This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This article has a number of problems. It strikes me as a violation of our policies on WP:OR. The content is not the main issue, though there are significant WP:PROSELINE issues. But the article's existence takes many separate incidents, almost all of which already have independent Wikipedia page, and amalgamates them into one big crisis that doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. This is a type of synthesis/original research.
The article was originally split off from Iran–United States relations due to size, but it has just become a dumping ground for every little thing that happens in the Gulf or between the US and Iran, violating our WP:NOTNEWS policy as well. The article's content is already adequately covered at the many linked articles on specific incidents ( May 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone, 2019 K-1 Air Base attack, Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, July 2021 Gulf of Oman incident, Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and several others). The article's content is also covered at Iran–United States relations, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and several others. This article's existence is redundant. Its content is either better covered elsewhere or too trivial for inclusion at all.
I'm not convinced that this noticeboard is the right place to bring this up, but I couldn't think of a better place; if there is one, please let me know and I'll move it there. Starting an AfD would be the next step, but I wanted to discuss the issue in broader context first before going straight to deletion. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Could editors please have a look at that page, and in particular the recent edits referenced in these talk page threads: here and here. An editor has reinstated some dubious content. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is a pretty severe mess of OR. It seems to have been translated from dewiki in 2016, with very little substantive change since then. It reads like a personal essay with unclear scope/topic, attempting to bring loosely related ideas under the same umbrella. I can't really access most of these sources (some are in German, too), and I'm not sure what should be done here...AFD? Can anything be salvaged. Some eyes would be welcome. Thanks! 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 05:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I have been working on the articles relating to the Sámi Parliament of Norway for about a year, and have struggled to find results for elections from 19899, 1993 and 1997 (which are on the Norwegian Wikipedia but are not complete).
I contacted the Parliament themselves, who are willing to send me physical, undigitised "booklets" from their library which contain them. I have sent back some questions about how they've been published, but how can I ensure that these do not violate the original research policy? JackWilfred ( talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor removed the following statement, saying it wasn't found in the source:
If ingested, lavender oil is poisonous in amounts as small as 5 millilitres (0.18 imp fl oz; 0.17 US fl oz) due to its constituents linalyl acetate and linalool.
It was restored, and so I looked into the source and found the editor who removed it was correct, and reverted the restoration. It's now being contested.
the 5ml statement was in fact not referring to lavender oil. It's mentioned in the second paragraph of
this article, and says "the risk depending on the oil used; the onset of toxicity can be rapid, and small quantities (as little as 5 mL) can cause life-threatening toxicity in children.3"
My bolding. The study cited in that article's paragraph, regarding the 5ml statement in particular, did not study lavender oil. A brief back-and-forth happened, before I brought it to the Talk Page
here.
There is no dispute about lavender oil's toxicity, only the "5ml" statement, which is not referring to lavender oil.
The Talk Page discussion is not going anywhere, so I thought I'd bring it here. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Continuous pitch instruments has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Page:
List of sovereign states (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This article is a list of places that meet the criteria of sovereign state as defined by Wikipedia editors. Predictably, the editors cannot agree on the criteria or which states fit it, other than UN member states. So there are to date 15 pages of archived discussions.
To me, this is clear original research and the article should be deleted. Does anyone have any other views?
TFD ( talk) 15:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. The sourcing requirement for the list is that sources must be available that reach the conclusion that a state legally exists. As such, sources are available in all these cases with the possible exceptions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and that's because of the very recent events surrounding this pair. Kahastok talk 21:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Linking to a discussion page with a quasi-RFC about organization of our lists of color — specifically regarding mass undiscussed changes in 2020 by the user ThunderBrine ( talk · contribs), where they reorganized all the color articles based only on hue in HSL and HSV. There are concerns about WP:OR and WP:RGW in ThunderBrine's changes. A new scheme was proposed where colors are organized into several "Shades of" lists which are sorted by hue, and a number of niche lists such as Olive (color). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be someone's unpublished notes: [2]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I have been trying to add this paragraph on the history of the race and intelligence controversy article:
But I keep being told in the talk page [3] that it is synthesis for inconsistent and, honestly, false, reasons.
They say that I make claims not explicitly in the articles, but I do not, and no one has pointed to a claim I have made that is not in the articles.
They also say that the articles are not about Race and Intelligence, but as far as I can tell that is not part of the criterion to determine whether something is synthesis or not. Moreover, I have provided direct quotes from each of the articles showing there is an explicit discussion of race and intelligence (or ancestry and cognitive ability, which are just synonyms).
I am relatively new to the site, so any help clarifying why exactly this is synthesis with quotes from the policy page as well as a specific example from my contribution would be appreciated. 98.153.62.223 ( talk) 02:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
One way to tell that synthesis is occurring is that the citations are not about the same thing.
Why the uproar? Despite stating that race and ancestry were distinct concepts...Or see this piece by Ewan Birney et al. with an entire section on how
Human population structure is not race:
Some ‘human biodiversity’ proponents concede that traditional notions of race are refuted by genetic data, but argue that the complex patterns of ancestry we do find should in effect be regarded as an updated form of ‘race’. However, for geneticists, other biologists and anthropologists who study this complexity, ‘race’ is simply not a useful or accurate term, given its clear and long-established implication of natural subdivisions. Repurposing it to describe human ancestry and genetic structure in general is misleading and disingenuous. The term ‘population’ is used in many contexts within the modern scientific literature to refer to groups of individuals, but it is not merely a more socially acceptable euphemism for race.(emphasis added) [5]. 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Generalrelative ( talk) 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The IP does not seem to understand WP:NOR and exhibits WP:IDHT when other editors explain it. For example, see [6], where they are arguing that an article that discusses educational attainment but does not mention the word intelligence is still really about intelligence, because intelligence and educational attainment are correlated. NightHeron ( talk) 09:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Given that greater than 70% of GWAS participants are of European descent (Need and Goldstein 2009; Popejoy and Fullerton 2016; N. A. Rosenberg et al. 2010), the implications of this problem of portability are that PGS for EA and IQ are more likely to misidentify the outcomes of individuals of non-European ancestry who were historically and are currently disadvantaged in American classrooms.
it is unclear whether and to what extent findings from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) involving individuals of European ancestry apply to individuals of different ancestral backgrounds given differences in allele frequencies and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure across ancestry groups.
These findings highlight the need for improved treatment of linkage disequilibrium and variant frequencies when applying polygenic scoring to cohorts of non-European ancestry
Furthermore, the score's influence on academic achievement varies depending on school resources. Students with low poly-genic scores from advantaged schools were less likely to drop out of math than were similar students from less advantaged schools
Clearcut case of disruptive reverting, with editor refusing to recognize our core policies: WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. My removal of unverifiable explicit terminology, "Islamic death penalty", which is employed within the context of two sentences (also in at least one other article), is reverted twice 1, 2, with explanation which is irrelevant to the problem. Terminology (construct which in my view sounds almost racialized), employed in very excessive and unnecessary way in the context of those two sentences, if used without validation in RS is, then, blatant WP:NEO based on original research. Parallel to my edits I asked editor in TP ( 1, 2, 3) to offer exact quotation from RS with page number(s), where the specific terminology is utilized, so that I can validate existence of such peculiar construct, however, they failed and only supplied numerous references and more original research as an explanation and justification. They also removed my warning template from their user TP with condescending edit summary, claimed that I am accusing them of edit warring when they did, and refused to revert themselves when asked.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
[7] Doug Weller talk 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Julienor94 has recently rewritten the article about the Celtic god Toutatis to make him a ' Ligurian god'. They base this entirely on their own (mis)interpretation of one ancient text. I provided several modern, reliable, academic sources from experts in Celtic studies and linguistics, who all call Toutatis a Celtic god. There is no academic debate over this. Experts note that his name is linguistically Celtic, and he is named in inscriptions from various parts of Celtic Europe. My version can be seen here.
The editor has been asked by myself and Escape Orbit to show us any modern academic sources that call Toutatis a 'Ligurian god', but they have not done so. The discussion can be found here. ~ Asarlaí 18:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The article on state collapse strikes me as having serious WP:SYNTH/personal essay problems: a lot of cobbled-together news stories from various points/countries, including random or dated commentary/speculation. Has very little in the way of academic sources explaining the idea as a unified concept. It’s at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State collapse, where I think it’s a WP:TNT case. However, if kept, it certainly needs cleanup to remove the synth. More eyes welcome at both the article and the AfD. Neutrality talk 19:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
More eyes on these pages would be appreciated; the latter two are both recently-created stub-forks of the Serbo-Montenegrin article. Cited sources are inconclusive as to whether there is differentiation between these groups, and I was unable to find an obvious answer from additional Scholar searches. Sources cited at Montenegrins in Albania and Serbo-Montenegrins in Albania seem to suggest that these terms have historically been used interchangeably; the record on "Serbs" is less clear. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more eyes on Talk:2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia#Proposed_merge_of_Vaksince_Attack_into_2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia, where we are discussing a proposal to merge some articles about individual battles to broader articles about the conflict. The discussion has uncovered additional similarly small-scoped articles, and raised the possibility that we are dealing with walled gardens of partisan portrayals of various battles on either side of the conflict. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
In the section Talk:Donald_Trump#Airliner_shot_down there is
I can add here that the given source does not even mention Trump.
In response, one editor User:SPECIFICO said it was a misinterpretation of NOR and another User:Zaathras said it was a misapplication of policy, both without explanation. I would like the opinions of editors here. Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the second paragraph in the lead at Homophobia in ethnic minority communities:
Different regions of the world and different nations have unique conceptions of which groups are considered ethnic minorities. In many Western nations where
people of color (POC) are seen as ethnic minorities, homophobia that is not usually associated with the nation's dominant culture may arise as a result of that ethnic community's norms.
This is very vaguely written, so it's hard to tell exactly what it's trying to convey, but my interpretation is that it means that communities of color may be more likely to be homophobic than the white majorities in Western countries, based on the following sections in the main article detailing how non-white people are uniquely homophobic.
My problem with this is that there doesn't appear to be a single citation in the article that supports this extreme overgeneralization. Further compounding the difficulty of verifying the sources is that many of the citations lack page numbers, especially in the Black community section.
While there are individual minority cultures that are often described as uniquely homophobic, consider that I have also posted several examples of sources that contradict this view where it occurs. Those examples can be found at this talk page discussion. These sources suggest that the idea that black people (for example) are uniquely homophobic is inaccurate and basically an unhelpful racial stereotype that is projected on to black Americans by the white majority. So it's a contentious idea -- but none of these sources are currently in the article.
All outstanding claims need outstanding evidence. I'm not seeing anywhere in the main body of that article where a citation says that communities of color in general may be uniquely homophobic in white societies, or that white societies are generally not homophobic. It seems to be an original research synthesis based on the citations pertaining to many different ethnic groups in the US and UK.
In other words, because there are citations for every major minority group in the US and UK detailing instances of homophobia within those groups, however contentious some may be, the author has assumed from this compendium of citations that minorities are just plain homophobic relative to white culture. To me that's a huge violation of WP:OR and SYNTH, and it should be removed in absence of a citation that explicitly says communities of color may be uniquely homophobic in supposedly non-homophobic western societies. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:891:D96:5E15:4083 ( talk) 11:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be OR to add the following to the end of the second paragraph of the section Iran of the Donald Trump article?
References
The item is based on the following excerpt from the given source.
I came here because I reached an impasse in the discussion of this OR issue with User:Cessaune near the end of the section Talk:Donald Trump#REBOOT. Bob K31416 ( talk) 05:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, I was expanding List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States to add some documented fatal attacks that occurred prior to the start of 1970 (where the list began). The entry for a 2021 fatal attack in Louisiana states the following:
Although Louisiana, like Florida, has approximately 1.5 million alligators, this may have been the first fatal alligator attack in the state since 1774 during the Spanish colonial period before statehood.
However, as I dug up the details on this case, despite quite a range of recent news media (possibly inaccurately informed by Wikipedia itself) stating that 1774 was the preceding case, a couple books I found on GoogleBooks (and just a couple of more recent articles) list the same case as occurring in 1734. I'm reasonably sure 1734 is the actual correct date and someone/somewhen/somewhere messed up a number and it became an "established fact." A key reason for my thinking this is the deceased was the blacksmith at Fort St. Jean Baptiste, which per Wikipedia was founded around 1716 and abandoned after 1764. Also (while not definitive), it seems contradictory that a French coronary hearing on the death of a Frenchman at a French fort would occur during Spanish rule (1762-1801).
I don't want to just change the 1774 to 1734 in the passage quoted above, because that would be contradictory to the source its citing. What's the best way to point out the disparity in dates without it making the passage unduly bulky or adding OR? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 08:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
There is now an active RfC on the Male expendability talk page about whether specific ideas should be listed in Wikipedia's voice or attributed. You are welcome to lend your voices to the discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
At Western world on 19 November an established editor supported by administrators, rephrased the introductory paragraphs boldly. A few hours ago, after a few days I have been looking to reason with them at its talk page, an established administrator removed my entire discussion and blocking access to the talk page too. 113.172.88.157 ( talk) 02:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The concept of the Western part of the earth has its roots in the theological, methodological and emphatical division between the Western Catholicity of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy of the Orthodox Church, [4] until the Warsaw pact dissolved in 1991, the roots of which can be traced back to the Frankish Empire. Ideologies of the modern West are rooted in nineteenth century's Age of Revolutions and revolutional fervour, in early twentieth century's radical populism, dictatorships throughout the progressive formation of freely-marketed, liberal national economies. [5] The West is also known for the adoption of gendered identities and antireligious sentiment with the French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment that culminated in the abolishment of the Holy Inquisition leading to separation of church and state, and the establishment of secular states, as first emerged during the Roman empire". [6] [7] Ideal western men become breadwinners while western women become objectified, and different gender roles that emerge following war as a product of varying capabilities in fronting conflict reinforce this ideology with the unique perception of ex combatants. [8] European freemasonry of the Enlightenment then undermined civil and ecclesiastical authority throughout the Western world to replace these "with uncontrolled gratification". [9] [10]
The transition from 1800s Industrialization to 1900s mass production, consumerism and computing revolution is trailed with a fundamental shift from physical to intellectual labor, permitting the 1960s-80s development of revolution in social roles and providing an irreligious but more woman-centered Western world after former male-dominancy. [11] From an Economics perspective, the Western world (North America and Western Europe, countries of the North Atlantic) is at the forefront of Freedom, international economic competition and dynamism, and evolving into a multipolar world through the so-called revolutionary global " New economy" integrative of the Digital, of innovative Emerging and Space technologies regarded by many as comparable to an Industrial revolution of humankind, driving institutions as World Bank founded on the closing of the Age of Discovery of colonial imperialism. [12] Nineteenth century's Anglo-Americans envisioned the Western United States, home to an array of diverse people in present-day, a new independent homeland for a white population fullfilling colonization of the western-most region of the Western world and North America. [13] [14]
Notice of discussion sent to four users involved. 113.172.88.157 ( talk) 10:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
References
The origin of western civilization is usually dated to 700 or 800 AD. In general, researchers consider that it has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America. [...] However, Latin America has followed a quite different development path from Europe and North America. Although it is a scion of European civilization, it also incorporates more elements of indigenous American civilizations compared to those of North America and Europe. It also currently has had a more corporatist and authoritarian culture. Both Europe and North America felt the effects of Reformation and combination of Catholic and Protestant cultures. Historically, Latin America has been only Catholic, although this may be changing. [...] Latin America could be considered, or a sub-set, within Western civilization, or can also be considered a separate civilization, intimately related to the West, but divided as to whether it belongs with it.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Almost all Western European Enlightenment thinkers agreed that political and legal imperatives should regulate society rather than tribal or religious ones (Muñoz Puelles 54–58).
Christianity, however, as taught by Jesus and Paul, and later by Augustine, separated religion from politics: the things that were God's from the things that were Caesar's.
The chief executive of Cisco Systems, John T. Chambers, declared, This is truly the second industrial revolution, and it will change every aspect of people's lives. Madrick, by contrast, largely attributes the late 90's growth to a quite mundane cause: a fall in the price of computer chips. Despite the 1990's boom, Madrick warns us that the nation's problems are far from solved. Income inequality is high, male wages have grown little and have fallen for many, our child poverty is the worst in the developed world and the quality of the public school system is highly unequal. Returning to sustained growth is the only solution. We need, he says, to undertake a broader approach to enhancing this growth -- changing not just policies but fundamental attitudes to government.; "With the end of four centuries of Western dominance, what will the world order be in the 21st century?". The Brookings Institution. 7 January 2019.; "The evolution of the New Economy: The digital economy". Michigan State University. 31 July 2017.; "An Economic Theory of the Growth of the Western World". JSTOR. April 1970.; "Educational Values and Standards". JSTOR. April 1934.; "Is the age of Western economic dynamism over?" (PDF). American Enterprise Institute. 15 May 2017.; "New Book Explores the Dynamics of Socio-economic Development". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. May 2006.; "Colonialism". United Nations University. 22 June 2015.
Anglo-Americans, from Thomas Jefferson at the beginning of the nineteenth century to Joseph Pomeroy Widney at the century's end, envisioned the West as more than an ordinary place. They dreamed of it as home to a rugged, independent, white population.
Just 500 years ago, few had ventured outside their European homeland. ... clearing the way, they settled in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, southern Africa. But now, around the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population.
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 18, 2022 suggested (
help)
Some advice for the OP: I think you may be attempting to deal with too much all at once. Break your objections down into small, bite sized bits. Blueboar ( talk) 13:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
These two bits I challenged. 113.172.88.157 ( talk) 07:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I stopped thinking about Western world and instead look into why it is regarded so controversial in the face of public opinion, and I stumbled just a few hours ago on "Environmental colonialism": the way in which colonial practices are linked as they impact the environment. I had realized the page is written from a North-South perspective, and think the information as written by Rim sim could better fill the North-South divide, now reading about this new subject I believe it is a broader misunderstanding coming from the concept of global warming maybe entrenched with that of nuclear annihilation but with certainty at least confused with Western world. This is one of the few digestible references, please have a look [8]. The basis of ( talk) 07:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC) So to speak Environmental colonialism is really what we are left with of the gone XX century, given that "environment" is in a relationship with conquest of air and space helping the concept of the world working like a house, unlike XIX century and beyond, where it worked like a home, I suppose. The basis of ( talk) 08:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
The primary issue is with the gross descriptivism of warfare, that indeed vastly contributed to the formation of Western domination (as of any other historic domination in the world). Version by Rim sim tells about a long history of ethnical warfare, when in fact the Western world is by all means and reliable sources formed in the economics of colonial warfare, the one against unprepared populations (they had no fire weapons); even following the ethnical warfare of the Christian political division by 1054 East-West schism (which still was by all means about the same above policy of christian colonial warfare), of which mention was unfeasibly removed instead. Note indeed how the earliest reference provided on 19 November by Rim sim is on history of Western warfare.
The Western world did not simply form in warfare as much as it did in christian political imperialism, and such is consolidated academic knowledge on the Western world, not a doubt. Thus please review. The basis of ( talk) 07:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
With last additions by Rim sim today 26 December, I think the scientific standpoint of rooting the causes that contributed to birth of the West is preferred over a more appropriate encyclopedic describing the birth itself. Part of the idea of a supremacy of the scientific white man. The basis of ( talk) 17:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
It's interesting that you don't seem to grasp, Christian Imperialism born in 1054 East-West Schism is the beginning of the Western world, while 500 years later it emerged by the Discovery of America. Instead you suggest it emerged some 500-1000 years earlier (when the Roman empire subjugated the Hellenic? Or when antiquity collapsed? I can't understand) seemingly as in a "reformed" ancient Republic: then I think you confused "popular rule" (dictatorship, contenting present majorities) with "population's rule" (democracy), because ancient republicanism was not about rules instead was about ruling vast areas and unprecedentedly large numbers of people. Both Rome and Athens were centers of vast dominions during antiquity, and that's reason why they made the "republic", "from res-publica, public matters", but neither developed from Monotheism.
To better understand, I think of Western civilization (that for some reason redirects to Western culture): had Classical teachings not been exported during colonialism, would we understand that Western "european classicist" civilization (mimicking ancient ones) began by 1054's Christian Imperialism or by antiquity? The basis of ( talk) 06:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Similarly, I think of the very large historical proportions of humanity as in nowadays "mantle" (or "coat") is equivalent with "clothing" but it doesn't apply the same way that "clothing" is equivalent with "mantle": one defines a general protection from the elements, the other one from cold environment. The proportions of civilizations then are considered beyond simple grasp similarly as those of human history: given there's an understanding of modernity that once was antiquity, it doesn't apply in the same way to understand that antiquity would've been modernity centuries later, indeed definitions of Ancient and Modern history were created only after both had unveiled. The basis of ( talk) 09:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is a listing of names of individuals, just to list a few:
I asked on the talk page for quotes concerning certain individuals and was told, " You will never get quotes for them."
Said editor(user:Giray Altay) has chosen not to provide information proving listed individuals are "Huns". Attempting to make the issue personal, "why do you want to delete those entries so much? "
Clearly a number of the individuals listed are not Huns and can not be proven to be Huns. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
A week ago, I boldly moved Criticism of Apple Inc. to Practices of Apple Inc., and listed my justifications here. Here were my main reasons:
My undiscussed move was motivated by my general opposition to "Criticism of [CORP]"-style articles. That opposition wasn't grounded in POV concerns, but in my belief that most such articles become unreadable dump-alls which few editors are interested in maintaining, which tend to have pervasive dueness and tone issues, and which have a fuzzy scope for inclusion.
User:Flibbertigibbets has argued that the scope of the new "Practices" article is still pretty fuzzy and subjective, since it's hard to know which topics are relevant, therefore posing a fundamental WP:OR issue. That makes sense to me.
Posting it here to hear others' thoughts. DFlhb ( talk) 01:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
"Practices of Apple Inc." is an awkward choice IMO: incredibly broad/vague and, given what's actually covered (e.g. it's not an overview of employee benefits, policies about stock purchases, what kind of paper it uses in its offices, where it holds corporate meetings, what software it uses for time tracking, etc., but, well, criticism of "practices of Apple Inc."). If it were to actually cover "practices" it would be an even bigger "unreadable dump-all which few editors are interested in maintaining" with even bigger "pervasive dueness and tone issues" considering how much the text and title now differ. If this move had gone through a standard move discussion, I would've opposed. Only reason I'm not reverting the bold move now is because of the time that has passed (anyone could still undo, of course -- the time just gives me pause that regular editors of the article haven't done so). Also, unclear why this is at NORN. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Compound Media ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about a controversial podcast network has large new sections of WP:ABOUTSELF and unsourced content. More eyes appreciated. Llll5032 ( talk) 04:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
largely not acceptable as sources, and we can
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people.Llll5032 ( talk) 02:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I think we need a citation to an independent reliable source in each of the filled cells of the "Shows" chart, rather than using a separate column for references (per WP:NOTDATABASE), and the summaries should be how the independent sources describe the shows (per WP:INDY). Does anyone have a different view? Llll5032 ( talk) 18:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This article would benefit from some more eyes - there seems to be disagreement about whether this person is a prince or the latest Anna Anderson. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
[ Special:Contributions/72.49.181.242] Doug Weller talk 16:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:Yoshiko Kawashima#Gendering, there is a discussion about pronoun use in the article that may raise original research issues based on available sources. Assistance with finding and reviewing sources would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 17:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd welcome further contributions to the ongoing discussions on
Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. While one deals with NPOV and DUE, the other concerns OR, and the issue is: do we have enough independent and reliable sources to state with wikivoice in the lead that Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war
? Sources on mass rape are detailed in the
Overall scale section, and sources on rape as a weapon of war are in the
Claims of intent section; more RS on the talk page. This thread war originally and mistakenly posted on WP:RSN
here
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs) 11:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
OHCHR cannot yet draw conclusions regarding the scale of CRSV perpetrated since February(para. 54). We also have an update released on 02 December 2022. With regard to sexual violence, it says
Since 24 February 2022, HRMMU has documented 86 cases of CRSV against women, men, and girls, including rape, gang rape, forced nudity and forced public stripping, sexual torture and sexual abuse. The cases occurred in different regions of Ukraine and in a penitentiary facility in the Russian Federation. The majority of these violations were perpetrated by members of Russian armed forces or law enforcement authorities. In 53 cases, sexual violence was used as part of torture and ill-treatment in the context of detention. Ukrainian law enforcement authorities are reportedly investigating 43 cases of sexual violence.
the use of mass rape as a weapon of warin the lead section. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 22:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Armed Forces of Russia [have resorted to] the use of mass rape as a weapon of waris the product of a synthesis of various articles reporting the views of specific individuals (often Western politicians and Ukrainian officials), as is made clear by the ugly citation clutter added by Volunteer Marek. As such, this statement is an original research that should be removed despite the lack of consensus on a new lead section. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
two top scholars in the fieldyou just mentioned since none of them appears on en.wiki? Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 00:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I am looking at wikipedia articles for various members of the House of Representatives, and I found a very troubling section in the article at /info/en/?search=John_C._Box . "To refute an allegation in a thesis published online, from my in person interviews with both my grandfather, Ivin N. Box, nephew of John C. Box, and John C. Box, Jr., my cousin, John C. Box was never a member of the KKK or any organization espousing like philosophies (Paul W. Box, great-grand nephew)."
I don't think there's any doubt as it being original research, but I'm not involved enough in wikipedia to handle being drawn into a possible edit war with the user in question, so I'm looking for help on that regard. Zhinz ( talk) 16:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Affects articles such as:
Some time ago, TheCurrencyGuy added currency symbols to different pages, such as "Rbl" for the Russian ruble and the Belarusian ruble, as well as some non-currency-themed articles, such as Special:Diff/1110767772 for the Marshrutka. While the pages have been edited since TCG's introduction of currency symbols, the three linked pages still use TCG's choice of symbols, and there is potentially a lot more pages where TCG aligned the symbols with their preferences.
While TCG did supply a source for the BYN, they failed to give a source for "Rbl" with respect to the Russian ruble, and in any case, the source for the Belarusian ruble is a World Bank style guide, when a source from the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus would have been more definitive. Therefore, I would like input on whether the usage of "Rbl" for the two rubles should be deemed original research. Thank you. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 08:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The article Amhara genocide is in severe need of an overall cleanup for WP:SYNTHESIS. It's clear that there have been massacres of Amharas on long time scales and in the recent past, so under a name such as Persecution of Amharas or Massacres of Amharas, the article would definitely survive an AfD. However, overall the article presents a thesis, has a lot of editorialising, and the main thesis - a genocide as per the Rome statute or other well-accepted definitions - is extremely difficult to try to justify as a genocide from the sources, partly due to WP:OVERCITE, due to the abundant use of source that are advocacy sites for the human rights of Amharas (these shouldn't be excluded, but they should be attributed and used in appropriate balance with independent sources), due to the difficulty in making a judgment while respecting the extensive editing work that has gone into building the article, and also due to the multiple historical time periods (e.g. are these multiple genocides?).
There at least two highly active editors with very different editing profiles (one as the main author; one as an independent editor), and there have been improvements responding to some of my specific concerns.
I think that people who know nothing about the subject matter (prior to reading the article) but with significant Wikipedia experience could make significant contributions in improving the article, provided that they are willing to put in a sustained effort and help sort out which references are the most useful, and help explain WP:SYNTHESIS and related issues. I'm not convinced that a flyby tag of WP:OR would lead to significant improvement, since it might just sit there for years. A WP:RM might help, though the number of editors is small and the number of people likely to participate and !vote is small.
In any case, some attention to the article would be worth it. @ Buidhe: might wish to comment on what's most likely to help the article. Boud ( talk) 12:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As of right now, Elijahandskip seems to want to keep the sentence that references this as the deadliest event of 2023. Besides this not being notable as we are only 4% into the year, no source is declaring this to be deadliest. His template of deadliest 2023 events is his excuse, but does that violate WP:OR? -- 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Editor User:Doug Weller deleted an entire section of the article entitled "Timeline" with the reason being: No original research (also mentioned no secondary sources added). The below exchange is from the talk page of User:SanJuanCat
and the analysis/synthesis material from the "Timeline" information ... serves to reach a conclusionThat's the OR part. No analysis , no synthesis, and no conclusions that are not directly stated in reliable secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
there are many sources (books and associated websites and materials). NB it's about secondary reliable sources, as described here: WP:reliable sources. – Austronesier ( talk) 22:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
On the article
Zigmas Zinkevičius,
Marcelus repeatedly adds statements (
[29],
[30]) such as Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work
, despite the source he used
[31] not saying anything like that and not even mentioning the words 'nationalism', 'nationalist' or anything of the sort. In fact, the quote Marcelus
references says (translated into English from Polish: However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is the lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts). This does not at all match what Marcelus portrays it as saying.
It's also relevant that Marcelus has dehumanized Zigmas Zinkevičius as a chauvinistic pig
twice already:
Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - on 11 August 2022 - and
he was chauvinistic pig on 15 Jan. 2023. So, Marcelus clearly has a grudge against him and it seems like Marcelus is intentionally smearing Zigmas Zinkevičius, who was a very respectable academician that passed away five years ago.--
Cukrakalnis (
talk) 13:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles.; I don't know what's your point here is really Marcelus ( talk) 12:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a recent discussion in Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Does_anti-war_demonstration_count_as_"anti-Russian_sentiment"? that affects other articles. Me and other participants expressed a wish to solicit a wider input as there's a desire to form a consensus on two topics that caused perennial debates in the past and would equally apply to other "anti-N sentiment" articles.
The questions about "Anti-N sentiment" articles that are being discussed boil down to:
To put it into context, linking a few edits arising from the discussion:
-- PaulT2022 ( talk) 01:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I instigated the discussion, so I'll join here. There is a recognized problem with the anti-Russian sentiment article due to the conflation with "Russophobia" as Putin's propaganda device, and it seems to be agreed that this article needs more monitoring from the community. But the particular concern I have with this type of topic in general is that it attracts eds adding every anti-N incident they come across in the paper, often using WP:SYNTH to justify the addition. This goes against WP:NOT, and is against WP:DUE. The article anti-Japanese sentiment is a good example of what these articles should strive for, I think, as it explains the who, where why and how and doesn't simply list events. So my request is that an explicit clarification come from WP that anti-N sentiment articles are to be about sentiment, ideally sourced from third-party intelligent analyses of the topic, and that lazily adding events from newspaper articles should be discouraged. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
using WP:SYNTH to justify the addition? Usually SYNTH refers to using multiple sources to 'invent' meaning not supported by either alone. Do you mean that using sources that describe individual incidents to support a statement that the incidents took place is a SYNTH?
Does anti-war demonstration count as "anti-Russian sentiment"?, as you put it yourself.
I'm tempted to gut Popper's three worlds to a lede/summary; I'm not sure how much of this is salvageable, with zero inline references to support what appears to be long blocks of original research/commentary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In the article Dragon Ball Super: Broly, a user is modifying the figure of $122.7 million (reported by The Numbers) [36] to $131.0 million (according to them, reported by Showtime Analytics). The problem is that, to support their claim, the user just cites this simple url (showtimeanalytics.com), explaining as well that subscription is required to verify said figure. I'm not going to discuss whether this is true or not, I simply require some input to resolve this, because this is poorly sourced and is against WP:OR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Xexerss ( talk) 05:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
On the page Stjepan Filipović I have added that the person in question's statue was demolished by the Croatian government (which as an independent state seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991). These edits were undone by 93.138.142.6 and 78.0.52.196 (which I presume are the same person), on the grounds that "they were not cited" (reverting it back to simply stating that his statue was demolished in 1991, and nothing else). However, I do not feel that it is necessary to cite that in particular, as it is simply a fact of history that Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991, and therefore it follows that it was the same independent Croatian government which had done the act of demolishing the monument. I would like some input on whether this detail is right to keep in the page. 129.97.124.23 ( talk) 21:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I am involved in a dispute on Chrissy Chlapecka with User:Toddst1 over whether my sourcing for the subject's birth date is an improper use of original research and SYNTH. To source the subject being born on April 11, 2000, I provided this, one of multiple verified social media posts where the subject affirms their birthday, as well as this , one of several RS profiles of the subject documenting their age on a specific date. Toddst1 has removed this info several times (including while the article was in draft stages) on grounds of it being original research and SYNTH. My feeling is that this is overzealous, that Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone and should be applied with editorial discretion and common sense, and that it is not original research or an improper synthesis to simply make a logical calculation that any rational person would. Can I get arbitration on this? Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 19:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.So the policy would indicate that is usable. I think now whether to include it depends on your judgement on two other factors; Does she appear to be fine with people knowing her birthday? (Here I think the answer is, she does seem fine with that) And is she borderline notable or not? If someone is borderline notable you want to err on the side of not including their full birthday. From a brief search it does look like she's pretty notable, but you can make a judgement on whether you think she is borderline notable or not Tristario ( talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Argument_from_authority#RFC:_"When_contact_changes_minds"_example Dominic Mayers ( talk) 22:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The source is a paper in "Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica" [37] I've discussed its use with the editor adding it at User talk:Stronzina#Further misrepresentation of a source, ie about the compass. where I've written "The conclusion is :The Fuson hypothesis about possible orientation of Maya and other ceremonial centers by (paleo)magnetic pole, using (a lodestone) compass cannot be simply rejected in the light of existing facts; it still provides an explanation for the “strange” alignments, where the other interpretation are not helpful. Our new measurements and computations from 2003−2005 support the hypothesis. More precise and more extensive information from geodesy (more reliable and detailed maps of the archaeological localities), from astronomy (the correlation between Mayan and our calendar), from archaeology (age of the structures, namely the absolute age), and namely better paleomagnetic/archaeomagnetic data are needed to finally reject or accept that Olmécs/Maya actually used the compass. If they knew and used a compass (well before Chinese), then one has to think about rewriting a part of history of Mesoamerica." So I still say you can't use this as proof of anything. Also, your quote is followed by "These example seems to prove the Olmécs primacy over the Chinese discovery of a compass by more than a millenium"." You can see their arguments there.
I believe that the conclusion contradicts his edit and that this is an interpretation, ie OR, but the editor seems to disagree and has reinserted at [38] where he adds in Wikivoice "A compass was known among the Pre-Olmec 4000 years ago, as the carving of magnetic statues precisely located the focus points of magnetic lines of force which could only be achieved by a compass." Doug Weller talk 10:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
A compass was known among the Pre-Olmec 4000 years ago, as the carving of magnetic statues precisely located the focus points of magnetic lines of force which could only be achieved by a compass.It is making a definite generalist assertion about the use of the compass, based on a paper which, using stronger evidence (i.e. an analysis of the orientation of a large number of buildings) makes it clear that the subject needs further research. It is seems reasonable to cite this later paper, noting the author's reservations, for the possible use of the compass in Mesoamerica at the times indicated, but it seems entirely undue to take a single paragraph about Malmström's 1976 hypothesis regarding statues as definitive evidence over the matter. We cite papers for their conclusions, not for passing commentary on earlier research. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
A compass was known among the Pre-Olmec 4000 years ago, as the carving of magnetic statues precisely located the focus points of magnetic lines of force which could only be achieved by a compass.) At any rate, it looks like we all agree that a mention of the author's conclusion in the body of the article (not the lead) would be appropriate as an attributed opinion. You seem best equipped for that so please edit the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard about summarising existing literary criticism in the lead section of an author and WP:OR/ WP:SYN that editors may want to weigh in on. [39] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 10:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I just deleted a big chunk of text on the page for Global Language Monitor. I mentioned in the change and in the talk page that it violates the rules for original research. However, I think that there is a more significant issue at hand. I suspect the page has lots of buzzwords and nonsense to increase their ranking in search engines. I believe that the whole page is a trap to increase the company's visibility on search engines.
I strongly recommend that an administrator looks into this page as they are clearly violating multiple Wikipedia rules.-- MexFin ( talk) 13:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Editor Synotia keeps adding a photo of the phone book and assignes ethnicity of the people listed there based on their names ( WP:OR). Please explain to the user what WP:OR means. I tried. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 17:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The house of Ephraim Kramer became like an island of Kurenets [Belarus] in the midst of Tel Aviv(I am not sure if it is the same man) Synotia ( moan) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Under another IP I left a request for content to be added to the page on the Great Wall of China because the page is locked. Another user snarkily (I assume this because they did not respond after I responded to them) replied, suggesting that my claims were unsubstantiated (despite the fact that there is an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the topic I wanted to include). Because no one responded or acted upon my suggestions in the talk page, I would like to request that something be added in accordance to what I had written on the talk page, or provide a reason against its inclusion. 129.97.124.12 ( talk) 20:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Similar to the above discussion on cartoon portraits, we now live in a time when basically anyone can tell a deep learning model like DALL-E or Midjourney to "give me a realistic picture of X". This is apparently the case with Sofie Dossi and File:DALL-E Sofie Dossi handstand.png. Have Wikipedia guidelines caught up to this issue? If not, we should, and very soon, otherwise every person, living or not, without a freely-licensed credible photograph might soon get an uncanny valley digital portrait that's technically copyright free but risks giving a distorted view of reality. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's like the "cartoon portraits" section in that it's on NORN but not actually a NOR issue. If you found that image of Sofie Dossi generated by some random Flickr user and imported it here, it would still be inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Similarly, it doesn't actually matter if the portraits in the section above were created by a Wikipedia user or found elsewhere; the reasons some of them shouldn't be used are because they inadequately depict the subject and/or take too many liberties not verifiable in reliable sources (reliable sources including actual photographs of the subject and/or detailed descriptions of the subject an artist could follow, like the folks do over at the dinosaurs wikiproject).
The discussion that needs to happen, if it hasn't already, is what to do with AI-generated images that verifiably do look like the subject, and AI images based on detailed descriptions from reliable sources when there are no extant images of the subject. Obviously an image like the one that started this shouldn't be used -- it looks nothing like the subject (straight hair, yada yada). Might as well put up a random image of a gymnast. Also like the "cartoon portraits" section, people are quick to draw bright lines with huge implications based on the worst possible example. What if we took scientific papers about dinosaurs, put them into an AI, and generated an image that followed those descriptions to a T? Why is that automatically worse (or, given we're here on NORN, somehow more of a WP:NOR problem than a user doing the same thing)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's an AI drawing of a living person that's featured on their article. I'd be very interested to hear what people's thoughts are now. -- Veggies ( talk) 17:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Just finding this discussion - I'm the user who wrote the article and added the image. Copyright questions aside, I'm now finding the resemblance less and less convincing, especially the lack of curly hair - something I noticed before uploading the image but which apparently was not enough to dissuade me. I was pretty eager. Part of my inspiration was a series of watercolors of billionaires (that used to be) used to illustrate several of those bios. I still think the idea of AI portraits is feasible, but this was clearly not the best implementation. Won't try again until (unless?) there are clearer guidelines. Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 19:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As Rhododendrites pointed out, there isn't a NOR issue. A respectful discussion of how to handle AI images belongs somewhere else. No possible consensus on the matter could be achieved here, as it lacks any really authority outside of the question of applying existing OR policy. There is a danger, like the cartoon discussion above, that users imagine this small corner of Wikipedia has any power to decide other things about AI or user created images, like a quality threshold, say. It doesn't. -- Colin° Talk 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
In relation to copyright, the best and safest way is to simply follow real-world discussions. U.S. Copyright Office Says AI-Generated Images Do Not Qualify For Copyright Protection, so that's the way it will be, even if we don't like it or don't understand it. We do not say what is copyright protected and what is not, laws say that (and judges, in case of doubt). Cambalachero ( talk) 02:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
“ | This is not what happens at all, a trained model does not have copies of the training data, that would create an unwieldy behemoth of unfathomable size. What happens is the creation of clusters of representation of things, namely latent space. | ” |
— Andrés Guadamuz, Cartoon Brew |
At Talk:LGB Alliance there has been a long standing, and extensively discussed dispute ( November 2022, November 2022, November 2021, August 2021, September 2021, September 2021, April 2021) over how many co-founders the organisation has.
According to recent statements by the organisation, there are two co-founders: Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. However multiple, independent reliable sources additionally list Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott as co-founders, but no single reliable source lists all of these people together as a set of co-founders.
With the sourcing that is available, is it synthesis to state The group was co-founded by Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott
, with each name being sourced to one of the independent and secondary reliable sources about the organisation?
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 20:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Recent statements by the organisation, and this Guardian article... Tewdar 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Also some sources describe these people as 'founding members' rather than founders, in case you think that makes a difference. All in previous discussions, I'm sure. Tewdar 21:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The specific makeup of the founders is of significance to an LGB organisation claiming to be founded by lesbians and lesbian-led, especially when LGB politics has consistently been dominated by gay men.That still doesn't make it WP:SYNTH; the other sources disagree with that timeline even taken individually - combining them into a list doesn't change that, since the fact that the timeline you're suggesting is not reflected by coverage is established by any one of the sources cited. And your interpretation of the significance of the founders raises a much more serious issue for your attempts to use a primary source, since if they're claiming that then their own descriptions of their founders are
unduly self-servingand can't really be cited to them under WP:ABOUTSELF. We can cite uncontroversial points to a non- WP:RS primary source, but if it's being used for the argument you seem be presenting here (about how it lends the organization importance and significance relative to others of its type) that's certainly not something suitable for WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing. With that in mind we probably should not be citing them for their own founders at all. This should be obvious, but the same applies to anyone affiliated with the group talking on Twitter. Do you have secondary, independent sources backing up your assertion that the organization was
founded by lesbians and lesbian-ledin as many words? If not, by trying to imply that in the lead without a secondary source stating it, it seems like you're the one attempting original research. We should not be trying to imply that the organization was
founded by lesbians and lesbian-ledin the lead unless independent sources actually highlight that aspect - even putting aside the fact that significant amounts of secondary sourcing suggest that your inference there may not be accurate. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
(1) Is it original research if examples from a source are modified, for example, to make them more accessible? For example, this article on knowledge talks about different types of knowledge. One type of knowledge is knowledge-who. It is expressed using the term "to know" followed by a who-clause. One of the examples given in the source is "knowing who is due to visit". Our article knowledge gives the example "knowing who killed John F. Kennedy". Are modifications like this a violation of WP:OR? (this is being discussed at Talk:Knowledge/GA1)
(2) In some cases, sources only contain a general discussion of the issue without giving any examples. If it is clear from the description in the source of what is meant, is it original research when an uncontroversial example is given to make the explanation more accessible (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the example really is uncontroversial and that no substantial new claims about the topic are introduced)? Phlsph7 ( talk) 19:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This article has a number of problems. It strikes me as a violation of our policies on WP:OR. The content is not the main issue, though there are significant WP:PROSELINE issues. But the article's existence takes many separate incidents, almost all of which already have independent Wikipedia page, and amalgamates them into one big crisis that doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. This is a type of synthesis/original research.
The article was originally split off from Iran–United States relations due to size, but it has just become a dumping ground for every little thing that happens in the Gulf or between the US and Iran, violating our WP:NOTNEWS policy as well. The article's content is already adequately covered at the many linked articles on specific incidents ( May 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone, 2019 K-1 Air Base attack, Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, July 2021 Gulf of Oman incident, Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and several others). The article's content is also covered at Iran–United States relations, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and several others. This article's existence is redundant. Its content is either better covered elsewhere or too trivial for inclusion at all.
I'm not convinced that this noticeboard is the right place to bring this up, but I couldn't think of a better place; if there is one, please let me know and I'll move it there. Starting an AfD would be the next step, but I wanted to discuss the issue in broader context first before going straight to deletion. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Could editors please have a look at that page, and in particular the recent edits referenced in these talk page threads: here and here. An editor has reinstated some dubious content. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is a pretty severe mess of OR. It seems to have been translated from dewiki in 2016, with very little substantive change since then. It reads like a personal essay with unclear scope/topic, attempting to bring loosely related ideas under the same umbrella. I can't really access most of these sources (some are in German, too), and I'm not sure what should be done here...AFD? Can anything be salvaged. Some eyes would be welcome. Thanks! 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 05:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I have been working on the articles relating to the Sámi Parliament of Norway for about a year, and have struggled to find results for elections from 19899, 1993 and 1997 (which are on the Norwegian Wikipedia but are not complete).
I contacted the Parliament themselves, who are willing to send me physical, undigitised "booklets" from their library which contain them. I have sent back some questions about how they've been published, but how can I ensure that these do not violate the original research policy? JackWilfred ( talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor removed the following statement, saying it wasn't found in the source:
If ingested, lavender oil is poisonous in amounts as small as 5 millilitres (0.18 imp fl oz; 0.17 US fl oz) due to its constituents linalyl acetate and linalool.
It was restored, and so I looked into the source and found the editor who removed it was correct, and reverted the restoration. It's now being contested.
the 5ml statement was in fact not referring to lavender oil. It's mentioned in the second paragraph of
this article, and says "the risk depending on the oil used; the onset of toxicity can be rapid, and small quantities (as little as 5 mL) can cause life-threatening toxicity in children.3"
My bolding. The study cited in that article's paragraph, regarding the 5ml statement in particular, did not study lavender oil. A brief back-and-forth happened, before I brought it to the Talk Page
here.
There is no dispute about lavender oil's toxicity, only the "5ml" statement, which is not referring to lavender oil.
The Talk Page discussion is not going anywhere, so I thought I'd bring it here. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Continuous pitch instruments has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Page:
List of sovereign states (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This article is a list of places that meet the criteria of sovereign state as defined by Wikipedia editors. Predictably, the editors cannot agree on the criteria or which states fit it, other than UN member states. So there are to date 15 pages of archived discussions.
To me, this is clear original research and the article should be deleted. Does anyone have any other views?
TFD ( talk) 15:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. The sourcing requirement for the list is that sources must be available that reach the conclusion that a state legally exists. As such, sources are available in all these cases with the possible exceptions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and that's because of the very recent events surrounding this pair. Kahastok talk 21:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Linking to a discussion page with a quasi-RFC about organization of our lists of color — specifically regarding mass undiscussed changes in 2020 by the user ThunderBrine ( talk · contribs), where they reorganized all the color articles based only on hue in HSL and HSV. There are concerns about WP:OR and WP:RGW in ThunderBrine's changes. A new scheme was proposed where colors are organized into several "Shades of" lists which are sorted by hue, and a number of niche lists such as Olive (color). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be someone's unpublished notes: [2]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I have been trying to add this paragraph on the history of the race and intelligence controversy article:
But I keep being told in the talk page [3] that it is synthesis for inconsistent and, honestly, false, reasons.
They say that I make claims not explicitly in the articles, but I do not, and no one has pointed to a claim I have made that is not in the articles.
They also say that the articles are not about Race and Intelligence, but as far as I can tell that is not part of the criterion to determine whether something is synthesis or not. Moreover, I have provided direct quotes from each of the articles showing there is an explicit discussion of race and intelligence (or ancestry and cognitive ability, which are just synonyms).
I am relatively new to the site, so any help clarifying why exactly this is synthesis with quotes from the policy page as well as a specific example from my contribution would be appreciated. 98.153.62.223 ( talk) 02:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
One way to tell that synthesis is occurring is that the citations are not about the same thing.
Why the uproar? Despite stating that race and ancestry were distinct concepts...Or see this piece by Ewan Birney et al. with an entire section on how
Human population structure is not race:
Some ‘human biodiversity’ proponents concede that traditional notions of race are refuted by genetic data, but argue that the complex patterns of ancestry we do find should in effect be regarded as an updated form of ‘race’. However, for geneticists, other biologists and anthropologists who study this complexity, ‘race’ is simply not a useful or accurate term, given its clear and long-established implication of natural subdivisions. Repurposing it to describe human ancestry and genetic structure in general is misleading and disingenuous. The term ‘population’ is used in many contexts within the modern scientific literature to refer to groups of individuals, but it is not merely a more socially acceptable euphemism for race.(emphasis added) [5]. 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Generalrelative ( talk) 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The IP does not seem to understand WP:NOR and exhibits WP:IDHT when other editors explain it. For example, see [6], where they are arguing that an article that discusses educational attainment but does not mention the word intelligence is still really about intelligence, because intelligence and educational attainment are correlated. NightHeron ( talk) 09:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Given that greater than 70% of GWAS participants are of European descent (Need and Goldstein 2009; Popejoy and Fullerton 2016; N. A. Rosenberg et al. 2010), the implications of this problem of portability are that PGS for EA and IQ are more likely to misidentify the outcomes of individuals of non-European ancestry who were historically and are currently disadvantaged in American classrooms.
it is unclear whether and to what extent findings from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) involving individuals of European ancestry apply to individuals of different ancestral backgrounds given differences in allele frequencies and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure across ancestry groups.
These findings highlight the need for improved treatment of linkage disequilibrium and variant frequencies when applying polygenic scoring to cohorts of non-European ancestry
Furthermore, the score's influence on academic achievement varies depending on school resources. Students with low poly-genic scores from advantaged schools were less likely to drop out of math than were similar students from less advantaged schools
Clearcut case of disruptive reverting, with editor refusing to recognize our core policies: WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. My removal of unverifiable explicit terminology, "Islamic death penalty", which is employed within the context of two sentences (also in at least one other article), is reverted twice 1, 2, with explanation which is irrelevant to the problem. Terminology (construct which in my view sounds almost racialized), employed in very excessive and unnecessary way in the context of those two sentences, if used without validation in RS is, then, blatant WP:NEO based on original research. Parallel to my edits I asked editor in TP ( 1, 2, 3) to offer exact quotation from RS with page number(s), where the specific terminology is utilized, so that I can validate existence of such peculiar construct, however, they failed and only supplied numerous references and more original research as an explanation and justification. They also removed my warning template from their user TP with condescending edit summary, claimed that I am accusing them of edit warring when they did, and refused to revert themselves when asked.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
[7] Doug Weller talk 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Julienor94 has recently rewritten the article about the Celtic god Toutatis to make him a ' Ligurian god'. They base this entirely on their own (mis)interpretation of one ancient text. I provided several modern, reliable, academic sources from experts in Celtic studies and linguistics, who all call Toutatis a Celtic god. There is no academic debate over this. Experts note that his name is linguistically Celtic, and he is named in inscriptions from various parts of Celtic Europe. My version can be seen here.
The editor has been asked by myself and Escape Orbit to show us any modern academic sources that call Toutatis a 'Ligurian god', but they have not done so. The discussion can be found here. ~ Asarlaí 18:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The article on state collapse strikes me as having serious WP:SYNTH/personal essay problems: a lot of cobbled-together news stories from various points/countries, including random or dated commentary/speculation. Has very little in the way of academic sources explaining the idea as a unified concept. It’s at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State collapse, where I think it’s a WP:TNT case. However, if kept, it certainly needs cleanup to remove the synth. More eyes welcome at both the article and the AfD. Neutrality talk 19:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
More eyes on these pages would be appreciated; the latter two are both recently-created stub-forks of the Serbo-Montenegrin article. Cited sources are inconclusive as to whether there is differentiation between these groups, and I was unable to find an obvious answer from additional Scholar searches. Sources cited at Montenegrins in Albania and Serbo-Montenegrins in Albania seem to suggest that these terms have historically been used interchangeably; the record on "Serbs" is less clear. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more eyes on Talk:2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia#Proposed_merge_of_Vaksince_Attack_into_2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia, where we are discussing a proposal to merge some articles about individual battles to broader articles about the conflict. The discussion has uncovered additional similarly small-scoped articles, and raised the possibility that we are dealing with walled gardens of partisan portrayals of various battles on either side of the conflict. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
In the section Talk:Donald_Trump#Airliner_shot_down there is
I can add here that the given source does not even mention Trump.
In response, one editor User:SPECIFICO said it was a misinterpretation of NOR and another User:Zaathras said it was a misapplication of policy, both without explanation. I would like the opinions of editors here. Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the second paragraph in the lead at Homophobia in ethnic minority communities:
Different regions of the world and different nations have unique conceptions of which groups are considered ethnic minorities. In many Western nations where
people of color (POC) are seen as ethnic minorities, homophobia that is not usually associated with the nation's dominant culture may arise as a result of that ethnic community's norms.
This is very vaguely written, so it's hard to tell exactly what it's trying to convey, but my interpretation is that it means that communities of color may be more likely to be homophobic than the white majorities in Western countries, based on the following sections in the main article detailing how non-white people are uniquely homophobic.
My problem with this is that there doesn't appear to be a single citation in the article that supports this extreme overgeneralization. Further compounding the difficulty of verifying the sources is that many of the citations lack page numbers, especially in the Black community section.
While there are individual minority cultures that are often described as uniquely homophobic, consider that I have also posted several examples of sources that contradict this view where it occurs. Those examples can be found at this talk page discussion. These sources suggest that the idea that black people (for example) are uniquely homophobic is inaccurate and basically an unhelpful racial stereotype that is projected on to black Americans by the white majority. So it's a contentious idea -- but none of these sources are currently in the article.
All outstanding claims need outstanding evidence. I'm not seeing anywhere in the main body of that article where a citation says that communities of color in general may be uniquely homophobic in white societies, or that white societies are generally not homophobic. It seems to be an original research synthesis based on the citations pertaining to many different ethnic groups in the US and UK.
In other words, because there are citations for every major minority group in the US and UK detailing instances of homophobia within those groups, however contentious some may be, the author has assumed from this compendium of citations that minorities are just plain homophobic relative to white culture. To me that's a huge violation of WP:OR and SYNTH, and it should be removed in absence of a citation that explicitly says communities of color may be uniquely homophobic in supposedly non-homophobic western societies. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:891:D96:5E15:4083 ( talk) 11:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Would it be OR to add the following to the end of the second paragraph of the section Iran of the Donald Trump article?
References
The item is based on the following excerpt from the given source.
I came here because I reached an impasse in the discussion of this OR issue with User:Cessaune near the end of the section Talk:Donald Trump#REBOOT. Bob K31416 ( talk) 05:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, I was expanding List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States to add some documented fatal attacks that occurred prior to the start of 1970 (where the list began). The entry for a 2021 fatal attack in Louisiana states the following:
Although Louisiana, like Florida, has approximately 1.5 million alligators, this may have been the first fatal alligator attack in the state since 1774 during the Spanish colonial period before statehood.
However, as I dug up the details on this case, despite quite a range of recent news media (possibly inaccurately informed by Wikipedia itself) stating that 1774 was the preceding case, a couple books I found on GoogleBooks (and just a couple of more recent articles) list the same case as occurring in 1734. I'm reasonably sure 1734 is the actual correct date and someone/somewhen/somewhere messed up a number and it became an "established fact." A key reason for my thinking this is the deceased was the blacksmith at Fort St. Jean Baptiste, which per Wikipedia was founded around 1716 and abandoned after 1764. Also (while not definitive), it seems contradictory that a French coronary hearing on the death of a Frenchman at a French fort would occur during Spanish rule (1762-1801).
I don't want to just change the 1774 to 1734 in the passage quoted above, because that would be contradictory to the source its citing. What's the best way to point out the disparity in dates without it making the passage unduly bulky or adding OR? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 08:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
There is now an active RfC on the Male expendability talk page about whether specific ideas should be listed in Wikipedia's voice or attributed. You are welcome to lend your voices to the discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
At Western world on 19 November an established editor supported by administrators, rephrased the introductory paragraphs boldly. A few hours ago, after a few days I have been looking to reason with them at its talk page, an established administrator removed my entire discussion and blocking access to the talk page too. 113.172.88.157 ( talk) 02:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The concept of the Western part of the earth has its roots in the theological, methodological and emphatical division between the Western Catholicity of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy of the Orthodox Church, [4] until the Warsaw pact dissolved in 1991, the roots of which can be traced back to the Frankish Empire. Ideologies of the modern West are rooted in nineteenth century's Age of Revolutions and revolutional fervour, in early twentieth century's radical populism, dictatorships throughout the progressive formation of freely-marketed, liberal national economies. [5] The West is also known for the adoption of gendered identities and antireligious sentiment with the French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment that culminated in the abolishment of the Holy Inquisition leading to separation of church and state, and the establishment of secular states, as first emerged during the Roman empire". [6] [7] Ideal western men become breadwinners while western women become objectified, and different gender roles that emerge following war as a product of varying capabilities in fronting conflict reinforce this ideology with the unique perception of ex combatants. [8] European freemasonry of the Enlightenment then undermined civil and ecclesiastical authority throughout the Western world to replace these "with uncontrolled gratification". [9] [10]
The transition from 1800s Industrialization to 1900s mass production, consumerism and computing revolution is trailed with a fundamental shift from physical to intellectual labor, permitting the 1960s-80s development of revolution in social roles and providing an irreligious but more woman-centered Western world after former male-dominancy. [11] From an Economics perspective, the Western world (North America and Western Europe, countries of the North Atlantic) is at the forefront of Freedom, international economic competition and dynamism, and evolving into a multipolar world through the so-called revolutionary global " New economy" integrative of the Digital, of innovative Emerging and Space technologies regarded by many as comparable to an Industrial revolution of humankind, driving institutions as World Bank founded on the closing of the Age of Discovery of colonial imperialism. [12] Nineteenth century's Anglo-Americans envisioned the Western United States, home to an array of diverse people in present-day, a new independent homeland for a white population fullfilling colonization of the western-most region of the Western world and North America. [13] [14]
Notice of discussion sent to four users involved. 113.172.88.157 ( talk) 10:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
References
The origin of western civilization is usually dated to 700 or 800 AD. In general, researchers consider that it has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America. [...] However, Latin America has followed a quite different development path from Europe and North America. Although it is a scion of European civilization, it also incorporates more elements of indigenous American civilizations compared to those of North America and Europe. It also currently has had a more corporatist and authoritarian culture. Both Europe and North America felt the effects of Reformation and combination of Catholic and Protestant cultures. Historically, Latin America has been only Catholic, although this may be changing. [...] Latin America could be considered, or a sub-set, within Western civilization, or can also be considered a separate civilization, intimately related to the West, but divided as to whether it belongs with it.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Almost all Western European Enlightenment thinkers agreed that political and legal imperatives should regulate society rather than tribal or religious ones (Muñoz Puelles 54–58).
Christianity, however, as taught by Jesus and Paul, and later by Augustine, separated religion from politics: the things that were God's from the things that were Caesar's.
The chief executive of Cisco Systems, John T. Chambers, declared, This is truly the second industrial revolution, and it will change every aspect of people's lives. Madrick, by contrast, largely attributes the late 90's growth to a quite mundane cause: a fall in the price of computer chips. Despite the 1990's boom, Madrick warns us that the nation's problems are far from solved. Income inequality is high, male wages have grown little and have fallen for many, our child poverty is the worst in the developed world and the quality of the public school system is highly unequal. Returning to sustained growth is the only solution. We need, he says, to undertake a broader approach to enhancing this growth -- changing not just policies but fundamental attitudes to government.; "With the end of four centuries of Western dominance, what will the world order be in the 21st century?". The Brookings Institution. 7 January 2019.; "The evolution of the New Economy: The digital economy". Michigan State University. 31 July 2017.; "An Economic Theory of the Growth of the Western World". JSTOR. April 1970.; "Educational Values and Standards". JSTOR. April 1934.; "Is the age of Western economic dynamism over?" (PDF). American Enterprise Institute. 15 May 2017.; "New Book Explores the Dynamics of Socio-economic Development". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. May 2006.; "Colonialism". United Nations University. 22 June 2015.
Anglo-Americans, from Thomas Jefferson at the beginning of the nineteenth century to Joseph Pomeroy Widney at the century's end, envisioned the West as more than an ordinary place. They dreamed of it as home to a rugged, independent, white population.
Just 500 years ago, few had ventured outside their European homeland. ... clearing the way, they settled in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, southern Africa. But now, around the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population.
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 18, 2022 suggested (
help)
Some advice for the OP: I think you may be attempting to deal with too much all at once. Break your objections down into small, bite sized bits. Blueboar ( talk) 13:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
These two bits I challenged. 113.172.88.157 ( talk) 07:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I stopped thinking about Western world and instead look into why it is regarded so controversial in the face of public opinion, and I stumbled just a few hours ago on "Environmental colonialism": the way in which colonial practices are linked as they impact the environment. I had realized the page is written from a North-South perspective, and think the information as written by Rim sim could better fill the North-South divide, now reading about this new subject I believe it is a broader misunderstanding coming from the concept of global warming maybe entrenched with that of nuclear annihilation but with certainty at least confused with Western world. This is one of the few digestible references, please have a look [8]. The basis of ( talk) 07:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC) So to speak Environmental colonialism is really what we are left with of the gone XX century, given that "environment" is in a relationship with conquest of air and space helping the concept of the world working like a house, unlike XIX century and beyond, where it worked like a home, I suppose. The basis of ( talk) 08:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
The primary issue is with the gross descriptivism of warfare, that indeed vastly contributed to the formation of Western domination (as of any other historic domination in the world). Version by Rim sim tells about a long history of ethnical warfare, when in fact the Western world is by all means and reliable sources formed in the economics of colonial warfare, the one against unprepared populations (they had no fire weapons); even following the ethnical warfare of the Christian political division by 1054 East-West schism (which still was by all means about the same above policy of christian colonial warfare), of which mention was unfeasibly removed instead. Note indeed how the earliest reference provided on 19 November by Rim sim is on history of Western warfare.
The Western world did not simply form in warfare as much as it did in christian political imperialism, and such is consolidated academic knowledge on the Western world, not a doubt. Thus please review. The basis of ( talk) 07:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
With last additions by Rim sim today 26 December, I think the scientific standpoint of rooting the causes that contributed to birth of the West is preferred over a more appropriate encyclopedic describing the birth itself. Part of the idea of a supremacy of the scientific white man. The basis of ( talk) 17:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
It's interesting that you don't seem to grasp, Christian Imperialism born in 1054 East-West Schism is the beginning of the Western world, while 500 years later it emerged by the Discovery of America. Instead you suggest it emerged some 500-1000 years earlier (when the Roman empire subjugated the Hellenic? Or when antiquity collapsed? I can't understand) seemingly as in a "reformed" ancient Republic: then I think you confused "popular rule" (dictatorship, contenting present majorities) with "population's rule" (democracy), because ancient republicanism was not about rules instead was about ruling vast areas and unprecedentedly large numbers of people. Both Rome and Athens were centers of vast dominions during antiquity, and that's reason why they made the "republic", "from res-publica, public matters", but neither developed from Monotheism.
To better understand, I think of Western civilization (that for some reason redirects to Western culture): had Classical teachings not been exported during colonialism, would we understand that Western "european classicist" civilization (mimicking ancient ones) began by 1054's Christian Imperialism or by antiquity? The basis of ( talk) 06:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Similarly, I think of the very large historical proportions of humanity as in nowadays "mantle" (or "coat") is equivalent with "clothing" but it doesn't apply the same way that "clothing" is equivalent with "mantle": one defines a general protection from the elements, the other one from cold environment. The proportions of civilizations then are considered beyond simple grasp similarly as those of human history: given there's an understanding of modernity that once was antiquity, it doesn't apply in the same way to understand that antiquity would've been modernity centuries later, indeed definitions of Ancient and Modern history were created only after both had unveiled. The basis of ( talk) 09:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is a listing of names of individuals, just to list a few:
I asked on the talk page for quotes concerning certain individuals and was told, " You will never get quotes for them."
Said editor(user:Giray Altay) has chosen not to provide information proving listed individuals are "Huns". Attempting to make the issue personal, "why do you want to delete those entries so much? "
Clearly a number of the individuals listed are not Huns and can not be proven to be Huns. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
A week ago, I boldly moved Criticism of Apple Inc. to Practices of Apple Inc., and listed my justifications here. Here were my main reasons:
My undiscussed move was motivated by my general opposition to "Criticism of [CORP]"-style articles. That opposition wasn't grounded in POV concerns, but in my belief that most such articles become unreadable dump-alls which few editors are interested in maintaining, which tend to have pervasive dueness and tone issues, and which have a fuzzy scope for inclusion.
User:Flibbertigibbets has argued that the scope of the new "Practices" article is still pretty fuzzy and subjective, since it's hard to know which topics are relevant, therefore posing a fundamental WP:OR issue. That makes sense to me.
Posting it here to hear others' thoughts. DFlhb ( talk) 01:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
"Practices of Apple Inc." is an awkward choice IMO: incredibly broad/vague and, given what's actually covered (e.g. it's not an overview of employee benefits, policies about stock purchases, what kind of paper it uses in its offices, where it holds corporate meetings, what software it uses for time tracking, etc., but, well, criticism of "practices of Apple Inc."). If it were to actually cover "practices" it would be an even bigger "unreadable dump-all which few editors are interested in maintaining" with even bigger "pervasive dueness and tone issues" considering how much the text and title now differ. If this move had gone through a standard move discussion, I would've opposed. Only reason I'm not reverting the bold move now is because of the time that has passed (anyone could still undo, of course -- the time just gives me pause that regular editors of the article haven't done so). Also, unclear why this is at NORN. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Compound Media ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about a controversial podcast network has large new sections of WP:ABOUTSELF and unsourced content. More eyes appreciated. Llll5032 ( talk) 04:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
largely not acceptable as sources, and we can
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people.Llll5032 ( talk) 02:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I think we need a citation to an independent reliable source in each of the filled cells of the "Shows" chart, rather than using a separate column for references (per WP:NOTDATABASE), and the summaries should be how the independent sources describe the shows (per WP:INDY). Does anyone have a different view? Llll5032 ( talk) 18:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This article would benefit from some more eyes - there seems to be disagreement about whether this person is a prince or the latest Anna Anderson. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
[ Special:Contributions/72.49.181.242] Doug Weller talk 16:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:Yoshiko Kawashima#Gendering, there is a discussion about pronoun use in the article that may raise original research issues based on available sources. Assistance with finding and reviewing sources would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 17:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd welcome further contributions to the ongoing discussions on
Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. While one deals with NPOV and DUE, the other concerns OR, and the issue is: do we have enough independent and reliable sources to state with wikivoice in the lead that Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war
? Sources on mass rape are detailed in the
Overall scale section, and sources on rape as a weapon of war are in the
Claims of intent section; more RS on the talk page. This thread war originally and mistakenly posted on WP:RSN
here
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs) 11:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
OHCHR cannot yet draw conclusions regarding the scale of CRSV perpetrated since February(para. 54). We also have an update released on 02 December 2022. With regard to sexual violence, it says
Since 24 February 2022, HRMMU has documented 86 cases of CRSV against women, men, and girls, including rape, gang rape, forced nudity and forced public stripping, sexual torture and sexual abuse. The cases occurred in different regions of Ukraine and in a penitentiary facility in the Russian Federation. The majority of these violations were perpetrated by members of Russian armed forces or law enforcement authorities. In 53 cases, sexual violence was used as part of torture and ill-treatment in the context of detention. Ukrainian law enforcement authorities are reportedly investigating 43 cases of sexual violence.
the use of mass rape as a weapon of warin the lead section. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 22:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Armed Forces of Russia [have resorted to] the use of mass rape as a weapon of waris the product of a synthesis of various articles reporting the views of specific individuals (often Western politicians and Ukrainian officials), as is made clear by the ugly citation clutter added by Volunteer Marek. As such, this statement is an original research that should be removed despite the lack of consensus on a new lead section. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
two top scholars in the fieldyou just mentioned since none of them appears on en.wiki? Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 00:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I am looking at wikipedia articles for various members of the House of Representatives, and I found a very troubling section in the article at /info/en/?search=John_C._Box . "To refute an allegation in a thesis published online, from my in person interviews with both my grandfather, Ivin N. Box, nephew of John C. Box, and John C. Box, Jr., my cousin, John C. Box was never a member of the KKK or any organization espousing like philosophies (Paul W. Box, great-grand nephew)."
I don't think there's any doubt as it being original research, but I'm not involved enough in wikipedia to handle being drawn into a possible edit war with the user in question, so I'm looking for help on that regard. Zhinz ( talk) 16:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Affects articles such as:
Some time ago, TheCurrencyGuy added currency symbols to different pages, such as "Rbl" for the Russian ruble and the Belarusian ruble, as well as some non-currency-themed articles, such as Special:Diff/1110767772 for the Marshrutka. While the pages have been edited since TCG's introduction of currency symbols, the three linked pages still use TCG's choice of symbols, and there is potentially a lot more pages where TCG aligned the symbols with their preferences.
While TCG did supply a source for the BYN, they failed to give a source for "Rbl" with respect to the Russian ruble, and in any case, the source for the Belarusian ruble is a World Bank style guide, when a source from the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus would have been more definitive. Therefore, I would like input on whether the usage of "Rbl" for the two rubles should be deemed original research. Thank you. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 08:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The article Amhara genocide is in severe need of an overall cleanup for WP:SYNTHESIS. It's clear that there have been massacres of Amharas on long time scales and in the recent past, so under a name such as Persecution of Amharas or Massacres of Amharas, the article would definitely survive an AfD. However, overall the article presents a thesis, has a lot of editorialising, and the main thesis - a genocide as per the Rome statute or other well-accepted definitions - is extremely difficult to try to justify as a genocide from the sources, partly due to WP:OVERCITE, due to the abundant use of source that are advocacy sites for the human rights of Amharas (these shouldn't be excluded, but they should be attributed and used in appropriate balance with independent sources), due to the difficulty in making a judgment while respecting the extensive editing work that has gone into building the article, and also due to the multiple historical time periods (e.g. are these multiple genocides?).
There at least two highly active editors with very different editing profiles (one as the main author; one as an independent editor), and there have been improvements responding to some of my specific concerns.
I think that people who know nothing about the subject matter (prior to reading the article) but with significant Wikipedia experience could make significant contributions in improving the article, provided that they are willing to put in a sustained effort and help sort out which references are the most useful, and help explain WP:SYNTHESIS and related issues. I'm not convinced that a flyby tag of WP:OR would lead to significant improvement, since it might just sit there for years. A WP:RM might help, though the number of editors is small and the number of people likely to participate and !vote is small.
In any case, some attention to the article would be worth it. @ Buidhe: might wish to comment on what's most likely to help the article. Boud ( talk) 12:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As of right now, Elijahandskip seems to want to keep the sentence that references this as the deadliest event of 2023. Besides this not being notable as we are only 4% into the year, no source is declaring this to be deadliest. His template of deadliest 2023 events is his excuse, but does that violate WP:OR? -- 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Editor User:Doug Weller deleted an entire section of the article entitled "Timeline" with the reason being: No original research (also mentioned no secondary sources added). The below exchange is from the talk page of User:SanJuanCat
and the analysis/synthesis material from the "Timeline" information ... serves to reach a conclusionThat's the OR part. No analysis , no synthesis, and no conclusions that are not directly stated in reliable secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
there are many sources (books and associated websites and materials). NB it's about secondary reliable sources, as described here: WP:reliable sources. – Austronesier ( talk) 22:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
On the article
Zigmas Zinkevičius,
Marcelus repeatedly adds statements (
[29],
[30]) such as Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work
, despite the source he used
[31] not saying anything like that and not even mentioning the words 'nationalism', 'nationalist' or anything of the sort. In fact, the quote Marcelus
references says (translated into English from Polish: However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is the lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts). This does not at all match what Marcelus portrays it as saying.
It's also relevant that Marcelus has dehumanized Zigmas Zinkevičius as a chauvinistic pig
twice already:
Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - on 11 August 2022 - and
he was chauvinistic pig on 15 Jan. 2023. So, Marcelus clearly has a grudge against him and it seems like Marcelus is intentionally smearing Zigmas Zinkevičius, who was a very respectable academician that passed away five years ago.--
Cukrakalnis (
talk) 13:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles.; I don't know what's your point here is really Marcelus ( talk) 12:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a recent discussion in Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Does_anti-war_demonstration_count_as_"anti-Russian_sentiment"? that affects other articles. Me and other participants expressed a wish to solicit a wider input as there's a desire to form a consensus on two topics that caused perennial debates in the past and would equally apply to other "anti-N sentiment" articles.
The questions about "Anti-N sentiment" articles that are being discussed boil down to:
To put it into context, linking a few edits arising from the discussion:
-- PaulT2022 ( talk) 01:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I instigated the discussion, so I'll join here. There is a recognized problem with the anti-Russian sentiment article due to the conflation with "Russophobia" as Putin's propaganda device, and it seems to be agreed that this article needs more monitoring from the community. But the particular concern I have with this type of topic in general is that it attracts eds adding every anti-N incident they come across in the paper, often using WP:SYNTH to justify the addition. This goes against WP:NOT, and is against WP:DUE. The article anti-Japanese sentiment is a good example of what these articles should strive for, I think, as it explains the who, where why and how and doesn't simply list events. So my request is that an explicit clarification come from WP that anti-N sentiment articles are to be about sentiment, ideally sourced from third-party intelligent analyses of the topic, and that lazily adding events from newspaper articles should be discouraged. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
using WP:SYNTH to justify the addition? Usually SYNTH refers to using multiple sources to 'invent' meaning not supported by either alone. Do you mean that using sources that describe individual incidents to support a statement that the incidents took place is a SYNTH?
Does anti-war demonstration count as "anti-Russian sentiment"?, as you put it yourself.
I'm tempted to gut Popper's three worlds to a lede/summary; I'm not sure how much of this is salvageable, with zero inline references to support what appears to be long blocks of original research/commentary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In the article Dragon Ball Super: Broly, a user is modifying the figure of $122.7 million (reported by The Numbers) [36] to $131.0 million (according to them, reported by Showtime Analytics). The problem is that, to support their claim, the user just cites this simple url (showtimeanalytics.com), explaining as well that subscription is required to verify said figure. I'm not going to discuss whether this is true or not, I simply require some input to resolve this, because this is poorly sourced and is against WP:OR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Xexerss ( talk) 05:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
On the page Stjepan Filipović I have added that the person in question's statue was demolished by the Croatian government (which as an independent state seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991). These edits were undone by 93.138.142.6 and 78.0.52.196 (which I presume are the same person), on the grounds that "they were not cited" (reverting it back to simply stating that his statue was demolished in 1991, and nothing else). However, I do not feel that it is necessary to cite that in particular, as it is simply a fact of history that Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991, and therefore it follows that it was the same independent Croatian government which had done the act of demolishing the monument. I would like some input on whether this detail is right to keep in the page. 129.97.124.23 ( talk) 21:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I am involved in a dispute on Chrissy Chlapecka with User:Toddst1 over whether my sourcing for the subject's birth date is an improper use of original research and SYNTH. To source the subject being born on April 11, 2000, I provided this, one of multiple verified social media posts where the subject affirms their birthday, as well as this , one of several RS profiles of the subject documenting their age on a specific date. Toddst1 has removed this info several times (including while the article was in draft stages) on grounds of it being original research and SYNTH. My feeling is that this is overzealous, that Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone and should be applied with editorial discretion and common sense, and that it is not original research or an improper synthesis to simply make a logical calculation that any rational person would. Can I get arbitration on this? Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 19:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.So the policy would indicate that is usable. I think now whether to include it depends on your judgement on two other factors; Does she appear to be fine with people knowing her birthday? (Here I think the answer is, she does seem fine with that) And is she borderline notable or not? If someone is borderline notable you want to err on the side of not including their full birthday. From a brief search it does look like she's pretty notable, but you can make a judgement on whether you think she is borderline notable or not Tristario ( talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Argument_from_authority#RFC:_"When_contact_changes_minds"_example Dominic Mayers ( talk) 22:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The source is a paper in "Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica" [37] I've discussed its use with the editor adding it at User talk:Stronzina#Further misrepresentation of a source, ie about the compass. where I've written "The conclusion is :The Fuson hypothesis about possible orientation of Maya and other ceremonial centers by (paleo)magnetic pole, using (a lodestone) compass cannot be simply rejected in the light of existing facts; it still provides an explanation for the “strange” alignments, where the other interpretation are not helpful. Our new measurements and computations from 2003−2005 support the hypothesis. More precise and more extensive information from geodesy (more reliable and detailed maps of the archaeological localities), from astronomy (the correlation between Mayan and our calendar), from archaeology (age of the structures, namely the absolute age), and namely better paleomagnetic/archaeomagnetic data are needed to finally reject or accept that Olmécs/Maya actually used the compass. If they knew and used a compass (well before Chinese), then one has to think about rewriting a part of history of Mesoamerica." So I still say you can't use this as proof of anything. Also, your quote is followed by "These example seems to prove the Olmécs primacy over the Chinese discovery of a compass by more than a millenium"." You can see their arguments there.
I believe that the conclusion contradicts his edit and that this is an interpretation, ie OR, but the editor seems to disagree and has reinserted at [38] where he adds in Wikivoice "A compass was known among the Pre-Olmec 4000 years ago, as the carving of magnetic statues precisely located the focus points of magnetic lines of force which could only be achieved by a compass." Doug Weller talk 10:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
A compass was known among the Pre-Olmec 4000 years ago, as the carving of magnetic statues precisely located the focus points of magnetic lines of force which could only be achieved by a compass.It is making a definite generalist assertion about the use of the compass, based on a paper which, using stronger evidence (i.e. an analysis of the orientation of a large number of buildings) makes it clear that the subject needs further research. It is seems reasonable to cite this later paper, noting the author's reservations, for the possible use of the compass in Mesoamerica at the times indicated, but it seems entirely undue to take a single paragraph about Malmström's 1976 hypothesis regarding statues as definitive evidence over the matter. We cite papers for their conclusions, not for passing commentary on earlier research. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
A compass was known among the Pre-Olmec 4000 years ago, as the carving of magnetic statues precisely located the focus points of magnetic lines of force which could only be achieved by a compass.) At any rate, it looks like we all agree that a mention of the author's conclusion in the body of the article (not the lead) would be appropriate as an attributed opinion. You seem best equipped for that so please edit the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard about summarising existing literary criticism in the lead section of an author and WP:OR/ WP:SYN that editors may want to weigh in on. [39] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 10:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I just deleted a big chunk of text on the page for Global Language Monitor. I mentioned in the change and in the talk page that it violates the rules for original research. However, I think that there is a more significant issue at hand. I suspect the page has lots of buzzwords and nonsense to increase their ranking in search engines. I believe that the whole page is a trap to increase the company's visibility on search engines.
I strongly recommend that an administrator looks into this page as they are clearly violating multiple Wikipedia rules.-- MexFin ( talk) 13:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Editor Synotia keeps adding a photo of the phone book and assignes ethnicity of the people listed there based on their names ( WP:OR). Please explain to the user what WP:OR means. I tried. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 17:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The house of Ephraim Kramer became like an island of Kurenets [Belarus] in the midst of Tel Aviv(I am not sure if it is the same man) Synotia ( moan) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Under another IP I left a request for content to be added to the page on the Great Wall of China because the page is locked. Another user snarkily (I assume this because they did not respond after I responded to them) replied, suggesting that my claims were unsubstantiated (despite the fact that there is an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the topic I wanted to include). Because no one responded or acted upon my suggestions in the talk page, I would like to request that something be added in accordance to what I had written on the talk page, or provide a reason against its inclusion. 129.97.124.12 ( talk) 20:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Similar to the above discussion on cartoon portraits, we now live in a time when basically anyone can tell a deep learning model like DALL-E or Midjourney to "give me a realistic picture of X". This is apparently the case with Sofie Dossi and File:DALL-E Sofie Dossi handstand.png. Have Wikipedia guidelines caught up to this issue? If not, we should, and very soon, otherwise every person, living or not, without a freely-licensed credible photograph might soon get an uncanny valley digital portrait that's technically copyright free but risks giving a distorted view of reality. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's like the "cartoon portraits" section in that it's on NORN but not actually a NOR issue. If you found that image of Sofie Dossi generated by some random Flickr user and imported it here, it would still be inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Similarly, it doesn't actually matter if the portraits in the section above were created by a Wikipedia user or found elsewhere; the reasons some of them shouldn't be used are because they inadequately depict the subject and/or take too many liberties not verifiable in reliable sources (reliable sources including actual photographs of the subject and/or detailed descriptions of the subject an artist could follow, like the folks do over at the dinosaurs wikiproject).
The discussion that needs to happen, if it hasn't already, is what to do with AI-generated images that verifiably do look like the subject, and AI images based on detailed descriptions from reliable sources when there are no extant images of the subject. Obviously an image like the one that started this shouldn't be used -- it looks nothing like the subject (straight hair, yada yada). Might as well put up a random image of a gymnast. Also like the "cartoon portraits" section, people are quick to draw bright lines with huge implications based on the worst possible example. What if we took scientific papers about dinosaurs, put them into an AI, and generated an image that followed those descriptions to a T? Why is that automatically worse (or, given we're here on NORN, somehow more of a WP:NOR problem than a user doing the same thing)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's an AI drawing of a living person that's featured on their article. I'd be very interested to hear what people's thoughts are now. -- Veggies ( talk) 17:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Just finding this discussion - I'm the user who wrote the article and added the image. Copyright questions aside, I'm now finding the resemblance less and less convincing, especially the lack of curly hair - something I noticed before uploading the image but which apparently was not enough to dissuade me. I was pretty eager. Part of my inspiration was a series of watercolors of billionaires (that used to be) used to illustrate several of those bios. I still think the idea of AI portraits is feasible, but this was clearly not the best implementation. Won't try again until (unless?) there are clearer guidelines. Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 19:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As Rhododendrites pointed out, there isn't a NOR issue. A respectful discussion of how to handle AI images belongs somewhere else. No possible consensus on the matter could be achieved here, as it lacks any really authority outside of the question of applying existing OR policy. There is a danger, like the cartoon discussion above, that users imagine this small corner of Wikipedia has any power to decide other things about AI or user created images, like a quality threshold, say. It doesn't. -- Colin° Talk 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
In relation to copyright, the best and safest way is to simply follow real-world discussions. U.S. Copyright Office Says AI-Generated Images Do Not Qualify For Copyright Protection, so that's the way it will be, even if we don't like it or don't understand it. We do not say what is copyright protected and what is not, laws say that (and judges, in case of doubt). Cambalachero ( talk) 02:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
“ | This is not what happens at all, a trained model does not have copies of the training data, that would create an unwieldy behemoth of unfathomable size. What happens is the creation of clusters of representation of things, namely latent space. | ” |
— Andrés Guadamuz, Cartoon Brew |
At Talk:LGB Alliance there has been a long standing, and extensively discussed dispute ( November 2022, November 2022, November 2021, August 2021, September 2021, September 2021, April 2021) over how many co-founders the organisation has.
According to recent statements by the organisation, there are two co-founders: Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. However multiple, independent reliable sources additionally list Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott as co-founders, but no single reliable source lists all of these people together as a set of co-founders.
With the sourcing that is available, is it synthesis to state The group was co-founded by Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott
, with each name being sourced to one of the independent and secondary reliable sources about the organisation?
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 20:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Recent statements by the organisation, and this Guardian article... Tewdar 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Also some sources describe these people as 'founding members' rather than founders, in case you think that makes a difference. All in previous discussions, I'm sure. Tewdar 21:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The specific makeup of the founders is of significance to an LGB organisation claiming to be founded by lesbians and lesbian-led, especially when LGB politics has consistently been dominated by gay men.That still doesn't make it WP:SYNTH; the other sources disagree with that timeline even taken individually - combining them into a list doesn't change that, since the fact that the timeline you're suggesting is not reflected by coverage is established by any one of the sources cited. And your interpretation of the significance of the founders raises a much more serious issue for your attempts to use a primary source, since if they're claiming that then their own descriptions of their founders are
unduly self-servingand can't really be cited to them under WP:ABOUTSELF. We can cite uncontroversial points to a non- WP:RS primary source, but if it's being used for the argument you seem be presenting here (about how it lends the organization importance and significance relative to others of its type) that's certainly not something suitable for WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing. With that in mind we probably should not be citing them for their own founders at all. This should be obvious, but the same applies to anyone affiliated with the group talking on Twitter. Do you have secondary, independent sources backing up your assertion that the organization was
founded by lesbians and lesbian-ledin as many words? If not, by trying to imply that in the lead without a secondary source stating it, it seems like you're the one attempting original research. We should not be trying to imply that the organization was
founded by lesbians and lesbian-ledin the lead unless independent sources actually highlight that aspect - even putting aside the fact that significant amounts of secondary sourcing suggest that your inference there may not be accurate. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
(1) Is it original research if examples from a source are modified, for example, to make them more accessible? For example, this article on knowledge talks about different types of knowledge. One type of knowledge is knowledge-who. It is expressed using the term "to know" followed by a who-clause. One of the examples given in the source is "knowing who is due to visit". Our article knowledge gives the example "knowing who killed John F. Kennedy". Are modifications like this a violation of WP:OR? (this is being discussed at Talk:Knowledge/GA1)
(2) In some cases, sources only contain a general discussion of the issue without giving any examples. If it is clear from the description in the source of what is meant, is it original research when an uncontroversial example is given to make the explanation more accessible (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the example really is uncontroversial and that no substantial new claims about the topic are introduced)? Phlsph7 ( talk) 19:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)