Ayaltimo ( talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
First, can someone reformat the above text? It seems as if people are shouting at each other, & I find it hard to read. Second, I'm surprised various authorities are being dismissed so quickly as "unreliable" or "outdated". For example, Taddesse Tamrat received his graduate education in the UK from a respectable institution; I'd be more than a little reluctant to dismiss his work so quickly, despite that he wrote over 50 years ago. (Historical research does not advance that quickly to render work from the 60s necessarily outdated.) Last, the nationality of Imam Ahmad al-Ghazi is very much disputed: the Futuh, one of our chief sources for the period, does not provide that information. (IMHO, nationality mattered little to the author, who was content to describe the Imam as a devout Muslim.) In summary, I suggest both parties to dial down the emotion & provide more reasoning & less tossing of quotations at each other. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
llywrch The problem with Taddesse Tamrat is he's quoting the Argobba theory by Ulrich Braukamper who himself does not support the idea the Walashma were Argobbas. He mostly leaned to the mainstream view that they were Arabians that migrated to Somalia.
I'd like to quote an older user who had an extensive knowledge and disproven these sources previously using mainstream views which holds more evidence.
"A source Braukamper often cites on the history of the Walashma (Enrico Cerulli) also contradicts the statement that this group was Argobba. Enrico Cerulli’s views on them if I recall were not honestly removed from that of Braukamper and he even acquired a historical genealogy (it’s the one mentioned here and shared here by another author who cites Cerulli as his source) that tied them to this Somali saintly figure as their ancestor, a figure who has nothing to do with Argobbas and ultimately claims an Arabian genealogy.
And then there’s finally I.M Lewis, and his views on the Walashma were what the following text often shared on Wikipedia alluded to:
"According to I.M. Lewis, the polity was governed by local dynasties consisting of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis, who also ruled over the similarly-established Sultanate of Mogadishu in the Benadir region to the south. Adal's history from this founding period forth would be characterized by a succession of battles with neighbouring Abyssinia."- source for what's in this text
Which is that this dynasty based on their genealogical ties to Somali-Arab genealogies like that of the Darod’s Aqeeli based one were either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis of some sort or just plain Arabs. But before Zekenyan begins to accuse me of "original research"; I'm merely sharing why this author would tie them to Somalis, I do not care if this dynasty was Arab, English, Japanese or Somali but am I merely sharing what authors like Lewis believed them to mostly be.
This document Zekenyan's shared is not a reliable source to be citing on wikipedia. The document as a whole is not bad at all but that one statement it makes which is relevant to this page is directly contradicted by the authors of over 3 works that it utilizes as historical sources who all hold the more accepted view that this group was somehow Arab and in the case of Lewis and seemingly Cerulli associate them more with Somalis than with Argobbas. The only author I recall in its sources who ever claimed that they were Argobbas was perhaps Professor Tadesse Tamrat who was seemingly basing this on Braukamper’s musings so that’s not reliable."
Magherbin is using the same sources and arguments as Zekenyan who has been disproven by the previous users. Magherbin is just another new nationalist user disputing with multiple users on those pages but that's beside the point. Here is where Magherbin gets everything wrong. He believes the Walashma Dynasty began in Shewa but according to both Al-Maqrizi and the Walashma's own chronicle, the Walashma had a Quraysh lineage (like many other Somali clans). Maqrizi also indicates that the forefathers of 'Umar Walashma first settled in the Zeila-controlled Jabarta region and from there later moved into the hinterland to occupy Ifat. [35] "Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat.
Zeila is a Somali city located in modern-day Somaliland. The mainstream view is the Walashma Dynasty were Somalis with an Arabian ancestry.
This source is from the Encylopedia of Africa because this is a mainstream accepted view. Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara page 62
Many centuries of trade relation with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyrati Kingdom and these eventually developed into two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, gradually local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled." In due time these converts [Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and Dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera.
Ayaltimo ( talk) 12:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Some recent (and rather blatant) introduction of unsourced and OR material, including some " false equivalency" text apparently intended to draw a moral equivalency between a violent mob and the police officers whom they attacked. I have been taken care of these issues as they have arisen ( example A, example B), but more eyes would be valuable. Neutrality talk 04:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WP:NOR (SYNTH), and WP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎
Contrary to a conspiracy theory [1] [2] pushed by Trump, [3] Fox News, [4] and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign. [5] [6] It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page [7] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar [8] for probable cause. [9]
I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.
The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WP articles are supposed to do.
I agree that this is problematic under NPOV and SYNTH. A qualifier, such as "according to the Horowitz report," might be useful. Snuish2 ( talk) 01:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Bit of a silly question but does removing untrue content from Wikipedia amount to original research if you can't provide a source to verify that the content is untrue? Tonight I had a difference of opinion with another user, and that user is now reviewing and reverting my other recent edits. A few weeks ago I removed a sentence from an article because I knew that a particular person was no longer in a particular job. [36] The official website hasn't been updated yet so the user has reverted my edit. jamacfarlane ( talk) 00:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
There are quite a few things here that seem to be OR and POV pushing.
There appears to have been a multiyear edit war by User:Uamaol to include the unsourced claim that the party is far right. 2001:448A:106B:5533:DB9:3510:1D16:CD5F ( talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@ User: ALI ANSARI85 has added unsourced content stating that Take Me To Church contains atheist/antireligious messaging four times based on their own interpretation of the lyrics. The user has also displayed an unwillingness to understand WP:OR policy after being warned repeatedly by User:Fyrael and myself. They have also accused editors of " think[ing] stupid" and making fun of themselves. Despite a slew of warnings on their talk page, their contributions are solely revolved around these disruptive edits. In my opinion, this is borderline WP:NOTHERE and possible WP:PA behavior, alongside a willful misunderstanding of WP policy. -- Bettydaisies ( talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Some registered and anonymous users (Possibly socks of User:سهراب بارسایی; reasons explained below) keep changing the birthdate in this article. Recently, birthdate changes based on original research in Persian Wikipedia (by above user), while a source (no. 1 from YJC) in the article indicates he is born on 1982 (equal to 1360–1361 in iranian calendar) resulted in protection of the article and the user is now changing the date here to prove he's right. user سهراب بارسایی has no purpose other than changing material in this specific subject and insists to change the date on my local talk page and that's why i think other single-purpose accounts/IPs editing the date are socks of this user. Regards. — Jeeputer ( talk) 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
On June 25th 2018, I requested an edit of a statement that precedes the Mackinac College article: /info/en/?search=Talk:Mackinac_College#Request_edit_on_25_June_2018 In this link, see text that begins ‘REPLACE’ and is then followed by ‘RATIONALE.’
The thrust of my request is that the following statement is incorrect: “This article is about the college created by founders of the Moral Re-Armament.” This statement, created for the Mackinac College article in Wikipedia, is Original Research posted on 0:32, 20 June 2014 without source or support, and is contradicted by numerous references including those listed in the RATIONALE. My edit was denied on the grounds that my sources are connected and I have a conflict of interest. I would like to appeal this decision, and if unchanged, would like to understand why an unsupported statement overrules a challenge from high-quality connected sources.
--The references are well published books. I can provide PDFs or e-text of relevant portions at your request. --The Mackinac College article is an important part of the biographies of still-living students, faculty, and staff from Mackinac College, Michigan. Our continuing involvement with the College is seen in our active Facebook Page (134 members), 3 recent Zoom calls (35, 36, and 39 people approximately), reunions (70 attended in 2017), and scheduled attendance at our 2020 reunion, now rolled over to 2021 (51st Reunion). Our list of 331 active addresses, emails, and phone numbers spans 38 American states and 18 other countries. Karin D. E. Everett ( talk)
There is a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train about whether user-performed currency conversions are WP:Routine calculations or not. This has implications for what box office gross we can report for a particular movie, since it affects which sources we can use and in what way.
My viewpoint is that they are not routine calculations, because currency conversion is not an exact science. It has furthermore been demonstrated (see the linked talk page discussion) that the method employed in this instance produces different figures than those that WP:Reliable sources (such as, in this case, Deadline Hollywood) report. Hence, I would argue, we should defer to WP:Reliable sources that directly support a given currency conversion.
Another editor disagrees, arguing that so long as we have a reliably sourced quantity in the original currency and a reliably sourced exchange rate corresponding to that point in time, we can multiply one by the other and report the result in the new currency.
For further details about the discussion so far, please see the indicated talk page section. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properly– Orichalcum, the reason we are here at WP:NORN is that this assertion is incorrect. In order for a calculation to be able to be considered to be a WP:Routine calculation, the result of the calculation has to be
obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. That is very clearly not the case here. If this were a routine calculation, we would not see other sources arriving at different figures when converting the same quantities of the original currency, as indeed we do (I give a few examples of this over at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train, relating to Deadline Hollywood and a couple of other sources). You have combined two different sources—one that gives the gross in the original currency and one that provides an exchange rate—to reach a novel conclusion which is not explicitly stated by either source, namely the gross in USD. That's textbook WP:SYNTH. Not only that, you have done this repeatedly (with various sources for various local currencies) and then combined the results to reach an even more novel conclusion. This is rather egregious.You have not presented any argument whatsoever as to why this would not be WP:Original research, you've merely asserted that it isn't with nothing backing that up. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It just make no sense to use 360M for DS when it just wrong, Boxoffice Mojo and other sources convert the whole number every week into dollars so some week the number somehow decrease even, with the Japanese distributor reporting the numbers every week in yen, the only way is to convert the the numbers to dollars every week as soon as they are reported and the source currently being used for DS is CR which literally take the reported gross in Japanese and just convert it to USD as there is no official source in USD.
Just for example CR reported that the movie in January grossed 35.70 billion yen (US$342.5 million) and in April it grossed 39.40 billion yen (US$362.14 million) so the movie increased 3.7 billion yen and US$19.64 million for that to happen it would require the yen to equal USD$0.005 which hasn't happened in the last twenty year.
https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/01/12-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-steamrolls-past-35-billion-yen-at-japan-box-office
https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/04/05-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-up-39-at-japanese-box-office-in-25th-week
Adab1za (
talk) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
List_of_highest-grossing_films#cite_note-Frozen-41.-- 寒吉 ( talk) 02:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
Given the likely widespread impact of this decision, should an RfC be initiated on this matter? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
On the Mike Parson page, I noticed that it wrongly attributed a quote that was actually from Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 about gubernatorial appointments as being from the Missouri Constitution. I corrected the attribution (and added a source because as it was previously unsourced) and I also quoted what the Missouri Constitution actually says about gubernatorial appointments. I added a reliable source for that as well. I did not add my own opinion or analysis, and the two sources together do not really lead to any kind of conclusion or synthesis. Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit citing WP:OR. I don't think that it was WP:OR and explained why I thought that in the talk page given that it does not outright prevent the use of primary sources and I literally offered no analysis, opinion, or conclusion. After I explained that, Snooganssnoogans merely told me to see WP:SYNTH which I had already explained why I don't think it falls under. It doesn't look like we're going to be agreeing any time soon. I came here to get some opinions from uninvolved parties. I'm not all that experienced with Wikipedia policies, but at least the way I read it, I don't think that my edit falls under it. JMM12345 ( talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).
Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.
The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This statement on the Ifat Sultanate which reads "The majority of scholars agree the population of the leading principality of Ifat Sultanate were no doubt the Somalis who were headquartered in Zeila" is not found in the book which is self published. The second statement which reads "In the predominately Somali capital of the Ifat Sultanate, Zeila, and local Somali territories, the Arabic and Somali languages were most commonly present." is also not found. User:Ayaltimo seems to think otherwise per this edit [37]. Same issue on the Adal Sultanate article, the statement which reads "The sultanate and state were established by the local inhabitants of Zeila." is not supported by the source. [38] Magherbin ( talk) 23:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Eggishorn. I was planning to remove it anyway but I wanted to continue the discussion and make a deal with the user Magherbin which is why I didn't want to make any changes yet so that we can come to a conclusion. The Cambridge source I added states Zeila was predominantly Somali and you can look it up yourself. [39] Ayaltimo ( talk) 20:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The capital source is here History of Ethiopian Towns from the Middle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century, Volum 1 page 65 by Richard Pankhurst states:
"Zayla ', in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt, was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony. The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones and was surrounded by..."
If Zeila was predominantly Somali how can you say it wasn't spoken by Somalis? If you go to page 137 it clarifies the lowland was predominantly spoken by eastern Cushitic speakers and Somalis are eastern Cushitic and Zeila is located in the lowland. Ayaltimo ( talk) 21:59 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I would agree to this. However, according to the source, Zeila was predominantly Somali [40] so the confusion ends here. Ayaltimo ( talk) 22:13 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe the table at Vichy anti-Jewish legislation#Laws and statutes perma is original research, and should be removed, or pared down to just the first two columns. This table (which goes back at least 14 years) purports to show a comparison of how long it took in Vichy France, vs in Nazi Germany, for certain antisemitic laws to take effect after the regime first took power. Example: it took the Nazis 5 years 4 mos. (after 1933 rise to power) to demand registration of Jewish businesses, whereas it took Vichy 1 year 1 month (after 1940 rise to power) to enact a similar law.
I've never seen this outside Wikipedia, and I believe it is original research by some editor. I don't doubt that each individual fact might be verifiable, but it's WP:SYNTH to put them together, and OR if we are the first to do it, right? The fact that this has been around for so long gives me pause, but I'm inclined to just rip out the last three columns of the table, keeping just the Vichy data. If there's a reliable source that combines this information in a single source, then I'm fine with it. Mathglot ( talk) 07:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about [41]? Namely:
After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of
Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic
nation states,
Israel,
Judah,
Moab,
Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.
has been changed to:
After the 10th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of
Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic
nation states,
Israel,
Moab,
Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.
although none of the WP:RS has changed in the whole paragraph.
Something fishy also noticed at [42]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You have repeatedly violated copyright since being blocked in 2016, including this year. That alone should be more than enough to leave you blocked indefinitely. Add on top of that, your personal attacks (which continued after you were blocked) and your long-term tendentious editing. And to top it off, fabricating sources? I've never seen anyone come back from that. You've gone out of your way to destroy the community's trust in you. You are correct, what you did was inexcusable. Yamla ( talk) 12:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
[55] where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?
[56] where did this is highly disputed among scholars
came from? and why four pages for
WP:V such stuff?
[57] where did the United Monarchy came from?
[58] where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?
[59] where did this is highly disputed among scholars
came from? and why four pages for
WP:V such stuff? where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?
[60] where did this is highly disputed among scholars
came from? and why four pages for
WP:V such stuff?
[61] where did or may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area
came from?
[62] where did or may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area
came from?
Even if I grant that one of the diffs is allowed according to WP:CITELEAD, seven other diffs remain. Honestly, my impression from seeing these edits was that they perform fake edits. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
So, Karma1998 had:
So, yeah, this is the reason of my irritation in respect to Karma's edits: if their edits are not verifiable, the Wikipedia Community defaults to such edits being fabrications. They have not been singled out for special treatment, so unless WP:V has been abolished, I was right to attack their edits.
Morals: Karma1998 has to desist forever from unverifiable edits, otherwise they will land in hot water. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@
MPants at work:
Karma1998 has to be stopped: look at
[63] and search for Zwiep (misspelled as Zweip
).
tgeorgescu (
talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You changed and it is preserved also in Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the penitent thief, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise".{{sfn|Zwiep|1997|pp=76-77}}
to Other scholars disagree and state that the empty tomb is a late development:{{sfn|Zweip|1997|p=76-77}}
. As far as I can see from Google Books, the citation supports neither version.
So, you have changed an unverifiable sentence to a completely another unverifiable sentence. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
They failed to provide page numbers for [64] despite being specifically asked for page numbers at User talk:Karma1998#Jesus. Failing again at [65]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@ MPants at work: I think I have failed to explain my argument and I apologize for that. I have some books from Raymond Brown, Craig Evans and James Dunn (all of whom are very respected scholars of the historical Jesus) who support my point. Can I use them to edit the page? - Karma1998 ( talk) 15:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
However, I must stress how often religion-related pages on Wikipedia are in a very bad quality stateOn that, we agree. And I agree that you've been doing good work at, for example, the Jacobovici article. The only problems I'm seeing are the edits that failed verification, and those aren't even a majority of your edits in the topic, they just happen to be on topics that are controversial, and which gives the impression of pushing a biblical literalist POV (which, to be clear, I do not think you are doing). That tends to raise others' hackles.
Collapse
WP:FORUMSHOPPING
|
---|
I believe USER: Fact789 is trying to lobby for the original research in the SoftSwiss article. This does not look like a promotional issue, but like black PR, the purpose of which is to defame the object of the article. When I checked the unrelible and unverified citations tags ( bad source tags) in the article, I found that the quoted text and the information on the external site did not match. Then I deleted the unconfirmed theses, and the user USER: Fact789 rolled them back and continues to do this for several days now. Theses deleted from the article:
Deleted theses violate the principals described in Wikipedia:No original research, and also demonstrate disrespect to the requirements for verifiability and reliability of references described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am sure that further investigation will show these account also have conflict of interests with the competitors company Vlavluck ( talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
References
|
Talk:Ayurveda has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Topic: What is the position of the Indian Medical Association on Ayurveda?
- Wikihc ( talk) 08:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Nearly no sources given for this article which would otherwise look quite complete. I suspect there's a significant amount of OR that needs trimming down. Britannica has something about this (but note that the coverage there is about mostly shot selection), so it's likely we should be able to have something too, ideally not based on some person's interpretations and personal opinions. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
In
Wuhan Institute of Virology, is this sentence, In response to the WHO report, some politicians and a small number of scientists have called for further investigations into the matter.
is the "small number" OR editorializing of WP:PRIMARY sources? It's sourced to
[66],
[67],
[68]
Geogene (
talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a discussion at Talk:Miles Davis#I question the Knighthood source. that may interest watchers of this board. Elizium23 ( talk) 13:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
In this edit, VirginOnMadness changed the lede of Jojar S Dhinsa to claim that Dhinsa is not, in fact, a successful entrepreneur since the companies registered to him in the UK companies registry are all listed as "Dissolved". This edit ignores the existence of the Athlone Group's [www.athlonegroup.com/ own website] (a primary source, to be sure, but one we could reasonably count on to verify who their own CEO is), and this profile in Bdaily News. BobBobster1 has been arguing on my user talk page (see the June 2021 section) that my edits to restore the original information, despite the presence of citations to back up the original, constitute vandalism. I counter with the argument that BobBobster1's arguments amount to original research: since he is unable to find evidence in his own limited searches that Dhinsa is the entrepreneur the article claims him to be, that the information must be false. BobBobster1 has argued on my talk page that only company registries are valid sources and that the existence of published articles is insufficient. (His claim is that I would need to contact the publisher and verify their sources for myself.)
I am seeking administrator intervention against BobBobster1, who appears to have a axe to grind against Dhinsa. Looking at the history of the Dhinsa biography, one can find that it is replete with additions by BobBobster1 that "no evidence can be found" for the various claims of the article. (I specifically point to this edit, but there are others.) I argue that this is not only a NOR violation, it is also a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation.
Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1. A website only proves there is a website. BobBobster1 ( talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Bdaily News is a "paid for" news publisher. https://marketing.bdaily.co.uk/products/featured-articles?variant=793100615689 BobBobster1 ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3. ″Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)″
@ BobBobster1: I would claim that your edits are the vandalism; casting aspersion on a living person without sufficient evidence. (See WP:BLP.) You are concluding from your own research into the UK companies registration that Dhinsa is not who he claims to be. We need a reliable source to back up a claim asserting that either a) Athlone Group does not actually exist or b) Dhinsa is not its Chairman and CEO. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a big enough man to admit when I am wrong, and in this case, I appear to have been quite wrong. While BobBobert1's methods were not the best, and while it is verifiable that Dhinsa is the CEO and Chair of Athlone Group, it does not appear that Athlone Group is a notable organization. Upon close inspection, much of the information in Dhinsa's biography fails verification. Many of the sources list him as a British billionaire, yet he does not appear on any major publication's lists of British billionaires. Several of the remaining sourcs are somewhat sketchy as well (a link to the Elephant Family fundraiser flyer that does not verify Dhinsa as being involved with that charity; a link to a YouTube video purporting to be a Discovery Channel program about European billionaire entrepreneurs, but which includes no credits to verify its sourcing and was posted by an account having nothing to do with the Discovery Channel). BobBobert1, I apologize for having brought the matter here to the noticeboard; I agree with the others that this article should probably be deleted, and I will likely be the one to start the AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers and Norfolkbigfish provided a definition for the " crusading movement". According to their definition, the movement was "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades". I remarked that this summary could be a good approach to present the movement, but we should not use it as a definition, because definitions in connection with crusades and crusading are controversial. I asked them to verify this definition, but they say common sense confirms it. Is common sense enough to define a term in WP, or all definitions are to be verified by a reference to a scholarly work? Borsoka ( talk) 02:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that we consider this discussion closed, because we seem to be moving ahead with improvements on the article. It makes no sense to significantly edit the article while we discuss here, because the subject and the issue are already hard to follow even when the problematic status of the article is available. In my view, the version obtained after these edits does not address the issue of specifying the scope of the article in terms of "institutions" and "ideology" (or "ideologies") or an equivalent terminology. However, there are other issues to consider and perhaps it will be wise to first work on these issues in the body of the article and only after go back to the lead to find a way to better explain the scope of the article. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is closed or that it is accepted that there is no OR here. It really needs one or more neutral editors to give an opinion before it is closed and we all move on. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I’ve noticed traces of the original research in the SoftSwiss article made by User talk:Novobat, User talk:Fact789 and few more contributors. In places where I found irregularities or inaccuracies I placed tags [verification failed], [better source needed], [unreliable sources], [citation needed]. In several places the source material was rephrased with a change in its meaning. In others, the author combines material from several sources to come to a conclusion that is not directly stated in any of the sources and does not imply it. The article also contains links to dubious zines about cryptocurrency and links to unverifiable information from the Webarchive.
I. Conclusion that is not directly stated
(а) "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities"
(b) "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money.[31][better source needed][32][better source needed]"
(c) "In March 2021, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products.[33][better source needed][34][better source needed] The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision.[35][better source needed][36][better source needed][37][better source needed]"
The main point: Softswiss as article declaire is a software developer for an online casino platform but not a casino operator. As a result there are no supply for these three statements on the source materials.
II. Rephrased with a change in its meaning
(d)"The trading company for SoftSwiss is the Cypriot company Direx Limited.[citation needed] The Curaçao-based company Direx N.V is the hundred percent shareholder in Direx Limited, and the most prominent entity of the SoftSwiss group.[20][better source needed][21][unreliable source?] N1 Interactive is another trading corporation within SoftSwiss’ group of companies, through which SoftSwisss reportedly holds its Maltese gambling license.[22][citation needed][23][better source needed][24][better source needed]"
The main point: The author leaves many statements without citation, and in the proposed sources it is impossible to establish what the author is referring to.
III. Links to zines and webarchive.com
(g)"SoftSwiss has come under fire due to allegations of plagiarism by the Belarusian gambling company, VIADEN. [citation needed] This was reportedly likely the result of multiple employees leaving VIADEN to join SoftSwiss in the early 2010s, including its lead designer.[4][better source needed]"
The main point: The author makes a conclusion based on the interview, which is an insider's view of an event and may not be independent sources.
(h) The author makes references to arhived data here [1] ana here [2].
The main point: The author makes a conclusion on archived data, which was removed for unknown reasons and which cannot be verified. My majesty's balls ( talk) 14:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Miles Davis § Request for Comment - Religion. Elizium23 ( talk) 15:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This editor ( Editingwiki777 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is inserting synthesized original research into three articles, Eliphas Levi, The Book of Abramelin, and Chaos Magic. They have received multiple OR and edit-warring warnings is April, May, and this month, culminating in a level 4 warning. They have not responded to these notices or to queries on the article talk pages, they just keep reverting to restore "their" "criticism" section. Skyerise ( talk) 14:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed it. Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 19:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
There was recently a discussion at Talk:New Game! about use of links to a publisher's website to verify release dates (in this case, Houbunsha and Seven Seas Entertainment, who publish the Japanese and English-language versions of this manga).
Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.
Drmies also argued that "if information cannot be properly sourced with secondary sources, then maybe it shouldn't be in an article". I produced some reliable secondary sources on the talk page that also reported on the individual volume releases, but this line of argumentation gets away from the point about the publisher's websites also being admissible. I would like to solicit opinions on this concept of publisher's websites being inadmissible. — Goszei ( talk) 03:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Often [spam refs] are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." It also says, "
Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think we all agree that these links do verify a specific and narrow piece of information in the article, and that they help build the encyclopedia, so I would like to hear more about your specific definition of "spam link" in this context. — Goszei ( talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label. I would also like to solicit opinions on this point: would a track listing on a record's label website become inadmissible, if there were seller links on the same page? What about a banner linking to a seller page on the side? What about a link to subscribe to a publication, like the New York Times? When does an otherwise admissible and usable source become spam? — Goszei ( talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page [...] in order to verify such things as titles and running times.— Goszei ( talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I may be way out of line here... but I think the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary should be amended to allow for verifiable government press releases and FOIA documentation as productive sources. By this definition currently under policy this would not allow for using historical materials from previous administrations held by the National Archives. This would include documents sent from Congress to the Library of Congress... as they would be original sources. My interests are academic sources and historical documents. I think that these should be able to be used. Please don't jump down my throat as I a relatively new but I would love to here thoughts and reasoning on this.
I think this also applies to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: WikiLeaks
cc: @ Szmenderowiecki: - What I will say about the Wikileaks situation is... can we verify the document through a second source or is it something where we could request it under FOIA or public information laws to verify. DoctorTexan ( talk) 13:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
The article on Susannah Martin mentioned a memorial, with a transcription of the plaque (historical marker), with a "citation needed" tag. As it happens I was nearby, so I stopped and took photos, and published to Commons ( memorial, plaque). I'm fairly confident this is not OR, since anyone can go there to Verify the inscription, or even look it up on Google Maps. This would would arguably be a Primary Source per WP:LINKSINACHAIN, but that's okay AFAIK. My question is, is this acceptable, and if so, how would I go about citing a photo I took? Should I just use {{ cite AV media}} with the Commons URL? Is there a better way to approach this? Or does this break a guideline/policy/rule? I've been unable to find this situation treated in the WP: namespace or archives here; pointers welcome. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
On the Andy Ngo article a statement has been added which claims a Rolling Stones article has supports the following claim, "Several sources have expressed a view that Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"." About half way down the article RS says, "But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process."[ [70]]? While it is clear the source is critical of Ngo the source does not say "Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"". Looking for input from others. The disputed article edit is here [ [71]]. Springee ( talk) 11:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist.= "The incident showed Ngo to be a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, but this isn't the important thing here".
It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process.= "The important thing is that in spite of significant evidence that Ngo is a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, Ngo had convinced so many of the opposite." In conclusion, it would be reasonable to write that "E.J. Dickson of Rolling Stone does not consider Ngo to be a journalist." starship .paint ( exalt) 08:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist.Rolling Stone quote 2:
Even if Ngo himself were a fraudulent journalist, and the victim narrative he promoted was also under fraudulent pretenses, his ability to get bad ideas in front of a mainstream audience was all too real.In particular, the wording of as opposed to a journalist makes it clear the article is positing that Ngo should not be considered a journalist, but something else. It could be changed to "legitimate journalist" at a pinch. Btw, I've collated other sources' assessments' of Ngo on his talk page, partly to support the claim that Ngo's "frequently accused" of sharing misleading or selective material, [72] which Springee has rejected. [73] We're not talking about a single accusation-good sources remarking on Ngo's dishonesty or lack of credibility/integrity: CNN, [1] Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review [2], Salon (magazine) [3] The Oregonian, [4] Media Matters for America, [5] BuzzFeed News, [6] The Intercept, [7] The Guardian, [8] renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley for the SPLC, [9], Columbia Journalism Review, [10] plus [74] [75], a report by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four respected subject-matter experts [11] plus another good quote from Rolling Stone. [12] In fact, I haven't found many RS's that do treat Ngo as a credible journalist. Noteduck ( talk) 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
References
As evidence, The Gateway Pundit cited a tweet from a less-than-reliable right-wing media personality Andy Ngo, in which he claimed Antifa militants "have taken over & created an 'autonomous zone' in city w/their own rules." Ngo, who did not respond to a request for comment, often does not cite strong supporting evidence to back up the claims he makes about Antifa on Twitter.
These narratives have been intensified and supplemented by the work of right-wing adversarial media-makers like Elijah Schaffer and Andy Ngo, who collect videos of conflict at public protests and recirculate them to their online audiences. Both have even gone "undercover" by posing as protesters to capture footage for their channels, seeking to name and shame those marching. Their videos are edited, decontextualized, and shared among audiences hungry for a new fix of "riot porn," which instantly goes viral across the right-wing media ecosystem with the aid of influential pundits and politicians, including President Donald Trump.
Ngo, who has used selectively edited videos to paint antifa as a violent, criminal group was hit with punches and milkshakes during a clash between antifa activists and members of the Proud Boys, an organization labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
But he circulated heavily edited videos of several altercations to his then-270,000 Twitter followers, racking up millions of views online while spreading inaccurate claims and limited context about what transpired.
Far-right writer Andy Ngo has been presented as a credible authority on left-wing violence following an attack on him at a rally in late June. Now it's been revealed that Ngo has secretly been working alongside a violent far-right group to cherry-pick and misrepresent left-wing activism in an attempt to downplay right-wing violence.
The edited video was posted by Andy Ngo, a right-wing activist who uses selectively edited video and false captions to create misleading propaganda about protesters.
In the lead-up to Damore's appearance, Ngo penned an article for the Wall Street Journal alleging that the event had been threatened, writing that that "we expected controversy. But we also got danger." The evidence of danger, as reported in Willamette Week, was "two violent threats on Facebook, three diversity events held on campus as counter-programming, and a scornful blog post". This was more than enough for Fox News, who ran an item under the headline "Antifa targets 'Google memo' author James Damore's talk at Portland State". Despite the headline, Portland's Rose City Antifa told the Guardian ahead of time that no antifascist counterprotest was ever planned, and none materialized. There was only a small audience walkout. Nevertheless, along with spreading the video, Ngo wrung from the evening an article for Quillette, a website obsessed with the alleged war on free speech on campus.
Stanley: Oh, he's terrifying. Watching him go through essentially a tunnel, you know, into the far right, which is what he's been doing. There was the milkshake incident and then it just went, you know, paranoid, completely paranoid. He had convinced various editors that there was this, you know, this false equivalence [between left and right political violence in the U.S.], when there's no such equivalence at all. I mean, there's been literally hundreds of murders of people by white supremacists on U.S. soil since 1990 and none by antifa. Hatewatch: Ngo's also been caught misrepresenting facts and then what he says goes substantially viral after that. Stanley: Yeah.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The space freelancers once occupied has been partially taken up by new, inflammatory opinion writers like Ben Shapiro, Nigel Farage, and Newt Gingrich, who wrote the magazine's May 10 cover story about China. Some of these writers, I'm told, do get paid. Other recent Newsweek writers have included Charlie Kirk, discredited provocateur Andy Ngo, and former Blink-182 frontman Tom DeLonge, who wrote a thinly veiled advertisement for his new TV show about UFOs.
Using social media analytics, we see that the photos have been widely shared among known U.S. right-wing operators who have also amplified disinformation in the past, including Andy Ngo and Jack Posobiec.
While the Portland Mercury story could cost him whatever was left of his mainstream reputation, it certainly won't cost him his career. In the ever-expanding right-wing media ecosystem, there is plenty of room for trolls with a knack for video-editing software and gaming Twitter to find an audience, particularly if they are telling that audience what they know they want to hear. It should, however, serve as a chastening teachable moment to those who took him seriously, if only for a short time.
Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BawinV ( talk) 17:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute that I want to bring here, rather than an edit war. Here is the discussion at the Talk Page. It had appeared to reach a consensus via compromise, after input from two other editors, and was reworded satisfactorily to the editor that objected in the first place (me) until another user reverted that compromise edit.
From what I can see, the first sentence of the Efficacy section clearly violates WP:RS/AC by stating there is a "scientific consensus" about this controversial topic, when there is not, that I can see anywhere in the "sources" or anywhere on the internet. But the lack of source material indicates to me that this is an attempt to synthesize statements by individuals to justify the some "gut feeling" that there is a scientific consensus. According to WP:RS/ACA "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view ... Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."
Currently, the article says this: "There is a general scientific consensus that alternative therapies lack the requisite scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved." and then lists citations, which do not even remotely support this, as far as I can tell.
I am bringing this here not because I'm waving the flag for any particular view. Personally, I deeply respect science and the scientific method, and I am strongly against "quacks" or any kind of BS peripheral to the medical field. But to state on Wikipedia, for the general reading public, that there is a "scientific consensus", when there is not, is not something I'm comfortable with as an editor. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
alternative. E.g. artemisinin is not alt-med. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
One is that there is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that would imply that they all exist outside of science (please show m if there is).Depending on what you mean by "exist outside of science" then you are either drastically misinterpreting what I said, or categorically ignorant of what alternative medicine even is. In any case, there is a perfectly good definition right there in the article in the very first sentence.
And second, if no scientific consenus is possible, then why have "scientific consensus" there at all?This makes absolutely no sense. The suggestion that because some claim does not represent a scientific consensus that there can be no scientific consensus is irrational in the extreme. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
alternativeto distinguish it from mainstream medicine, which is based upon scientific evidence. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Aaronlife, Here's what we know about acupuncture:
argument based on reason, we are not a debate championship. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
My agenda is fairly straightforward: WP:CHOPSY and WP:NOBIGOTS. None of it means importing an outside agenda, as defined by WP:ACTIVISM or WP:ADVOCACY.tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I recently removed a good chunk of the Nonperson article as unreferenced and presumptive original research, including editorializing and presumptuous language. I had already removed another, highly dubious section in December 2018 about "ways to become". An "in popular culture" section was removed by someone else in July 2017.
I note that only one of the three references with a web link actually uses the term, and that the definition and "Legal status" sections are entirely unsourced; someone else will need to check the book. I haven't yet looked for other sources about the concept. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This series of list articles needs some review. While looking for information on a particular historical figure named John Dunham (who emmigrated to Plymouth Colony in the 1600s), I found him briefly mentioned as being part of the Dunham political family. The problem is that he is NOT related to at least some of the others on that list. And while some of the other Dunhams MAY be related, there are no citations to verify the relationship. It may be that we simply have an extranious entry, or possibly a blending of two separate "Political families" with the same last name, or even a mix of the two. The point being, if this occurred with the Dunham "family", I suspect it has happined with other "families". A clean up, with an eye towards actually sourcing the "family" connection between individuals is needed. Blueboar ( talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not an expert in the subject area, but a sizeable proportion of this article seems to be original research. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 00:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 ( talk) 12:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
A month ago, my edits of Scrappy were abruptly removed, citing original research. However, I feel this isn't the case.
to avoid original research, the main original research page says:
"The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication."
I fulfilled this to the best of my ability. I used the cartoons Scrappy appeared in since the purpose of fictional character Scrappy's biography is to show his role in the cartoons he appeared in.
First of all, while my main sources were the cartoons he appeared in, that is the best place to go. The 'biography' section, unless I'm mistaken, is to show what Scrappy did in the cartoons he appeared in. What better place than the cartoons themselves? I think that part of the issue was that I slacked in citing them thoroughly, but then the only issue was that not thorough in citing them, then I reasonably should be allowed to restore my edits with citations, should I not? The appropriate clips can be marked with timestamps. Smcupcake19 ( talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
There was a question on a certain articles reliability due to its alleged source not having the indicated claim. If the original source is contacted and confirms that they did not make a claim published in a secondary source, is this a violation of the OR policy? 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
At the Tree Shaping article one editor cites interviews with themself [76] to support text. This allowes the editor to continue to disparage my work (I who also have a COI). This editor uses interviews with the media to support what they want the page to say. Specifically Instant Tree Shaping and Gradual Tree Shaping [ [77]]. These terms were added to the page [ [78]] to define my work as "Instant Tree Shaping" and the editors own works as "Gradual Tree shaping". The page Tree Shaping, is in need of cleanup, citations need to be looked at. The page really needs more neutral editors, it's a wonderful interesting subject, please help. Slowart ( talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This has come up again with the death of Olivia Podmore and I would like to seek guidance on this. New Zealand media is prevented from reporting on suicide, it always uses euphemisms such as "sudden death" and is made extremely obvious with the inclusion of suicide hotline information at the end of the article, but they can't actually say that someone had committed suicide. So my question is: does inferring suicide from these obvious giveaways constitute original research? -- Pokelova ( talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Priya Malik has never won a gold medal at 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The page is full of false information as per latest version. Please help to rectify faults. 42.110.207.131 ( talk) 05:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
References
2409:4061:48B:E180:B0B3:2D29:6F95:CA69 ( talk) 06:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.
The sentence has five cited sources, none of which (in my opinion) in fact support this claim. There is a special notice on this article against misrepresenting sources, so this seems particularly important to get right. The same wording cited to the same sources has been copied to at least three other articles: Intelligence quotient [1], Heritability of IQ (twice) [2] [3], and Racial achievement gap in the United States (originally added here [4] and then moved to the new article [5]). Proposed remedies include simply removing the sentence in question, or adding a qualifier (such as no direct evidence for a genetic component, or no evidence for a significant genetic component).
So could we please determine whether the sources support the statement in question, or does it constitute WP:OR? Most of the talk page discussion has focused on one of the sources in particular, Hunt's Human Intelligence. [1] The relevant section is pages 432-447, and a preview is available online [6]. The other sources are Mackintosh, [2] Nisbett, [3] Kaplan, [4] and Ceci & Williams. [5]
To avoid making this post any longer, I will include highlighted excerpts from the sources in a separate follow-up response. Thank you. Stonkaments ( talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
It is worth remembering that no genes related to the difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now.
There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory. Given this, I'm not sure that we need to be quibbling over this statement.
[T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new).Generalrelative ( talk) 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ have a genetic basis. [1] [2] The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]Generalrelative ( talk) 04:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Their high average IQ is well-documented, and the argument that this developed due to genetic selection is compelling and highly relevant to the article, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources.The OP's claim to be "agnostic" on racialist hereditarian theories is disingenuous.
The OP's claim to be "agnostic" on racialist hereditarian theories is disingenuous.I do not think so. Agnostics are often very intolerant of other viewpoints. They typically demand that everything must be kept open, and even when the evidence very clearly points in one direction, they will refuse to accept that because their agnosticism is dogmatic and based on a misunderstanding of how science works: it is Mr. Spock's "scientists must be unbiased" cliché. Actually, science uses specific methods to neutralize the scientists' biases, such as double-blinding.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic. The OP is clearly not that. NightHeron ( talk) 10:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what the truth of the matter is. On some subjects experienced scholars disagree reliably. The sources are reliable and need to be quoted so that Wikipedia canvasses a wide range of views. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC).
there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups, whereas at least 5 others (including myself) have argued that they do. Note that the OP's quotation gallery is incomplete –– and I would argue tendentious. I'm not super jazzed about the prospect of another deep exegetical dive into this literature, but will dive in nonetheless if necessary, and this will mean more quotes.
It's important for everyone to understand that the sources being discussed here don't represent a complete sampling of viewpoints about this topic. More recent secondary sources such as Cognitive Capitalism (2018) In the Know (2020) state in much more unambiguous terms that there is evidence for a genetic component to group differences in average IQ scores. But these sources, and other recent sources that argue for a genetic contribution, are being excluded from the article because they're considered incompatible with the outcome of the RFC. (This was discussed here.) The publisher of the two books I mentioned, Cambridge University Press, has been established as a reliable source with respect to this topic in an earlier discussion at RSN.
So as I said, the question is not whether "there is no evidence for a genetic component" represents an accurate summary of all the views presented in reliable secondary sources, because more recent secondary sources that strongly disagree with the statement are being excluded for that reason. The question is whether, when all sources that strongly disagree with the statement are excluded, the remaining sources adequately support the statement.
Everyone should bear this in mind when judging whether this selective sampling of sources, which are mostly sources from 8+ years ago, are adequate to support statements about the "current scientific consensus". The statement about current scientific consensus appears to be another statement that's based on the RFC rather than on sources, because when editors have requested a source for this statement, the response has been to cite the RFC. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 01:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
[W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. So we shouldn't be swayed by the quantity of research published in second-rate journals with strong institutional ties to racial hereditarianism. We should look instead at the quality of the research and whom among the scientific mainstream it persuades. Which brings me to...
the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races.Indeed, Gardenofaleph felt the need to debate me at length on whether this editorial really represented the views of the Nature editorial board in this thread until the tangent became so disruptive that I was driven to open this RfC at RS/N where they continued to debate the issue.
There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differencesis from 2009, but everything that has come out in Nature and Science since then only confirms their view. I could go on and on with this, but I see that my post is now quite long. If necessary I will be happy to provide more. It would be nice to bring this chapter of Wiki-drama to a close. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
whether some races are genetically superior or inferior to others in intelligence, nor
when comparing groups there's much more evidence that environmental factors...affect results, is an accurate rephrasing of the precise statement being challenged. I agree that there is much more evidence for environmental factors, but that is not what is being argued. Same for the RfC on this topic; it addressed a related but by no means identical claim. As a reminder, the specific claim in question is:
The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups. (emphasis added)
The positive assertion of "no evidence" is the key point of contention, and I haven't seen a credible argument that this assertion is supported by any of the cited sources, much less that it represents the scientific consensus. As I have shown, all of the cited sources seem to indicate there is some level of indirect or circumstantial evidence suggestive of a genetic component to the racial IQ gap. And as Gardenofaleph points out, that is without even considering the sources that more forcefully argue the point that have been excluded as fringe. (I haven't looked at the latest source from Generalrelative, though at first glance it does not appear reliable for our purposes here, as it is looking at how ideas are used and abused online, not a rigorous investigation of the science behind those ideas).
There has been much back-and-forth about editors' views on the current scientific consensus, but very little in the way of concrete support from the cited sources. WP:VNT reminds us that even if you believe strongly that a statement is true, it also needs to meet WP:VERIFIABILITY. Stonkaments ( talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences.[3] That is far from our only source to confirm the existence of this consensus, but it is an especially clear one. Continuing to forget that this source exists, or pretend that it doesn't say what it says, or insist that somehow this statement published in Nature isn't really a reliable source, should be treated as transparent WP:SEALIONing. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
how the world works) are actually discussed quite comprehensively in the recent article "The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence": [14] As discussed in this source, the latest version of Rindermann's survey included a total of four actual geneticists. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Rindermann et al. (2016, 2017, 2020) recently attempted to update Snyderman and Rothman’s survey, and their attempt is a good illustration of how hereditarians construct an appearance of widespread support. Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle surveyed only authors who had published papers in five select journals and the membership of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) (Rindermann et al., 2016, p. 3). As of this writing, they have published three papers out of these data; very few responses are reported in each paper: 71 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2016, p. 3), 75 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2017, p. 244), and 72 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2020, p. 15) meaning the response rate in each paper hovered around 5%. To put these results in perspective, Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle report that only about 20 more people responded to their reported questions than Gottfredson managed for the Mainstream Statement despite asking 10 times the number of people. Again, the data provided by hereditarians of expert support are better evidence that mainstream psychologists would prefer to ignore their agenda.
Sources
|
---|
|
Original research on articles related to the Ifat/Adal pages are being supported by User:Ayaltimo and User:Ragnimo for ex; [15] [16] [17] [18]. The users are restoring the leaders/kingdoms pages with the term "Somali" as their identity however alittle research into these dynasties reveal the contrary; Ifat Sultanate and Adal Sultanate both ruled by the Walashma dynasty were of Ethiopian origin [19]] [20] and run by Ethiopian Semitic speakers [21] see p.14 footnote. [22]. One of the users has even gone to the length of blanking reliable sources that state Ethiopian Semites were affiliated with the Adal kingdoms army by claiming its original research. [23] Magherbin ( talk) 03:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
First and foremost, neither Britannica and brillonline are reliable. They have simply copied versions of an older less referenced revision on the encyclopedia. The Cambridge History of Africa offers many suggestions which I will get onto.
Ifat Sultanate is regarded by the majority of contemporary sources as a Somali Sultanate headquartered in Zeila.
According to Yohannes K. Mekonnen who is a major modern Ethiopian historian had this to say in his book. Ethiopia The Land, Its People, History, and Culture page 43.
The Ifat Sultanate was a medieval Somali Muslim Sultanate in the Horn of Africa. Led by the Walashma dynasty, it was centered in Zeila. The kingdom ruled over parts of what is now eastern Ethiopia, Djibouti, and northern Somalia.
Zeila was the capital and center of Ifat Sultanate. I'll post major sources.
Africa Quarterly - Volum 43 page 108 states:
However, it was not until the 13th century and after it got Islamised that the Somalis led by Yemeni immigrants founded a state which they called Ifat with its principal centre in Zeila.
History of Ethiopian Towns from the Middle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century, Volum 1 page 65 by Richard Pankhurst states:
Zayla ', in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt, was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony. The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones and was surrounded by...
Ifat Sultanate was never based in Shewa/Shoa plateau. It was originally based in the northern Somali city of Zeila.
The Somali Boundary: Dispute and Functional Evolution page 8 states:
At that time the Islamic Sultan of Ifat, based at Zeila, turned sporadic fighting with the " Abyssinian infidels " into a full-scale religious war.
Shewa at that time was under the Shewa Sultanate and in 1285, Sultan Umar Walashma conquered Shewa to consolidate the Sultanate of Ifat, which was based out of Zeila, ruled by the Walashma Dynasty.
Ethiopia: The Land, Its People, History and Culture - Page 44 states:
History Ifat first emerged in the 13th century when its sultan, Umar Walashma (or his son Ali, according to another source), is recorded as having conquered the Sultanate of Shewa in 1285.
Now let us assess the Cambridge history of Africa. Al Umari visited vast regions of Ethiopia during Ifat height which extended its territory deep into Shewa plateau when Ifat conquered the area so of course, he's going to mention different groups including Ethio-Semitic speakers.
But according to the Cambridge History of Africa, the same volume you were using states Zeila was predominantly inhabited by ethnic Somalis and the prominent speakers of the vast lowland and shores where Zeila is suited were eastern Cushitic speakers (Somali).
The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 page 139 states:
But there is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and Al-Dimashqi, another thirteen-century Arab writer, gives the city name its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali.
The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 page 147 states:
This linguistic factor may have provided another dimension for the basic cleavage between the sedentary Muslim communities in the Ethiopian interior and the nomadic peoples of the vast lowlands between the plateau and the coast, who were predominantly speakers of Eastern Cushitic. The rulers are known as the Walashma Dynasty headquartered in the Somali city of Zeila who ruled both Ifat Sultanate and Adal Sultanate and their ancestor was called Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn also known as (Aw barkhadle) in Somali. The Walashma Dynasty claimed Aw Barkhadle was his fifth ancestor.
Divine Fertility The Continuity in Transformation of an Ideology of Sacred Kinship in Northeast Africa page 16 states:
As noted previously, not only is Saint Aw-Barkhadle credited with having spread Islam in this region; the Walashma dynasty is also genealogically linked with Saint Aw-Barkhadle, whom they claim to be the fifth ancestor in their lineage.
The History of Islam in Africa - Page 242 states
As Aw Barkhadle, the ancestor of the founder of the Walashma dynasty, represents "the spiritual legacy of the Islamic state of Yifat/Adal.
Aw barkhadle is regarded as a native Somali saint.
The Writing of the Somali Language page 10 states:
The idea of finding a script first occurred to a certain sheikh, Yusuf Al Kawneyny, better known as Aw Barkhadle. He was a native, who lived in about 1,000 years ago and is buried now in a ruined town named after him.
Macrocultures, Migration, and Somali Malls page 53 states:
They were able to make a living by exacting tolls from new fathers and bridegrooms considered blood payments (diya) for a Yebir who was killed in a contest of magic with a Somali Sheikh (a religious leader) named Aw Barkhadle.
Aw Barkhadle also invented the Wadaad writing script which is the traditional Somali adaptation of written Arabic, as well as the Arabic script as historically used to transcribe the Somali language. This proves his ethnicity. [24]
The founders of the dynasty of Walasma were native to the area they controlled. Umar Walasma, the first to reign, according to the Harari historian, Sheikh Abibakr Ba-Alawi Ashanbali, was a descendent of Sheikh Yusuf Al-Kowneyn. [25]
All these sources I published are reliable and modern. I have way more that I didn't share. The only one who is conducting original research is you. You're literally disputing with many users on those pages based on one source theory using words like "may", "maybe" and "possibly". Ayaltimo ( talk) 18:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
You haven't addressed anything and ignored most of my sources. The second source is not unreliable you misunderstood the context. The Walashma Dynasty ancestrally claimed Arabs just like every other Somali clan. I'll quote the Cambridge History of Africa again this time but with a larger context.
There is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and al-Dimashqi, another thirteenth-century Arab writer, gives the town its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali. By the fourteenth century, the significance of this Somali port for the Ethiopian interior had increased so much that all the Muslim communities established along the trade routes into central and southeastern Ethiopia were commonly known in Egypt and Syria by the collective term of 'the country of Zeila'. Zeila was certainly the point of departure for the numerous Muslim communities and political units in the Ethiopian region, most of which, just like the Somali clan families of Darod and Ishaq, had persistent traditions of Arab origin.
The Walashma dynasty literally claimed Arab ancestor, not "Ethio-Semitic" nor Argobba.
Area Handbook for Somalia Volume 550 page 18 by Irving Kaplan
By the early fifteenth century the Muslim empire of Adal, which had its capital in Zeila and some of its territory in what is present-day eastern Ethiopia, was ready to do battle over territory and religion with expanding Christian Abyssinia. Adal was part of the state Ifat, whose ruling dynasty claimed Arab ancestry, however, mixed they have been with local peoples.
This is a primary source from Al-Maqrizi a notable Egyptian historian and traveler had this to say.
Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527 - Page 124
According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of ' Umar Wälasma first settled in Jabara ( or Jabarta ) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat.
Further backup for the primary source proving the ruler's origin. Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara page 62
Many centuries of trade relation with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyrati Kingdom and these eventually developed into two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, gradually local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled." In due time these converts [Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and Dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera.
Why does it say Somali instead of Somali-Arab you say? It's a very simple answer. If Arabs come to Somalia and integrate they are Somali, it is like saying that for example, that Ahmed Aboutaleb is a Morrocan, but he is Dutch-Moroccan, but we all say he is Dutch, for though he is integrated into the Dutch culture. So what are your current critics?
In fact, if you look up the Gobroon dynasty of Geledi Sultanate. The nobles within the Geledi claim descent from Omar al-Din. He had 3 other brothers, Fakhr and with 2 others of whom their names are given differently as Shams, Umudi, Alahi and Ahmed. Together they were known as Afarta Timid, 'the 4 who came', indicating their origins from Arabia. Claims of descent from Arabia were mainly for legitimacy reasons. The same for the Garen dynasty of Ajuran Sultanate. The Ajuran are said to be descendants of Alama who in turn is a son of Bal'ad who traces descent from Arab immigrant Harmalle Samaale, who traces his descent through Aqeel ibn Abi Talib. [28] Does that mean we should include every Somali kingdom as (Somali-Arab state) just because each dynasty claimed to have an "Arab" origin?
I.M Lewis and other well-known historians viewed them as either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis [29]. These aren't "Arab lineages"-> they're Somali ones which in turn like all Somali genealogies claim to have Arab origins.
By the way, both Tadesse Tamrat and Alklilu Asfaw are not reliable. These two outdated historians are based on the work of Braukamper who himself did not believe they were Argobba. Ulrich Braukamper who is cited by this source for example merely entertains the idea that the Walashma were possibly Argobbas [30] in a book of his but then shortly after does not hold to this view and uses the usual view [31] that’s been shared on Wikipedia about their Qurayshi & Hashemite genealogical origins suggesting that they were Arabians. He does not then tie this dynasty to the Argobba. It was simply a claim with no string of evidence.
To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after providing an endless list of sources by tying them to such figures is practically disingenuous. Ayaltimo ( talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
First, can someone reformat the above text? It seems as if people are shouting at each other, & I find it hard to read. Second, I'm surprised various authorities are being dismissed so quickly as "unreliable" or "outdated". For example, Taddesse Tamrat received his graduate education in the UK from a respectable institution; I'd be more than a little reluctant to dismiss his work so quickly, despite that he wrote over 50 years ago. (Historical research does not advance that quickly to render work from the 60s necessarily outdated.) Last, the nationality of Imam Ahmad al-Ghazi is very much disputed: the Futuh, one of our chief sources for the period, does not provide that information. (IMHO, nationality mattered little to the author, who was content to describe the Imam as a devout Muslim.) In summary, I suggest both parties to dial down the emotion & provide more reasoning & less tossing of quotations at each other. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
llywrch The problem with Taddesse Tamrat is he's quoting the Argobba theory by Ulrich Braukamper who himself does not support the idea the Walashma were Argobbas. He mostly leaned to the mainstream view that they were Arabians that migrated to Somalia.
I'd like to quote an older user who had an extensive knowledge and disproven these sources previously using mainstream views which holds more evidence.
"A source Braukamper often cites on the history of the Walashma (Enrico Cerulli) also contradicts the statement that this group was Argobba. Enrico Cerulli’s views on them if I recall were not honestly removed from that of Braukamper and he even acquired a historical genealogy (it’s the one mentioned here and shared here by another author who cites Cerulli as his source) that tied them to this Somali saintly figure as their ancestor, a figure who has nothing to do with Argobbas and ultimately claims an Arabian genealogy.
And then there’s finally I.M Lewis, and his views on the Walashma were what the following text often shared on Wikipedia alluded to:
"According to I.M. Lewis, the polity was governed by local dynasties consisting of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis, who also ruled over the similarly-established Sultanate of Mogadishu in the Benadir region to the south. Adal's history from this founding period forth would be characterized by a succession of battles with neighbouring Abyssinia."- source for what's in this text
Which is that this dynasty based on their genealogical ties to Somali-Arab genealogies like that of the Darod’s Aqeeli based one were either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis of some sort or just plain Arabs. But before Zekenyan begins to accuse me of "original research"; I'm merely sharing why this author would tie them to Somalis, I do not care if this dynasty was Arab, English, Japanese or Somali but am I merely sharing what authors like Lewis believed them to mostly be.
This document Zekenyan's shared is not a reliable source to be citing on wikipedia. The document as a whole is not bad at all but that one statement it makes which is relevant to this page is directly contradicted by the authors of over 3 works that it utilizes as historical sources who all hold the more accepted view that this group was somehow Arab and in the case of Lewis and seemingly Cerulli associate them more with Somalis than with Argobbas. The only author I recall in its sources who ever claimed that they were Argobbas was perhaps Professor Tadesse Tamrat who was seemingly basing this on Braukamper’s musings so that’s not reliable."
Magherbin is using the same sources and arguments as Zekenyan who has been disproven by the previous users. Magherbin is just another new nationalist user disputing with multiple users on those pages but that's beside the point. Here is where Magherbin gets everything wrong. He believes the Walashma Dynasty began in Shewa but according to both Al-Maqrizi and the Walashma's own chronicle, the Walashma had a Quraysh lineage (like many other Somali clans). Maqrizi also indicates that the forefathers of 'Umar Walashma first settled in the Zeila-controlled Jabarta region and from there later moved into the hinterland to occupy Ifat. [35] "Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat.
Zeila is a Somali city located in modern-day Somaliland. The mainstream view is the Walashma Dynasty were Somalis with an Arabian ancestry.
This source is from the Encylopedia of Africa because this is a mainstream accepted view. Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara page 62
Many centuries of trade relation with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyrati Kingdom and these eventually developed into two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, gradually local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled." In due time these converts [Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and Dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera.
Ayaltimo ( talk) 12:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Some recent (and rather blatant) introduction of unsourced and OR material, including some " false equivalency" text apparently intended to draw a moral equivalency between a violent mob and the police officers whom they attacked. I have been taken care of these issues as they have arisen ( example A, example B), but more eyes would be valuable. Neutrality talk 04:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WP:NOR (SYNTH), and WP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎
Contrary to a conspiracy theory [1] [2] pushed by Trump, [3] Fox News, [4] and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign. [5] [6] It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page [7] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar [8] for probable cause. [9]
I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.
The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WP articles are supposed to do.
I agree that this is problematic under NPOV and SYNTH. A qualifier, such as "according to the Horowitz report," might be useful. Snuish2 ( talk) 01:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Bit of a silly question but does removing untrue content from Wikipedia amount to original research if you can't provide a source to verify that the content is untrue? Tonight I had a difference of opinion with another user, and that user is now reviewing and reverting my other recent edits. A few weeks ago I removed a sentence from an article because I knew that a particular person was no longer in a particular job. [36] The official website hasn't been updated yet so the user has reverted my edit. jamacfarlane ( talk) 00:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
There are quite a few things here that seem to be OR and POV pushing.
There appears to have been a multiyear edit war by User:Uamaol to include the unsourced claim that the party is far right. 2001:448A:106B:5533:DB9:3510:1D16:CD5F ( talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@ User: ALI ANSARI85 has added unsourced content stating that Take Me To Church contains atheist/antireligious messaging four times based on their own interpretation of the lyrics. The user has also displayed an unwillingness to understand WP:OR policy after being warned repeatedly by User:Fyrael and myself. They have also accused editors of " think[ing] stupid" and making fun of themselves. Despite a slew of warnings on their talk page, their contributions are solely revolved around these disruptive edits. In my opinion, this is borderline WP:NOTHERE and possible WP:PA behavior, alongside a willful misunderstanding of WP policy. -- Bettydaisies ( talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Some registered and anonymous users (Possibly socks of User:سهراب بارسایی; reasons explained below) keep changing the birthdate in this article. Recently, birthdate changes based on original research in Persian Wikipedia (by above user), while a source (no. 1 from YJC) in the article indicates he is born on 1982 (equal to 1360–1361 in iranian calendar) resulted in protection of the article and the user is now changing the date here to prove he's right. user سهراب بارسایی has no purpose other than changing material in this specific subject and insists to change the date on my local talk page and that's why i think other single-purpose accounts/IPs editing the date are socks of this user. Regards. — Jeeputer ( talk) 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
On June 25th 2018, I requested an edit of a statement that precedes the Mackinac College article: /info/en/?search=Talk:Mackinac_College#Request_edit_on_25_June_2018 In this link, see text that begins ‘REPLACE’ and is then followed by ‘RATIONALE.’
The thrust of my request is that the following statement is incorrect: “This article is about the college created by founders of the Moral Re-Armament.” This statement, created for the Mackinac College article in Wikipedia, is Original Research posted on 0:32, 20 June 2014 without source or support, and is contradicted by numerous references including those listed in the RATIONALE. My edit was denied on the grounds that my sources are connected and I have a conflict of interest. I would like to appeal this decision, and if unchanged, would like to understand why an unsupported statement overrules a challenge from high-quality connected sources.
--The references are well published books. I can provide PDFs or e-text of relevant portions at your request. --The Mackinac College article is an important part of the biographies of still-living students, faculty, and staff from Mackinac College, Michigan. Our continuing involvement with the College is seen in our active Facebook Page (134 members), 3 recent Zoom calls (35, 36, and 39 people approximately), reunions (70 attended in 2017), and scheduled attendance at our 2020 reunion, now rolled over to 2021 (51st Reunion). Our list of 331 active addresses, emails, and phone numbers spans 38 American states and 18 other countries. Karin D. E. Everett ( talk)
There is a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train about whether user-performed currency conversions are WP:Routine calculations or not. This has implications for what box office gross we can report for a particular movie, since it affects which sources we can use and in what way.
My viewpoint is that they are not routine calculations, because currency conversion is not an exact science. It has furthermore been demonstrated (see the linked talk page discussion) that the method employed in this instance produces different figures than those that WP:Reliable sources (such as, in this case, Deadline Hollywood) report. Hence, I would argue, we should defer to WP:Reliable sources that directly support a given currency conversion.
Another editor disagrees, arguing that so long as we have a reliably sourced quantity in the original currency and a reliably sourced exchange rate corresponding to that point in time, we can multiply one by the other and report the result in the new currency.
For further details about the discussion so far, please see the indicated talk page section. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properly– Orichalcum, the reason we are here at WP:NORN is that this assertion is incorrect. In order for a calculation to be able to be considered to be a WP:Routine calculation, the result of the calculation has to be
obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. That is very clearly not the case here. If this were a routine calculation, we would not see other sources arriving at different figures when converting the same quantities of the original currency, as indeed we do (I give a few examples of this over at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train, relating to Deadline Hollywood and a couple of other sources). You have combined two different sources—one that gives the gross in the original currency and one that provides an exchange rate—to reach a novel conclusion which is not explicitly stated by either source, namely the gross in USD. That's textbook WP:SYNTH. Not only that, you have done this repeatedly (with various sources for various local currencies) and then combined the results to reach an even more novel conclusion. This is rather egregious.You have not presented any argument whatsoever as to why this would not be WP:Original research, you've merely asserted that it isn't with nothing backing that up. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It just make no sense to use 360M for DS when it just wrong, Boxoffice Mojo and other sources convert the whole number every week into dollars so some week the number somehow decrease even, with the Japanese distributor reporting the numbers every week in yen, the only way is to convert the the numbers to dollars every week as soon as they are reported and the source currently being used for DS is CR which literally take the reported gross in Japanese and just convert it to USD as there is no official source in USD.
Just for example CR reported that the movie in January grossed 35.70 billion yen (US$342.5 million) and in April it grossed 39.40 billion yen (US$362.14 million) so the movie increased 3.7 billion yen and US$19.64 million for that to happen it would require the yen to equal USD$0.005 which hasn't happened in the last twenty year.
https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/01/12-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-steamrolls-past-35-billion-yen-at-japan-box-office
https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/04/05-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-up-39-at-japanese-box-office-in-25th-week
Adab1za (
talk) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
List_of_highest-grossing_films#cite_note-Frozen-41.-- 寒吉 ( talk) 02:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
Given the likely widespread impact of this decision, should an RfC be initiated on this matter? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
On the Mike Parson page, I noticed that it wrongly attributed a quote that was actually from Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 about gubernatorial appointments as being from the Missouri Constitution. I corrected the attribution (and added a source because as it was previously unsourced) and I also quoted what the Missouri Constitution actually says about gubernatorial appointments. I added a reliable source for that as well. I did not add my own opinion or analysis, and the two sources together do not really lead to any kind of conclusion or synthesis. Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit citing WP:OR. I don't think that it was WP:OR and explained why I thought that in the talk page given that it does not outright prevent the use of primary sources and I literally offered no analysis, opinion, or conclusion. After I explained that, Snooganssnoogans merely told me to see WP:SYNTH which I had already explained why I don't think it falls under. It doesn't look like we're going to be agreeing any time soon. I came here to get some opinions from uninvolved parties. I'm not all that experienced with Wikipedia policies, but at least the way I read it, I don't think that my edit falls under it. JMM12345 ( talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).
Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.
The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This statement on the Ifat Sultanate which reads "The majority of scholars agree the population of the leading principality of Ifat Sultanate were no doubt the Somalis who were headquartered in Zeila" is not found in the book which is self published. The second statement which reads "In the predominately Somali capital of the Ifat Sultanate, Zeila, and local Somali territories, the Arabic and Somali languages were most commonly present." is also not found. User:Ayaltimo seems to think otherwise per this edit [37]. Same issue on the Adal Sultanate article, the statement which reads "The sultanate and state were established by the local inhabitants of Zeila." is not supported by the source. [38] Magherbin ( talk) 23:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Eggishorn. I was planning to remove it anyway but I wanted to continue the discussion and make a deal with the user Magherbin which is why I didn't want to make any changes yet so that we can come to a conclusion. The Cambridge source I added states Zeila was predominantly Somali and you can look it up yourself. [39] Ayaltimo ( talk) 20:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The capital source is here History of Ethiopian Towns from the Middle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century, Volum 1 page 65 by Richard Pankhurst states:
"Zayla ', in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt, was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony. The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones and was surrounded by..."
If Zeila was predominantly Somali how can you say it wasn't spoken by Somalis? If you go to page 137 it clarifies the lowland was predominantly spoken by eastern Cushitic speakers and Somalis are eastern Cushitic and Zeila is located in the lowland. Ayaltimo ( talk) 21:59 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I would agree to this. However, according to the source, Zeila was predominantly Somali [40] so the confusion ends here. Ayaltimo ( talk) 22:13 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe the table at Vichy anti-Jewish legislation#Laws and statutes perma is original research, and should be removed, or pared down to just the first two columns. This table (which goes back at least 14 years) purports to show a comparison of how long it took in Vichy France, vs in Nazi Germany, for certain antisemitic laws to take effect after the regime first took power. Example: it took the Nazis 5 years 4 mos. (after 1933 rise to power) to demand registration of Jewish businesses, whereas it took Vichy 1 year 1 month (after 1940 rise to power) to enact a similar law.
I've never seen this outside Wikipedia, and I believe it is original research by some editor. I don't doubt that each individual fact might be verifiable, but it's WP:SYNTH to put them together, and OR if we are the first to do it, right? The fact that this has been around for so long gives me pause, but I'm inclined to just rip out the last three columns of the table, keeping just the Vichy data. If there's a reliable source that combines this information in a single source, then I'm fine with it. Mathglot ( talk) 07:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about [41]? Namely:
After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of
Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic
nation states,
Israel,
Judah,
Moab,
Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.
has been changed to:
After the 10th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of
Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic
nation states,
Israel,
Moab,
Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.
although none of the WP:RS has changed in the whole paragraph.
Something fishy also noticed at [42]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You have repeatedly violated copyright since being blocked in 2016, including this year. That alone should be more than enough to leave you blocked indefinitely. Add on top of that, your personal attacks (which continued after you were blocked) and your long-term tendentious editing. And to top it off, fabricating sources? I've never seen anyone come back from that. You've gone out of your way to destroy the community's trust in you. You are correct, what you did was inexcusable. Yamla ( talk) 12:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
[55] where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?
[56] where did this is highly disputed among scholars
came from? and why four pages for
WP:V such stuff?
[57] where did the United Monarchy came from?
[58] where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?
[59] where did this is highly disputed among scholars
came from? and why four pages for
WP:V such stuff? where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?
[60] where did this is highly disputed among scholars
came from? and why four pages for
WP:V such stuff?
[61] where did or may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area
came from?
[62] where did or may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area
came from?
Even if I grant that one of the diffs is allowed according to WP:CITELEAD, seven other diffs remain. Honestly, my impression from seeing these edits was that they perform fake edits. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
So, Karma1998 had:
So, yeah, this is the reason of my irritation in respect to Karma's edits: if their edits are not verifiable, the Wikipedia Community defaults to such edits being fabrications. They have not been singled out for special treatment, so unless WP:V has been abolished, I was right to attack their edits.
Morals: Karma1998 has to desist forever from unverifiable edits, otherwise they will land in hot water. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@
MPants at work:
Karma1998 has to be stopped: look at
[63] and search for Zwiep (misspelled as Zweip
).
tgeorgescu (
talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You changed and it is preserved also in Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the penitent thief, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise".{{sfn|Zwiep|1997|pp=76-77}}
to Other scholars disagree and state that the empty tomb is a late development:{{sfn|Zweip|1997|p=76-77}}
. As far as I can see from Google Books, the citation supports neither version.
So, you have changed an unverifiable sentence to a completely another unverifiable sentence. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
They failed to provide page numbers for [64] despite being specifically asked for page numbers at User talk:Karma1998#Jesus. Failing again at [65]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@ MPants at work: I think I have failed to explain my argument and I apologize for that. I have some books from Raymond Brown, Craig Evans and James Dunn (all of whom are very respected scholars of the historical Jesus) who support my point. Can I use them to edit the page? - Karma1998 ( talk) 15:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
However, I must stress how often religion-related pages on Wikipedia are in a very bad quality stateOn that, we agree. And I agree that you've been doing good work at, for example, the Jacobovici article. The only problems I'm seeing are the edits that failed verification, and those aren't even a majority of your edits in the topic, they just happen to be on topics that are controversial, and which gives the impression of pushing a biblical literalist POV (which, to be clear, I do not think you are doing). That tends to raise others' hackles.
Collapse
WP:FORUMSHOPPING
|
---|
I believe USER: Fact789 is trying to lobby for the original research in the SoftSwiss article. This does not look like a promotional issue, but like black PR, the purpose of which is to defame the object of the article. When I checked the unrelible and unverified citations tags ( bad source tags) in the article, I found that the quoted text and the information on the external site did not match. Then I deleted the unconfirmed theses, and the user USER: Fact789 rolled them back and continues to do this for several days now. Theses deleted from the article:
Deleted theses violate the principals described in Wikipedia:No original research, and also demonstrate disrespect to the requirements for verifiability and reliability of references described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am sure that further investigation will show these account also have conflict of interests with the competitors company Vlavluck ( talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
References
|
Talk:Ayurveda has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Topic: What is the position of the Indian Medical Association on Ayurveda?
- Wikihc ( talk) 08:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Nearly no sources given for this article which would otherwise look quite complete. I suspect there's a significant amount of OR that needs trimming down. Britannica has something about this (but note that the coverage there is about mostly shot selection), so it's likely we should be able to have something too, ideally not based on some person's interpretations and personal opinions. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
In
Wuhan Institute of Virology, is this sentence, In response to the WHO report, some politicians and a small number of scientists have called for further investigations into the matter.
is the "small number" OR editorializing of WP:PRIMARY sources? It's sourced to
[66],
[67],
[68]
Geogene (
talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a discussion at Talk:Miles Davis#I question the Knighthood source. that may interest watchers of this board. Elizium23 ( talk) 13:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
In this edit, VirginOnMadness changed the lede of Jojar S Dhinsa to claim that Dhinsa is not, in fact, a successful entrepreneur since the companies registered to him in the UK companies registry are all listed as "Dissolved". This edit ignores the existence of the Athlone Group's [www.athlonegroup.com/ own website] (a primary source, to be sure, but one we could reasonably count on to verify who their own CEO is), and this profile in Bdaily News. BobBobster1 has been arguing on my user talk page (see the June 2021 section) that my edits to restore the original information, despite the presence of citations to back up the original, constitute vandalism. I counter with the argument that BobBobster1's arguments amount to original research: since he is unable to find evidence in his own limited searches that Dhinsa is the entrepreneur the article claims him to be, that the information must be false. BobBobster1 has argued on my talk page that only company registries are valid sources and that the existence of published articles is insufficient. (His claim is that I would need to contact the publisher and verify their sources for myself.)
I am seeking administrator intervention against BobBobster1, who appears to have a axe to grind against Dhinsa. Looking at the history of the Dhinsa biography, one can find that it is replete with additions by BobBobster1 that "no evidence can be found" for the various claims of the article. (I specifically point to this edit, but there are others.) I argue that this is not only a NOR violation, it is also a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation.
Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1. A website only proves there is a website. BobBobster1 ( talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Bdaily News is a "paid for" news publisher. https://marketing.bdaily.co.uk/products/featured-articles?variant=793100615689 BobBobster1 ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3. ″Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)″
@ BobBobster1: I would claim that your edits are the vandalism; casting aspersion on a living person without sufficient evidence. (See WP:BLP.) You are concluding from your own research into the UK companies registration that Dhinsa is not who he claims to be. We need a reliable source to back up a claim asserting that either a) Athlone Group does not actually exist or b) Dhinsa is not its Chairman and CEO. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a big enough man to admit when I am wrong, and in this case, I appear to have been quite wrong. While BobBobert1's methods were not the best, and while it is verifiable that Dhinsa is the CEO and Chair of Athlone Group, it does not appear that Athlone Group is a notable organization. Upon close inspection, much of the information in Dhinsa's biography fails verification. Many of the sources list him as a British billionaire, yet he does not appear on any major publication's lists of British billionaires. Several of the remaining sourcs are somewhat sketchy as well (a link to the Elephant Family fundraiser flyer that does not verify Dhinsa as being involved with that charity; a link to a YouTube video purporting to be a Discovery Channel program about European billionaire entrepreneurs, but which includes no credits to verify its sourcing and was posted by an account having nothing to do with the Discovery Channel). BobBobert1, I apologize for having brought the matter here to the noticeboard; I agree with the others that this article should probably be deleted, and I will likely be the one to start the AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers and Norfolkbigfish provided a definition for the " crusading movement". According to their definition, the movement was "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades". I remarked that this summary could be a good approach to present the movement, but we should not use it as a definition, because definitions in connection with crusades and crusading are controversial. I asked them to verify this definition, but they say common sense confirms it. Is common sense enough to define a term in WP, or all definitions are to be verified by a reference to a scholarly work? Borsoka ( talk) 02:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that we consider this discussion closed, because we seem to be moving ahead with improvements on the article. It makes no sense to significantly edit the article while we discuss here, because the subject and the issue are already hard to follow even when the problematic status of the article is available. In my view, the version obtained after these edits does not address the issue of specifying the scope of the article in terms of "institutions" and "ideology" (or "ideologies") or an equivalent terminology. However, there are other issues to consider and perhaps it will be wise to first work on these issues in the body of the article and only after go back to the lead to find a way to better explain the scope of the article. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is closed or that it is accepted that there is no OR here. It really needs one or more neutral editors to give an opinion before it is closed and we all move on. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I’ve noticed traces of the original research in the SoftSwiss article made by User talk:Novobat, User talk:Fact789 and few more contributors. In places where I found irregularities or inaccuracies I placed tags [verification failed], [better source needed], [unreliable sources], [citation needed]. In several places the source material was rephrased with a change in its meaning. In others, the author combines material from several sources to come to a conclusion that is not directly stated in any of the sources and does not imply it. The article also contains links to dubious zines about cryptocurrency and links to unverifiable information from the Webarchive.
I. Conclusion that is not directly stated
(а) "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities"
(b) "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money.[31][better source needed][32][better source needed]"
(c) "In March 2021, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products.[33][better source needed][34][better source needed] The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision.[35][better source needed][36][better source needed][37][better source needed]"
The main point: Softswiss as article declaire is a software developer for an online casino platform but not a casino operator. As a result there are no supply for these three statements on the source materials.
II. Rephrased with a change in its meaning
(d)"The trading company for SoftSwiss is the Cypriot company Direx Limited.[citation needed] The Curaçao-based company Direx N.V is the hundred percent shareholder in Direx Limited, and the most prominent entity of the SoftSwiss group.[20][better source needed][21][unreliable source?] N1 Interactive is another trading corporation within SoftSwiss’ group of companies, through which SoftSwisss reportedly holds its Maltese gambling license.[22][citation needed][23][better source needed][24][better source needed]"
The main point: The author leaves many statements without citation, and in the proposed sources it is impossible to establish what the author is referring to.
III. Links to zines and webarchive.com
(g)"SoftSwiss has come under fire due to allegations of plagiarism by the Belarusian gambling company, VIADEN. [citation needed] This was reportedly likely the result of multiple employees leaving VIADEN to join SoftSwiss in the early 2010s, including its lead designer.[4][better source needed]"
The main point: The author makes a conclusion based on the interview, which is an insider's view of an event and may not be independent sources.
(h) The author makes references to arhived data here [1] ana here [2].
The main point: The author makes a conclusion on archived data, which was removed for unknown reasons and which cannot be verified. My majesty's balls ( talk) 14:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Miles Davis § Request for Comment - Religion. Elizium23 ( talk) 15:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This editor ( Editingwiki777 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is inserting synthesized original research into three articles, Eliphas Levi, The Book of Abramelin, and Chaos Magic. They have received multiple OR and edit-warring warnings is April, May, and this month, culminating in a level 4 warning. They have not responded to these notices or to queries on the article talk pages, they just keep reverting to restore "their" "criticism" section. Skyerise ( talk) 14:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed it. Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 19:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
There was recently a discussion at Talk:New Game! about use of links to a publisher's website to verify release dates (in this case, Houbunsha and Seven Seas Entertainment, who publish the Japanese and English-language versions of this manga).
Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.
Drmies also argued that "if information cannot be properly sourced with secondary sources, then maybe it shouldn't be in an article". I produced some reliable secondary sources on the talk page that also reported on the individual volume releases, but this line of argumentation gets away from the point about the publisher's websites also being admissible. I would like to solicit opinions on this concept of publisher's websites being inadmissible. — Goszei ( talk) 03:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Often [spam refs] are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." It also says, "
Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think we all agree that these links do verify a specific and narrow piece of information in the article, and that they help build the encyclopedia, so I would like to hear more about your specific definition of "spam link" in this context. — Goszei ( talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label. I would also like to solicit opinions on this point: would a track listing on a record's label website become inadmissible, if there were seller links on the same page? What about a banner linking to a seller page on the side? What about a link to subscribe to a publication, like the New York Times? When does an otherwise admissible and usable source become spam? — Goszei ( talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page [...] in order to verify such things as titles and running times.— Goszei ( talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I may be way out of line here... but I think the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary should be amended to allow for verifiable government press releases and FOIA documentation as productive sources. By this definition currently under policy this would not allow for using historical materials from previous administrations held by the National Archives. This would include documents sent from Congress to the Library of Congress... as they would be original sources. My interests are academic sources and historical documents. I think that these should be able to be used. Please don't jump down my throat as I a relatively new but I would love to here thoughts and reasoning on this.
I think this also applies to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: WikiLeaks
cc: @ Szmenderowiecki: - What I will say about the Wikileaks situation is... can we verify the document through a second source or is it something where we could request it under FOIA or public information laws to verify. DoctorTexan ( talk) 13:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
The article on Susannah Martin mentioned a memorial, with a transcription of the plaque (historical marker), with a "citation needed" tag. As it happens I was nearby, so I stopped and took photos, and published to Commons ( memorial, plaque). I'm fairly confident this is not OR, since anyone can go there to Verify the inscription, or even look it up on Google Maps. This would would arguably be a Primary Source per WP:LINKSINACHAIN, but that's okay AFAIK. My question is, is this acceptable, and if so, how would I go about citing a photo I took? Should I just use {{ cite AV media}} with the Commons URL? Is there a better way to approach this? Or does this break a guideline/policy/rule? I've been unable to find this situation treated in the WP: namespace or archives here; pointers welcome. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
On the Andy Ngo article a statement has been added which claims a Rolling Stones article has supports the following claim, "Several sources have expressed a view that Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"." About half way down the article RS says, "But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process."[ [70]]? While it is clear the source is critical of Ngo the source does not say "Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"". Looking for input from others. The disputed article edit is here [ [71]]. Springee ( talk) 11:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist.= "The incident showed Ngo to be a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, but this isn't the important thing here".
It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process.= "The important thing is that in spite of significant evidence that Ngo is a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, Ngo had convinced so many of the opposite." In conclusion, it would be reasonable to write that "E.J. Dickson of Rolling Stone does not consider Ngo to be a journalist." starship .paint ( exalt) 08:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist.Rolling Stone quote 2:
Even if Ngo himself were a fraudulent journalist, and the victim narrative he promoted was also under fraudulent pretenses, his ability to get bad ideas in front of a mainstream audience was all too real.In particular, the wording of as opposed to a journalist makes it clear the article is positing that Ngo should not be considered a journalist, but something else. It could be changed to "legitimate journalist" at a pinch. Btw, I've collated other sources' assessments' of Ngo on his talk page, partly to support the claim that Ngo's "frequently accused" of sharing misleading or selective material, [72] which Springee has rejected. [73] We're not talking about a single accusation-good sources remarking on Ngo's dishonesty or lack of credibility/integrity: CNN, [1] Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review [2], Salon (magazine) [3] The Oregonian, [4] Media Matters for America, [5] BuzzFeed News, [6] The Intercept, [7] The Guardian, [8] renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley for the SPLC, [9], Columbia Journalism Review, [10] plus [74] [75], a report by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four respected subject-matter experts [11] plus another good quote from Rolling Stone. [12] In fact, I haven't found many RS's that do treat Ngo as a credible journalist. Noteduck ( talk) 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
References
As evidence, The Gateway Pundit cited a tweet from a less-than-reliable right-wing media personality Andy Ngo, in which he claimed Antifa militants "have taken over & created an 'autonomous zone' in city w/their own rules." Ngo, who did not respond to a request for comment, often does not cite strong supporting evidence to back up the claims he makes about Antifa on Twitter.
These narratives have been intensified and supplemented by the work of right-wing adversarial media-makers like Elijah Schaffer and Andy Ngo, who collect videos of conflict at public protests and recirculate them to their online audiences. Both have even gone "undercover" by posing as protesters to capture footage for their channels, seeking to name and shame those marching. Their videos are edited, decontextualized, and shared among audiences hungry for a new fix of "riot porn," which instantly goes viral across the right-wing media ecosystem with the aid of influential pundits and politicians, including President Donald Trump.
Ngo, who has used selectively edited videos to paint antifa as a violent, criminal group was hit with punches and milkshakes during a clash between antifa activists and members of the Proud Boys, an organization labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
But he circulated heavily edited videos of several altercations to his then-270,000 Twitter followers, racking up millions of views online while spreading inaccurate claims and limited context about what transpired.
Far-right writer Andy Ngo has been presented as a credible authority on left-wing violence following an attack on him at a rally in late June. Now it's been revealed that Ngo has secretly been working alongside a violent far-right group to cherry-pick and misrepresent left-wing activism in an attempt to downplay right-wing violence.
The edited video was posted by Andy Ngo, a right-wing activist who uses selectively edited video and false captions to create misleading propaganda about protesters.
In the lead-up to Damore's appearance, Ngo penned an article for the Wall Street Journal alleging that the event had been threatened, writing that that "we expected controversy. But we also got danger." The evidence of danger, as reported in Willamette Week, was "two violent threats on Facebook, three diversity events held on campus as counter-programming, and a scornful blog post". This was more than enough for Fox News, who ran an item under the headline "Antifa targets 'Google memo' author James Damore's talk at Portland State". Despite the headline, Portland's Rose City Antifa told the Guardian ahead of time that no antifascist counterprotest was ever planned, and none materialized. There was only a small audience walkout. Nevertheless, along with spreading the video, Ngo wrung from the evening an article for Quillette, a website obsessed with the alleged war on free speech on campus.
Stanley: Oh, he's terrifying. Watching him go through essentially a tunnel, you know, into the far right, which is what he's been doing. There was the milkshake incident and then it just went, you know, paranoid, completely paranoid. He had convinced various editors that there was this, you know, this false equivalence [between left and right political violence in the U.S.], when there's no such equivalence at all. I mean, there's been literally hundreds of murders of people by white supremacists on U.S. soil since 1990 and none by antifa. Hatewatch: Ngo's also been caught misrepresenting facts and then what he says goes substantially viral after that. Stanley: Yeah.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The space freelancers once occupied has been partially taken up by new, inflammatory opinion writers like Ben Shapiro, Nigel Farage, and Newt Gingrich, who wrote the magazine's May 10 cover story about China. Some of these writers, I'm told, do get paid. Other recent Newsweek writers have included Charlie Kirk, discredited provocateur Andy Ngo, and former Blink-182 frontman Tom DeLonge, who wrote a thinly veiled advertisement for his new TV show about UFOs.
Using social media analytics, we see that the photos have been widely shared among known U.S. right-wing operators who have also amplified disinformation in the past, including Andy Ngo and Jack Posobiec.
While the Portland Mercury story could cost him whatever was left of his mainstream reputation, it certainly won't cost him his career. In the ever-expanding right-wing media ecosystem, there is plenty of room for trolls with a knack for video-editing software and gaming Twitter to find an audience, particularly if they are telling that audience what they know they want to hear. It should, however, serve as a chastening teachable moment to those who took him seriously, if only for a short time.
Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BawinV ( talk) 17:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute that I want to bring here, rather than an edit war. Here is the discussion at the Talk Page. It had appeared to reach a consensus via compromise, after input from two other editors, and was reworded satisfactorily to the editor that objected in the first place (me) until another user reverted that compromise edit.
From what I can see, the first sentence of the Efficacy section clearly violates WP:RS/AC by stating there is a "scientific consensus" about this controversial topic, when there is not, that I can see anywhere in the "sources" or anywhere on the internet. But the lack of source material indicates to me that this is an attempt to synthesize statements by individuals to justify the some "gut feeling" that there is a scientific consensus. According to WP:RS/ACA "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view ... Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."
Currently, the article says this: "There is a general scientific consensus that alternative therapies lack the requisite scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved." and then lists citations, which do not even remotely support this, as far as I can tell.
I am bringing this here not because I'm waving the flag for any particular view. Personally, I deeply respect science and the scientific method, and I am strongly against "quacks" or any kind of BS peripheral to the medical field. But to state on Wikipedia, for the general reading public, that there is a "scientific consensus", when there is not, is not something I'm comfortable with as an editor. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
alternative. E.g. artemisinin is not alt-med. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
One is that there is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that would imply that they all exist outside of science (please show m if there is).Depending on what you mean by "exist outside of science" then you are either drastically misinterpreting what I said, or categorically ignorant of what alternative medicine even is. In any case, there is a perfectly good definition right there in the article in the very first sentence.
And second, if no scientific consenus is possible, then why have "scientific consensus" there at all?This makes absolutely no sense. The suggestion that because some claim does not represent a scientific consensus that there can be no scientific consensus is irrational in the extreme. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
alternativeto distinguish it from mainstream medicine, which is based upon scientific evidence. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Aaronlife, Here's what we know about acupuncture:
argument based on reason, we are not a debate championship. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
My agenda is fairly straightforward: WP:CHOPSY and WP:NOBIGOTS. None of it means importing an outside agenda, as defined by WP:ACTIVISM or WP:ADVOCACY.tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I recently removed a good chunk of the Nonperson article as unreferenced and presumptive original research, including editorializing and presumptuous language. I had already removed another, highly dubious section in December 2018 about "ways to become". An "in popular culture" section was removed by someone else in July 2017.
I note that only one of the three references with a web link actually uses the term, and that the definition and "Legal status" sections are entirely unsourced; someone else will need to check the book. I haven't yet looked for other sources about the concept. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This series of list articles needs some review. While looking for information on a particular historical figure named John Dunham (who emmigrated to Plymouth Colony in the 1600s), I found him briefly mentioned as being part of the Dunham political family. The problem is that he is NOT related to at least some of the others on that list. And while some of the other Dunhams MAY be related, there are no citations to verify the relationship. It may be that we simply have an extranious entry, or possibly a blending of two separate "Political families" with the same last name, or even a mix of the two. The point being, if this occurred with the Dunham "family", I suspect it has happined with other "families". A clean up, with an eye towards actually sourcing the "family" connection between individuals is needed. Blueboar ( talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not an expert in the subject area, but a sizeable proportion of this article seems to be original research. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 00:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 ( talk) 12:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
A month ago, my edits of Scrappy were abruptly removed, citing original research. However, I feel this isn't the case.
to avoid original research, the main original research page says:
"The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication."
I fulfilled this to the best of my ability. I used the cartoons Scrappy appeared in since the purpose of fictional character Scrappy's biography is to show his role in the cartoons he appeared in.
First of all, while my main sources were the cartoons he appeared in, that is the best place to go. The 'biography' section, unless I'm mistaken, is to show what Scrappy did in the cartoons he appeared in. What better place than the cartoons themselves? I think that part of the issue was that I slacked in citing them thoroughly, but then the only issue was that not thorough in citing them, then I reasonably should be allowed to restore my edits with citations, should I not? The appropriate clips can be marked with timestamps. Smcupcake19 ( talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
There was a question on a certain articles reliability due to its alleged source not having the indicated claim. If the original source is contacted and confirms that they did not make a claim published in a secondary source, is this a violation of the OR policy? 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
At the Tree Shaping article one editor cites interviews with themself [76] to support text. This allowes the editor to continue to disparage my work (I who also have a COI). This editor uses interviews with the media to support what they want the page to say. Specifically Instant Tree Shaping and Gradual Tree Shaping [ [77]]. These terms were added to the page [ [78]] to define my work as "Instant Tree Shaping" and the editors own works as "Gradual Tree shaping". The page Tree Shaping, is in need of cleanup, citations need to be looked at. The page really needs more neutral editors, it's a wonderful interesting subject, please help. Slowart ( talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This has come up again with the death of Olivia Podmore and I would like to seek guidance on this. New Zealand media is prevented from reporting on suicide, it always uses euphemisms such as "sudden death" and is made extremely obvious with the inclusion of suicide hotline information at the end of the article, but they can't actually say that someone had committed suicide. So my question is: does inferring suicide from these obvious giveaways constitute original research? -- Pokelova ( talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Priya Malik has never won a gold medal at 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The page is full of false information as per latest version. Please help to rectify faults. 42.110.207.131 ( talk) 05:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
References
2409:4061:48B:E180:B0B3:2D29:6F95:CA69 ( talk) 06:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)