This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hi. I'm arguing on the talk page of Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Scholar survey summary about how to treat the overall-summary column at the end of the summary table in that section. It's at least partially a SYNTH problem.
The table is a list of how various polls of historians over time have ranked the presidents. The last column is "most-frequent quartile". This is the "most-frequent" among the polls we've chosen to include in the table, not in any absolute sense, which itself might be a SYNTH issue.
There are two issues we've been arguing over: sorting and how to sum up the overall results.
The first problem (IMO) is that the table is sortable, and sorting by the rightmost column produces misleading results. For example, it typically places George W Bush 2nd from bottom; one time I sorted, it placed Grant dead last. Yes, I understand that this is because the 2ary sorting is whatever the previous sort was (by default, the historical order of presidents); the question is what to do about it. I don't see how the results are encyclopedic, and they are potentially misleading. The obvious solution (for me at least) would be to disable sorting in that column. However, I've been reverted twice, both times with the claim that not making the column sortable is a violation of SYNTH.
My problem is that the sort order is inherently evaluative. If we sorted cities by country, then there would be no expectation that the resulting order of the cities within each country would be meaningful. There's no evaluation or judgement implied in their order. However, because the poll table ranks presidents according to how historians rate them, and all the other columns with quartile coloring sort according to how they've been rated by historians, and because the quartile colors are intended to make those evaluations immediately visible, with 'best' on top and 'worst' on bottom (or vice versa), it seems to me that it is seriously misleading for the sort order to be jumbled within that overall evaluation, in a way that cities sorted randomly within countries would not be.
The other question is how to decide which quartile (and quartile color) each president should be assigned for their overall ranking in the rightmost column. That is, which presidents should be colored blue, green, yellow and orange, and labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the last column.
The argument (if I understand it correctly) is that, to avoid SYNTH issues, the overall ranking and quartile color must reflect the modal quartile among the polls of each president. But that can produce some bizarre results. Suppose we have two presidents and nine polls. One is ranked Q3 in 4 polls and Q2 in 5. We label him a Q2 president and color him green. The other is ranked higher: he's Q3 in the same 4 polls as the first, but the other 5 polls are Q2 in 3 and Q1 in 2. We'd label him a Q3 president and color him yellow -- a lower ranking overall despite him having higher rankings in the polls. If we instead sorted by the most frequent half (whether he's rated by historians as above or below average), he'd still be in the top half: if he had been ranked lower by the historians who rated him highly, he would rank higher in our table. Would it be a violation of SYNTH to list the average quartile instead (which would be Q2 for both), so we don't get screwy results like this?
In order for the sorting order of the rightmost column to be sensible, I proposed listing the average rank in the polls instead of most-frequent or average quartile. (There's a table of what that would look like on the talk page.) It was objected that averaging poll results violates SYNTH, and I suspect those of you here probably agree. I'm not arguing for it here, but I'm not clear on how a count of most-frequent poll results would not violate SYNTH if an average of them does -- both are simple ways to report aggregated information. Another possibility would be to use the averages for 2ary sorting, with the {{ hs}} tag, which wouldn't be visible to the reader. That way we wouldn't tell them that e.g. Grant is on average ranked 33rd out of 44, but when the table was sorted by that column, the resulting order would reflect how the presidents have been evaluated.
(BTW, I don't know or care much about Grant in particular; I initially chose him as an example on the talk page because I was taken aback when the table sorted him in 44th position, well below presidents that are generally evaluated as worse.)
— kwami ( talk) 07:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
[moved from SYNTH — kwami ( talk)]
PS. User there, User:Sleyece, has repeatedly deleted the POV tag I've added to the section. I'd also announced a couple weeks ago that I would be adding 2-3 UK polls to the table, to balance what had been all-US polls. I've finally tracked down the 3rd, from the Times, by subscribing so I could access their archives. He had no problem with the first two, but now that we're arguing about the summary column, he's deleted the 3rd without providing any reason. There seems to be an WP:OWN problem here. — kwami ( talk) 13:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Kwamikagami WP:SYNTH, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:3RR. User is NOT here to build an Encyclopedia. -- Sleyece ( talk) 17:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The colors! I had specifically removed those colors because I had deemed them excessive, imparting no real information atop of the number ranking, and even if they did in a manner that didn't violate WP:SYNTH and WP:IINFO, we'd need some text-based means of quartiling per WP:COLOR. I was reverted by a Lawrence 979 ( talk · contribs), who disagreed with my judgement of being unnecessary, before SunnySydeRamsay ( talk · contribs) pointed out that WP:COLOR still applied. Even if I'm wrong about the quartiling being superfluous, the column of "Most-frequent quartile" is an obvious SYNTH and WP:NPOV breach.
As a brief aside, I had previously encountered an ANI report about another user who coincidentally started with K, concerning WP:COLOR violations in lists created by them in a series that is now facing batch deletion per IINFO and SYNTH. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Since the unanimous opinion here is that the last column is a violation of SYNTH, no matter how we aggregate the data, I've deleted it. The table is now a simple list of poll results. — kwami ( talk) 01:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Alanscottwalker, S Marshall, The Four Deuces, Firefangledfeathers, Pburka, LaundryPizza03, and SunnySydeRamsay: I think this has probably been enough time. Can one of you close this discussion? User Sleyece restored the column, claiming that the removal of aggregated data is a violation of SYNTH! With claims like that, I can't tell if he's editing in good faith. Anyway, if you close this discussion with a finding that the column is a violation of SYNTH, I'll remove the column again and enforce through ANI if need be. If you close with a finding that it's not a violation of SYNTH, then I'll leave it be, and perhaps Sleyece and I can come to an agreement to limit the scope of that column to this century. — kwami ( talk) 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Let's see if we can find a consensus. Please briefly explain your position below. pburka ( talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Removing the table is also a severe violation of WP:SYNTH, but do whatever you want. I've done my part. This NoR will lead to policy changes in the long run. Removing the table is basically just short term whining and denial of the paradox presented. -- Sleyece ( talk) 20:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This NoR has been "resolved" by using tunnel vision to resolve SYNTH by committing SYNTH. The square peg that was forced into this round hole will likely fall faster than Kabul. -- Sleyece ( talk) 23:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Recommend that unaligned/neutral editors review the Michael Collins (Irish leader) article. Large sections are undersourced or unsourced entirely (see [2], [3], [4], et alia. 2603:7000:1301:281D:2C7B:E55:975E:2648 ( talk) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Article Novogrudok includes dubious statements: Novogrudok never was capital of Lithuania and no reliable sources support statements that Mindaugas was crowned in Novogrudok.
Sentence (this: "Some researchers identified Novogrudok as the first capital of Lithuania...") in this article includes references to non-online English books, thus it is not possible to verify if they really support such dubious statements which are not supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Because of that, it is certain that these non-online sources were added on purpose to defend WP:OR. The claim that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania is supported mostly by Belarusian tourism websites (definitely fails as WP:V, WP:RS in an encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia) and by some questionable late sources (which obviously can be false and does not automatically qualify as truth, especially Belarusian sources which often includes original research and the opposite theories about the Lithuanian history, thus are not recognized internationally and this is one of these extreme cases). We even do not know the exact location of the Lithuanian King Mindaugas capital city ( Voruta is the only mention and it has many, many possible locations; some theories even suggests that he had no capital at all), so attempts to prove that somebody exactly knew where Mindaugas was crowned while writing the late sources is even more ridiculous and is an obvious case of WP:OR (late authors were simply guessing and that is not an encyclopedia-level material), so pushing of a 19th century illustration Mindoŭh. Міндоўг (1824).jpg into this article, which depicts the crowning of Mindaugas, is a yet another obvious case of WP:OR (recently persistently performed by users such as Russian-Belarusian Лобачев Владимир and Belarusian named Johnny Moor). Consequently, I request to completely and permanently remove all the dubious, non-verifiable claims from this article because articles of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) are not an internet forum where we could discuss pseudoscience theories. User Sabbatino was also involved in combating this WP:OR, but the Belarusian-side kept on pushing their opinion, so a third-party intervention is a must.
These articles of Encyclopedia Britannica (the most reliable encyclopedia) do not mention such pseudo theories and I can't see why Wikipedia should include them as it also seeks equally high-level reliability standards: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/place/grand-duchy-of-Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mindaugas. But the first Britannica's article does mention other recognized capitals of Lithuania: Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius. The Lithuanians treats the case of Novogrudok as a pure myth (English language article, published by Vilnius University): https://ldkistorija.lt/stories/myths/the-myth-of-navahrudak/. -- Pofka ( talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: As expected, this discussion will be fruitless with the Belarusian nationalists who stubbornly push baseless WP:OR. I request third-party administrators to take actions against spreading of WP:OR at the article Novogrudok about it being the capital of Lithuania at any period and apply sanctions to users if they continue it. I will not continue replying to Johnny Moor because it is truly pointless, as noted by Sabbatino. Neutral users: ping me if necessary. -- Pofka ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: As it should be proved, this Lithuanian participant is an ardent Lithuanian nationalist who defends and promotes nationalist Lithuanian politics, calling versions different from Lithuanian scientists absurd, hiding behind the rules on orginal research, WP:OR, only on the grounds that he refuses to take into account alterative opinions and points of view. The participant disrespectfully treats other participants of Wikipedia, at the same time he started this conversation, he was hinted at several times in the process, including Sabbatino, that it is useless to argue with him because he refuses to take into account any other position at all. He, on the other hand, does not seem to see it at all and again blames everything on others as if he did not notice it on purpose. Plus, he exposes incomprehensible theories and tries to prove his point of view, which just falls under the original research, WP:OR, which he himself is happy to accuse other participants of. I, in turn, ask the administrators of Wikipedia to stop this absurdity, because Wikipedia, thanks to Lithuanian nationalists, becomes a platform for promoting only their national interests, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Johnny Moor ( talk) 12:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
He then proceeded to conquer his homeland in the 1240s, rather than the other way around: that is, Mindaugas attacked Lithuania from Navahrudak, rather than attacking Navahrudak from Lithuania (Andrew Wilson. Belarus. 2 Litva)
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
support from the people of Navahrudak, Mindaugas conquered Lithuania – the enclave of the Baltic population on the Belarusian lands – and subjugated it to himself, ie to the land of Navahrudak. ( The Discourse on Identity in a Global Consumption–Based Society: Between Myth and Reality)
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The need to resist the pressure of Tatars and German crusaders forced the people of Belarus to consolidate around the rapidly expanding principality with the capital of Navahrudak (Novogrudok) ruled by a Lithuanian prince Mindaugas. By the middle of the 14th century, all the territory of modern Belarus was attached to The Great Principality of Lithuania, Russia and Zhamoytiya (GPL). By the 15th century, the territory of the GPL expanded from Brest to Smolensk and from Baltic to the Black Sea. The origin of the Belarusian language, the Belarusian culture and the Belarusian nation itself should be looked for in the GPL where 90% of the population were Slavonic and the state language was old Belarusian. The current borders of Belarus in the East, the South and the West almost coincide with that of the GPL in 16th century. ( THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH, 1994)
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I've checked 3 English-language sources (which are presumably freer from local biases) from the article and one of them explicitly names Novogrudok "the capital of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy" rebuilt by Mindaugas. Geddie says that Gediminas, a century after Mindaugas, had a residence in Novogrudok but says that Vilna was the capital. Philips does not mention either Novogrudok or Vilna on p. 78. So the sources in the article don't fully support the statement.
I see that additional sources have been provided here, so I would suggest to incorporate them into the article and remove the ones which don't discuss the topic. Also, I think that the concept of capital might be anachronistic for the lands rules by Mindaugas, so maybe it's worth avoiding it in favour of more concrete facts: where he was crowned, where he had his residences, etc. Alaexis ¿question? 06:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Russian sources obviously fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources in a Lithuania-related topic due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation. Provide non-Belarusian, non-Russian reliable source. Encyclopedia Britannica do not support this WP:OR. This English source certainly is not a reliable source and is absolutely not comparable with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Novogrudok never was capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is a WP:OR of some Russians and Belarusians, not supported by other reliable sources. The only mentioning of Mindaugas's castle (unknown if it was capital or not) is Voruta. Not surprisingly, location of his crowning is also unknown, thus various modern WP:OR should not be presented. Following the conquest of Novogrudok by Mindaugas, the city was ruled by his son Vaišvilkas( Lithuanian reference about this). -- Pofka ( talk) 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Ru: Государство Миндовга не имело постоянной столицы, правитель со своей дружиной перемещался по дворам и замкам, утверждал свою власть и собирал дань. Историки гипотетически реконструировали домен Миндовга, который располагался в Восточной Литве. Миндовг рано утвердился на землях Чёрной Руси (центр – г. Новогрудок); в Полоцке правил племянник Миндовга князь Товтивил, признававший его власть, что положило начало литовской экспансии на русские земли.
Translation: The state of Mindaugas did not have a permanent capital, the ruler with his retinue moved around the courtyards and castles, asserted his power and collected tribute. Historians hypothetically reconstructed the Mindaugas domain, which was located in Eastern Lithuania. Mindaugas early established itself on the lands of Black Russia (center - Novogrudok); in Polotsk the nephew of Mindaugas ruled, Prince Tovtivil, who recognized his power, which marked the beginning of the Lithuanian expansion to the Russian lands.
Hypothetically speaking, if I had reliable sources which claimed, for example:
<source 1> " 'Sex' refers to biological characteristics"
<source 2> " 'Sex' refers to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions"
<source 3> "Sex is typically assigned based on a person's reproductive system and other physical characteristics"
Would it be acceptable to summarize thusly: " 'sex' refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy"<source 1><source 2><source 3>
Or is this "SYNTH"? Tewdar ( talk) 14:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Or even...
<1> " 'Sex' refers to the biological aspects of an individual"
<2> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as chromosomes"
<3> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as hormones"
<4> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as an individual's reproductive system"
And so summarize as: " 'sex' refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy"<1><2><3><4> Tewdar ( talk) 16:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay seriously Tewdar I feel like you truly don’t understand the issue at hand. Here’s the thing about the definition of sex, it really depends on the context and who you ask.
Like if you asked a physiologist they might tell you a woman is a person who identifies as one. If you asked a biologist they might tell you a woman is a homo-sapien that can produce ovum. If you asked sociologist they might tell you it’s a person who has a feminine gender role.
The reason this is the case is because one,the topic of sex and gender is currently a controversial issue. Amd two, all these individuals have different expertise on the topic. CycoMa ( talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
" "Sex" refers to the biological apparatus, the male and the female - our chromosomal, chemical, anatomical organization. "Gender" refers to the meanings that are attached to those differences within a culture. "Sex" is male and female; "gender" is masculinity and femininity - what it means to be a man or a woman."Tewdar ( talk) 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"Sex.The term sex is ordinarily used in a biological context to refer to the anatomical and physiological differences between the female and male and the implication of those differences in procreation. Human sexual behavior is elaborated and modified in a great variety of ways,including those related to learning cultural standards and norms...Gender.The term gender is also used to distinguish the female and male members of the human species but with the emphasis upon social rather than upon biological factors. Implicit is the recognition that what constitutes “women” and “men” may be as much a product of socialization as of biology. Beyond the truly biological level,most of the differences of consequence between women and men are referred to as gender differences."Tewdar ( talk) 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"In this context, sex is used to refer to differences in biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy, while gender refers to the significance of those differences within a particular culture."Tewdar ( talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I said that, in response to TFD, who said, "Since chromosones for example do not determine sex in all species, it is an accidental characteristic and not part of the definition."Tewdar ( talk) 18:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Gender isn't exclusively about humans, nouns have genders, just that in English it is usually neutral.
It's more accurate to say that is how we determine sex rather than the definition. As MedicalNewsToday says, "“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition." [5] That has always been true, what has changed is that empirical research has allowed us to discover more of the differences. Your 1921 source for example says, "Now as a matter of fact only one thing has been settled irrevocably, and that is that one individual will have the chromosome composition characteristic of a male and another individual that of a female." It then says, "A male is usually an individual that produces spermatazoa and a female one that produces ova." These are not definitions but observations. It does not say what sex to assign someone who has the chromosome composition of a male and produces ova.
Of course one could define a male as a human that has XY chromosomes and females as having XX chromosomes. But then all other attributes associated with sex become accidental. You cannot combine a source that uses this definition with one that says sex can be determnined by hormones, because they are using different definitions.
You said this was a hypothetical question then narrowed it to humans and biological science. That seems to be moving the goalposts.
TFD ( talk) 01:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay but anyway the original poster stated that this should be marked off as resolved. So I don’t think there is any reason to continue this conversation. CycoMa ( talk) 01:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Just saying. I just noticed that this mainspace list would usually deserve a {{ third-party}} tag. Except that it perhaps doesn't because we trust our own data. We specifically use Meta and Commons pages as source for statements in the lead. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't see most of the sources, the couple that I can don't directly back the text. This looks more like an essay making an argument not directly made by the sources. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hitler: The Rise of Evil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor persists in restoring a "Historical inaccuracies" section" (removed as policy violating five years ago) that is longer than the rest of the article combined without a single source actually criticising the historical inaccuracy of the show, instead relying on John Toland's biography of Hitler published in 1976, a mere 27 years before the show was on TV. Or a primary source document from 1933. That's on the rare occasions there are any sources cited at all. 215 not out ( talk) 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
There's currently an editor who goes by the name of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz tagging a massive amount of sources in the article European emigration, here's a diff where the effect of his edits can be appreciated [6]. As can be seen in the article's edit history [7], other editors ( Chule87 and John beta) [8] [9] and me [10] have reverted him as we think his behavior and reasonings may be questionable but the editor reverts [11] and carries on. I've engaged him in the sources related to Mexico, as are the sources I have expertise on and I've found his arguments to be rather than those of an editor trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy, to be those of an editor incurring overreaching and incurring on WP:HEAR (and this may be the case for most of the other sources he is tagging). For example, he tags (and considers original research) a source that states that "nearly half of the surveyed Mexican population is White" under the argument that the source "does not state what the total population of Mexico was at the time" and that "it was conducted only in adults" disregarding that censuses and surveys are in the big majority of cases conducted only in adults [12]. I bring the case here as the editor himself suggested it in the article's talk page [13] so clearly additional input is going to be needed here. Pob3qu3 ( talk) 23:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
That was not the case here though, the issue was that MSB tried to invalidate sources with arguments such as "the source not stating what the total population of the country was"; "source uses percentages, not numbers so writing it on Wikipedia as a number is OR"; and "only people over 18 were surveyed" (Mike's reply is insightful, but MSB would invalidate it as the data about children doesn't come from asking children directly but from asking parents or would find any other reason to do so, in fact, the US census source was tagged too [21]) which by the looks of it we agree are an overreach. Pob3qu3 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Seraphimblade. So my question here is, what do you think about writing in a numerical table that there are 204,300,000 people of European descent in the United States using this source [23], would it (and the concept of flat converting percentages to numbers in Wikipedia) be Synth or OR?. Pob3qu3 ( talk) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Pob3qu3: Please review WP:CALC which is a Wikipedia policy page. It says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Census and survey results are statistics. You must not compare or combine them. pburka ( talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The place name in the article about Ballywalter Wind Farm is incorrect. Title of article uses Ballywalter, article uses Ballywater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Green ( talk • contribs)
The article Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, seems to be a list of individual incidents. Although backed up by some reliable sources, the whole article seems to be an original research with primary sources and not an encyclopedic article in nature. The talk page indicates editors with strong opinions of a biases nature engaged in heated debate. Therefore it is best that an unaffiliated editor, do a clean up of the article. Cossde ( talk) 05:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I am hereby asking for advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 estimated US population centroid (center) calculation. My contention is that, since the source of my estimation is a conceptually simple calculation involving only the basic arithmetic functions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, it should be allowed under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculations" "Basic Arithmetic" clause, thereby exempting it from Wikipedia's "Original Research" prohibition. Only six basic calculations per state are needed to generate the centroid estimate.
I believe that my annual estimated and projected centroid cacluations have added significant value to this Wikipedia page over the last decade. These calculations have offered a unique real-time summary of the changing settlement patterns in the United States over the years, and have gained acceptance from various researchers. The veracity of my method was first confirmed by comparison of my 2010 predicted centroid to the US Census Bureau's official centroid calculation in 2010. I believe it will almost certainly be re-confirmed once the Bureau releases its centroid calculation for 2020 in coming weeks.
With this message I hope to elicit advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 US population centroid calculated estimate, as well as subsequent annual calculated estimates and projections.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter! Alex.zakrewsky ( talk) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, the "unique" nature of my centroid calculation is primarily because of its frequency. I'm able to produce estimates and projections on an annual basis upon release of the US Census Bureau's state population estimates. In contrast, the Bureau calculates the US population centroid only on a decennial periodicity. So the value of my estimates and projections are at their greatest and most interesting between censuses, and less so on the run-up to official Bureau releases. It is those calculations that I wish to see published in Wikipedia in coming years for the benefit of interested parties. Alex.zakrewsky ( talk) 15:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I never claimed that any entity other than the US Census Bureau determines the population centroid. You are correct that the US Census Bureau is working with an enormously larger and more detailed data set and a different method to reach their determination. My much simpler method was never meant to be anything but an approximation for intercensal years and an approximated projection for the next census year, thus giving a preview of changing settlement patterns in the United States. Judging from past performance, I expect my 2020 estimate to be about a mile or two from the Census Bureau's determination, a "close-enough" approximation for understanding settlement trends on the scale of the US. My calculation was meant to be a service to those curious as to where and when the centroid was heading next, and nothing more. An overly strict interpretation of what falls under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculation" exclusion of prohibited "Original Research" policy deprives Wikipedia readers their satisfaction of knowing about where the centroid goes next. Alex.zakrewsky ( talk) 18:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts on Nelson Diversity Surveys? The article is poorly sourced and it looks like there's COI editing involved, and I wonder if the majority of the article is actually based on insider knowledge? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Additional input is requested at Talk:Welsh_Not#Request_for_comment_on_including_a_computer-generated_image as to whether the image in question is OR. Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I've been in long discussions with Nishidani over what I feel is a total misrepresentation of a HRW article in the Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions page's lead and we've been unable to come to an agreement. Here's the most relevant text in the article, vs his current text:
In the most recent talk section regarding our disagreement, Nishidani lists out 13 different things [27] said in the article and claims that proves his point.
To me, this is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH. The 13 point list was created because there's no clear or explicit link between two distinct things. Making guesses based on "context" is not the same as a source explicitly stating something:
He has disputed that he's engaged in OR and says he's just "paraphrasing". If this was just a technicality I wouldn't argue strongly against it, but I personally think his interpretation severely distorts HRW's view.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 19:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
OR has nothing to do with being fair. Don't move the goalposts. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)(Edit:this was a response to the sentence above beginning "It seems like we've expanded the scope of this discussion from WP:SYNTH to what's "fair"?] Selfstudier ( talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about deleting the article Abadir dynasty that may benefit from the attention of editors at this noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 10:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Montell 74 has been here since 2009, and has since then made more than 80,000 edits to the mainspace. It seems though that many, way too many of these are WP:OR. I have tried to discuss this with the editor at their user talk page ( User talk:Montell 74#All-time best 25), but to no avail. Can some people please take a look and try to get them to change their approach (or tell me I'm wrong, and why, of course). The result of their edits [28] is that we have e.g. a section on the "All-time top 25: Men short course" which lists the 14th best ever, and the 16th best ever, but not the 15th best ever: no source is given that actually places Johannes Skagius as the 16th best ever, it is what Montell 74 believes tobe the 16th best ever, based on, well, no idea on what: a lot of hard work and record collecting, but no actual reliable sources. This is not a one-off incident: at World record progression 50 metres butterfly, we get an equally strange list for the mens short course all time best, with unexplained gaps and positions. Which of course makes me wonder whether the long course list, which hasn't any gaps, is really correct. Perhaps it is, who knows? The short course list certainly isn't, as it now lists #3 Dressel 22.04, and #4 Cieslak 22.08, even though Oleg Kostin holds the Russian record with 22.07. Then there is one spot free between the 2.08 of Cieslak and the 22.18 of Leveaux, even though Florent Manaudou has 22.09, and Vladimir Morozov has 22.17. Is then at least the top 3 correct? No, e.g. Szebasztián Szabó has twice swum a 21.86. So this whole list is clearly incorrect WP:OR.
Their article creations (which caused them to attract my attention) aren't really any better: recent ones include the completely unsourced Masters W55 4 × 400 metres relay world record progression (which at least seems to be correct though), or the similarly unsourced Masters W60 hammer throw world record progression: both entries were world records, but any evidence that the recent one actually broke the 20 year old record and nothing happened inbetween?
Any help to get this editor to change their approach to editing and sourcing is appreciated. Fram ( talk) 09:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the above subject, which seems to be synthesis of published materials, possible violation of OR, by
Oluwatalisman. Link provided here.[
[29]].
A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link [
[30]]
Ppdallo (
talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up Here -
Oluwatalisman (
talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Additional input requested on above subject concerning a map which seems to violate OR. The map was by Oramfe and Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here.[ [31]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[ [32]] and goes under the heading "Re:RfC on Degree of Presence of The Yoruba and 'Yoruba derived' groups in Nigeria, Benin & Togo at Sub-national levels/Yorubas of Northern Benin sections of talk page". Thank you Ppdallo ( talk) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up Here - Oluwatalisman ( talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This page begins with a list of tables with no refs. Then it goes into a whole bunch of subsections about the universities and then almost every university listed there's a note that the university's official count is lower than the article's count. Each university's table has a notes section where there is an explanation of why a particular university's affiliate is excluded from the list. This list seems to be heavy on WP:SYNTH if not outright Wikipedia:No original research. Strangely, the article also links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. OCNative ( talk) 03:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm returning here to try to raise attention to this page because it was so badly damaged by original research that it was nominated for deletion by RandomCanadian as noted above, deleted, and then restored via deletion review. Regardless, it still has serious WP:SYNTH/ WP:NOR that need to be resolved. OCNative ( talk) 01:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on this particular page (which I haven't even looked at) but I want to comment on the argument that some reliable source must have used this criterion for making a list. All our articles are constructed by putting together information from multiple sources. Provided all the information is supported by reliable sources, simply listing it is not an OR/SYNTH problem. Remember that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. We only break OR/SYNTH if we draw our own conclusions from the combined information that no reliable source draws (making allowance for WP:CALC). In some cases there may be an OR issue in deciding whether a particular item belongs on the list, but that is no different from any decision whether to include something in an article. Zero talk 03:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". VR talk 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting this discussion because I have grave concerns there are considerable policy violations in these articles. These articles purportedly list all the players in the history of competitive tennis who were "number one on the world ranking" every year. The problem is though that no official world rankings existed prior to 1973 for men and 1975 for women, yet the articles list numbers one on the world ranking for decades before that. My biggest concern is that these "number one on the world ranking" players, and especially the purported consensi that they are as mainly claimed in the men's article, are being assessed by wikipedia editors through synthesizing the sources. That's why I came here to request assistance from outside editors. T v x1 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
What is the policy on wikipedia when it comes to maps that are non-cited.
From my understanding, maps are acceptable when they have a source. This can include an interpretation of a textual description, which would not be original research. It could also be an original conversion or "translation" from a historical map or a map that has citations from a book, to a more legible digital form. This is particularly useful when the image being conveyed is more focused on general labels.
But in all those cases, you still need some sort of source or citation. But some maps have none. Now perhaps they are based off of data. But without the data being cited, how can we know?
And the way maps are depicted, particularly of historical areas, can be very misleading. Particularly when it comes to borders (which is why I appreciate when older maps of cultures have a blur effect on the edge rather than a solid line). This can further bias the difference between areas when one is depicted in their article as having a blurry border, while a comparable group in another article is depicted with a solid border, even though, during that era, borders were effectively just as malleable.
As two examples of maps I'm having issues with: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Egypt_and_Mesopotamia_c._1450_BC.png This map has no citations. On one page, it has a description, but it does not say whether or not the map is based off that description nor where that description came from, and that information is not located on the page for the image itself.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Drink_map_HRoe_2008.jpg That image has multiple issues, notably the writing within the image, but the primary issue I have with it is the lack of any source. Theres no way to know where the information from this image came from. And there is a LOT of elements within that image.
The problem is... if these maps are acceptable without citations, it can gravely distort what is being conveyed from what is actually known.
If they are not acceptable... well then wikipedia has an endemic issue with citations from my quick look at some of the other maps. As I said before, plenty of maps are fine, but tons would be unacceptable.
And, if they are not acceptable, I'm a little lost at how I should make such known. I could post about it on one of the pages that uses said image... but the issue is with the image itself and it's data. At the same time, I respect that its possible an image DOES have citations that were omitted, and it would be reasonable to give the author the ability to add that data. In the mean-time, would the image stay up? Or be taken down until sources are provided? And... how would I go about doing that when it comes to the image itself, not just the articles its used in?
Thanks!
Comment /info/en/?search=Talk:Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres for arguments about maps:) Selfstudier ( talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Should I message the author first? And then if there is no response? Or perhaps there is another method? -- GalacticKiss ( talk) 22:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
For a few months now there has been a debate between myself and users Dabaqabad and Jacob300 over a few pages on whether the the Darwiish State was a Dhulbahante sultanate; I attempted a talk page discussion at 1 and somewhere else I don't recall. As such, I need a 3rd opinion on whether the following quote from the Dervish proclamation of independence letter to James Hayes Sadler indicates that Dervishes on 3rd May 1899 defined themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate ( viewable source):
This letter is sent by all the Dervishes, the Amir, and all the Dolbahanta to the Ruler of Berbera ... We are a Government, we have a Sultan, an Amir, and Chiefs, and subjects.
The above is quoted by Mohamed Osman Omar from the UK National Archives record.
Possibly relevant quote from 4th May 1899 reply letter by James Hayes Sadler to a 3rd party
|
---|
“In his last letter the Mullah pretends to speak in the name of the Dervishes, their Amir (himself), and the Dolbahanta tribes. This letter shows his object is to establish himself as the Ruler of the Dolbahanta, and it has a Mahdist look" |
So is my reading correct that the Dervishes described themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate in the 3 May 1899 letter? Heesxiisolehh ( talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The article currently claims human variation is distributed
clinally and discordantly, citing variation in two traits to support this. This source looks at overall variation and finds "Overall about 16.2% of the variation in the genetic distances (FST) could be attributed to pre-historical divergence alone, whereas only 5.2% of the variation in genetic distances could be attributed to IBD. In other words, spatial patterns in genetic distances are much better explained by differences between groups of populations than by similarity among adjacent local populations within these groups."
[35] I suggested including this source on the talk page
[36] but was told it cannot be used since the source does not use the word race. However it is directly relevant to the section on clines.
Alan B. Samuels (
talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I've struck Alan B. Samuels' comments above now that they've been confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
page was deleted
|
---|
I came across this disambiguation page ( Minor-attracted person) some time ago but forgot about it. Recently it has started attracting attention and it occurred to me that there is no sourcing for this term existing in common use. It also occurs to me that it's not a true disamb, but rather seems to be a term unto itself, and perhaps may have been created with some sort of agenda. Given the highly sensitive and problematic nature of the terms and content it's associated with, I wanted to bring this to the attention of this noticeboard first before I took any further action or engaged any dicussion. I may be completely missing some prior discussion or bit of policy, but I don't really see the point of this page existing. Legitimus ( talk) 02:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
|
The text below, in the notes of the 2021–22 World Rugby Women's Sevens Series#Standings is not supported by the source for the associated table: ( World Rugby). It seems to be OR, has no other source provided and IMO should be removed:
England, a core team for the last four series events, were given half of the points accumulated by Great Britain in Dubai I and Dubai II. The points given for the latter event were rounded up giving England a whole total (8 points rather than 7.5 points).
I opened discussion on the talk page which has reached a limited consensus (with only two participants) that adding a 0.5 points for a rugby game based on non verifiable research is obviously not Ok
.
To avoid edit warring, I feel this needs more experienced input. Please help to rectify this. -- Ham105 ( talk) 02:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed what I considered analysis by an editor of a text by the subject of an article as OR, but was reverted by Asilvering. I would appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Was it original research that should be removed or not? Thanks, Vexations ( talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Can I get a 2nd opinion about the citation style in these articles? My gut instinct is that long citations citing so many cases is a red flag for
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTHESIS. Too much
WP:PRIMARY, not enough
WP:SECONDARY. This appears to go against the guidance at
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts. The folks at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Citations with a lot of cases appear to agree with me. I guess I would like even more opinions to help confirm that I am correct in my interpretation of our policies, and I would also like help cleaning up these articles. The author of these articles reverted me even on small things like fixing this POV lead sentence: Deportation of Americans from the United States violates the
United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws.
so I am not hopeful that they will assist with the cleanup. Finally, I am concerned that the title
Illegal removal of people from the United States is inherently
WP:POV and I am considering
WP:AFDing it. Thank you. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 12:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. So when you write that
deprivation of rights under color of law... is a crime that entails capital punishment, it's factually incorrect. JBchrch talk 00:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Cases (opinions handed down by courts) [United States and state appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and WA State Supreme Court]are primary. If Highline College is not good enough for you, here's Stanford, Yale, NYU and Harvard all saying the same thing. JBchrch talk 14:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture[52]. In fact, it seems like pretty settled law that the scope of article 3 CAT is "limited to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". [1] Yet another factual error. JBchrch talk 13:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
References
|quote=
parameter at all, I would suggest you stop using that as 1) it makes citation sections too big and 2) it is a red flag that the citation is too complicated to support what is in the article. Second, you need to switch the sources you're using from cases (primary) to secondary sources. You'll notice that in these FAs, there are many citations to books, a couple to newspapers, a couple to law reviews, and a couple to cases. That is probably the ideal balance in this topic area. Your style of citing all cases probably works great for an attorney in a courtroom, whose job it is to make persuasive arguments using any available precedent they can find, but this does not work great for the job of an encyclopedist, whose job it is to concisely summarize mainstream views and scholarship and obtain the correct
WP:WEIGHT. The skillset of an encyclopedist is not identical to the skillset of a great lawyer or legal scholar, please listen to skilled encyclopedists who are trying to teach you their skillset. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 13:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Libracarol. By my count, including the WikiProject Law talk page thread, we are at 9 editors stating that court cases (including Supreme Court cases) are primary sources, and 2 editors against (including you). At this point I think we have a very strong consensus that you are incorrect about this. Most of these editors also agree that you are engaging in original research, and some have raised WP:NPOV concerns as well. Are you willing to make a statement that you understand that this is the wrong way to write Wiki articles, and also commit to cleaning up your existing articles? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The ANI is over and ended in a topic ban. So I guess all that is left to do is clean up. What approach should we take to cleaning up these articles? At a minimum, probably need to put {{ primary}} tags on all of them. We could also do other things if we judge it to be necessary, such as replacing the large citations with {{ citation needed}}, TNT, draftify, AFD, etc. By the way, the list above is not exhaustive, I have found other articles in the user's history that have the same issues that are not included in the original list. How shall we proceed? Can a law editor spot check one of the articles and let us know how bad the OR is and what their recommended course of action is? Maybe spot check one of their creations and also one of their overhauls (overhauls are likely to not be as bad. example: [54]). @ WilliamJE and Alyo:. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
List of right-wing terrorist attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This very lengthy list has very few inline references. My concern is that a lot of the items in this list are not "terrorist attacks" - they are just racist or other hate crimes. Not all hate crimes are terror attacks. For example, the Murder of Mireille Knoll, the Murder of James Craig Anderson, and the Death of Sean Kennedy were all horrific hate crimes. But nothing about them suggests that they were terrorist attacks. For that matter, I don't see anything in any of these articles that ascribes any particular political views to the assailants, so I'm not sure how these are "right-wing" occurrences either. (They are most certainly "hate crimes". But just being a "hate crime" does not make something "right-wing terrorism".) I think this list needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and anything that doesn't have a reliable source calling it "right-wing terrorism" or perhaps "neo-nazi terrorism" should be stricken from the list. I'm also not entirely convinced that some of the 1960s things belong on here - for example, Medgar Evers was literally murdered by a Democrat and the Democratic governor of Mississippi appeared in support of him (the murderer) at his trial. So I'm really having trouble with this list - it looks like someone cobbled together a list of every hate crime and declared them to be "right-wing terrorist" attacks, with no reliable source for that designation on any of them. -- B ( talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Originally the government types on Wikipedia in the infoboxes came from the [www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ U.S. CIA World Factbook - here] which under "Government" tab listed what each government's type is.
Someone came along and created all new government types, it seems to get away from that convention and has been creating new ones such as for Barbados on Wikipedia they were calling it a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since republic this has become a "unitary state parliamentary republic" To which I stated it needs a reference. Nothing in the government has announced that change to which the unitary state page was pointed to without any firm sources but goes on to call many other states "unitary".
At the time the U.S. CIA World factbook called Barbados a : "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy; a Commonwealth realm".
Guyana [55] is called a : "parliamentary republic" Trinidad and Tobago [56] is called a : "parliamentary republic"
This unitary state page seems to use a single page to say what a "unitary state" is [57] but that site doesn't define every country and only lists a handful. So where are the rest getting their confirmation from in order to not be original research? If this is going to be used as a reference for all of wikipedia shouldn't it have profiles for each country with a designation that they attribute to each country to be conclusive? CaribDigita ( talk) 01:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
At Talk:Julian_Assange#Mini-stroke there is a discussion about inclusion of whether to include that his fiancee Stella Moris said Assange suffered a mini-stroke on the 27th October on the first day of a hearing into his extradition. One objection is that putting it in would amount to synth, "... Moreover, juxtaposition of a statement about Assange's health with unrelated content about his court appearance would constitute SYNTH and could mislead our readers". It seems a bit much to me to remove the information because it happened during the hearing. Is synth really saying that or should it really be put in a seprate paragraph and no mention made of the hearing or what? NadVolum ( talk) 16:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
What is the notional synthesis? If this implication drawn from a combination of sources exists, we should at least know what this notional synthesis is. It's certainly not apparent from a reading of the proposed article text. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
his supporters" (you give no indication how you know who they are) have "
insinuated" is of no relevance or consequence to this discussion, except inasmuch as your belief may go some way to explain the exceptionally poor judgement you exercise as to what content policies are relevant to this issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
that strong a connection. There is no connection whatsoever implied in the proposed text. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Rosemarie Koczy is an American Artist known for her her many works dealing with the Holocaust, who she claimed to be an survivor of. These claims and her Autobiography was examined by German historian in 2017, who came to the conclusion that her biography was forged and neither Koczy nor her parents were subject to persecution by the Nazis. The Historians have since published a broschure in German (which follows scientific standards e.g. presenting sources in footnotes) were they present their research. Both the New York Times and Deutsche Welle wrote articles about their research (there are more articles in german). Both Articles present the forgery-claims not as facts, both also dont contest the conclusions of the historians.
The Wikipedia Article about Rosemarie Koczy currently dismisses the claims of forgery as unproven and false. One of the editors of the articel Yashchi argues, that he read the broschure and didn`t found it convincing. He presents multiple counterarguments on the Talk Page against some of the conclusions of the broschure, which I in turn don´t find convincing, but which also (under my understanding) constitute Original Research. He wrote an Email to the authors of the New York Times and Deutsche Welle Article about the forgery claims which contain the same arguments he presents in the Talk page and presents these as a source for the Wikipedia-Article itself. These Mails, which are provided in form of an Affidavit, and the arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page are (aside from a statement by Rosemarie Koczys husband) the only rebuttal of the forgery claims made by the German Historians. I tried multiple times to propose paragraphs that show the conflict from a Neutral Point of View and show both sides of the controversy. Yashchi currently blocks any changes that try to present the forgery claims from a Neutral Point of View with reference to his counterarguments on the talk page and demands that
"if anybody has issues with the facts or arguments that I used, please present them on this Talk page"
He also demands that the authors of the broschure have to defend their conclusions and debate his arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page.
When I removed the claims that are only sourced by his affidavits (containing his E-Mails) and formulated a paragraph that presented the claims by the german historians not as "disproven" but only rejected by her husband, he accused me of "Libel" and claimed that removing his affidavits was "illegal". (you can read my proposed formulation here) I dont want to discuss the forgery claims or Mr. Yaschi rebuttal in depth, because from my understanding this would constitute Original Research but I exchange all my arguments with Mr. Yashchi and could use an outside perspective (maybe I`m in the wrong?). Qwerwino ( talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
"creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia"(quoting WP:SPA).
In relation to your comment on libel, the Wikipedia policy also protects "recently deceased" people, so there is nothing metaphorical about my characterization of a false forgery claim against her as libel. Note that this claim appeared within 10 years of her death. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that libel is also defined by the law of the land and not only by the Wikipedia policy. In relation to your suggested compromise, I consider removing Affidavit-2 which exonerates an unjustly accused person as an intentional libelous act - so, it is morally unacceptable (by agreeing to that, I would also be breaking the law).
In relation to you question on proposed continuation, you can contact people in Wikipedia dealing with libel. I can see a clear push to smear the name of this prominent artist, and this might be the right time to get them involved in the process.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hi. I'm arguing on the talk page of Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Scholar survey summary about how to treat the overall-summary column at the end of the summary table in that section. It's at least partially a SYNTH problem.
The table is a list of how various polls of historians over time have ranked the presidents. The last column is "most-frequent quartile". This is the "most-frequent" among the polls we've chosen to include in the table, not in any absolute sense, which itself might be a SYNTH issue.
There are two issues we've been arguing over: sorting and how to sum up the overall results.
The first problem (IMO) is that the table is sortable, and sorting by the rightmost column produces misleading results. For example, it typically places George W Bush 2nd from bottom; one time I sorted, it placed Grant dead last. Yes, I understand that this is because the 2ary sorting is whatever the previous sort was (by default, the historical order of presidents); the question is what to do about it. I don't see how the results are encyclopedic, and they are potentially misleading. The obvious solution (for me at least) would be to disable sorting in that column. However, I've been reverted twice, both times with the claim that not making the column sortable is a violation of SYNTH.
My problem is that the sort order is inherently evaluative. If we sorted cities by country, then there would be no expectation that the resulting order of the cities within each country would be meaningful. There's no evaluation or judgement implied in their order. However, because the poll table ranks presidents according to how historians rate them, and all the other columns with quartile coloring sort according to how they've been rated by historians, and because the quartile colors are intended to make those evaluations immediately visible, with 'best' on top and 'worst' on bottom (or vice versa), it seems to me that it is seriously misleading for the sort order to be jumbled within that overall evaluation, in a way that cities sorted randomly within countries would not be.
The other question is how to decide which quartile (and quartile color) each president should be assigned for their overall ranking in the rightmost column. That is, which presidents should be colored blue, green, yellow and orange, and labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the last column.
The argument (if I understand it correctly) is that, to avoid SYNTH issues, the overall ranking and quartile color must reflect the modal quartile among the polls of each president. But that can produce some bizarre results. Suppose we have two presidents and nine polls. One is ranked Q3 in 4 polls and Q2 in 5. We label him a Q2 president and color him green. The other is ranked higher: he's Q3 in the same 4 polls as the first, but the other 5 polls are Q2 in 3 and Q1 in 2. We'd label him a Q3 president and color him yellow -- a lower ranking overall despite him having higher rankings in the polls. If we instead sorted by the most frequent half (whether he's rated by historians as above or below average), he'd still be in the top half: if he had been ranked lower by the historians who rated him highly, he would rank higher in our table. Would it be a violation of SYNTH to list the average quartile instead (which would be Q2 for both), so we don't get screwy results like this?
In order for the sorting order of the rightmost column to be sensible, I proposed listing the average rank in the polls instead of most-frequent or average quartile. (There's a table of what that would look like on the talk page.) It was objected that averaging poll results violates SYNTH, and I suspect those of you here probably agree. I'm not arguing for it here, but I'm not clear on how a count of most-frequent poll results would not violate SYNTH if an average of them does -- both are simple ways to report aggregated information. Another possibility would be to use the averages for 2ary sorting, with the {{ hs}} tag, which wouldn't be visible to the reader. That way we wouldn't tell them that e.g. Grant is on average ranked 33rd out of 44, but when the table was sorted by that column, the resulting order would reflect how the presidents have been evaluated.
(BTW, I don't know or care much about Grant in particular; I initially chose him as an example on the talk page because I was taken aback when the table sorted him in 44th position, well below presidents that are generally evaluated as worse.)
— kwami ( talk) 07:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
[moved from SYNTH — kwami ( talk)]
PS. User there, User:Sleyece, has repeatedly deleted the POV tag I've added to the section. I'd also announced a couple weeks ago that I would be adding 2-3 UK polls to the table, to balance what had been all-US polls. I've finally tracked down the 3rd, from the Times, by subscribing so I could access their archives. He had no problem with the first two, but now that we're arguing about the summary column, he's deleted the 3rd without providing any reason. There seems to be an WP:OWN problem here. — kwami ( talk) 13:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Kwamikagami WP:SYNTH, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:3RR. User is NOT here to build an Encyclopedia. -- Sleyece ( talk) 17:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The colors! I had specifically removed those colors because I had deemed them excessive, imparting no real information atop of the number ranking, and even if they did in a manner that didn't violate WP:SYNTH and WP:IINFO, we'd need some text-based means of quartiling per WP:COLOR. I was reverted by a Lawrence 979 ( talk · contribs), who disagreed with my judgement of being unnecessary, before SunnySydeRamsay ( talk · contribs) pointed out that WP:COLOR still applied. Even if I'm wrong about the quartiling being superfluous, the column of "Most-frequent quartile" is an obvious SYNTH and WP:NPOV breach.
As a brief aside, I had previously encountered an ANI report about another user who coincidentally started with K, concerning WP:COLOR violations in lists created by them in a series that is now facing batch deletion per IINFO and SYNTH. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Since the unanimous opinion here is that the last column is a violation of SYNTH, no matter how we aggregate the data, I've deleted it. The table is now a simple list of poll results. — kwami ( talk) 01:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Alanscottwalker, S Marshall, The Four Deuces, Firefangledfeathers, Pburka, LaundryPizza03, and SunnySydeRamsay: I think this has probably been enough time. Can one of you close this discussion? User Sleyece restored the column, claiming that the removal of aggregated data is a violation of SYNTH! With claims like that, I can't tell if he's editing in good faith. Anyway, if you close this discussion with a finding that the column is a violation of SYNTH, I'll remove the column again and enforce through ANI if need be. If you close with a finding that it's not a violation of SYNTH, then I'll leave it be, and perhaps Sleyece and I can come to an agreement to limit the scope of that column to this century. — kwami ( talk) 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Let's see if we can find a consensus. Please briefly explain your position below. pburka ( talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Removing the table is also a severe violation of WP:SYNTH, but do whatever you want. I've done my part. This NoR will lead to policy changes in the long run. Removing the table is basically just short term whining and denial of the paradox presented. -- Sleyece ( talk) 20:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This NoR has been "resolved" by using tunnel vision to resolve SYNTH by committing SYNTH. The square peg that was forced into this round hole will likely fall faster than Kabul. -- Sleyece ( talk) 23:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Recommend that unaligned/neutral editors review the Michael Collins (Irish leader) article. Large sections are undersourced or unsourced entirely (see [2], [3], [4], et alia. 2603:7000:1301:281D:2C7B:E55:975E:2648 ( talk) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Article Novogrudok includes dubious statements: Novogrudok never was capital of Lithuania and no reliable sources support statements that Mindaugas was crowned in Novogrudok.
Sentence (this: "Some researchers identified Novogrudok as the first capital of Lithuania...") in this article includes references to non-online English books, thus it is not possible to verify if they really support such dubious statements which are not supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Because of that, it is certain that these non-online sources were added on purpose to defend WP:OR. The claim that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania is supported mostly by Belarusian tourism websites (definitely fails as WP:V, WP:RS in an encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia) and by some questionable late sources (which obviously can be false and does not automatically qualify as truth, especially Belarusian sources which often includes original research and the opposite theories about the Lithuanian history, thus are not recognized internationally and this is one of these extreme cases). We even do not know the exact location of the Lithuanian King Mindaugas capital city ( Voruta is the only mention and it has many, many possible locations; some theories even suggests that he had no capital at all), so attempts to prove that somebody exactly knew where Mindaugas was crowned while writing the late sources is even more ridiculous and is an obvious case of WP:OR (late authors were simply guessing and that is not an encyclopedia-level material), so pushing of a 19th century illustration Mindoŭh. Міндоўг (1824).jpg into this article, which depicts the crowning of Mindaugas, is a yet another obvious case of WP:OR (recently persistently performed by users such as Russian-Belarusian Лобачев Владимир and Belarusian named Johnny Moor). Consequently, I request to completely and permanently remove all the dubious, non-verifiable claims from this article because articles of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) are not an internet forum where we could discuss pseudoscience theories. User Sabbatino was also involved in combating this WP:OR, but the Belarusian-side kept on pushing their opinion, so a third-party intervention is a must.
These articles of Encyclopedia Britannica (the most reliable encyclopedia) do not mention such pseudo theories and I can't see why Wikipedia should include them as it also seeks equally high-level reliability standards: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/place/grand-duchy-of-Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mindaugas. But the first Britannica's article does mention other recognized capitals of Lithuania: Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius. The Lithuanians treats the case of Novogrudok as a pure myth (English language article, published by Vilnius University): https://ldkistorija.lt/stories/myths/the-myth-of-navahrudak/. -- Pofka ( talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: As expected, this discussion will be fruitless with the Belarusian nationalists who stubbornly push baseless WP:OR. I request third-party administrators to take actions against spreading of WP:OR at the article Novogrudok about it being the capital of Lithuania at any period and apply sanctions to users if they continue it. I will not continue replying to Johnny Moor because it is truly pointless, as noted by Sabbatino. Neutral users: ping me if necessary. -- Pofka ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: As it should be proved, this Lithuanian participant is an ardent Lithuanian nationalist who defends and promotes nationalist Lithuanian politics, calling versions different from Lithuanian scientists absurd, hiding behind the rules on orginal research, WP:OR, only on the grounds that he refuses to take into account alterative opinions and points of view. The participant disrespectfully treats other participants of Wikipedia, at the same time he started this conversation, he was hinted at several times in the process, including Sabbatino, that it is useless to argue with him because he refuses to take into account any other position at all. He, on the other hand, does not seem to see it at all and again blames everything on others as if he did not notice it on purpose. Plus, he exposes incomprehensible theories and tries to prove his point of view, which just falls under the original research, WP:OR, which he himself is happy to accuse other participants of. I, in turn, ask the administrators of Wikipedia to stop this absurdity, because Wikipedia, thanks to Lithuanian nationalists, becomes a platform for promoting only their national interests, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Johnny Moor ( talk) 12:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
He then proceeded to conquer his homeland in the 1240s, rather than the other way around: that is, Mindaugas attacked Lithuania from Navahrudak, rather than attacking Navahrudak from Lithuania (Andrew Wilson. Belarus. 2 Litva)
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
support from the people of Navahrudak, Mindaugas conquered Lithuania – the enclave of the Baltic population on the Belarusian lands – and subjugated it to himself, ie to the land of Navahrudak. ( The Discourse on Identity in a Global Consumption–Based Society: Between Myth and Reality)
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The need to resist the pressure of Tatars and German crusaders forced the people of Belarus to consolidate around the rapidly expanding principality with the capital of Navahrudak (Novogrudok) ruled by a Lithuanian prince Mindaugas. By the middle of the 14th century, all the territory of modern Belarus was attached to The Great Principality of Lithuania, Russia and Zhamoytiya (GPL). By the 15th century, the territory of the GPL expanded from Brest to Smolensk and from Baltic to the Black Sea. The origin of the Belarusian language, the Belarusian culture and the Belarusian nation itself should be looked for in the GPL where 90% of the population were Slavonic and the state language was old Belarusian. The current borders of Belarus in the East, the South and the West almost coincide with that of the GPL in 16th century. ( THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH, 1994)
-- Лобачев Владимир ( talk) 16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I've checked 3 English-language sources (which are presumably freer from local biases) from the article and one of them explicitly names Novogrudok "the capital of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy" rebuilt by Mindaugas. Geddie says that Gediminas, a century after Mindaugas, had a residence in Novogrudok but says that Vilna was the capital. Philips does not mention either Novogrudok or Vilna on p. 78. So the sources in the article don't fully support the statement.
I see that additional sources have been provided here, so I would suggest to incorporate them into the article and remove the ones which don't discuss the topic. Also, I think that the concept of capital might be anachronistic for the lands rules by Mindaugas, so maybe it's worth avoiding it in favour of more concrete facts: where he was crowned, where he had his residences, etc. Alaexis ¿question? 06:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Russian sources obviously fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources in a Lithuania-related topic due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation. Provide non-Belarusian, non-Russian reliable source. Encyclopedia Britannica do not support this WP:OR. This English source certainly is not a reliable source and is absolutely not comparable with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Novogrudok never was capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is a WP:OR of some Russians and Belarusians, not supported by other reliable sources. The only mentioning of Mindaugas's castle (unknown if it was capital or not) is Voruta. Not surprisingly, location of his crowning is also unknown, thus various modern WP:OR should not be presented. Following the conquest of Novogrudok by Mindaugas, the city was ruled by his son Vaišvilkas( Lithuanian reference about this). -- Pofka ( talk) 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Ru: Государство Миндовга не имело постоянной столицы, правитель со своей дружиной перемещался по дворам и замкам, утверждал свою власть и собирал дань. Историки гипотетически реконструировали домен Миндовга, который располагался в Восточной Литве. Миндовг рано утвердился на землях Чёрной Руси (центр – г. Новогрудок); в Полоцке правил племянник Миндовга князь Товтивил, признававший его власть, что положило начало литовской экспансии на русские земли.
Translation: The state of Mindaugas did not have a permanent capital, the ruler with his retinue moved around the courtyards and castles, asserted his power and collected tribute. Historians hypothetically reconstructed the Mindaugas domain, which was located in Eastern Lithuania. Mindaugas early established itself on the lands of Black Russia (center - Novogrudok); in Polotsk the nephew of Mindaugas ruled, Prince Tovtivil, who recognized his power, which marked the beginning of the Lithuanian expansion to the Russian lands.
Hypothetically speaking, if I had reliable sources which claimed, for example:
<source 1> " 'Sex' refers to biological characteristics"
<source 2> " 'Sex' refers to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions"
<source 3> "Sex is typically assigned based on a person's reproductive system and other physical characteristics"
Would it be acceptable to summarize thusly: " 'sex' refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy"<source 1><source 2><source 3>
Or is this "SYNTH"? Tewdar ( talk) 14:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Or even...
<1> " 'Sex' refers to the biological aspects of an individual"
<2> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as chromosomes"
<3> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as hormones"
<4> " 'Sex' refers to biological attributes, such as an individual's reproductive system"
And so summarize as: " 'sex' refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy"<1><2><3><4> Tewdar ( talk) 16:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay seriously Tewdar I feel like you truly don’t understand the issue at hand. Here’s the thing about the definition of sex, it really depends on the context and who you ask.
Like if you asked a physiologist they might tell you a woman is a person who identifies as one. If you asked a biologist they might tell you a woman is a homo-sapien that can produce ovum. If you asked sociologist they might tell you it’s a person who has a feminine gender role.
The reason this is the case is because one,the topic of sex and gender is currently a controversial issue. Amd two, all these individuals have different expertise on the topic. CycoMa ( talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
" "Sex" refers to the biological apparatus, the male and the female - our chromosomal, chemical, anatomical organization. "Gender" refers to the meanings that are attached to those differences within a culture. "Sex" is male and female; "gender" is masculinity and femininity - what it means to be a man or a woman."Tewdar ( talk) 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"Sex.The term sex is ordinarily used in a biological context to refer to the anatomical and physiological differences between the female and male and the implication of those differences in procreation. Human sexual behavior is elaborated and modified in a great variety of ways,including those related to learning cultural standards and norms...Gender.The term gender is also used to distinguish the female and male members of the human species but with the emphasis upon social rather than upon biological factors. Implicit is the recognition that what constitutes “women” and “men” may be as much a product of socialization as of biology. Beyond the truly biological level,most of the differences of consequence between women and men are referred to as gender differences."Tewdar ( talk) 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"In this context, sex is used to refer to differences in biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy, while gender refers to the significance of those differences within a particular culture."Tewdar ( talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I said that, in response to TFD, who said, "Since chromosones for example do not determine sex in all species, it is an accidental characteristic and not part of the definition."Tewdar ( talk) 18:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Gender isn't exclusively about humans, nouns have genders, just that in English it is usually neutral.
It's more accurate to say that is how we determine sex rather than the definition. As MedicalNewsToday says, "“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition." [5] That has always been true, what has changed is that empirical research has allowed us to discover more of the differences. Your 1921 source for example says, "Now as a matter of fact only one thing has been settled irrevocably, and that is that one individual will have the chromosome composition characteristic of a male and another individual that of a female." It then says, "A male is usually an individual that produces spermatazoa and a female one that produces ova." These are not definitions but observations. It does not say what sex to assign someone who has the chromosome composition of a male and produces ova.
Of course one could define a male as a human that has XY chromosomes and females as having XX chromosomes. But then all other attributes associated with sex become accidental. You cannot combine a source that uses this definition with one that says sex can be determnined by hormones, because they are using different definitions.
You said this was a hypothetical question then narrowed it to humans and biological science. That seems to be moving the goalposts.
TFD ( talk) 01:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay but anyway the original poster stated that this should be marked off as resolved. So I don’t think there is any reason to continue this conversation. CycoMa ( talk) 01:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Just saying. I just noticed that this mainspace list would usually deserve a {{ third-party}} tag. Except that it perhaps doesn't because we trust our own data. We specifically use Meta and Commons pages as source for statements in the lead. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't see most of the sources, the couple that I can don't directly back the text. This looks more like an essay making an argument not directly made by the sources. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hitler: The Rise of Evil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor persists in restoring a "Historical inaccuracies" section" (removed as policy violating five years ago) that is longer than the rest of the article combined without a single source actually criticising the historical inaccuracy of the show, instead relying on John Toland's biography of Hitler published in 1976, a mere 27 years before the show was on TV. Or a primary source document from 1933. That's on the rare occasions there are any sources cited at all. 215 not out ( talk) 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
There's currently an editor who goes by the name of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz tagging a massive amount of sources in the article European emigration, here's a diff where the effect of his edits can be appreciated [6]. As can be seen in the article's edit history [7], other editors ( Chule87 and John beta) [8] [9] and me [10] have reverted him as we think his behavior and reasonings may be questionable but the editor reverts [11] and carries on. I've engaged him in the sources related to Mexico, as are the sources I have expertise on and I've found his arguments to be rather than those of an editor trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy, to be those of an editor incurring overreaching and incurring on WP:HEAR (and this may be the case for most of the other sources he is tagging). For example, he tags (and considers original research) a source that states that "nearly half of the surveyed Mexican population is White" under the argument that the source "does not state what the total population of Mexico was at the time" and that "it was conducted only in adults" disregarding that censuses and surveys are in the big majority of cases conducted only in adults [12]. I bring the case here as the editor himself suggested it in the article's talk page [13] so clearly additional input is going to be needed here. Pob3qu3 ( talk) 23:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
That was not the case here though, the issue was that MSB tried to invalidate sources with arguments such as "the source not stating what the total population of the country was"; "source uses percentages, not numbers so writing it on Wikipedia as a number is OR"; and "only people over 18 were surveyed" (Mike's reply is insightful, but MSB would invalidate it as the data about children doesn't come from asking children directly but from asking parents or would find any other reason to do so, in fact, the US census source was tagged too [21]) which by the looks of it we agree are an overreach. Pob3qu3 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Seraphimblade. So my question here is, what do you think about writing in a numerical table that there are 204,300,000 people of European descent in the United States using this source [23], would it (and the concept of flat converting percentages to numbers in Wikipedia) be Synth or OR?. Pob3qu3 ( talk) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Pob3qu3: Please review WP:CALC which is a Wikipedia policy page. It says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Census and survey results are statistics. You must not compare or combine them. pburka ( talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The place name in the article about Ballywalter Wind Farm is incorrect. Title of article uses Ballywalter, article uses Ballywater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Green ( talk • contribs)
The article Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, seems to be a list of individual incidents. Although backed up by some reliable sources, the whole article seems to be an original research with primary sources and not an encyclopedic article in nature. The talk page indicates editors with strong opinions of a biases nature engaged in heated debate. Therefore it is best that an unaffiliated editor, do a clean up of the article. Cossde ( talk) 05:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I am hereby asking for advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 estimated US population centroid (center) calculation. My contention is that, since the source of my estimation is a conceptually simple calculation involving only the basic arithmetic functions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, it should be allowed under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculations" "Basic Arithmetic" clause, thereby exempting it from Wikipedia's "Original Research" prohibition. Only six basic calculations per state are needed to generate the centroid estimate.
I believe that my annual estimated and projected centroid cacluations have added significant value to this Wikipedia page over the last decade. These calculations have offered a unique real-time summary of the changing settlement patterns in the United States over the years, and have gained acceptance from various researchers. The veracity of my method was first confirmed by comparison of my 2010 predicted centroid to the US Census Bureau's official centroid calculation in 2010. I believe it will almost certainly be re-confirmed once the Bureau releases its centroid calculation for 2020 in coming weeks.
With this message I hope to elicit advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 US population centroid calculated estimate, as well as subsequent annual calculated estimates and projections.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter! Alex.zakrewsky ( talk) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, the "unique" nature of my centroid calculation is primarily because of its frequency. I'm able to produce estimates and projections on an annual basis upon release of the US Census Bureau's state population estimates. In contrast, the Bureau calculates the US population centroid only on a decennial periodicity. So the value of my estimates and projections are at their greatest and most interesting between censuses, and less so on the run-up to official Bureau releases. It is those calculations that I wish to see published in Wikipedia in coming years for the benefit of interested parties. Alex.zakrewsky ( talk) 15:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I never claimed that any entity other than the US Census Bureau determines the population centroid. You are correct that the US Census Bureau is working with an enormously larger and more detailed data set and a different method to reach their determination. My much simpler method was never meant to be anything but an approximation for intercensal years and an approximated projection for the next census year, thus giving a preview of changing settlement patterns in the United States. Judging from past performance, I expect my 2020 estimate to be about a mile or two from the Census Bureau's determination, a "close-enough" approximation for understanding settlement trends on the scale of the US. My calculation was meant to be a service to those curious as to where and when the centroid was heading next, and nothing more. An overly strict interpretation of what falls under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculation" exclusion of prohibited "Original Research" policy deprives Wikipedia readers their satisfaction of knowing about where the centroid goes next. Alex.zakrewsky ( talk) 18:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts on Nelson Diversity Surveys? The article is poorly sourced and it looks like there's COI editing involved, and I wonder if the majority of the article is actually based on insider knowledge? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Additional input is requested at Talk:Welsh_Not#Request_for_comment_on_including_a_computer-generated_image as to whether the image in question is OR. Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I've been in long discussions with Nishidani over what I feel is a total misrepresentation of a HRW article in the Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions page's lead and we've been unable to come to an agreement. Here's the most relevant text in the article, vs his current text:
In the most recent talk section regarding our disagreement, Nishidani lists out 13 different things [27] said in the article and claims that proves his point.
To me, this is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH. The 13 point list was created because there's no clear or explicit link between two distinct things. Making guesses based on "context" is not the same as a source explicitly stating something:
He has disputed that he's engaged in OR and says he's just "paraphrasing". If this was just a technicality I wouldn't argue strongly against it, but I personally think his interpretation severely distorts HRW's view.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 19:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
OR has nothing to do with being fair. Don't move the goalposts. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)(Edit:this was a response to the sentence above beginning "It seems like we've expanded the scope of this discussion from WP:SYNTH to what's "fair"?] Selfstudier ( talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about deleting the article Abadir dynasty that may benefit from the attention of editors at this noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 10:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Montell 74 has been here since 2009, and has since then made more than 80,000 edits to the mainspace. It seems though that many, way too many of these are WP:OR. I have tried to discuss this with the editor at their user talk page ( User talk:Montell 74#All-time best 25), but to no avail. Can some people please take a look and try to get them to change their approach (or tell me I'm wrong, and why, of course). The result of their edits [28] is that we have e.g. a section on the "All-time top 25: Men short course" which lists the 14th best ever, and the 16th best ever, but not the 15th best ever: no source is given that actually places Johannes Skagius as the 16th best ever, it is what Montell 74 believes tobe the 16th best ever, based on, well, no idea on what: a lot of hard work and record collecting, but no actual reliable sources. This is not a one-off incident: at World record progression 50 metres butterfly, we get an equally strange list for the mens short course all time best, with unexplained gaps and positions. Which of course makes me wonder whether the long course list, which hasn't any gaps, is really correct. Perhaps it is, who knows? The short course list certainly isn't, as it now lists #3 Dressel 22.04, and #4 Cieslak 22.08, even though Oleg Kostin holds the Russian record with 22.07. Then there is one spot free between the 2.08 of Cieslak and the 22.18 of Leveaux, even though Florent Manaudou has 22.09, and Vladimir Morozov has 22.17. Is then at least the top 3 correct? No, e.g. Szebasztián Szabó has twice swum a 21.86. So this whole list is clearly incorrect WP:OR.
Their article creations (which caused them to attract my attention) aren't really any better: recent ones include the completely unsourced Masters W55 4 × 400 metres relay world record progression (which at least seems to be correct though), or the similarly unsourced Masters W60 hammer throw world record progression: both entries were world records, but any evidence that the recent one actually broke the 20 year old record and nothing happened inbetween?
Any help to get this editor to change their approach to editing and sourcing is appreciated. Fram ( talk) 09:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the above subject, which seems to be synthesis of published materials, possible violation of OR, by
Oluwatalisman. Link provided here.[
[29]].
A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link [
[30]]
Ppdallo (
talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up Here -
Oluwatalisman (
talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Additional input requested on above subject concerning a map which seems to violate OR. The map was by Oramfe and Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here.[ [31]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[ [32]] and goes under the heading "Re:RfC on Degree of Presence of The Yoruba and 'Yoruba derived' groups in Nigeria, Benin & Togo at Sub-national levels/Yorubas of Northern Benin sections of talk page". Thank you Ppdallo ( talk) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up Here - Oluwatalisman ( talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This page begins with a list of tables with no refs. Then it goes into a whole bunch of subsections about the universities and then almost every university listed there's a note that the university's official count is lower than the article's count. Each university's table has a notes section where there is an explanation of why a particular university's affiliate is excluded from the list. This list seems to be heavy on WP:SYNTH if not outright Wikipedia:No original research. Strangely, the article also links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. OCNative ( talk) 03:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm returning here to try to raise attention to this page because it was so badly damaged by original research that it was nominated for deletion by RandomCanadian as noted above, deleted, and then restored via deletion review. Regardless, it still has serious WP:SYNTH/ WP:NOR that need to be resolved. OCNative ( talk) 01:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on this particular page (which I haven't even looked at) but I want to comment on the argument that some reliable source must have used this criterion for making a list. All our articles are constructed by putting together information from multiple sources. Provided all the information is supported by reliable sources, simply listing it is not an OR/SYNTH problem. Remember that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. We only break OR/SYNTH if we draw our own conclusions from the combined information that no reliable source draws (making allowance for WP:CALC). In some cases there may be an OR issue in deciding whether a particular item belongs on the list, but that is no different from any decision whether to include something in an article. Zero talk 03:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". VR talk 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting this discussion because I have grave concerns there are considerable policy violations in these articles. These articles purportedly list all the players in the history of competitive tennis who were "number one on the world ranking" every year. The problem is though that no official world rankings existed prior to 1973 for men and 1975 for women, yet the articles list numbers one on the world ranking for decades before that. My biggest concern is that these "number one on the world ranking" players, and especially the purported consensi that they are as mainly claimed in the men's article, are being assessed by wikipedia editors through synthesizing the sources. That's why I came here to request assistance from outside editors. T v x1 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
What is the policy on wikipedia when it comes to maps that are non-cited.
From my understanding, maps are acceptable when they have a source. This can include an interpretation of a textual description, which would not be original research. It could also be an original conversion or "translation" from a historical map or a map that has citations from a book, to a more legible digital form. This is particularly useful when the image being conveyed is more focused on general labels.
But in all those cases, you still need some sort of source or citation. But some maps have none. Now perhaps they are based off of data. But without the data being cited, how can we know?
And the way maps are depicted, particularly of historical areas, can be very misleading. Particularly when it comes to borders (which is why I appreciate when older maps of cultures have a blur effect on the edge rather than a solid line). This can further bias the difference between areas when one is depicted in their article as having a blurry border, while a comparable group in another article is depicted with a solid border, even though, during that era, borders were effectively just as malleable.
As two examples of maps I'm having issues with: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Egypt_and_Mesopotamia_c._1450_BC.png This map has no citations. On one page, it has a description, but it does not say whether or not the map is based off that description nor where that description came from, and that information is not located on the page for the image itself.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Drink_map_HRoe_2008.jpg That image has multiple issues, notably the writing within the image, but the primary issue I have with it is the lack of any source. Theres no way to know where the information from this image came from. And there is a LOT of elements within that image.
The problem is... if these maps are acceptable without citations, it can gravely distort what is being conveyed from what is actually known.
If they are not acceptable... well then wikipedia has an endemic issue with citations from my quick look at some of the other maps. As I said before, plenty of maps are fine, but tons would be unacceptable.
And, if they are not acceptable, I'm a little lost at how I should make such known. I could post about it on one of the pages that uses said image... but the issue is with the image itself and it's data. At the same time, I respect that its possible an image DOES have citations that were omitted, and it would be reasonable to give the author the ability to add that data. In the mean-time, would the image stay up? Or be taken down until sources are provided? And... how would I go about doing that when it comes to the image itself, not just the articles its used in?
Thanks!
Comment /info/en/?search=Talk:Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres for arguments about maps:) Selfstudier ( talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Should I message the author first? And then if there is no response? Or perhaps there is another method? -- GalacticKiss ( talk) 22:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
For a few months now there has been a debate between myself and users Dabaqabad and Jacob300 over a few pages on whether the the Darwiish State was a Dhulbahante sultanate; I attempted a talk page discussion at 1 and somewhere else I don't recall. As such, I need a 3rd opinion on whether the following quote from the Dervish proclamation of independence letter to James Hayes Sadler indicates that Dervishes on 3rd May 1899 defined themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate ( viewable source):
This letter is sent by all the Dervishes, the Amir, and all the Dolbahanta to the Ruler of Berbera ... We are a Government, we have a Sultan, an Amir, and Chiefs, and subjects.
The above is quoted by Mohamed Osman Omar from the UK National Archives record.
Possibly relevant quote from 4th May 1899 reply letter by James Hayes Sadler to a 3rd party
|
---|
“In his last letter the Mullah pretends to speak in the name of the Dervishes, their Amir (himself), and the Dolbahanta tribes. This letter shows his object is to establish himself as the Ruler of the Dolbahanta, and it has a Mahdist look" |
So is my reading correct that the Dervishes described themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate in the 3 May 1899 letter? Heesxiisolehh ( talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The article currently claims human variation is distributed
clinally and discordantly, citing variation in two traits to support this. This source looks at overall variation and finds "Overall about 16.2% of the variation in the genetic distances (FST) could be attributed to pre-historical divergence alone, whereas only 5.2% of the variation in genetic distances could be attributed to IBD. In other words, spatial patterns in genetic distances are much better explained by differences between groups of populations than by similarity among adjacent local populations within these groups."
[35] I suggested including this source on the talk page
[36] but was told it cannot be used since the source does not use the word race. However it is directly relevant to the section on clines.
Alan B. Samuels (
talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I've struck Alan B. Samuels' comments above now that they've been confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
page was deleted
|
---|
I came across this disambiguation page ( Minor-attracted person) some time ago but forgot about it. Recently it has started attracting attention and it occurred to me that there is no sourcing for this term existing in common use. It also occurs to me that it's not a true disamb, but rather seems to be a term unto itself, and perhaps may have been created with some sort of agenda. Given the highly sensitive and problematic nature of the terms and content it's associated with, I wanted to bring this to the attention of this noticeboard first before I took any further action or engaged any dicussion. I may be completely missing some prior discussion or bit of policy, but I don't really see the point of this page existing. Legitimus ( talk) 02:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
|
The text below, in the notes of the 2021–22 World Rugby Women's Sevens Series#Standings is not supported by the source for the associated table: ( World Rugby). It seems to be OR, has no other source provided and IMO should be removed:
England, a core team for the last four series events, were given half of the points accumulated by Great Britain in Dubai I and Dubai II. The points given for the latter event were rounded up giving England a whole total (8 points rather than 7.5 points).
I opened discussion on the talk page which has reached a limited consensus (with only two participants) that adding a 0.5 points for a rugby game based on non verifiable research is obviously not Ok
.
To avoid edit warring, I feel this needs more experienced input. Please help to rectify this. -- Ham105 ( talk) 02:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed what I considered analysis by an editor of a text by the subject of an article as OR, but was reverted by Asilvering. I would appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Was it original research that should be removed or not? Thanks, Vexations ( talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Can I get a 2nd opinion about the citation style in these articles? My gut instinct is that long citations citing so many cases is a red flag for
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTHESIS. Too much
WP:PRIMARY, not enough
WP:SECONDARY. This appears to go against the guidance at
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts. The folks at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Citations with a lot of cases appear to agree with me. I guess I would like even more opinions to help confirm that I am correct in my interpretation of our policies, and I would also like help cleaning up these articles. The author of these articles reverted me even on small things like fixing this POV lead sentence: Deportation of Americans from the United States violates the
United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws.
so I am not hopeful that they will assist with the cleanup. Finally, I am concerned that the title
Illegal removal of people from the United States is inherently
WP:POV and I am considering
WP:AFDing it. Thank you. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 12:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. So when you write that
deprivation of rights under color of law... is a crime that entails capital punishment, it's factually incorrect. JBchrch talk 00:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Cases (opinions handed down by courts) [United States and state appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and WA State Supreme Court]are primary. If Highline College is not good enough for you, here's Stanford, Yale, NYU and Harvard all saying the same thing. JBchrch talk 14:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture[52]. In fact, it seems like pretty settled law that the scope of article 3 CAT is "limited to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". [1] Yet another factual error. JBchrch talk 13:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
References
|quote=
parameter at all, I would suggest you stop using that as 1) it makes citation sections too big and 2) it is a red flag that the citation is too complicated to support what is in the article. Second, you need to switch the sources you're using from cases (primary) to secondary sources. You'll notice that in these FAs, there are many citations to books, a couple to newspapers, a couple to law reviews, and a couple to cases. That is probably the ideal balance in this topic area. Your style of citing all cases probably works great for an attorney in a courtroom, whose job it is to make persuasive arguments using any available precedent they can find, but this does not work great for the job of an encyclopedist, whose job it is to concisely summarize mainstream views and scholarship and obtain the correct
WP:WEIGHT. The skillset of an encyclopedist is not identical to the skillset of a great lawyer or legal scholar, please listen to skilled encyclopedists who are trying to teach you their skillset. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 13:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Libracarol. By my count, including the WikiProject Law talk page thread, we are at 9 editors stating that court cases (including Supreme Court cases) are primary sources, and 2 editors against (including you). At this point I think we have a very strong consensus that you are incorrect about this. Most of these editors also agree that you are engaging in original research, and some have raised WP:NPOV concerns as well. Are you willing to make a statement that you understand that this is the wrong way to write Wiki articles, and also commit to cleaning up your existing articles? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The ANI is over and ended in a topic ban. So I guess all that is left to do is clean up. What approach should we take to cleaning up these articles? At a minimum, probably need to put {{ primary}} tags on all of them. We could also do other things if we judge it to be necessary, such as replacing the large citations with {{ citation needed}}, TNT, draftify, AFD, etc. By the way, the list above is not exhaustive, I have found other articles in the user's history that have the same issues that are not included in the original list. How shall we proceed? Can a law editor spot check one of the articles and let us know how bad the OR is and what their recommended course of action is? Maybe spot check one of their creations and also one of their overhauls (overhauls are likely to not be as bad. example: [54]). @ WilliamJE and Alyo:. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
List of right-wing terrorist attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This very lengthy list has very few inline references. My concern is that a lot of the items in this list are not "terrorist attacks" - they are just racist or other hate crimes. Not all hate crimes are terror attacks. For example, the Murder of Mireille Knoll, the Murder of James Craig Anderson, and the Death of Sean Kennedy were all horrific hate crimes. But nothing about them suggests that they were terrorist attacks. For that matter, I don't see anything in any of these articles that ascribes any particular political views to the assailants, so I'm not sure how these are "right-wing" occurrences either. (They are most certainly "hate crimes". But just being a "hate crime" does not make something "right-wing terrorism".) I think this list needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and anything that doesn't have a reliable source calling it "right-wing terrorism" or perhaps "neo-nazi terrorism" should be stricken from the list. I'm also not entirely convinced that some of the 1960s things belong on here - for example, Medgar Evers was literally murdered by a Democrat and the Democratic governor of Mississippi appeared in support of him (the murderer) at his trial. So I'm really having trouble with this list - it looks like someone cobbled together a list of every hate crime and declared them to be "right-wing terrorist" attacks, with no reliable source for that designation on any of them. -- B ( talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Originally the government types on Wikipedia in the infoboxes came from the [www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ U.S. CIA World Factbook - here] which under "Government" tab listed what each government's type is.
Someone came along and created all new government types, it seems to get away from that convention and has been creating new ones such as for Barbados on Wikipedia they were calling it a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since republic this has become a "unitary state parliamentary republic" To which I stated it needs a reference. Nothing in the government has announced that change to which the unitary state page was pointed to without any firm sources but goes on to call many other states "unitary".
At the time the U.S. CIA World factbook called Barbados a : "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy; a Commonwealth realm".
Guyana [55] is called a : "parliamentary republic" Trinidad and Tobago [56] is called a : "parliamentary republic"
This unitary state page seems to use a single page to say what a "unitary state" is [57] but that site doesn't define every country and only lists a handful. So where are the rest getting their confirmation from in order to not be original research? If this is going to be used as a reference for all of wikipedia shouldn't it have profiles for each country with a designation that they attribute to each country to be conclusive? CaribDigita ( talk) 01:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
At Talk:Julian_Assange#Mini-stroke there is a discussion about inclusion of whether to include that his fiancee Stella Moris said Assange suffered a mini-stroke on the 27th October on the first day of a hearing into his extradition. One objection is that putting it in would amount to synth, "... Moreover, juxtaposition of a statement about Assange's health with unrelated content about his court appearance would constitute SYNTH and could mislead our readers". It seems a bit much to me to remove the information because it happened during the hearing. Is synth really saying that or should it really be put in a seprate paragraph and no mention made of the hearing or what? NadVolum ( talk) 16:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
What is the notional synthesis? If this implication drawn from a combination of sources exists, we should at least know what this notional synthesis is. It's certainly not apparent from a reading of the proposed article text. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
his supporters" (you give no indication how you know who they are) have "
insinuated" is of no relevance or consequence to this discussion, except inasmuch as your belief may go some way to explain the exceptionally poor judgement you exercise as to what content policies are relevant to this issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
that strong a connection. There is no connection whatsoever implied in the proposed text. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Rosemarie Koczy is an American Artist known for her her many works dealing with the Holocaust, who she claimed to be an survivor of. These claims and her Autobiography was examined by German historian in 2017, who came to the conclusion that her biography was forged and neither Koczy nor her parents were subject to persecution by the Nazis. The Historians have since published a broschure in German (which follows scientific standards e.g. presenting sources in footnotes) were they present their research. Both the New York Times and Deutsche Welle wrote articles about their research (there are more articles in german). Both Articles present the forgery-claims not as facts, both also dont contest the conclusions of the historians.
The Wikipedia Article about Rosemarie Koczy currently dismisses the claims of forgery as unproven and false. One of the editors of the articel Yashchi argues, that he read the broschure and didn`t found it convincing. He presents multiple counterarguments on the Talk Page against some of the conclusions of the broschure, which I in turn don´t find convincing, but which also (under my understanding) constitute Original Research. He wrote an Email to the authors of the New York Times and Deutsche Welle Article about the forgery claims which contain the same arguments he presents in the Talk page and presents these as a source for the Wikipedia-Article itself. These Mails, which are provided in form of an Affidavit, and the arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page are (aside from a statement by Rosemarie Koczys husband) the only rebuttal of the forgery claims made by the German Historians. I tried multiple times to propose paragraphs that show the conflict from a Neutral Point of View and show both sides of the controversy. Yashchi currently blocks any changes that try to present the forgery claims from a Neutral Point of View with reference to his counterarguments on the talk page and demands that
"if anybody has issues with the facts or arguments that I used, please present them on this Talk page"
He also demands that the authors of the broschure have to defend their conclusions and debate his arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page.
When I removed the claims that are only sourced by his affidavits (containing his E-Mails) and formulated a paragraph that presented the claims by the german historians not as "disproven" but only rejected by her husband, he accused me of "Libel" and claimed that removing his affidavits was "illegal". (you can read my proposed formulation here) I dont want to discuss the forgery claims or Mr. Yaschi rebuttal in depth, because from my understanding this would constitute Original Research but I exchange all my arguments with Mr. Yashchi and could use an outside perspective (maybe I`m in the wrong?). Qwerwino ( talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
"creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia"(quoting WP:SPA).
In relation to your comment on libel, the Wikipedia policy also protects "recently deceased" people, so there is nothing metaphorical about my characterization of a false forgery claim against her as libel. Note that this claim appeared within 10 years of her death. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that libel is also defined by the law of the land and not only by the Wikipedia policy. In relation to your suggested compromise, I consider removing Affidavit-2 which exonerates an unjustly accused person as an intentional libelous act - so, it is morally unacceptable (by agreeing to that, I would also be breaking the law).
In relation to you question on proposed continuation, you can contact people in Wikipedia dealing with libel. I can see a clear push to smear the name of this prominent artist, and this might be the right time to get them involved in the process.